It’s been a long time since I wanted to yell at the TV but Bill O’Reilly made me reach that point the other night. How can someone who has written so many books with the minute details of Lincoln’s death, Kennedy’s death, etc. not know what the current Federal laws are for purchasing a firearm before commenting on them? He said he didn’t think there was a federal law that prevents gun sales to people with mental health issues and we need one!
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.”
All of this came about during the discussion of the latest mass shooting in Oregon.
Just in case he doesn’t know, you also can’t buy a gun (legally) if you are a convicted felon, under indictment for a felony, fugitive from justice, drug abuser, received a dishonorable discharge from the military, under a restraining order for harassment, stalking, etc., convicted of domestic violence, renounced your US citizenship, an alien in the country illegally or not a resident of the State in which you are buying a gun. It’s all on the form (ATF Form 4473) you fill out when you buy a firearm.
O’Reilly repeated someone else’s news item that the Oregon shooter’s mother was “stockpiling guns, 14 guns in a one room apartment”. The local Oregon official he spoke to on the show wouldn’t use the word stockpile because it had a negative connotation. You think? Because a person has more than one or two firearms, they are stockpiling weapons and deserve closer scrutiny?
He said he had no problem with a background check being conducted by the FBI for EVERY firearms transaction. I guess he is not paying attention. The last several mass shooters bought their guns legally through licensed dealers that do background checks. In fact, I think you have to go back to the Columbine Shooting to find an incident where the shooter obtained their guns illegally. Surveys of prison inmates incarcerated for gun crimes have indicated that less than 1% got their gun from a gunshow. Some States have laws requiring background checks for all firearm purchases. The implementation of these laws have not affected their crime rates.
After Juan Williams called for more gun control laws, O’Reilly followed with, “Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and the highest murder rate.” Juan Williams counterpoint was of course, the illegal guns all come from States with lax gun laws. Doesn’t he understand that every step involved in buying guns in one State to be sold in another in the scenario he is talking about is already illegal? How will more laws help? And if the illegal guns all come from States with lax gun laws, why aren’t they used to commit crimes in those States? Why aren’t the crime rates soaring in those States? You think maybe it’s because the law-abiding citizens of that State are armed to protect themselves whereas the residents of Chicago aren’t?
What’s missing is not more gun laws, but the enforcement of the laws already on the books. In one year recently, 72,600 gun purchase applications were denied by the background check. Lying on this form is punishable by 5-10 years in prison. But the Justice Department only prosecuted 44 cases! The Justice Department needs to prosecute those that intentionally falsify applications. In 2014, with thousands of claimed straw purchases made every year, the Justice Department only prosecuted 124 cases.
So if gun laws aren’t going to be enforced, why pass more laws that will only be enforced against law-abiding citizens? It’s so we can FEEL like we are doing something to solve the problem, even though it doesn’t.
My fear with a background check for every gun transfer law is that it will be written poorly like the one recently passed in Washington State. The law was purposely written so as to be vague and open to interpretation. As written, if you ask your neighbor to keep your gun while you’re on vacation, that could be an illegal transfer. You go to the range with your buddy and if you let him shoot your gun, that could be an illegal transfer.
Would State and Federal governments really spend the time to investigate, prosecute and jail law-abiding gun owners because they let a friend hold their gun? Of course! Radical enforcement of gun laws is already happening. In Washington DC, people have been arrested for possession of dud shotgun shells or a loose 9mm round in a backpack. It will happen.
The following day on a Fox News show, Juan Williams stated that he had a constitutional right to be safe in his own home. That may be true, but his implication that the government is responsible for keeping him safe from criminal attack is wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that YOU are responsible for your own safety, not the local police department. That is why there is a Second Amendment, it guarantees you’ll have the means to protect yourself.
Supreme Court Rules You Are Responsible for Your Own Safety
Also on the following day, Dr. Ben Carson was asked what he would do if he found himself in a situation similar to the Oregon College shooting. Carson replied something to the effect that if he knew he was going to be shot, he would attacker the shooter hoping the rest of the hostages would join in and they could overpower the shooter. He was immediately attacked as having criticized the victims of the Oregon College shooting for not doing enough to defend themselves. That’s not what he was doing. The action he suggested is what Obama’s Department of Homeland Security suggests you do in an active shooter situation. It is in their “How to Respond to an Active Shooter” publication. The situation was discussed on the Bill O’Reilly show. That Carson was following DHS advice wasn’t mentioned because they didn’t know.
DHS – How to Respond to an Active Shooter
Foxx News needs a Second Amendment and firearms consultant on staff. That way, Bill O’Reilly won’t be suggesting we need a Federal law preventing the sale of firearms to people with mental health when it’s been a law since 1968.
Foxx News is my news station, but I wish they would put a little more effort into knowing what they are talking about. They miss many opportunities to inform the public. In this case, they were spreading disinformation.