Transfer of Firearms Act makes sense
Sometimes it’s not about preventing the next crime. It’s not about the big headlines or major arrests. Sometimes, changing a law just makes sense. It’s hard to argue that there’s a better example than Sen. Tim Kaine’s new bill, the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act.
Understandably, if you sell a gun to someone who isn’t allowed to have one under federal law, that’s frowned on. Even so, there’s usually no penalty attached. If your friend gets out of prison tomorrow and you sell him the gun that he uses to shoot his ex-wife, you’re only charged if the prosecution can prove that you knew the man wasn’t allowed to own weapons. Basically, if you’ve just reconnected after a few years and sell him a gun, you’re fine. If they can prove you picked him up at the prison, then yeah, you’re facing charges.
Convicted felons can’t own guns. Convicted drug users can’t own guns. People with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions can’t own them, nor can anyone that has a protective order taken out against them. During the time that order is in place, the person can’t own a gun. We blame the people who go on killing sprees, but it’s also important to crack down on those who helped put them in that position.
This isn’t an argument for banning guns. As I’ve said before, if you take away one weapon, a person will just find another, if they’re intent on doing someone harm. That’s no excuse however for ignoring a problem when we see it. If a man can’t go within 200 yards of his ex-wife, there’s probably a good reason. Adding a gun to the mix just seems like a bad idea. And if a person does break the law and sell him a gun, they need to be punished too, in hopes eventually this will put an end to the practice.
The bill is simple. Before selling or just giving away a gun, a person has to make a reasonable effort to make sure the buyer isn’t breaking the law. No ban on weapons. No guns taken away. Just put each buyer through the same background checks that each of us responsible hunters and gun owners have done in the past. And if someone doesn’t do that, if they sell it off without checking, only to find later the man was a violent felon, then there should be a punishment.
What’s the alternative? Do we just take someone’s word for it? Shrug and say oops, when it turns out they were lying? If we want to show people that guns aren’t the problem, then we have to be willing to make everyone accountable to the same standards. Waiting one or two days for a background check won’t be the end of the world, even if you are buying a gun from a friend. It might even improve it.