Gun regulation: Sonoma County congressman pushes for background check reform
Photo courtesy of www.huffingtonpost.com
Rep. Mike Thompson supports background checks for all commercial gun sales.
October 12, 2015
Rep. Mike Thompson ramped up support for his bipartisan firearms background check bill to curb tragedies like Oregon’s recent college shooting.
The Northern California Democratic congressman, whose district includes Santa Rosa Junior College, co-wrote the Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2015 with GOP Rep. Peter King. Co-sponsorship has grown to 183 House members since the Umpqua massacre.
Thompson and King’s bill, HR-1217, would expand mandatory background checks to all commercial guns sales. This ordinance already applies to federally licensed firearm dealers and would force all other commercial distributers to conform, according to Thompson.
“If you go to gun a show [and buy a firearm], you would have to get a background check. If you buy a gun over the internet, you would have to get a background check,” Thompson said.
HR-1217 also ensures nationwide consistency in listing individuals barred from purchasing firearms in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
“There’s still some holes as far as getting the information from the states into the database. That’s been a problem for various reasons and we want to do whatever we can to improve that,” Thompson said.
The bill originated in the previous congress as an amendment in the Senate and stand-alone bill in the House. HR-1217 never received a floor vote. Thompson and King re-submitted the legislation in March 2015 with no amendments, according to Thompson.
Thompson said he discussed the bill with Republican Speaker John Boehner last year, and the speaker declined to bring it to a vote. “I don’t know what his personal position is, I just know he knew he couldn’t bring it up with his membership,” the Sonoma County congressman said of the speaker. “Honestly, it’s been frustrating with the Republican party not willing to have a vote on this bill. If we had a vote it would pass.”
Boehner announced his resignation from the House in September and said he would vacate at the end of this month. He may delay his departure due to the postponed GOP election to replace him.
Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer are co-sponsors of HR-1217.
Thompson delivered a floor speech Oct. 8 in support of an HR-1217 vote, berating the GOP majority for hindering common sense firearm legislation and the routine inaction after mass shootings.
“Two hundred and seventy eight, the number of mass shootings in our country since Newtown. Two hundred and seventy five, the number of days this congress has been in session. Sixteen, the number of gun related moments of silence Congress has held since the start of last year. And zero, the number of votes this body has taken to help prevent or lessen gun-violence,” Thompson said on the House floor.
“Why do we want to give criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally-ill a huge loophole through which they can buy guns? It makes no sense,” he said in advocacy of universal commercial background checks.
HR-1217 provides for a National Commission on Mass Violence, a congressionally appointed committee of 12 non-elected experts to study firearms and mental illness’ impact on mass violence. The commission can order hearings and hear testimony under oath.
Thompson insists his bill complies with the Second Amendment and he supports the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which protects lawful gun ownership.
As chairmen of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Thompson said he and his deputies are tirelessly pushing his bill forward. “I’m not pulling any punches, I can tell you that.”
The GOP’s resistance to the bill is its only obstacle, Thompson said. “They are the only thing standing between the first line of defense against violence and its [HR 1217] passage.”
Thompson is confident the bill would pass in the Senate.
teebonicus • Oct 13, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Here’s how any gun control debate should go:
“We need common sense gun safety laws.”
“No.”
“But…”
“No.”
“How about if we…”
“No.”
“But we have to…”
“No.”
“Is that all you can say? NO?”
“Yes.”
jack burton • Oct 13, 2015 at 9:09 am
“Rep. Mike Thompson ramped up support for his bipartisan firearms background check bill to curb tragedies like Oregon’s recent college shooting.”
Thompson knows full well that the oregon shooter passed all the mandatory background checks when he obtained his firearms. What is Thompson’s real goal since the one he presented is obviously fake?
“If you buy a gun over the internet, you would have to get a background check,” Thompson said.”
Thompson knows that if you NOW buy a gun over the Internet it must go thru a local dealer to you and you have to apply for and pass a background check. What is Thompson’s real goal since the one he presented is obviously fake?
