John Dingell calls for audit of criminal background check system in light of Arizona tragedy
U.S. Rep. John Dingell responded today to the recent Arizona shooting tragedy by requesting an audit of the criminal background check system used by federally licensed firearms dealers to determine whether an individual is disqualified from possessing a firearm.
John Dingell
Dingell, D-Dearborn, and two other members of Congress — Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, and Lois Capp, D-California — made the request in the form of a joint letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, known as the investigative arm of Congress. They're asking for a complete audit of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
"As you know, in the wake of the recent tragic attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords, which claimed the lives of six individuals and wounded 13 others, there are questions about how the accused attacker, widely believed to be mentally ill, was able to purchase a firearm legally," the letter reads.
"While the suspect was not adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution, and therefore was not legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons, questions remain, such as the extent to which he may have been unlawfully using drugs (another federal prohibiter)."
Dingell and McCarthy, along with former Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, authored NICS reforms that were enacted in 2007 to ensure those who have been judged to be a danger to society or have committed felonies were not slipping through the cracks. Three years after enactment, the lawmakers say they want to ensure the reforms are being properly administered and enforced.
The Wall Street Journal reported that 0.74 percent of NICS denials are based on mental health reasons, as opposed to 73 percent based on criminal history.
In addition, the National Center for State Courts reported about twice as many mental health records should be included in NICS as the system currently holds.
"NICS is only as good as the information it receives from state and federal sources," the letter from Dingell and his colleagues reads. "As authors of the legislation and proponents of keeping firearms from those who cannot safely and legally posses them, we want to ensure the NICS Improvement Amendments Act is being properly administered and enforced."
Among the questions the letter asks are: Whether the funding levels appropriated by Congress are enough to meet the demands of the program, what the challenges are of states and local governments to transmit accurate mental health records, what information pertaining to unlawful drug use and mental health adjudications are reportable, and whether erroneous or obsolete state records are being timely and accurately removed.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Roadman
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 12:47 a.m.
John Dingell is engaging in political grandstanding. Pure and simple.
Dalex64
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
Dingell's Quote: "While the suspect was not adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution, and therefore was not legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons, questions remain, such as the extent to which he may have been unlawfully using drugs (another federal prohibiter)." Is he suggesting drug screening before firearms purchases?
KJMClark
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 9:11 a.m.
I keep managing to jump onto the tail end of dead discussions. :-( So there's an AP article this morning that points out that Loughner didn't land on any background check list because he hadn't yet done anything that would have put him there. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110117/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_dangerous_loners And to Murrow's point, I agree it would be nice if we could leave some common-sense restrictions on gun sales in place, but the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear how they think about the second amendment, and that's that. Besides, article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution spells out the powers of Congress, including Congress's power to call up state militias/the militia. That doesn't mean those are the only legitimate purposes of a militia, but rather the ones that Congress can legitimately call upon.
KJMClark
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.
I don't see anything wrong with Rep. Dingell asking for the audit, but I doubt it will find anything wrong with the system. Loughner seems to have been unstable and probably shouldn't have been able to buy a firearm. Unfortunately, unless he's been found unstable by a judge, there's probably nothing the background check system can do about it. Unless someone with a mental illness breaks the law or something, they won't have a background to prevent the sale. On the other hand, I can't see any reason we couldn't have security details for members of Congress when they're out in public. We could also require a small local police contingent to be present for official gatherings like this one. We could cordon off the area, and require people coming to meet the official go through a metal detector. Even something like this wouldn't stop someone like John Allen Muhammad or Lee Harvey Oswald sniping from a distance with a rifle. But it might have stopped Mr. Loughner.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 8:42 p.m.
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Why don't we review how well that worked out for DC and Chicago? How were their "gun crime" and loss of life stats as the rest of the county's crime rates fell? Oh and coincidentaly the rest of the contry happened to be getting their 2A rights restored.
