The survey is
here [pdf].
Here are the questions:
Do you agree: we can both do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?
Um, yeah. We can do things like
prosecuting violations of laws that are already on the books. More on that later.
Of course, that's not "doing more." "Doing more" means doing everything Bloomberg's (and only Bloomberg's) way.
Under federal law, anyone who buys a gun from a federally licensed dealer must pass a criminal background check, but the same per-son can end-run this requirement by buying a gun from an unlicensed seller, including from a stranger that the buyer met online or at a gun show. This loophole enables felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers to buy guns with no questions asked. In the states that require background checks on all handgun sales, there are 38% fewer women shot to death by their intimate partners and 39% fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns. Do you support requiring background checks for all gun sales (with reasonable exceptions such as for transfers between close family members and temporary transfers for hunting and self-defense)?
The data used to cite the allegations of law enforcement and domestic violence shootings doesn't appear to exist in the study he linked. Furthermore, the study omits New York completely, and it fails to take into account any number of other factors.
Incidentally,
the situation is not a loophole. Advocates of the Brady Act knew it would never pass if it mandated checks on private sales, and they agreed to it. That's not a
loophole.
Federal law prohibits anyone from having firearms if they have been convicted of abusing their spouses, or if they are the subjects of active restraining orders taken out by their spouses, but not if they have been convicted of stalking or have been convicted of abusing their dating partners. The share of intimate partner violence that occurs in dating relationships has been steadily growing—and as of 2008, more domestic violence homicides were committed by dating partners than by spouses. Do you support a law that would prohibit gun possession by convicted stalkers and people convicted of—or, who after due process, are actively restrained from—abusing a dating partner?
No, because the Lautenberg Act he's so proud of was overbroad and and its consequences are irreversible. In many states, something as simple as harsh language can constitute misdemeanor domestic violence. Defendants in such cases are often told they can will forgo jail time and a criminal record if they enter a guilty plea. It's only later that they find out they're barred
for life from owning firearms. Once convicted, there is no easy way to have those rights reinstated.
Nobody wants a wife-beating cretin to own guns, but existing law goes too far and serves as a poor model for future legislation.
Federal law prohibits anyone from having firearms if they have been convicted of abusing their spouses, or if they are the subjects of active restraining orders taken out by their spouses, but not if they have been convicted of stalking or have been convicted of abusing their dating partners. The share of intimate partner violence that occurs in dating relationships has been steadily growing—and as of 2008, more domestic violence homicides were committed by dating partners than by spouses. 2 Do you support a law that would prohibit gun possession by convicted stalkers and people convicted of—or, who after due process, are actively restrained from—abusing a dating partner? Currently, federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct criminal background checks on all prospective gun buyers. Be-cause websites that facilitate gun sales are not held to similar standards, unlicensed high-volume sellers use these sites to sell guns to a vast market of anonymous buyers without background checks—making it easy for felons and other dangerous people to buy guns from strangers they meet online with no questions asked. In fact, an estimated 25,000 guns are transferred to criminals with prohibiting records each year on one website alone, Armslist.com. 3 This double standard makes it easy for prohibited people to get guns, and it gives unlicensed high-volume sellers who use websites like Armslist an unfair advantage over licensed gun dealers. Do you support legislation that would level the playing field by treating sites like Armslist as licensed gun brokers, and require a background check every time someone buys a gun through one of these sites?
The bolded allegation is supported only by a study conducted by Mr. Bloomberg's own organization. To the contrary, a study of prison inmates conducted by the Department of Justice in 2008 (and repeated in 2010 and 2013) showed that less than 2% of crime guns in the United States are purchased via websites, flea markets, and gun shows. The majority come from family members, theft, and straw purchases.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is missing hundreds of thousands of records that would block dan-gerous people, including those with severe mental illness, from passing background checks when they try to buy guns. States are responsible for sending these records to NICS, but vary widely in their performance. Do you support an increase in congressional funding for the federal grant programs that help states submit their records?
Yes, and so did the NRA. The suggestion was shouted down because everyone went ban-crazy at the time.
People listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes—but current federal law does not bar them from buying guns or explosives. Indeed, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, people on terror watch lists bought firearms or explosives from licensed dealers 1,321 times between 2004 and 2010. 4 Do you support legisla-tion—drafted by the George W. Bush administration—that would close this “terror gap” by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?
No, because the terror watch list is arbitrary, shrouded in secrecy, and prone to errors. It's a backdoor to the deprivation of rights by administrative fiat.
Under current law, it is difficult to prosecute and convict people suspected of trafficking illegal guns because the penalties for traffick-ing are small and violations are difficult to prove. In fact, the current penalty for gun trafficking is the same as for trafficking chickens across state lines. 5 Do you support legislation that would create a strong federal gun trafficking statute with serious penalties?
The penalties are actually quite severe. The problem is that they're rarely enforced. One of the primary traffickers in the ATF's Fast & Furious debacle
received a sentence of only 41 months. I have personally watched local prosecutors throw out trafficking charges because federal prosecutors didn't deem them worth the trouble.
In many mass shootings, including the 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, AZ, bystanders have been able to subdue perpetrators of mass shootings when the shooters stop to reload. Research from Virginia showed that the federal limit on high-capacity magazines in effect from 1994 to 2004 led to a 50% reduction in criminals being armed with high-capacity magazines—and when the law expired, the share of crime guns with such magazines doubled. 6 Several states have enacted limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?
The link to the "study" is dead, so it's impossible to verify. That data is questionable and screams for verification. The majority of weapons used in crimes in this country are cheap, low-capacity pistols and shotguns, not high-capacity rifles.
Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have child access prevention laws, which allow criminal charges for adult gun owners who fail to store their guns safely and keep them out of the reach of children. Do you support laws that allow a prosecutor to bring charges if a gun owner stores a firearm negligently, a minor accesses the gun, and harm results?
I'm not aware of any state in the Union in which someone could not be prosecuted for negligence under current law. Adding another law on top of it is symbolic and hollow.
Historically, states have set their own laws for who may carry a concealed gun and where they may carry it in public. Many states re-quire applicants to be trained in gun safety and do not grant concealed carry permits to teenagers or people who have recently been convicted of assault, battery, or stalking offenses—while other states have weaker standards and will allow individuals like these to carry in public. Some in Congress have proposed “national concealed carry reciprocity” legislation, which would create a new federal mandate forcing every state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state, no matter how lax a state’s laws are. Do you oppose national concealed carry reciprocity, which would overturn state public safety laws and replace them with a lowest-common denominator standard?
We've actually had that argument on this forum. If such a bill were to pass, states like New York and California would insist on the highest possible standards for issuance. Such a bill wouldn't be able to pass the House without their approval, so the idea is flawed.
Now, is this going to really do much to counteract similar efforts from the NRA? No. Many politicians care about their NRA grade. It can make or break a campaign in some quarters. Bloomberg's endorsement? It's not so valuable. The people who covet his approval already have it, and those who don't aren't going to be cowed by him. Let him spend his money this way. Perhaps a few disappointments will convince him to spend it on something else.
