Expand background checks, save more lives

Congress should act to expand background checks to virtually every sale of a firearm, and states should join the effort to keep guns out of criminals’ hands with timely checks.

The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms.

Almost all Americans understand that right to be forfeitable and not unconditional. They accept that the constitutional principle of promoting the general welfare applies. They recognize the authority of government to keep firearms out of the hands of certain people at certain points: after conviction for a violent felony, or while serving a prison sentence or probation, or if mentally incapacitated to an extent that impairs judgment. If such factors do not apply, they expect a reasonable person to be cleared to own a firearm in a reasonable amount of time.

This week, both houses of Congress have had before them a proposed amendment to the law that governs the sale and transfer of firearms. The Background Checks Act, in both the House and Senate versions, would bring the law more into line with what Americans have said they want. It’s a historic moment in that Congress can act to make background checks applicable to virtually every sale of a firearm — but also in that some states are lining up their own bills to avoid the provisions of the federal bill if it is enacted.

Here in Connecticut we have some of the nation’s most stringent gun control laws; we knew how desperately we needed them after the massacre of 26 children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012. It was not that new laws could bring back any of the victims, nor even that background checks might have prevented the shooter’s access to his mother’s weapons. Rather it was the sense that we must do every single thing we can to limit the numbers of future victims of gun violence. This must never happen again, we said. But it has, again and again, in schools and at concerts and in workplaces.

The need to forestall such heinous acts in the future is also the reason why Connecticut residents should care what other states do about conducting background checks and should welcome federal legislation that puts the burden on all states to comply: because shooters and guns cross state lines and people anywhere can become victims.

The resubmission of the background checks expansion proposal is occurring now because in the 2020 election control of the U.S. Senate passed from a small Republican majority to an even split that puts a tie vote into the hands of the Democratic vice-president, Kamala Harris. Debate on gun control could not happen during the tenure of former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, who refused to bring it to the floor. The pledge to act on gun control issues subsequently made it into the campaigns of many Democrats, including President Joe Biden. It has been championed for several sessions by U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson of California, chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force begun after Sandy Hook.

The House mustered enough Republican supporters to entitle its H.R. 8 bill, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, and accompanied it with a second proposal to make checks speedier and more reliably available. Both passed Thursday, the first by 227-203 vote and the second 219-210.

Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy — who represented the congressional district that includes Newtown at the time of Sandy Hook — has taken the lead in reintroducing the bill in the Senate. He is joined by 43 of the 50 Democrats as co-sponsors.

The first, most essential step toward limiting guns to responsible owners is for Congress to pass and the president to sign this legislation. Step 2 for all states is to cooperate in enforcing the law. Step 2 for Connecticut is to carry out background checks in a far more timely manner that respects applicants’ efforts to comply with the rules.

The Day recently examined the state’s and individual towns’ handling of applications for permits and found that it has been taking as long as four months locally and another four months at the state level to get approval. Almost all applicants eventually received their permits, so the delay can’t be blamed on problematic applications. Pandemic-related slowdowns in state and municipal offices surely contributed, but the effect is that people who applied, paid fees and took mandatory training, all in good faith, have been left waiting an unreasonable length of time.

Tighten the loopholes with this new law, and administer it fairly and expeditiously for the benefit of all.