- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
2,189
1,482
Universal background checks a sound concept
Do you know why we have a hard time passing common-sense gun laws? Some folks fear that the tyrannical Obama administration, secretly being controlled by the Illuminati, stages mass shootings like Aurora and Newtown to scare the public into allowing government stormtroopers in black helicopters to seize our guns and circumvent the Second Amendment.
Even the ones who aren’t so extreme in their views still fear that the government plans to disarm the public. You see this fear promulgated by NRA propagandist Wayne LaPierre, right-wing radio hosts, as well as some gun supporters in the letters to the editor of this paper and the paper’s website, which has seen contentious battles on the issue.
This paranoia is at the heart of the opposition.
The resultant fear has caused an explosion of gun purchases. According to data by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, there have been four times as many guns sold during Obama’s tenure as there have been babies born in America. It’s profiting on paranoia.
We have the opportunity to pass a universal background check law. Currently, in California, if you want to buy a gun from a retailer, gun show or a private seller, you must submit to a background check.
In most other states, gun show sales and private sales require no background check. Studies have shown that up to 40 percent of gun purchases are made in this unregulated market.
While not a panacea, background checks are effective. According to the FBI, between 2001 and 2011, more than 700,000 gun purchases were denied. Virginia state police records show that in the past 24 years, 16,000 felons were prevented from buying firearms because of background checks. These aren’t the proverbial “law-abiding citizens” being denied. These are felons, disturbed individuals and others who should not have guns.
The public understands this. It defeats the purpose of having a background check if Joe can buy a gun with a background check and then turn around and sell it to Bob who doesn’t need one. This is so obvious that in a recent Quinnipiac poll, 92 percent of voters and 91 percent of gun owners support universal background checks.
We should have the same requirement whether you purchase a gun in Fairfield, Calif., or in Fairfield, Texas, or Fairfield, N.J.
Congress appears to be close to a deal but there’s a sticking point. Some senators want no records kept of these background checks. Once again, the lunatic fringe fears keeping records will allow the evil fascist government to know which houses to target to seize people’s guns.
But not keeping records neuters the law. Records are what enable us to track guns used in crimes. They can help track down people who are illegally selling firearms. Once again, no “law-abiding citizen” has anything to fear in these transactions.
While banning unregulated private sales won’t halt all of those sales, it will allow some recourse to prosecute those who violate the law. The gun that was used to kill Fairfield City Councilman Matt Garcia was purchased at a garage sale in this manner.
To the paranoid: no need to fear. The Obama administration cannot ban all guns. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago rulings, affirmed the right of individuals to own firearms. But the court did leave room for government regulation.
Can’t we just do this one thing that nearly everyone agrees on? Peace.
Kelvin Wade is a proud gun owner. Reach him at kelvinjwade@aol.com.
Discussion | 36 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
G-ManFebruary 28, 2013 - 2:39 am
I have no problems w/BR checks..except that they'll fall short..the person who has a DUI or two..misdeamneanor drug bust..maybe even an assault beef from a bar fight..I know I'm gonna get sent to the stocks for this but after a check these kinds of people should not mandatorily denied a weapon for self defense...now your hardcases..you think they submit to checks?..Afraid not...they get their guns the old fashion ways...stealem or on the black market..no color predjudice intended.
Reply |VallejoanFebruary 28, 2013 - 6:40 am
“To the paranoid: no need to fear. The Obama administration cannot ban all guns.” No, but that doesn't mean that future administrations won’t be able to. If enough legal groundwork is laid, the Supreme Court’s ruling can be overturned by a future Supreme Court, or by constitutional amendment. And don’t think that no one is trying to ban all guns. "If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) said in 1995. “What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned” (U.S. Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, D-Ohio). “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal” (Janet Reno, December 1993). If all guns were banned, they would be extremely hard to ever legally get back. And are we sure that no future leaders would be just a little too enticed by a disarmed populace? “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms” (Joseph Story, 1779-1845). We can’t think only of ourselves, we need to think of future generations as well. And just for the record, I’m for background checks, and I’m against a federal firearms registry. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to regulate the ownership of any personal property, meaning that it’s a states issue.
