Chairman advocates to strengthen gun laws
Meg Miller, CT Campus Life Editor
Wednesday, November 14; 12:00 AM
The chairman of the Virginia Tech panel of investigation for April 16 spoke at a meeting Monday with the Virginia Center for Public Safety, a gun control advocacy group.
W. Gerald Massengill spoke supporting the strengthening of background checks for purchasing guns, an issue that has been brought forth by many in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Messangill said that with the upcoming Virginia General Assembly session approaching, two different discussions about guns will likely be addressed.
"I think you will see legislation being proposed to allow to carry guns on campus and I think you will also see another bill that will require background checks on all purchases," Massengill said.
Although Massengill said that the shootings have raised the issue of gun control in the potential assembly discussion to a new level, he also said that the issue has not been favored in past sessions.
"Whether or not that will happen this year or not is really anybody's guess," Massengill said.
Philip Van Cleave, President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League said that the VCDL will oppose these proposed legislations like they have done in years past.
"This comes up every year and every year we crush it," Van Cleave said. "We are not taking it for granted and we will crush it again."
The recommendations in the panel's report included requiring background checks forall firearms sales in Virginia, including gun shows. Currently in Virginia, a background check is not required by private sellers who make occasional sales at gun shows.
Abby Spangler, founder of Protest Easy Guns, a group that has held 34 protests across the nation in light of April 16, said that they support Massengill's lobby for tightened background checks for gun purchasers.
"It is a complete outrage that criminals and dangerous individuals have easy access to guns in Virginia," Spangler said.
However, Van Cleave disagrees.
He said that he is disappointed in Massengill because he was supposed to be part of an unbiased Tech panel and he wasn't unbiased on this issue.
"The panel was told by the governor to just look and see what went wrong," Van Cleave said. "None of this proposed stuff had anything to do with what happened at Virginia Tech.
Van Cleave referred to the fact that Cho Sueng-Hui was never entered into the database that licensed gun dealers use to do instant background checks before any sale, though he was judged mentally ill by a court in 2005. Cho purchased his weapons from a licensed gun dealer, not a private owner.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has since closed a loophole that had allowed Cho to buy the guns. Massengill said that had Cho been denied the gun it would have bee very easy for him to go to a gun show and private dealer and buy one.
Posted by: Jason T at 11/15/07
Hector, you're right. The point is that the government tracks purchases of cars through registration. The same should be true of guns. On a more general note, every legal gun transaction should be recorded and the eligibility of the buyer should be checked. The point is that an ideal law should force anyone selling a gun to ensure that it is being sold to an eligible buyer. Currently, I don't believe we have such a law in place.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jim DeBord at 11/15/07
For the first time, I actually think that this guy has the right idea. First of all, our society has come to the point where concealed carry is needed on a college campus. Not having a deterrent gives criminals a place to prey on individuals where they know that their victim will not be armed. Personally, as a college student and college leader for Students for Concealed Carry, I worry less about a mass killer coming on to campus, but more on an individual robbing me on my way home from school. Recently, there have been ten armed robberies within two miles of the college. Also, if you obey the law, and have nothing to worry about, then why oppose tighter background checks? It might be an inconvenience, but if it helps to increase our security, then why not? Also, I think the focus should be more on illegal guns than legal guns. Anyone caught with a stolen gun, filed down gun, or illegal gun should have a mandatory prison sentence of no less than five years. That goes for individuals caught concealed carrying without a permit. If they have noting to worry about, then they should get a permit.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: B.K. at 11/15/07
"wow" - The "gun lobby propaganda" that you want to see is not provided by the NRA or GOA, but comes from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. In their study, "Firearm Use by Offenders," they find that, "In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source." The DOJ statistics show only 0.7% of inmates convicted of crimes with a firearm obtained the weapon from a gun show. If you can get your head out of the sand for a moment, you can read the report here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Hector at 11/15/07