Killroy
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 12:41 p.m.
One of the reasons why we should count ourselves lucky to have Dingell watching out for all of us. How about no concealed weapons within city limits? Just an idea.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 8:12 a.m.
@ERM. You mean like the recently installed wise Latina who state Heller was "settled law" anx immediately recanted such with her opposing opinion re McDonald v Chicago?
digger
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 2:18 a.m.
Here's a guy that should have had the background check before he was elected. Poster Boy for term limit argument.
Speechless
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
In this week's MetroTimes, Jack Lessenberry (who also opines on WUOM-FM) weighs in on the Arizona mass shooting and on gun regulation, or lack thereof. The essay concludes as follows (with emphasis added): "... However, even the most conservative [Supreme Court] justices emphasized that this does not mean you can't have reasonable regulation, as indicated by the quote from Antonin Scalia atop this essay. Nobody should have sold or been permitted to sell Jared Loughner a gun. Not in any state. That he was able to do so is sick, wrong and calls for a national movement for reasonable legislation. This will be difficult, hard and long, but is vitally necessary. People have to be willing to fight against the gun lobby's lies and the National Rifle Association's millions. Otherwise, there will be deaths upon deaths, stirred up by right-wing zealots who know what they are doing — and will afterward denounce the next Jared Loughner, who may be buying his murder weapon right now. This is our country, and we can take it back if we want to do so badly enough. If you have any doubts, think about what Christina Greene would want you to do." ------------ The modern corporation is inherently fascist organizational model, and its top leaders fear democratic expression far more than they appreciate it. Not for nothing did Mussolini in the 1920s describe the rise of Italian political fascism as an effort to apply a primarily American corporate framework to the governance of a nation. He was most impressed with Ford Motor Co. As already said, NRA nuts waving Glocks are no match for the multinational corporations who dominate our political process and, hence, the military. Also — Gen. Smedley Butler speech excerpt:  www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
bedrog
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
jim.. as the user of the 'crazoid' term no offense whatsoever intended to non-crazoid members of the armed forces who are indeed defending our country/ system of government abroad. i was referring to those of conspiratorial mindset who want to overthrow the government ( by '2nd amendment means ' to quote a nevada teaparty candidate!!), and who are strident and numerous nowadays on the internet, in militia cells, and often egged on by well paid media 'pundits'. I'd assumed that was clear.
John B.
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.
My goodness, all Dingell is requesting is an audit by the GAO to make sure the program is working as intended. That's what the General Accounting Office does - they audit Federal Government programs. My uncle proudly worked for the GAO following his Military service in Korea. They frequently find wasteful Government spending and expose it, causing it to be reduced or eliminated. No need to get your knickers in a bunch over this.
Macabre Sunset
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.
Good for you, inaptly-named Edward R. Murrow. You've reinterpreted the Second Amendment to fit your own political beliefs. "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." - John Adams "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson BTW, "firearms" is not in the Second Amendment. It reads, simply, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The fascists amongst us might well interpret the word "people" to refer to the government. However, there is plenty of evidence our Founding Fathers would be aghast at that interpretation. As these and many other quotes indicate.
Jim Clarkson
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.
Boo Radley
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
The article that EyeHeartA2 posted is from the Michigan Constitution, not the US Constitution. Article 1 Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. I have always been of the belief that the ongoing dispute and discussion over the meaning of a "well regulated militia" is exactly why the State of Michigan worded our Constitution in a manner that makes it perfectly clear that citizens have the right to possess whatever types of arms they choose to use for defense.
Ian
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
@Edward I don't think the Constitution is vague. The Founding Fathers were very smart to write, "firearms." If they had written muskets, today the people would be practically defenseless. If anyone doubts or are naive about the level of cruelty by governments, I remind you that governments, during the past century alone killed 158,000,000 of their own people. Also, an attempt to over throw our elected government was made once in the 1950's in order to establish a dictatorship. They do not teach that in grade school. Google, "General Smedly Butler" and listen to his testimony.