Reply |KelvinFebruary 28, 2013 - 10:31 am
If a constitutional amendment is passed overturning the 2nd Amendment, then that's the will of the people. We have a system in place to achieve that end. I don't foresee that happening. It's not something that keeps me up at night. And people WANTING to ban all guns means nothing. So what? It matters what they do. I want to own an M1 Tank. I think it would be cool to be able to have my own Predator Drone. It's not going to happen. We have 90% of the public supporting background checks and its STILL an uphill battle getting it done. The number of Americans who want to ban ALL guns is incredibly small. Yet they're going to somehow manage to get that done? That's just not rational. It's not rational to believe that this country could disarm the people of 300 million firearms. We're the most armed nation in the history of the planet. No other nation comes close to the U.S. in terms of gun ownership. It's time we stop listening to Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists and just focus on the real world. The black helicopters aren't coming.
Reply |SavetheRepublicFebruary 28, 2013 - 10:53 am
Kelvin...But some of us have actually lived "the conspiracy" so we know that it is CONSPIRACY TRUTH. Read some books Kelvin like Barry and the Boys...if Bush and Clinton can get away with importing Cocaine into Arkansas, what else won't the CIA do? Remember they were targeting getting African American teenagers and adults hooked on it, selling it in Black neighborhoods. Our Government is not our Government it really is owned by the International BAnkers. President Obama is controlled by THEM also.
Reply |StRFebruary 28, 2013 - 11:10 am
Google this...Maxine Waters Connects the CIA/Contra/Cocaine Dots
Reply |Madame ButterflyMarch 04, 2013 - 1:39 pm
Kelvin, perhaps you mean well and I commend you. However, I cannot believe anyone could be so naive. "Those who won't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"- Burke. Please look up the Putus' Founding Fathers and read about his joining the 3rd Party in 1990. All dictators implement gun bans and he is no different. Read the "Naked Communist" and go to the UN website and look up New World Order(Agenda 21). I assure you is no conspiracy, the truth can be revealing. It was signed by none other than Daddy Bush. What truly amazes me is that those who demand gun control and banning, are precisely protected by the very same guns they want to ban. If they really want to live in the Utopia the profess, they need to lead by example. None of us walk around with guns or body guards for protection, and in the same manner they expect none of us to look after ourselves, they should practice what they preach. The 2nd Amendment was created for a reason. I don't see any clauses there excluding any type of gun or talking about registration. "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." Patrick Henry. It's not parannoia, is caution because we see politicians' faces, sweet talk, and smiles, but we can't see hearts or intentions. If they really want to protect the citizens from gun violence, they need to enforce the already existing laws. I assure you that when gun crimes get exposed in the media and severe sentences implemented to those who commit them, the crime rate will subside because criminals don't want to be sentenced to death or rot in jails, so they'll figure it out soon enough. Remember something "absolute power corrupts, absolutely." I don't think is wise to give government all the power, is not "gun control" is "people control," what they are really after.
Reply |pornacFebruary 28, 2013 - 7:49 am
No guns, no shooting. Sounds good to me.
Reply |AllieFebruary 28, 2013 - 9:24 am
Typically, law abiding citizens don't shoot people except in self defense or defense of others. Also typically, criminals don't obey laws. Therefore, laws banning all guns would only ensure that criminals are the only ones with guns. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a society I'd want to live in.
Reply |rlw895February 28, 2013 - 11:12 am
It's safe to say that remaining 10% really is nuts. And the NRA is on their side. That tells you something.
Reply |Tom ChalkFebruary 28, 2013 - 2:56 pm
RLW: The NRA is not on the side of "nuts." I have been a member for years, and I don't recall any reference in NRA material or public comments that support your baseless accusation. Where did your 10% number come from? Who were you referring to? Kelvin's "uphill battle" is actually a true measure of the "will of the people." Last time I checked, legislators by-and- large are sworn to represent the "will of the people" who elected them. If it is an "uphill battle," then I guess we should agree that it is so because of--and not in spite of-- the will of the people. Hmmmmmm? Re-read the Vallejoan's comments. We probably have more "anti-gun nuts" than true "gun nuts." And they tend to be in powerful and/or public positions. No wonder there is paranoia out there.
