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.)

A couple nights ago we honored several amazing individuals who have stepped forward in the last year to advocate for common-sense gun laws in this country.

The Brady Center awarded Col. Gerald Massengill the James S. Brady Law Enforcement Award for his work as chair of the Virginia Tech Review Panel. This group made strong recommendations to close the gun show loophole, report all records of the dangerously mentally ill to the Brady background check system, and allow colleges and universities to keep their campuses gun-free.

We also awarded Abigail Spangler the Brady Center Advocate Award for the grassroots movement of concerned citizens she has inspired – including students, parents, and people from all walks of life – who have been willing to demonstrate publicly their desire to strengthen America’s woefully inadequate gun laws. Like many of us, she was moved to tears by the shocking events of April 16, 2007. Unlike many of us, she decided to do something about it.

She started ProtestEasyguns.com, and anyone can with participate or help organize one of their events. All you need are 32 people who agree that it should be harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. This symbolizes the total number of murdered at Virginia Tech, as well as the number murdered by guns every day in this country. These individuals lie down on the ground in a public place silently for just a few minutes, to symbolize the amount of time it took for the Virginia Tech shooter to get his guns.

We expect over 50 of these or similar events to take place across the country this coming Wednesday, the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. If any of these are in your area, I encourage you to participate.

Finally, and most important last Wednesday night, we heard the voices of Virginia Tech family members Joseph Samaha and Pat Craig. Joe lost his daughter Reema in Norris Hall and Pat lost her nephew Ryan Clark at the West Ambler Johnston residence hall. Joe and Pat – two truly courageous individuals – gave talks that those in attendance said were among the most moving they had heard in a very long time.

I’ve been involved in politics since I was a child, and since that time I’ve heard more speeches than I can count. But listening to Joe Samaha and Pat Craig reminded me of the oft-quoted story recounted by Adlai Stevenson many years ago:

“Do you remember that in classical times when Cicero finished speaking, the people said, ‘How well he spoke’– but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, ‘Let us march.’â€�

Joe Samaha and Pat Craig moved us all to march to do everything we can to help prevent other families from having to endure the pain they’ve endured this past year, by strengthening America’s gun laws.

It was an honor just to be with all these individuals.

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

Another prominent member of the nation’s law enforcement community has spoken out for common-sense gun laws.

Col. Gerald Massengill, now retired as a Virginia State Police Superintendent, chaired the Virginia Tech Review Panel that studied the worst mass shooting in modern American history. According to his short bio on the Panel’s Web site, Col. Massengill served the people of Virginia with distinction:

He led the state’s law-enforcement response to the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon in Northern Virginia and the 2002 sniper attacks. Massengill retired in 2003 after 37 years in the Virginia State Police, and came out of retirement in 2005 to serve as interim director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for 18 months.

On Monday, Col. Massengill made news by saying something that really shouldn’t be controversial at all: “The thought … of people losing their firearms is just something that Americans can’t tolerate and quite honestly shouldn’t. But on the other hand, we cannot allow the proliferation of guns to continue like they’re continuing.â€�

As Chair of the Virginia Tech Review Panel, Col. Massengill saw first-hand the effects of the damage done by a deranged shooter seven months ago. “I guess I’m one of those people who sees the devastation that firearms bring,â€� he said in one report. “There’s got to be reasonable checks and balances out there.â€�

Col. Massengill describes himself as “a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights,� someone who isn’t in favor of gun bans or “of people losing their firearms.� So what are the reasonable checks and balances on responsible gun ownership that he and the Review Panel proposed [pdf document] to help prevent another tragic shooting?

• All states should report information necessary to conduct federal background checks on gun purchases.

• Virginia should require background checks for all firearms sales, including those at gun shows.

• The Virginia General Assembly should adopt legislation in the 2008 session clearly establishing the right of every institution of higher education in the Commonwealth to regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so desires.

The Brady Campaign is proud to stand with America’s law enforcement representatives like Col. Massengill who call for such basic requirements. None of these recommendations should be controversial. But even now – seven months after the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with guns he should never have been allowed to buy – the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 still languishes in the U.S. Senate. Why?

This bill will give states incentives to supply records of the dangerously mentally ill to the National Instant Background Check System. Senate leaders from both parties strongly support passage of the bill, including Virginia Sen. John Warner, and New York Sen. Charles Schumer. There is no reason this bill should be stalled another day.

We should urge Congress to make America’s gun laws stronger. The Senate should pass the NICS Improvement Act as soon as possible, and send it to President Bush for his signature.

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.