Gun reforms promoted

Rhonda Bodfield Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:00 am
If background checks on gun purchases were stronger, dangerous people would have a harder time obtaining lethal weapons, according to speakers who gathered downtown Monday to support a congressional effort to make such checks more effective and widespread.

As attendees wore red T-shirts noting that 34 people die every day in national gun violence, front and center was the spectre of the Jan. 8 shooting that left six dead and 13 others wounded.

And in the background was a handful of counter-protesters holding signs reading, "Politicians prefer unarmed subjects" or "Keep New York Policy Out of Arizona" - a reference to the fact the national campaign by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns is spearheaded in part by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Ross Zimmerman, whose son Gabe, an aide to U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was among those killed in the January shooting, said America enjoys unparalleled individual freedoms, including the freedom to carry lethal weapons. There's a responsibility that should go along with that right, he said, adding that's where the legislation comes in.

Patricia Maisch, who grabbed the magazine away from suspect Jared Lee Loughner at the January event as he allegedly tried to reload, said that while signs were missed, nothing can be done about the past.

"We must now work to prevent such violence in the future," she said, asking "how much sorrow, how much blood, how many injuries - both physical and emotional- must we endure before taking action?"

The Fix Gun Checks Act, introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., does a couple of key things. First, with advocates noting that the shooter at the Virginia Tech mass killings in 2007 was allowed to purchase weapons because relevant information was not entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, it requires better reporting. States that don't comply would face deep cuts in federal justice funding.

The other big piece: It would require all gun buyers to submit to a background check, including those at gun shows or working with private sellers.

The legislation would also require colleges and universities to develop a plan to improve student access to mental-health services.

"We're not talking about taking away anybody's guns. We're not talking about taking away anybody's constitutional rights," said former U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini.

Instead, he said, "We're talking about people having to pass a check to see whether they have mental problems, whether they have drug problems, whether they have criminal problems."

Rev. Jan Flaaten, executive director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, said he knows critics will turn to the old adage: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And he acknowledged that's partly true. "So let's determine which people should not get guns," he said.

Experts have long pointed to a need for making the reporting requirements more clear.
Kristen Rand at the D.C-based Violence Policy Center, who was not in attendance, has said the reporting criteria, especially regarding drug use and mental-health issues, are vague, complicated and riddled with privacy concerns. "We really need more clarity in determining what records need to be submitted under various categories," she said.

Loughner was never found by a court to be mentally ill and didn't have a criminal record to speak of, after completing diversion on a 2007 charge for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Federal law also bans the sale or transfer of a gun to someone who is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance." But while Loughner admitted to marijuana use in an interview with a military recruiter, that alone didn't meet the interpretation commonly used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI in determining who shouldn't possess guns.

The proposed new law would require federal courts to report anyone sentenced to drug treatment, even if part of a diversionary program in place of a conviction. It would also offer appeal rights to drug users or to the mentally ill who could argue they've recovered in that five-year span.

Keith Van Heyningen, a 47-year-old unemployed land surveyor, was among the counter-protesters at the event. He chalked it up to Bloomberg's trying to raise his profile for higher office and said it's an example of federal interference in people's lives.

Even if it was just about enforcing existing laws, he said, he'd still oppose it. "With people like Bloomberg, it doesn't stop at just this. It's the whole slippery-slope argument."

But Veronica Figueroa, a 22-year-old sales associate who stopped to listen to the speakers, ended up signing a petition in support of the proposal, even though her own family owns guns. If it was up to her, gun buyers would have to get a license or training, so a mere background check seemed reasonable. "It's ridiculous we don't check people's backgrounds in some of these cases before we give them a gun that can kill other people," she said.

Eleanor Goff, a 70-year-old retired teacher, said she, too, would like to see tougher laws, including a ban on extended magazines. At a minimum, she said, the checks need to be more effective. "It's very upsetting that we can't come to an agreement on something that seems so basic and so simple," she said.

Still, she said, she's optimistic that things can change. "You have to have hope. Otherwise, you're just going to give up. And we can't do that."
Contact reporter Rhonda Bodfield at rbodfield@azstarnet.com or 573-4243.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_3d83702c-d570-5388-bce2-0a996c819a2f.html?print=1