Reply |rlw895February 28, 2013 - 4:03 pm
Tom: Kelvin's column refers to a poll that shows over 90% of gun owners support stricter background checks for gun purchases. He suggests the reason a change of law is not a slam dunk is due to paranoia (a form of mental illness) on the part of the remaining 10% and the willingness of the NRA to support their position. What that tells me is not that the NRA supports nuts, but that the NRA is impossible to negotiate with; they will always take the most extreme positions, even supporting nuts, becuase they are constitutionally unable to do anything else. Rather than selectively getting behind common sense laws, they suggest every law-abiding citizen be armed and such things. It's just impossible to work with that. If it weren't for people willing to join up and send the NRA money, and our political system where money is practically everything, the NRA would be irrelevant, out on the fringe.
Reply |Tom ChalkFebruary 28, 2013 - 5:55 pm
RLW: And my point about the role of our duly elected congress in this "uphill battle?" Do they not represent the will of the people? The NRA is just too convenient as a whipping boy for folks like you who cannot grasp the essence of what is going on, or who wish it were not so.
Reply |rlw895February 28, 2013 - 6:32 pm
Tom: You mean the House that doesn't represent the people due to gerrymandering after the 2010 elections and 2010 census? You mean the Senate where the Republicans have used the filibuster to make virtually all legislation need 60 votes to pass, and where one Senator can put a "hold" on a bill? We're not talking about banning guns here; we're talking about better background checks. The 10% who oppose it are rabid, the 90% who favor it have mostly have other things to do with their time and money. This is a minority rule issue right now, with the NRA as the chief facilitator.
Reply |freedomgalFebruary 28, 2013 - 3:58 pm
Mr. Wade. This is pure balderdash. If you are unable to see the movement that is underway to disarm this country you need to forfeit your press pass, move to any other country under a dictatorship and ask them how they got there. It might surprise you to know that criminals and assassins don't apply for background checks. They steal the guns from others like illegals, who probably got theirs from "Fast and Furious". The hypocrisy of these administrations, both CA and National, would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. Where is the guarantee that new laws will be any more enforced than the ones that already exist.?
Reply |JD RothMarch 02, 2013 - 8:25 am
freedomgal-wild and hyperbolic response from tea party central. rubbish just plain dumb and ill informed.
Reply |JoshuaMarch 02, 2013 - 9:29 am
JD, what part was wild and hyperbolic? Or did you just say that because you don't know what you're talking about and just want to be dismissive?
Reply |JD RothMarch 02, 2013 - 10:25 am
Joshua, you are probably part of the same camp so your perception albeit misguided, would be no different than freedomgal. My time is too valuable to waste further.
Reply |JoshuaMarch 02, 2013 - 12:34 pm
All I see from your words is that you don't know what you're talking about, JD. It's obvious. You want to claim your life is more valuable, yet you come back to make a post and pretend your time is more valuable than mine. But in all actuality you have nothing to support your blanket claim that what she said was "wild and hyperbolic." Tell me, in your opinion, what was it that she said that was wild and hyperbolic. All I have to do is have some common sense and look at the news to realize what she said is quite right. Gun control laws do nothing but take the ability to protect one's self away from the law abiding while the criminals are bolstered by it. All done under the guise of feeling better while further turning us victims. At the same time, gun control laws are being passed by the same people who told gun shop owners in border states to openly sell to the drug cartels in Mexico and provide weapons to our enemies in the Middle East.
Reply |freedomgalMarch 02, 2013 - 8:48 pm
@JD Roth, Waste a little time on this JD. Your hatred for the Tea Party tells me all I need to know about you. This is NOT a Tea Party issue..it's a 2nd Amendment, American, Constitutional issue. The fact that you choose to attack a commenter rather than give serious thought to the column is a clear indication that you have absolutely no knowledge of the topic in this column and use the comment section of a newspaper to spew your hatred. Grow up, say a prayer for your country, or move to one where there are no guns. Then you won't have to worry about the relevance of background checks.