Why should you be liable for what someone does with a weapon you legally sold them? At that point it's their weapon, not yours, thus- liability is theirs. That's absurd as saying if I sold my car to someone that's a poor driver, or an alcoholic, and they wrecked the vehicle and caused someone else's death, that I'd be liable. And why not? Cars kill far more people in the US than firearms do.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken at 11/14/07
"wow" - while your words are disrespectful, you make an important point - liability. The reality of the "gun show loophole" is that it is simply a venue for individuals (attendees, not vendors) to make private sales. I've been to many shows, and had random people try to buy my carry pistol, and tried to sell me various things. So, what if I sold my pistol, and the person went off and shot someone? (Assuming it was not self-defense.) YEA I would -feel- terrible. But I would not be liable - but I should be. However, as you point out, if I ran a full background check (or they had a valid CHP, same effect), and the person was cleared and they STILL shot someone, then the state becomes liable as they cleared the person. I would still feel bad, but I would also know I did the best I could. Responsible people do responsible things, bottom line. Despite my strong pro-rights stance, I support THAT part of Masengill's suggestions - I do NOT support his other allegations about concealed carry on campus - I think he's too removed from the real situation.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: wow at 11/14/07
The idea that anyone would consider the "burden on the seller to bear responsibility for selling to someone who may, at some future date, commit a crime," unreasonable is truly frightening and deeply unintelligent. Especially private sellers should absolutely have the burden of the world resting on their shoulders when trying to sell or unload firearms. It's true that it is a hard thing to regulate and so private sellers can concievably sell to anyone who stops by, and should they choose to take that route, they are 110% responsible for whatever the person does who buys that gun. If they run every reasonable background check and follow all laws regarding the sale of firearms, then they will be absolved of all responsibility should anything illegal happen involving that gun. But if they skip corners, they are as guilty of whatever crime is committed with that gun as the person who bought it. Anyone who considers "people like Massengill" wanting background checks anytime a gun changes hands unreasonable or unnecessary is creating a situation for complete disaster. Mike M clearly has a lot to understand about the world. If you're going to make ridiculously unfounded statements such as "the number of crime guns that are traced back to private sales at gun shows is infinitessimal," at least cite the gun-lobby propaganda that would find such statistics. You contradict yourself when you whine about how Massengill's proposals would slow down your private gun trade, and full background checks in private gun sales are "unreasonable" and yet you suggest that the solution to the problem ins making sure all prohibited persons are registered in the NICS. That registry can't be effective unless it is run and all protocol followed EVERY time someone purchases a gun, even between you and a neighbor.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/14/07
Mike M, thanks for the response. Having never been to a gun show myself, I didn't realize that the exhibitors could be individuals and not just licensed dealers. It was my understanding that a gun show is simply a place where many licensed dealers convene and individuals can buy from them or sell to them. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the crux of the problem is the lack of an authoritative database to instantly decide eligibility.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike M at 11/14/07
To the other Mike: I'm sure all the women who carry are VERY uncomfortable with their manhood, but not as much as they are worried about the "manhood" of criminals. Jason T: criminals can't go in a gun store and get a gun. The extra checks Massengill is pushing for are for private transactions between individuals, such as me selling my old gun to a neighbor. They talk about the gun show loophole, but the language of every bill on the subject is clear: they want background checks every time a gun changes hands. While noble in principle, it places an unreasonable burden on the seller to bear responsibility for selling to someone who may, at some future date, commit a crime. FOr instance, if I were to go to a gun show and sell an old gun to an exibitor, I would be required to run a background check on them prior to selling it to them. The proposed legislation would make it virtually impossible for an individual to sell their guns to anyone, and would place an impossible burden on the already overburdened NICS. And by the way, the number of crime guns that are traced back to private sales at gun shows is infinitessimal. Truly effective legislation would seek to make sure all prohibited persons are registered in the NICS to prevent them from purchasing guns. Sure, the 4/16 shooter could have gone to a gun show to buy, or could have gone to a street corner or back alley. Sadly, a truly determined person will find a way to get what he wants. If you doubt this, I point you to the illegal drug trade.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/14/07
