I watched the NRA’s Wayne Lapierre speak about the shooting at Fort Hood. I agree with him that something is wrong when a mentally ill person can legally acquire a gun. And as it stands, our Fort Hood shooter did not violate any laws (apparently) in acquiring his weapons.
Lapierre is opposed to requiring all transfers (sale or gift or whatever) of weapons to be subject to a background check because doing so places an undue burden on the farmer in Kansas who wants to give his rifle to his neighbor. OK, allow them to trade, but require it to be registered, like a car, within a certain number of days so that the suitability of the new owner can be determined.
Would such a post-transfer check even be considered by the NRA? The only real objection I see to this concept is it would give the new owner a free period to do what he wants with the gun before anyone knows he has it.
Require a fee to accompany the transfer papers to pay the cost. We do this with cars, why not firearms? Neither the paperwork nor the cost seems to inhibit transfer of cars.
(What about) the fear that if the government knows who has the weapons they could come and take them away? I see no actions to confiscate guns passing any legislative body in the country. Slippery slope? Maybe, but kind of a shallow slope.
Is this an infringement? If so, very slight.
as printed int he Tulsa WOrld on September 28, 2012 see here