Macabre Sunset
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
Nice strawman, Speechful. Many of us, myself included, would never own a gun. But we understand the reasoning behind the Constitution and the dangers of a fascist state. Fascism always starts with good motivations. But the result, in history, has always been more and more of a nanny state and less and less freedom. Think about that before you start removing Amendments.
bedrog
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
The only thing worse than a lone crazoid with a gun is a bunch of organized ( even by internet conspriratorial drivel) crazoids with guns.... (no offense to anyone posting here, of course!) But yes..Dingell is on the right track.
Speechless
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.
Thoughtless criticism of Dingell's reasonable proposal for improving safety demonstrates once again that gun nuts will circle their wagons again and again to justify social policies and conditions which facilitate these incidents of mass murder.
robyn
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 10:25 a.m.
So Loughner did NOTHING that put him ON the list - and they want to audit the NICS? Unless someone has some sort of legal/criminal interaction with the courts there is not not they can do. Are they going to start relying upon citizens to report someone as possibly having 'mental problems'? The thing that I have not been able to get past is the fact that the school (Pima Community College) had problems with him to the extent that they sent police officers to his home with the message that he could not come back to school until he had sought professional help for his behavior. Why was there NOTHING done beyond that? THAT contact with the police and with the school isn't normal contact, yet no follow up was ever done. Also - according to the Sheriff of Pima County in his own public statements; there was a highly charged political atmosphere in Tucson, Ms. Giffords' office had been broken in to, Gabby was his close friend and he knew she had been threatened. So why not sent a patrol car out to 'check on things'? I have seen police officers 'check' on high school games just to make sure nothing was going on. I have seen police officers swing by a large public gathering to to check on things and make sure there are no problems. So - when they KNOW there is a stronger possibility that there may be a problem - why not be proactive? The ball was dropped in Tucson - everyone has done their darndest to point out who supplied the ball but no one is looking for who dropped it allowing Loughner to play the horrible game he played with it and with so many lives. I have also been left wondering - with so many reports of Loughner's behavior and run-ins with the law, how he just 'slid' through without so much as a second glance? Is there a possibility that his mother's position in the County Commissioner's Office played a role in this? It would not be unusual that a person connected to the county, city or state government got a 'pass' out of professional curtesy. This happens quite often. Rather than plucking out possible people, groups or agencies that MIGHT have played a role in this guy's ability to carry out his hienous plan. Follow Loughner's own trail and look for the hole through which he fell.
SonnyDog09
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 10:01 a.m.
Never let a tragedy go to waste.
Diagenes
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:58 a.m.
An audit will only make work for a federal employee. Again Mr. Dingell wants to put a federal solution on a local problem. Local law enforcement has a pretty good idea who the people are that pose a threat to the public at large and should have the tools to deal with them. Mentally ill people who come in contact with law enforcement should be monitored to increase the likelyhood that they receive treatment, and are not a danger to themselves and others. Dingell is looking at the gun as the problem when it is really how we treat the mentally ill in our communities that needs evaluation.
bedrog
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:56 a.m.
If i ever do decide to get a gun, it'd be to protect myself against violent criminals....but mostly against self- proclaimed fake- "strict constitutionalist",conspiracy theory wannabe vigilantes (rather than the "government", whose gun -toters are typically pretty well vetted, better trained and better armed than l'il old me could ever be...although maybe not better armed than the vigilante-buff types).
GRANDPABOB
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:44 a.m.
@bruno-uno MACHINE GUNS are illegal to start with and my friend shoots competetively with a muzzleloader and keeps a 12 inch group at 1000yds and as to my knowledge he has never shot anyone. Though I am sure if he wanted to he could.
Mike
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:42 a.m.