Reply |JD RothMarch 03, 2013 - 8:12 am
Freedomgal- you are so off base and confused so this will be difficult but hang with me. Joshua, you may want to listen as well. For the record I happen to agree with Mr. Wade across the board here. I am all for gun registration, background checks and enforcement. My concern is about your telling word usage: “disarm this country, dictatorship, illegal’s, fast and furious.” Apparently your knowledge of the Constitution and particularly the 2nd amendment is severely lacking yet you continue subjecting folks to your Tea Party drivel on this matter. Wow, good bye and good luck to you.
Reply |JoshuaMarch 03, 2013 - 9:24 am
I just fell out my chair laughing. That's all you have, JD? We don't know the Constitution while you have your head so far into the sand that I'm shocked you can even breath. Apparently, YOU don't know the Constitution and in particular the 2nd Amendment by the way you speak. We can have all these new gun laws to make us feel all warm and fuzzy, but you know what? It won't stop anything. It never will. Hell the administration said that themselves. This won't stop the next Newtown or Clackamas and on and on. Honestly, no real law will. Why? Because criminals don't follow the law and they will obtained their weapons illegally. What we can actually do instead is have armed guards at the schools to protect them. Will it work 100% of the time? No, but it will reduce the lives lost. So what do gun control laws really do then if they don't stop criminals? It disarms our society and that, my friend, infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. That right has been infringed upon for a looooooong time. Now it's time to stop the continuance of that infringement.
Reply |JD RothMarch 03, 2013 - 9:35 am
Again, you are laughing when it is I that should be laughing at your absurd thoughts. There is no threat from our government here. This is why you and those thinking as you do are a waste of time. Your ability to understand reason and common sense is absent. I will leave you to your vices.
Reply |JoshuaMarch 03, 2013 - 11:08 am
I laugh because you make baseless claims, JD. I'm a waste of time yet you keep coming back for more. Why? Your time is more valuable, isn't it? So why do you keep coming back to waste it? I don't have anything to fear from this government, is that right? This government that slowly strips our rights away through legislation as stricter gun laws. Legislation like the Patriot ACT. Legislation like NDAA. It goes on from there. I'm paying attention, I'm seeing where the slippery slope leads and I don't see anyone stopping it. Do we have to fear a tyrannical government under Obama? Not necessarily. But the next president that comes in and passes more laws that couples with NDAA and Patriot act. Then the next. It's down the line we have to pay attention to and we need to stop it now. But I'm a kook, right? Yeah. You keep your head in the sand, sweet heart.
Reply |freedomgalMarch 03, 2013 - 9:47 am
Okay..let's see. According to you I am "off base" "confused" "obviously can't hang" "use telling words" "have no knowledge of the Constitution" "particularly the 2nd Amendment" "subject folks to my Tea Party drivel" Does that about cover it ? Feel better now ? Were you the school bully ? Did you want to be and couldn't quite make the grade for lack of intelligence ? Notice I'm asking questions..not making statements. That's how you make nice with other Americans whether they agree with your beliefs, or not. When you want the facts..come to our meetings. This Monday would be a great time. The new Sheriff of Solano County will be speaking on realignment and gun control. Won't it be nice to hear a professional viewpoint on this subject rather than yours, mine or Kelvin's ? A small bet on whose opinion best matches the Sheriff's.
Reply |JoshuaFebruary 28, 2013 - 6:20 pm
What's more common sense than having a few armed police officers at the schools to protect the children. That's real common sense. Bad guys will always get a weapon. Bad guys have their ways, but to disarm the law abiding citizen makes them into the next victim rather than the next hero. We see are seeing it over and over again in America alone. Because of this fact that no one in D.C. is using their common senses, it forces me to side with the "paranoid" as you call them. I'd rather protect my rights to own and carry a gun to save myself than have to stay at home with my gun in order to not be the next victim as the Democrats want to make every American.
Reply |CD BrooksMarch 03, 2013 - 10:29 am
I am watching the comments between Freedomgal, JD Roth and Joshua with some humor. Aren’t you arguing for the same result? Don’t you want some form of regulation and background checks? I certainly do. And I believe the Sheriff might as well. I believe Mr. Roth is saying what Mr. Wade did, you don’t have to worry about losing your guns.