Just to preempt comments I'm anticipating, let me say that I understand there are differences between underage drinking and illegal gun ownership. However, my main point is that the government has in place what I believe to be reasonable regulations that do not keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It's one thing for criminals to go out of their way to illegally purchase a weapon, but it is quite another to simply allow them to walk into a gun store and make a legal purchase, no questions asked. If anything, I'm sure it is more difficult to illegally purchase a weapon. You'd have to locate a seller, risk being involved with the types of people who would sell firearms illegally, etc. I'm sure buying guns illegally is no walk in the park. Comparatively, a short waiting period seems very reasonable.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jared at 11/14/07
"People that feel the need to carry guns on themselves all the time aren't comfortable with their manhood".......very intelligent. Its statements like this that shockingly are expected to win over substantiated facts of more guns equaling less violence.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/14/07
What is the big deal with requiring a background check? I think the fact that there are procedures in place to prevent guns from being legally sold to the "wrong people" is fine. I'm all for opposing government encroachment on personal liberties, but at the same time, I doubt that you'll be brutally killed in the few days while you're waiting to be approved for your firearm purchase. At worst it's a minor inconvenience. People who want to do away with any sort of background check, by the same logic, should also want to do away with ID checks when someone goes to the liquor store. We all know that underage people obtain alcohol by illegal means, but that doesn't make those of us who are 21 enraged when we're asked to produce our license at the store. It would be irresponsible of the government to allow unchecked, legal firearms purchases despite the fact that there are age, criminal background, and other legal restrictions delineating just who is eligible to legally purchase.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Steve Miller at 11/14/07
Another attempt to distract attention from the real issue and talk about firearms. Cho could of just of easily used other methods such as improvised explosives or easy enough to purchase gasoline to go on a rampage. The real issue is that there were warning signs with Cho, and the Tech administration didn't want to address those warning signs. Also, why did two hours elapse from the time of the initial shooting and the time of the second shooting without a serious manhunt to locate the shooter? Cho WALKED across campus?? Was the Vtech police department told not to bring in outside assistance from Montgomery County Sheriff's department so that it could be handled "in house" and as low key as possible? Why was it taken for granted that the shooter left campus? Why wasn't there a very serious sitdown with Cho, perhaps even in a supportive role to see if this young man was in need of counseling? Perhaps if more people made an effort to reach out to him, he wouldn't of gone off the deep end. That professor that privately tutored him, I notice she wasn't one of the victims of his rage. Sheer coincidence?
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Bill at 11/14/07
Here we go again. Listen closely people,by definition, criminals do not follow the law. They will get a weapon whether it's legal or not. Has there been a decrease in violent crime since the myriad of laws have been enacted in the past 30 yrs.? Of course not. Just more regs for law abiding folks, millions more in tax dollars for these ineffective programs, and a feeling of self rightgeousness for the gun grabbers. Remember, just one person with a sidearm can save the life of many when a nut job decides to fire away at a crowd. It has nothing to do with manhood.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Freedom4All at 11/14/07
Actually Massengill made the point that Cho was an intelligent individual, and had he been denied sales through background checks at a licensed dealer, logically could have made a gun show his next stop. I was at a gun show in Richmond in July and saw handguns and ammo swapped for cash without even so much as a driver's license being checked. No paperwork whatsoever. The people buying those guns could have been convicted felons, domestic abusers, or worse. It's absolutely insane that this is allowed to happen, and is solely due to the fact that the gun lobby dictates public safety policy in our country.
Flag Abuse
Posted by: Michael at 11/14/07
Massengill needs to do his job and stop trying to change policy on things like the supposed "gun show loophole" (which doesn't exist, there is no gun show loophole to begin with) that had nothing to do with the events of April 16.
Flag Abuse