You can try all you want to create a perfect system and there will always be someone who slips through. Maybe Dingell will come up with a law to make it illegal to be insane. He could follow up with a law to make it illegal to have cancer. Just because something bad happens we don't need a law to cover every possible hazard and danger in life. We're broke as a country and are going to spend our resources on an audit? Maybe Dingell should audit himself and lay out how much of our national debt is attributable to his long tenure in Congress.
GRANDPABOB
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:40 a.m.
In my opinion all they would have to do is punish law breakers instead of try to rehabilitate them into society and you would see the crime rate drop. The ones wanting to ban all gun sales would be crying like babies if they got robbed because of not having a gun.
Technojunkie
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:34 a.m.
If Democrat Sheriff Dupnik had done his job Laughner would have been in the system and banned from legally possessing firearms. Interesting how Pima county has the highest crime rate in the state. Laughner was very well known to law enforcement for at least 3 years. More laws and more unconstitutional restrictions on firearms ownership won't help when Democrats refuse to enforce existing laws. The Democrat tolerance for politically correct incompetence is astounding. People are much safer in Maricopa county where their sheriff is a meanie right-winger who actually enforces the law.
Jim Clarkson
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 3:30 a.m.
What exactly is the audit for. The Arizona shooter LEGALY bought that pistol because he was not on any type of watch list. MAYBE if the community college had notified the local police that they had to remove a student because he was a ranting lunatic things may have been differnet. Or PERHAPS the employee at the Walmart that refused to sell him ammo COULD have called the police and all the surrounding Walmart stores. Or his parents could have gotten thier son some help when they noticed over the last several years that their son was coo coo. I am more heavily armed than the local police force and I have never 1) purposly or acidentally shot anyone (as a civilian) 2) used a gun to intimidate someone 3) had a weapon discharge while cleaning it Everytime something like this happens politicians all gather round and decide to make new laws which appease the general masses until it all happens again. How about we enforce the laws we already have before making new ones. I suppose we could all go toe to toe with statistics if we were so inclined. I can pull up all sorts of numbers showing that armed citizens have succesfully defended themselves and others. Statistics are in the eye of the beholder, meaning I can pull up all sorts of 'em that support my views as well as you can yours. As far as not carrying a gun within 1000ft of a politician, sure that would work, for all the law abiding gun owners in the area but is not going to do much to deter crazy people from thier goal. And for goodness sake if you are going to post comments please do some research, machinguns are illegal, perhaps you are referring to semi auto assault type weapons. Trust me if I could legally own a machingun I would :).
snapshot
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 1:55 a.m.
The "government" can't keep drugs and weapons out of prisons. They can't keep crimes from being committed in prisons either. Prisons have lots of rules, laws, audits, guards, fences, locked doors, cages, cells, dogs,and with all that control crimes still happen. Why? Certainly not because there aren't strong enough rules, laws, guards, audits, fences, locked doors, or restricted freedoms.
Ian
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 10:59 p.m.
@bruno, A couple of points. If we ban guns, do you really think the criminals would turn them in? If you do, I have a bridge on Stadium Blvd. I want to sell you. Whereas, most law abiding citizens would turn them in. Thus, leaving most of the population defenseless against criminals and a tyrannical government. Second, we had muskets back in 1776 but so did the military. The military currently uses the M16 automatic. Citizens are armed with semi-autos. 100,000,000 citizens with semi-autos vs. 1,000,000 automatics. A fair fight. These people are actually protecting your rights to freedom. I would not belittle them. I support our soldiers 100%. They are risking their lives and most are just doing their job believing it is for their country. I just don't like and trust the leaders that took our soldiers to war based on lies and possible turn the military against us. History shows over and over it is very possible. Don't think it can't happen here. That would be very foolish.
Ian
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 10:18 p.m.
@John, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin (fake Tea Partier) but she is right. To blame her for what a lunatic did was not fair. Vicious rhetoric had nothing to due with the shooting. Many people on the left have said something comprable to Palin in the past. Same for those on the right. Should we blame all of them for the shooting? I wouldn't.
bruno_uno
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 10:13 p.m.
lets just ban guns, especially since the public has easy access to obtaining machine guns. dont comment please on the constitution, that was pertaining to musket balls, not machine guns.