Thompson is willingly and deceitfully lying to his voters and the American public. We deserve to know what he real motives are and why he is deliberately misleading us.
jim smith • Oct 13, 2015 at 9:08 am
Currently, there are only 2 ways to legally sell a gun in the US to a private citizen. One is a private sale between individuals (typically like between family and friends) or by a gun dealer licensed with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) from the federal BATF. Only individuals with an FFL can run a background check through the government NICS database of prohibited persons. Private citizens cannot. Note that a person can purchase a firearm online, but the physical transfer of the firearm still must go through an FFL at the seller and an FFL local to the buyer. So if you want to improve the process, you should encourage the federal government to do 2 things:
1) Allow any small gun dealer to get an FFL without having a storefront. Currently, thanks to the Clinton administration’s effort to reduce the supply of guns, you can’t get an FFL if you want to sell guns only at gun shows (See question 18a on ATF form 5310 FFL application at http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5310-12.pdf). As a result someone that wants to sell guns but can’t afford the inventory costs, zoning challenges and overhead of a storefront has to sell illegally or discretely at the edge of the law as a “private individual” and hence can’t run a background check. Rather than throwing these “kitchen table” sellers out of the system like Clinton did hoping they would go away, they should allow them to get an FFL and subject them to BATF rules, audits and oversight like they were before the Clinton administration let political anti-gun ideology get in the way.
2) Give anyone free, public, anonymous online access to the NICS database. I don’t understand why a federal database of people prohibited from owning firearms can’t be available in the public domain like federal databases for sex offenders. Unlike the sex offender database, the NICS system is really a go/no go process and no useful information has to be displayed to facilitate phishing expeditions for identity theft other than what was already known by the user making the query. It’s certainly no more revealing than the FAA’s pilot and mechanic license query system, which provides more detailed information on presumably law-abiding citizens. Once this system is implemented, you then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain documented proof that says you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. This would effectively close the so-called private sale loophole and still preserve the anonymity of the parties involved the same way the current background check system does now. If a private sale firearm shows up at a crime scene, the BATF follows their current procedure of using the serial number of the firearm to contact the manufacturer and ultimately the last FFL that sold the firearm to a private citizen to obtain that citizen’s name and address from the ATF form 4473 the FFL is required to keep on file. That citizen is then contacted and produces the piece of paper from the NICS background check that identifies the second private citizen who is then contacted, and so forth.
The real benefit of this proposal is how it can help identify the illusive killer with questionable behavior patterns or mental health issues that is causing so many problems. As it stands now there is no easy, fast, non-bureaucratic method for someone to determine if a suspicious person (client, neighbor, employee, student, etc) is a potential threat to society. If someone thinks an individual could be a threat, a query to a public NICS database would at least tell him or her in a few seconds if the individual could obtain a firearm. Then, armed with that information the appropriate authorities could be notified and they could decide if it was erroneous information or whether to investigate further. As it stands now, if you tell authorities you know a suspicious person they will probably ignore you, but if you tell them you know such a person and by the way according to the NICS database he can buy a firearm, they will probably be more inclined to investigate rather than risk embarrassment later if the worst happens. The same would be true if you see a suspicious acquaintance with a firearm when the NICS query says he’s prohibited from having one. It would also help provide piece of mind and a method for victims of violent crimes to ensure their assailants either on parole or still at large have not been excluded from the database because of some bureaucratic foul-up.
Other specific public safety issues where it would be useful are:
allow potential victims to vet known stalkers or acquaintances under a restraining order
allow gun clubs to vet potential members
allow shooting ranges to vet suspicious customers
allow mental health workers to vet troubled individuals like the Aurora Colorado theater killer
allow resource officers and school officials to vet suspicious students like the Arapahoe High School killer in Colorado
allow the family of the mentally troubled Lafayette, LA killer to verify he couldn’t purchase a firearm
allow police officers to vet anyone they contact – (note the routine background checks performed by police often do not include information about firearms because they don’t directly access the NICS database)
teebonicus • Oct 13, 2015 at 2:47 pm
Too complicated, too intrusive.
This is the Land of Liberty, or didn’t you get the memo?