Background checks ongoing fight for NRA
A friend turned foe has blocked the path of gun-control advocates and politicians looking to expand federal background checks for firearm sales.
During the two decades that Americans debated, debuted and again debated background checks for firearm sales, the National Rifle Association changed its position on the idea. Once a supporter of instant background checks, the NRA calls the system broken and vehemently argues against its expansion.
“Fix the system we have,” Andrew Arulanandam, the association's director of public affairs, said about the FBI's national background check database. “After observing that system, we have changed our minds.”
The NRA's attention this week turned to Maryland, where Gov. Martin O'Malley on Thursday signed a gun-control bill that supporters claim gives the state the toughest firearm laws in the nation. The law requires people to submit fingerprints to police to buy a handgun, outlaws 445 assault-type rifles, limits magazines to 10 bullets and bans ownership of guns by people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental facility.
The NRA intends to sue over the law, a spokeswoman said.
Opposition from the NRA killed a bill sponsored by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Lehigh County, and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to expand background checks to all gun sales — between neighbors, among families or at gun shows — in addition to those that gun dealers must do.
Arulanandam said the bill criminalized the transfer of firearms between law-abiding citizens, drawing the NRA's ire. The bill failed to generate support in the Senate despite polls showing Americans support background checks.
Peter Georgiades, a Pittsburgh attorney and executive director of the Firearms Instruction Research and Education Institute, said universal background checks may prevent people who cannot possess a gun from buying one privately from a stranger.
But gun checks would not have prevented mass shootings in Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut, Georgiades and others said, because background checks would not have kept guns from those shooters.
“There's one ugly truth that people are having trouble swallowing” regarding gun violence in America, Georgiades said. “The possibility that we can't do anything about it.”
Bruce Ledewitz, a professor of law at Duquesne University, concedes that background checks would not stop all gun violence, but he considers them effective gun-control policy. The emphasis should be to keep guns away from unstable people, he said, and universal background checks could help accomplish that.
“There's a lot of dispute about this,” Ledewitz said. “One of the reasons (background checks) haven't been too effective is they haven't been universal. There's no reason, in theory, why gun checks won't work.”
The 1993 Brady Bill brought background checks to the federal level and prompted the FBI to establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in 1998. In 1999, with the background check system in its infancy, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and voice, testified before Congress. Lawmakers had taken up the gun control debate after the Columbine High School shooting. At the time, LaPierre said it was reasonable to have criminal background checks for gun show sales. “No loopholes anywhere for anyone,” he said. He wanted those determined to be mentally ill to be added to the system.
“This isn't new, or a change of position, or a concession,” he said.
LaPierre did not find it to be reasonable for the government to require checks when guns change hands between legal, private citizens.
What has not changed, Arulanandam said, is the NRA's support of “behavior restrictions on firearm ownership.”
“Criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, should not have access to firearms. That's been our position as long as I can remember,” he said.
Since 1998, the federal system has run more than 169.2 million checks on prospective gun owners, according to the most recent FBI data. Despite the system denying about 1 million gun purchases, the NRA believes it is broken.
Arulanandam said not all states supply complete information to the federal government, and law enforcement agencies don't always prosecute offenders.
The NRA knows the fight against background checks is far from over. A win in the Senate is not the end, Arulanandam said.
“We consider it one battle in a very long war that will last years.”
Aaron Aupperlee is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7986 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Prof proposes museum of corruption in New York capital
- Pot doctors in medical marijuana states push boundaries with marketing
- Disability claim waits grow alongside swelling caseloads for judges
- AIDS activist finishes rowing across Atlantic
- Suspect in Colorado attack called loner who left few clues
- Federal $1.1 trillion spending bill loaded with policy deals
- Artists plan to rebuild Alaska art display damaged by tides
- Kids making oral history with StoryCorps holiday project
- Nuclear crossroad: California reactors face uncertain future
- Hawaii confronts dengue fever cases
- Ex-Benghazi panel staffer Podliska files suit against chairman Gowdy