John B.
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.
It's gonna be so cool when Sarah Palin is the 2012 Presidential candidate! I can hear her now: "Blood libel, blood libel!"
Ian
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.
@Andy, Your comments could be true. However, when gun bans went into effect in Chicago and Washington DC, crime rates went UP. When criminals believe people cannot defend themselves because they do not have guns, it is more likely criminals will enter homes to steal, rape, and murder. I think I will take my chances with a possible accident compared to a criminal entering my house and murdering my family. With the economy going south, I'd say crime rates will keep going up. I used to shun owning a gun. But, when you realize why our Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns, I changed my mind. They were very wise people that has kept this country free...so far.
Jacque Shalach
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.
Dingell is an idiot. There is no way to prevent crime. No government on the planet has ever "stopped crime". If they reduced it, like communist Russia or China did, it's because the governments were the criminals. So let's spend money keeping background records on everyone that doesn't have a record so we can stop this from happening? Stupid. In a country of 300 million the sad truth is, there are wackos. Our society needs values, we need to hold life sacred. Dare I say, our American family needs family values
Soothslayer
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
Anyone believe that having guns in the home is good for self defense? Most of the uses were found to be homicide (non self defense related) in the home, suicide and intimidation. "Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home." "Guns in the home are probably used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns." "Recent gun owners were 8 times more likely to have threatened their partners with a gun than non-gun owners. Four main types of gun threat against partners were (a) threatening to shoot then, (b) threatening to shoot a pet or person the victim cares about, (c) cleaning, holding or loading a gun during an argument, and (d) shooting a gun during an argument." Cited works: JAMA 2005 60: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/3/178.abstract http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.abstract
RJA
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 7:38 p.m.
No comment other than I am glad to have two guns registered, pistol and a 20 ga in my name. (for my personal protection).
Dave66
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
You mean they don't do audits already?!!? I guess it's about time! Sad it has to take a mass murdering lunatic to provoke a sane and rational check.
Ian
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
@2Wheels, Please check your facts about OK bombing. We've been lied to. Go to YouTube and type in "Oklahoma city bombing.". Then think. "Defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.". This is why the right to own a firearm is so important. Otherwise we would have tyranny. Another great quote. "when people fear their government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, we have democracy." Remember that.
Dave66
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.
"The fact is, it's EXTREMELY rare that a gun purchased legally is involved in any sort of crime." Apparently you believe that gun factories have a back door where they illegally hand out guns like Halloween candy? Actually, the fact is that nearly EVERY gun ever used in a crime was originally purchased legally. I suppose it's possible that someone could smuggle in a gun purchased outside the country, but that seems kind of silly when it's so easy to get a gun here. Anyway, once a gun has been legally purchased, the legal owner will either commit the crime himself or pass his gun along to someone else. Thanks to irresponsible gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons, many are stolen. And thanks to the gun show loophole, it's quite easy to avoid background checks, all you have to do is not buy from a licensed dealer. So, apart from the infinitesimal number of guns smuggled into the country, EVERY gun used in a crime was originally purchased legally. It's not extremely rare, it's extremely certain.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.
"Thanks to irresponsible gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons, many are stolen. " So if I stole your car would that make you an irresponsible car owner and similarly liable for any acts or tragedies occurring after and while in the hands of a criminal?
bugjuice
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
Typical of the Crazy Right. Blame everyone and everything else. Cry victim like Sarah Palin. Never accept personal responsibility for your words and refuse to think any further than your own "rights". I suppose the Crazy Right thinks that Christine Green should have been armed when she went with her mom to see Gabrielle Giffords.
a2badger
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 7:07 p.m.
The Hon. John Dingall. Having been reelected by Michigan voters.... guess that he earned his stage for another year or two. Yet, he is irrelevant!
