The one-year anniversary of a tragic killing from South Bend, Indiana, illustrates many of the weaknesses in our gun laws: in a single incident, we have law enforcement officers being shot and killed, by someone who never should have been allowed to purchase a firearm in the first place, but who still passed a background check because of incomplete records, from a corrupt gun dealer at a gun show.

On April 24, 2007, South Bend Police Corporal Nick Polizzotto was shot and killed, and Patrolman Michael Norby was wounded, in a shootout at the Wooden Indian Motel.

They were shot by a man who had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution and who bought a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer who later pleaded guilty and is now serving Federal prison time for falsifying Brady background check records.

Worse still, the gun dealer’s dishonesty was only part of the story. Because the states do such a poor job of providing records of the dangerously mentally ill to the Brady background check system, the shooter’s dangerous mental history didn’t prevent him from buying his gun.

The NICS Improvement Act – which gives states monetary incentives to supply records to the Brady background check system – should help prevent other mentally dangerous gun buyers from getting guns in the future from licensed gun dealers who follow the law.

Unlike West Virginia, however, which passed legislation less than a month ago to address this problem, states like Indiana have yet to forward any records of the dangerously mentally ill to NICS.

The following is from a powerful piece that ran last week on South Bend’s CBS affiliate, WSBT-TV. The video is here. You can read more about this tragic story here, here, and here.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE LAW

It’s been 40 years since Congress banned the sale of firearms to anyone deemed “mentally defective” by a judge, and today, answering “yes” to “question 11-F” on a federal background check means an automatic disqualification for a handgun permit or purchase.

It reads, simply: “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution?”

It’s aimed at preventing scenes like the one that played out on the campus of Virginia Tech just over one year ago. The gunman there, Sung Hui Cho, was responsible for the worst massacre on a college campus in U.S. history.

Court records show Cho was also ordered to receive mental health treatment by a judge who also declared him “dangerously mentally ill.”

But he never went.

Even so, his background check came back clean.

So did Barnaby’s, the day after the gun he bought illegally was used to kill Polizzotto.

Former Bristol firearms dealer Ronald Wedge was sentenced to serve prison time for falsifying information on Barnaby’s application, and allowing him to buy the gun before his background check cleared.

But the fact remains, it did clear.

The question for lawmakers in both Indiana and Virginia one year ago, was why?

SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS

They quickly found that the answers lie in the mental health records kept by each state in the nation. Just over 30 states share some, or all of those records with the federal government. In our area, Illinois recently began sharing many of their records, and Michigan is one of the few states in the country that shares nearly all their records.

But some states share none of their mental health records. That means all records of treatment, including treatment ordered by a court, is not included in the FBI’s NICS database used to check the backgrounds of potential gun buyers.

In other words, in many cases, the FBI has no way of knowing whether or not that buyer has ever had any sign of mental illness.

One year ago, as Scott Barnaby pulled the trigger, Indiana was one of those states.
Today, it still is, and Nick’s brother Tony Polizzotto calls that unacceptable.

“It seems like a no brainer to me,” he said. “Half the states [still] don’t have this law in action. And it’s something that really needs to be brought to the forefront.”

In the wake of Polizzotto’s shooting and the campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, it has been brought to the forefront in the Hoosier state.

Brady Background checks make it harder for dangerous people to get guns, but they only work when the states send in the proper information. Indiana – indeed, most of the country – needs to do a much better job in reporting those who have been defined as “prohibited purchasers� by Federal law since 1968 to this database.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Almost everyone agrees that we should make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.

As I said in my last blog, we should be willing to put up with a little “red tape� if it helps us avoid more “yellow tape� at crime scenes.

Most Americans believe this, and by wide margins [pdf].

We see this principle in action today in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Gov. Timothy Kaine is standing with the survivors and surviving families of the Virginia Tech massacre, as well as leading members of the law enforcement community, to demand stronger gun laws in that state.

