Wednesday, February 20, 2013
This is a response to your poll question, “What is your view on HB 1588, which is now before the state legislature and would require universal background checks for firearm sales between individuals.” It was impossible for me to answer with any of the three options given. It is more complex than that.
I believe relatives generally know if family members are responsible and trustworthy prior to any exchange of firearms. Because of that, it is my belief that sales between family members should not be subjected to the proposed background checks mentioned in HB 1588. Such an exchange is far different than if buyer and seller are strangers.
Our daughters were taught to shoot, care for and respect firearms. Guns were demystified for our daughters. They were taught guns were dangerous if not handled correctly and never trust another’s word on whether a gun was unloaded, but always check for yourself when receiving one. We did not then have a gun safe, yet never had any problems. In spite of our daughters’ training, HB 1588, as it stands, would not allow me to sell a firearm to them without a background check.
Now our daughters have their own children. Our oldest grandson is proficient with several guns. Under HB 1588 I would not be allowed to sell a firearm to my adult grandson without a background check.
No exclusion was found in HB 1588 from the background check for persons, such as me, who have already undergone a background check as part of the process to obtain a Concealed Pistol License (not to mention the one when teaching, driving school bus, when a reserve police officer, or custodian with access to a sheriff’s office).
The effort to close “loopholes” is admirable but HB 1588 seems more an emotional knee-jerk reaction than a well thought out piece of legislation.
Regarding another gun bill, Senate, SB 5737.
After contacting legislators regarding the included sentence, “Assault weapons legally owned when the bill is enacted must be safely stored and may be inspected by the sheriff once a year.”
I was informed that sentence had been inserted by mistake. Was it a “mistake” when included or just because it was caught? No wonder some folks are skeptical about the true goal of gun-control legislation.
The question remains, if SB 5737 will not prevent events similar to the shootings that gained so much national media attention, why is legislative time and money being spent on it? Such legislation provides a false sense of security (similar to “Gun Free Zones”).