In the wake of the slaughter of 20 schoolchildren and six adults by a crazed gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December, the issue of gun control took center stage in national politics.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle offered proposals. President Barack Obama issued a collection of executive actions aimed to reducing gun violence. Gov. Jan Brewer called for more school resource officers, although the Arizona Legislature ultimately didn’t provide funding for the program. The U.S. Senate tried to pass legislation that enhanced the background check system, but a filibuster from Republican lawmakers killed the bill.
Here in Tucson, the City Council enacted a new policy that required background checks for any sales of firearms on city property. The requirement was aimed at closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows some gun dealers to sidestep background checks at gun shows.
Federal law requires anyone with a federal license to sell firearms to conduct a background check on buyers. But non-licensed dealers are not required to do a background check—and in fact, they don’t have access to the database that would allow them to do background checks.
Some states, such as California, have closed the gun show loophole by requiring non-licensed dealers to temporarily transfer the firearm to a licensed dealer, who then conducts the background check before approving the sale.
Arizona has generally gone the other direction, passing laws that prevent the county and city governments from enacting any laws that are stricter than state law on the issue of firearms.
City Attorney Mike Rankin came up with a loophole in the state law: The city still has authority over how it runs its properties. So he suggested the council enact a policy requiring any gun show promoters who rent the Tucson Convention Center to have background checks on all firearm sales as part of a lease agreement.
The proposal passed unanimously last February, much to the dismay of Lori McMann, the promoter who rented out the Tucson Convention Center two or three times a year for the RoadRunner Gun Show.
McMann questioned whether the city had the authority to require the background checks, but said she didn’t have plans to challenge the new policy in court. Instead, she said she’d move her gun show to private property.
This year’s crop of Tucson City Council candidates split on the question of whether the council made the right decision on background checks.
Ward 3 Councilmember Karin Uhlich, a Democrat seeking a third term, said she voted for the background checks because “to me, the majority of people in Tucson support that as a very reasonable measure, to have sales go through a background check. It doesn’t prevent sales, necessarily, or even cause any infringement on anybody’s rights to say we’re going to basically require people to behave as gun dealers, and gun dealers run background checks.”
Buehler-Garcia said he’s a gun owner who has used his handgun to scare off a burglar who was climbing through a window in his house.
“As a responsible gun owner for over 40 years, I don’t want someone who shouldn’t handle firearms, who has been legally prohibited from handling firearms, to have them,” Buehler-Garcia said. “Having said that, as City Council members, we take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the state of Arizona. The laws of the state of Arizona specifically state we can’t do that.”
Buehler-Garcia called the background-check issue a distraction from the work the council should be doing to fix roads and make it easier for businesses to create jobs.
The gun issue, Buehler-Garcia said, “is very complex and needs to be addressed at the national and state issue where it belongs.”
Councilmember Richard Fimbres, who is seeking a second term in his south-central Ward 5, said he voted to require background checks to improve public safety.
“We’re not saying you can’t have a gun show at the TCC,” Fimbres said. “We’re just saying background checks are a required part of that. … It’s important to know who we are selling weapons to.”
Republican Mike Polak, who hopes to unseat Fimbres, said that he would have voted against the policy because unlicensed dealers who sell guns should have the option of deciding whether to do a background check.
“Individuals who wish to do background checks, if they want to transfer a gun, they can go to one of those dealers and do that,” Polak said. “We lost a lot of revenue because there were three shows there a year and now those shows are no longer there.”
This article appears in Oct 17-23, 2013.
If doing background checks are scaring a lot of people off, then what’s this say about those who go to these shows to buy guns? Why would we want to be selling major amounts of guns to those who can not pass a check ?
Damn Jim, you would think after all these years and after all of the corrections that you would finally report on this correctly. Even the reporters at the Arizona Daily Star get this one right. In you article you wrote:
“Federal law requires anyone with a federal license to sell firearms to conduct a background check on buyers. But non-licensed dealers are not required to do a background check—and in fact, they don’t have access to the database that would allow them to do background checks.”
Jim, if you do not know by now, and you certainly should, if you are “dealing’ in firearms, you are required, by federal law, to be licensed to sell them.
Oh, and by the way, the penalty for selling firearms that are not part of a private collection for profit can result in severe penalties. Put another way, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!
“We’re not saying you can’t have a gun show at the TCC,” Fimbres said. “We’re just saying background checks are a required part of that. … IT’S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHO WE ARE SELLING WEAPONS TO.” emphasis added
There you have it. Councilman Fimbres wants to know who is buying weapons, not if they are mental defectives or prohibited possessors.
Many note that firearm prohibitionists like Councilman Fimbres, Councilman Uhlich and Councilman Kozachik really aren’t interested in firearm safety; otherwise, like the NRA, they would spend monies to train people how to safely handle a firearm.
No, they are more interested in prohibiting firearms first to certain classes of people then to everyone.
Meanwhile my street has grass growing up through the cracks and the road from the airport looks like it belongs in Somalia, not the United States.
Why does our useless city council waste time grandstanding on these hotbutton national issues way outside their core responsibilities when basic services are not being performed?
When Eric Holder mandated the DOJ ignore the paper laws, ie. lieing on the BATFE form when purchasing a firearm, it became easier for prohibited possessors to buy. After all lieing on the form is a felony, but Holder doesn’t want to spend resources on enforcement. Too bad though, it may have prevented some of the shootings. Now if Congress can ever figure out a way to include a data base of those folks who are, shall we say nuts, then it may be more productive.
Just another PC: I’m not sure why you need to hide behind an anonymous name to make your comment, but that said: You may have decided that you get to decide what the word “dealer” means, but I’m using it in the informal sense of a person who sells things. If you set up a table at a gun show and sell guns, I think it’s fair to refer to you as a dealer of guns, even if they are coming from your private collection.