Last Wednesday the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which would have required background checks for all commercial gun sales, received just 54 of the 60 votes it needed to pass in the U.S. Senate.
The legislation’s supporters argued that the bill would have been a helpful preventive measure against gun violence. While I understand this perspective, it is important to see how the legislation would have affected United States citizens negatively.
The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have expanded background checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and on the Internet, but it would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues. Proponents of the bill argued that the expansion of background checks would be constructive because increased checks would prevent guns from getting into the hands of unstable or unfit persons. While in theory this may be true, in actuality it would have only minimally prevented the transaction of firearms, if at all. Access to firearms is easy in today’s society, and illegal gun transactions are not extremely difficult, especially for driven individuals with a set objective of murder. And apart from illicit gun sales, there’s always the option of taking guns from friends or relatives. Adam Lanza, the architect of the Sandy Hook tragedy, stole his mother’s firearm, without a single transaction background check.
No amount of gun-control legislation will stop access to guns or prevent illegal use of guns. Proponents of the legislation cite the Arizona, Colorado and Virginia Tech tragedies, all of which involved firearms, where the gunmen were considered mentally unstable and were still able to purchase weapons without in-depth background checks. But while the Manchin-Toomey amendment would have required states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), none of the gunmen from any of the previously mentioned mass murders had felony convictions or documented histories of violent mental illness.
In addition, extending the existing background checks and making them stricter, while supposedly a preventative measure, would have ineffective results. Look back to the Colorado, Arizona and Virginia Tech shootings. The Colorado shooter was checked, and his only past crime was a traffic ticket, which was irrelevant to his gun purchase. The gunman from Arizona passed the FBI background check without any problem. And the Virginia Tech shooter held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, which according to federal officials made him eligible to buy a gun unless convicted of a felony.
Proponents of the bill also argued that even if the legislation only minimally prevented firearm misuse, it would still be better than no prevention at all and that there is nothing to lose by passing the legislation. In reality, there is much to lose. If this bill had been passed and implemented, its ineffectiveness would have either caused people to forgo the cause altogether, which would mean they realized gun laws will probably never work, or it would have resulted in people rallying around more gun control and stricter background checks, and eventually a complete registry of gun owners. While the bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, I am dubious of future legislation that would have been created once people saw the ineffectiveness of this bill when been put into practice.
Some readers may be thinking, why not have a gun registry if it would save lives and keep people safe? A gun registry would be an extreme measure that would unjustly document all purchased weapons, giving the government the necessary information to tax our guns and to take them. Having this information would not keep people safe. It would just be a way for the government to gain and exert more power. While the legislation in question would not have given the government total access to gun-owner information, it is a step in the direction of tighter and stricter gun control. The more gun laws that are passed, the more our Second Amendment rights are being infringed on, and the more we begin to lose certain liberties. Some argue that the Second Amendment does not include private ownership but rather protects the right of the “militia” to bear arms. However, the word “militia” is not the equivalent of “military.” It can mean a group of ordinary citizens. Therefore if the militia is a group of armed citizens, and the Second Amendment specifically extends to the militia, then there is no way to have a militia without having armed citizens. Gun ownership is essential to the Second Amendment and it is a right that Americans have. A registry may not be inevitable, but the passing of this legislation would have certainly been a step in that direction, a direction that would lead to the elimination of some of our essential liberties.
Finally, most guns used in crimes are not purchased through venues where a background check would be performed; they are purchased on the streets through friends and acquaintances. The Manchin-Toomey amendment would not have extended to sales between friends and acquaintances, significantly decreasing its effectiveness. Legal transactions are only a fraction of the actual transactions that take place in the United States, and gaining access to guns under the radar is not incredibly difficult. No amount of legislation will fix the problem. When it comes to misuse of firearms, we can do more to solve the problem ourselves than through the use of legislation. Gun owners need to ensure that unstable people do not have access to their weapons by locking the guns in a safe and using their discretion before allowing someone else to use their gun. And if a seemingly unstable person is able to procure a firearm, then it is imperative that anyone who knows reports it.
It is the responsibility of us as American citizens to report any questionable behavior we witness in relation to the procuring of guns. When it comes to recent shootings, some of the killers’ acquaintances knew they had mental problems and did nothing to help them. In light of the failure of this bill, we as citizens need to begin taking strides toward preventing weapons from getting into the hands of our mentally unwell family members, friends and acquaintances. If we see signs of extreme anger, instability in someone we know, or if we feel unsafe, we need to report them before it is too late. Many of the shooters from the previously mentioned mass shootings displayed outward signs of unstableness, and had those around them gotten them help and had them institutionalized, then perhaps the shootings would not have occurred. It is difficult to speculate at this point in time, but it’s easy to see that we can do a much better job preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands than any legislation could, especially the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
Meredith Berger is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 9 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 14 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