Reply |freedomgalMarch 03, 2013 - 11:04 am
CD Brooks.. You are watching us with humor ? lol Had I known I would have dressed a little better. You are right in that we are looking for the same result. It's the path to that result that is the issue. We know there are already background checks and regulation laws on the books that are not being enforced. I contend that is the problem..along with a severe lack of oversight on the mentally affected. Give 'em a pill and send them on their way. Why ? Does it take too much time to treat professionally those who need more help than a prescription ? States refuse to keep a database of the background checks for all intents and purposes. What good is that ? We also have such timid consequences for gun related crimes that the perpetrators spend a minimal amount of time behind bars and are out to commit more before the ink is dry on their release forms. Therein lies the problem. More laws will not help. Banning wrongly described "automatic rifles" is not a solution either. The majority of all mass gun attacks were carried out with handguns. It is not a conspiracy theory that this particular administration wants to control gun and ammo ownership. Look at "Fast and Furious". Or how about this...federal non-military agencies have purchased enough ammunition recently not only to shoot every American five times but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war. Why do federal agencies need all that ammunition? The government’s official explanation is that law enforcement agents need them for training. Are you buying that ? What training ? Aren't we winding down these wars ? To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [DHS] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war! It's easy to conclude that there is something else afoot.
Reply |CD BrooksMarch 03, 2013 - 11:45 am
freedomgal, that is interesting because I just wrote letters to the editor pointing out the glaring problem...little to no enforcement with relatively painless penalties. In one I even tied together guns, cars and DUI. I agree that enforcement is lacking and I completely understand the terribly low resources our Govt. has to deal with such things. And although we can't legislate stupidity, I hope they somehow figure out a way to solve this issue.
Reply |freedomgalMarch 03, 2013 - 11:59 am
CD..I'd love to read your letter and be able to comment on it. The only way I'll know when it's published is if you let me know...either at solanoteapartypatriots.com or on facebook. You don't have to prescribe to anything..just let me know when your letter gets published.
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 03, 2013 - 3:02 pm
CD: Well, as long as Kelvin and RLW say don't worry about losing our guns I feel so much better! How about this--perhaps we then should worry about USING our guns? Tried to buy ammo lately? Got your home self defense weapon stored safely and LEGALLY (with the requisite trigger locks, etc.)? Good luck getting the required locking mechanism off before the home invader puts you six feet under. Or retrieving it from a licensed gun club storage unit while you or your family are being attacked by a neanderthal. And on it goes. Feel good libs like Cuomo and Bloomberg will not stop until all guns in the hands of private, law-abiding citizens are illegal to own. Then what? Shoot a perp with your illegal weapon and spend your life savings trying to stay out of jail.
Reply |CD BrooksMarch 03, 2013 - 4:48 pm
TC, I believe I have stated before that I do not own a gun. Never felt the need for that type of self defense. You know the government cannot take your legal weapons Mr. Chalk, that precedence was established years ago. They do want certain new restrictions but I honestly don’t think it will come to more than that. I believe you are a very well-educated and intelligent man but I just don't understand how you got to this place? Not being facetious, I'm seeing the same material. I just don't get it.
Reply |Silly - A long and winding road, drive carefulMarch 03, 2013 - 5:06 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqu9qhBHWNs
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 03, 2013 - 5:17 pm
CD: The point I was trying to make was not that the feds would take away legally acquired guns, but would instead continue making it more difficult and even pointless to own one. Please re-read my post.
Reply |StRMarch 03, 2013 - 5:36 pm
I agree with Mr. TC good summation of the potential problem....Plus what is up with DHS...Department of Human Shooting? buying up all the bullets?
Reply |CD BrooksMarch 04, 2013 - 6:32 am
TC, okay sorry I get it. I agree that the regulation fiasco is off the hook across the board. I certainly don't want to be that person in any of the scenarios you laid out.
Reply |rlw895March 04, 2013 - 12:20 pm
Why is it "slippery slope" arguments get magnified when we are talking about guns and not things like, say, warrentless wiretapping?
Reply |