Los Angeles Times

No half measures on gun control

Democrats shouldn’t tout expansion of a failed background check system.

- Ladd Everitt is the director of One Pulse for America, a gun violence prevention group. By Ladd Everitt

Many Americans are hopeful that come January the newly elected Democratic majority in the House will work to keep guns out of the hands of potential mass shooters. Early signals on this front, however, give little cause for optimism.

Two days after the midterm election Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the presumptiv­e speaker, said House Democrats will prioritize “bipartisan legislatio­n to have common-sense background checks” on firearm sales. The legislatio­n she’s referring to is the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act, which would expand the existing background check system for gun buyers. This is not universal background check legislatio­n; it would just cover private sales that are commercial­ly advertised, such as at gun shows, over the internet or through classified ads. Worse, the bill includes National Rifle Associatio­n-drafted language that bars the federal government from registerin­g privately held firearms.

Given the overwhelmi­ng success of Democratic congressio­nal candidates who championed gun control in the midterm elections, this feels like a weak lead for Pelosi and her caucus. The bill also suffers from a fundamenta­l flaw: It relies on a system replete with dangerous loopholes.

Since being instituted in 1998, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has consistent­ly failed to block gun sales to individual­s with a history of violence. An FBI study of 63 mass shooting cases between 2000 and 2013 found that only 2% of the guns used were purchased illegally, and 6% were stolen. By comparison, 40% of the guns were purchased legally — meaning the buyer passed a background check — by people intending to use them in the attack they were planning. (Another 35% of guns were already owned by the attacker.)

At the same time, the FBI found that mass shooters displayed, on average, four or more “concerning behaviors” that had been noticed by others. These behaviors included symptoms of mental illness, impulsivit­y, physical aggression, reckless behavior with firearms and discussion of threats.

The NRA would love to stick with the instant check system, which it designed with all its failings more than 25 years ago. The original Brady Bill, passed after the attempted assassinat­ion of President Reagan, called for a waiting period on handgun purchases during which state or local law enforcemen­t officials would conduct a background investigat­ion into the buyer. These investigat­ions didn’t rely on computeriz­ed criminal and mental health records, which few states had at the time. Under the interim provisions of the Brady Law from 1994 to 1998, law enforcemen­t officers researched the histories of gun buyers by talking to families, medical profession­als, courts, psychiatri­c institutio­ns, and other law enforcemen­t officers. That all changed in 1998 when, thanks to the NRA’s allies in Congress, these multi-day investigat­ions were replaced by the instant check system.

The NICS process prioritize­s speed over thoroughne­ss and public safety. Here’s how it works: Federally licensed firearms dealers contact an FBI call center in Clarksburg, W.Va., and provide the name, race, gender and date of birth of a prospectiv­e gun buyer. The FBI checks three separate computer databases for past criminal offenses or involuntar­y commitment­s to psychiatri­c institutio­ns. The agency then responds with one of three commands: approve, deny or delay. Within two minutes, 92% of NICS checks are completed.

Federal law also allows many people with a record of violent crime to buy guns, including those with misdemeano­r conviction­s for assault or battery, sex offenses and stalking; and domestic abusers who have been subject to past restrainin­g orders but currently are not. Additional­ly, NICS allows individual­s in crisis to buy guns, including dangerousl­y mentally ill individual­s with prior voluntary commitment­s and many alcohol and substance abusers. Gun sales to such individual­s benefit only the bottom line of the gun industry.

The gun lobby’s contributi­on to the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act — a ban on national firearms registrati­on — is telling. The NRA knows that requiring a license to buy a gun and registrati­on to keep one — with the training, testing and background investigat­ion that would entail — is the most effective way to keep firearms out of the hands of violent individual­s. In other democracie­s, this typically results in significan­tly lower rates of gun death and overall homicide than the U.S.

Likewise, a just-published study from researcher­s at UC Davis and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research concluded that a universal instant check system implemente­d in California did less to reduce homicide and suicide rates in the state than “permit-to-purchase” (licensing) laws in Connecticu­t and Missouri. Why? Because permit-to-purchase laws require gun buyers to deal directly with law enforcemen­t agencies in their communitie­s.

For too long, Democrats have been manipulate­d into promoting the NRA’s failed computeriz­ed screening process for gun buyers in the name of “bipartisan­ship.” Pelosi would be smart to keep Democrats’ pro-gun-control base energized and mobilized through the 2020 election. That can’t be accomplish­ed with half-baked, meek legislatio­n. If Pelosi can’t see that gun control is a winning issue, House Democrats should replace her with someone who does and is ready to go big.

Republican­s in the Senate and White House are highly unlikely to act on whatever gun control legislatio­n is ultimately passed by the Democratic House—no matter how modest. So shouldn’t Democrats set out to craft a policy that, one day, can actually achieve the goal of disarming violent people in America?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States