Lawmakers Taking Another Crack at Expanding Gun Checks

By KEVIN FREKING Associated Press

WASHINGTON  - Former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is returning to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to help kick-start a longshot campaign to expand criminal background checks to all commercial firearms sales.

Similar legislation that sought to expand background checks failed to get a hearing in the House last session. With the GOP expanding its majority and winning control of the Senate, prospects for the bill may be even more unlikely this session.

Still, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson of California predicted the legislation would pass if GOP leadership would let it come to the House floor for a vote. Congress passed record funding for background checks in the last session, he said.

"If they are willing to fund the system at historic levels, they should support using the system," Thompson said.

Under the current system, cashiers at stores selling guns call in to check with the FBI or other designated agencies to ensure the customer doesn't have a criminal background. Many lawmakers want to expand such checks to sales at gun shows and purchases made through the Internet.

The National Rifle Association opposes expanding background checks. The organization says many people sent to prison because of gun crimes get their guns through theft or the black market, and no amount of background checks can stop those criminals. The group attributed the effort on Capitol Hill to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has worked to impose stricter background checks in several states.

"If Bloomberg and his supporters were serious about solving underlying problems, they would work to reform our broken mental health system, not attack the rights of America's 100 million gun owners," said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's lobbying arm.

While Congress has declined to pass expanded background checks for firearm purchases, five states have done so since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in December 2012. They are Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and New York, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Giffords and Kelly, a former NASA space shuttle commander, founded Americans for Responsible Solutions. The organization advocates for stricter gun laws. They are both scheduled to be at the news conference with Thompson and a handful of other lawmakers on Wednesday. The Arizona Democrat has become an increasingly active player in the gun-control movement since being shot in the head as she met with constituents in Tucson nearly four years ago.

The legislation that ushered in background checks for guns bought from federal licensed dealers was named after James Brady, the press secretary to President Ronald Reagan who was shot in the head in 1981 and died last year.

"We fought a long, hard battle to pass the Brady Bill with bipartisan support in 1993 and now we simply need to finish the job!" said Sarah Brady, co-founder of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Reference: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawmakers-taking-crack-expanding-gun-checks-29366740

Money Can't Buy Everything...

This is where members of the political world, have lost their senses. They think if they have poured enough money into an issue, then it is bound to happen. Bloomberg is currently focusing all his efforts on this fact alone.

While the assault weapons ban is to be dropped from the Senate bill, there is still the issue of Background checks. Next month, that will be the food on the table, and Congress will be forced whether to partake of the meal or not.

According to the poll from the Washington Post, 91% of the public do agree with some form of background checks. But, the NRA isn't going to listen to that, nor are they stepping down. Bloomberg thinks he can spend $12 million on advertising to keep turning the odds. For the majority of the general public, it isn't going to matter how much money you spend on ads. They want the facts and more importantly, they want to know they are not being imposed on.

Just as Wayne LaPierre, of the NRA, pointed out "He can't spend enough of his $27 billion to impose his will on the American people."

Background checks may seem like a good idea to lessen the amount of guns that reach criminals and the mentally insane. Yet, there is no real history to support the facts that this will help anything. They do background checks for many jobs but that doesn't stop the criminals or mentally unstable from infiltrating, if they choose....


Click here to read more.

Why Additional Gun Restriction is Wrong

Written by Christopher L.

Basically speaking, I support the second amendment, albeit with one or two caveats. I do not support the second amendment because I am a violent individual who is going to go out and slaughter innocent civilians, nor do I support it because I am some backwoods hick that “don’t want no government takin’ my boomstick away.” I am a freshman in high school, and my family does not own a single firearm, much to my chagrin. I support the second amendment because I believe that, with few exceptions, it keeps the general population safe.

Nobody in their right mind is going to break into a house if they have any reason to believe that the house has one or more firearms within its walls (but if you’re breaking into a house anyway, I doubt you’re in your right mind). However, if guns are banned, feel free to pillage and plunder whoever’s house you choose! Not like they can shoot you! And in an area where huge numbers of people carry guns, open or concealed, nobody is going to try anything violent, lest they get a bullet or bullets in one or many of their vital organs. Were guns banned altogether, of course the number of shootings would decrease sharply, but the amount of violent crime overall would increase drastically (just look at Britain).

What really needs to happen is to have much stricter rules on who can own certain types of guns, and progressively more intensive tests and background checks as the potential danger of the gun increases, e.g. a more intense, restrictive test for an M4 assault rifle than for a Glock 17.