First, in the aftermath of the shootings at Virginia Tech, the Governor ordered more records of the dangerously mentally ill into the Brady background check system. In doing so, Gov. Kaine closed the loophole that allowed the killer to get his guns from two gun stores.

This week, Gov. Kaine vowed to close another loophole, calling for background checks even from so-called “private-sellersâ€� at gun shows. What does that mean? Today, if a background check blocks a “prohibited purchaserâ€� from buying guns from a licensed dealer, that person can go find a “private seller” at a gun show who can sell him a gun with no questions asked.

[See an example of this practice at a recent gun show in Kentucky. An investigative reporter went to a show and found a “private seller” willing to sell him an SKS and an AK-47. The seller says to the reporter, on hidden camera: “No background check, no paperwork. If you see a gun here you like, pay me for it and take it with you.”]

That’s wrong. Gun shows should not be a haven for criminal gun buyers who want to evade background checks. Letting felons and other prohibited purchasers get away with legally buying guns is at odds with common sense, and recklessly puts lives at risk.

The naysayers argue that Virginia gun shows will close because of background checks, but the facts show otherwise. Gun shows continue to thrive where the gun show loophole is closed, because running background checks doesn’t deter legal gun buyers. They deter illegal ones.

Law-abiding gun buyers and sellers have nothing to fear from background checks. Only criminals and reckless dealers do.

All the same, I have read reports that some Virginia Delegates plan to spurn the Virginia Tech families, ignore the evidence, and stubbornly refuse to close the gun show loophole.

Soon those Delegates will meet Virginia Tech parents like Joe Samaha and Lt. Col. Peter Read. Each of these men lost a daughter in the French class inside Norris Hall on April 16, 2007.

I wonder, do those Delegates have the guts to look Mr. Samaha and Col. Read in the eye and tell them that someone else’s daughter may have to die because a few gun buyers are afraid of getting their backgrounds checked at a gun show?

I can’t imagine such a scene, but we’re about to find out in this session of the Virginia legislature.

The Commonwealth of Virginia is lucky have Gov. Kaine stand alongside the police and the Virginia Tech families in their fight to require background checks for all gun show sales.

The Brady Campaign is proud to stand with them.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

I’ve just finished reading a summary report from Injury Prevention, an academic journal, on the effectiveness and limitations of California’s laws on secondary sales and gun shows. The study was conducted by Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, director of UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, and concludes that regulation of gun show sales reduces illegal gun sales without restricting legitimate gun sales.

Also of interest is the report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, concerning ATF investigative procedures at gun shows. According to the report, “most gun show promoters and all state and local law enforcement personnel… were supportive of ATF operations at gun shows,� and “[a]ll gun show promoters… were concerned about illegal gun sales and purchases at gun shows.�

In the gun violence debate, there are people – on both sides – who pretend that it’s an all-or-nothing fight, and that we must choose between two extremes. These studies help make the point that there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the flow of illegal guns without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

California is one of only a handful of cities and states that have closed the “gun show loophole,� requiring that all firearms purchasers go through a Brady background check at the time of sale. Dr. Wintemute, who based his study on his own extensive personal observations at gun shows, expected to see far fewer transactions in California than in the other states he observed. According to some gun lobby talking points, background checks at gun shows are such a hardship that they prevent even honest sellers from conducting business. It has always been hard for me to believe that background checks would be that burdensome, particularly given modern technology. Dr. Wintemute’s study helps show that California’s regulations do not hinder gun shows, and that the regulations also make straw purchases much more difficult for criminals to conduct.

In his report, Dr. Wintemute concludes that “[g]un shows can be regulated so as to diminish their importance as sources of crime guns without greatly reducing attendance or commercial activity.�

That’s what the gun violence debate should really be about: finding ways to reduce access to firearms by dangerous individuals without unduly affecting law-abiding citizens. Treating gun show sales like regular gun purchases can go a long way toward that goal.