Heardoc
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
Just another left wing dem abusing the tragedy in AZ. Let's see.. repubs caused this incident how again? Dems like the idea of limiting speech they don't like -- while at the same time think it perfectly fine to use the same language against the repubs. I think this is just another grand attempt by the left to try to remain somehow significant. How pathetic is the left in this country-- to take the death of 6 people and the wounding of 5 others to try to implement their left wing agenda. How laking of moral fiber here.. just plain boorish.
2WheelsGood
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
Anyone remember the Oklahoma city bombing? 168 people died at the hands of that madman, yet not a single gun or bullet was touched. Crazy people will always be crazy. How much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe? Maybe you don't care about losing gun rights, but are you willing to give up your car to make sure no drunk driver ever kills anyone again?
2WheelsGood
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:58 p.m.
By the way, peacemaker, fully automatic weapons are completely illegal for EVERYONE in this country ALREADY. Study up on your gun laws.
clara
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
How could you ever manage 'no firearms within 1000 feet o a public official'? Who is a 'public official'? How do you tell if you are 1000 feet from one? What about driving? Every car going the opposite direction would have to move 1000 feet away from any public official because someone might be legally possessing a firearm. How stupid. Oh, look, a garbage collector (public official) is coming down the street, where do I run to not to violate the 1000 foot rule? Stop legislating, start enforcing what is on the books.
2WheelsGood
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.
Another waste of time and money. More knee-jerking from our wonderful "leaders". The fact is, it's EXTREMELY rare that a gun purchased legally is involved in any sort of crime. So what is this supposed to do to eliminate those getting them ILLEGALLY? Nothing.
cinnabar7071
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.
Andy I would agree as long as the public official obeys the same law. We have to get past the idea that public officials are somehow better then us. Cause I'm starting to see public officials who believe that they are better then us.
Peacemaker
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.
The problem with the present law appers to be thst only if one has been adjudged" to be mentally ill is he blacklisted from buying a firearm. This leaves the door wide open for every nutcase, like Loughner, who has, for whatever reason, not yet been informed upon and "adjudged" as mentally unstable to purchase a firearm and thus enbled to carry out whatever homocidal fanticies are haunting him. The burden should be placed upon purchsers of firearms to establish that they are (1) mentally sound and 2) of good character, before they can get a license to purchase a handgun. No full automatic weapons ever. And if individual states want to require at least a practical need for possession (other than mere paranoia), good.
Soothslayer
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
Huzzah! Also I don't see anything wrong with the "no firearms within 1000ft of a public official" idea.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
So how do you envision this being enforced? Rolling TSA style cordons as those "special" enough to deserve this consideration moves about? How about we make it a no criminals and mental defectives within a 1000ft of an official instead? What if my firearm is legally stored in my car and a public official drives by? What if there is a helicopter overflight of my house. Yes random special purpose zones where the Constitution doesn't apply...sounds like an AWESOME idea...
Stephen Landes
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.
I voted yes on the poll, but not because of REP Dingell's position. The system should be audited regularly and if REP Dingell had been doing his job properly such an audit would be normal practice for the system. Oversight is the responsibility of Congress; something Congressmen of all parties seem to have forgotten.
demistify
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:58 p.m.
Carolyn McCarthy first ran for Congress after her husband was one of those randomly murdered on a commuter train by a man with a history of mental illness.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.
Yes a mentally ill man in one of the states and cities with the most gun controls in the nation. Nope no take-a-ways there...nothing to learn, just keep plugging away against inanimate objects and law abiding citizens...
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
Dingell is quite content to use this tragic incident for his own purposes. His tenure is the result of careful district gerrymandering. He's fully aware the districts will be redrawn for 2012 and he will have no chance of retaining office. So he's free to do whatever he pleases. My guess is that he's retiring from Congress and has been promised lots of goodies from fellow Democrats if he plays the front man on disgusting stories like this.