Editorial: Loophole in gun sales

Friday, Feb. 2, 2007 | 7:08 a.m.

Sales at a gun store in Sparks, a city outside of Reno, are under federal investigation as the result of a finding by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Sixteen guns used in crimes committed by gang members or other criminals in Compton, Calif., during 2006 were traced to the store. Another 65 guns recovered by police in Los Angeles last year were traced to the store. And an additional 285 guns recovered by police nationwide were also traced to that same store.

The information was reported Jan. 23 in a Los Angeles Times story about an all-out effort by sheriff's deputies and detectives to crack down on violence in Compton. A large part of the effort, in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, is being devoted to tracing the origins of the guns linked to crimes in the city.

Although the greater share of the nearly 900 weapons confiscated in Compton last year had originally been sold in California, "scores" of them had originally been sold in Nevada, Arizona and Colorado, the paper reported.

A loophole in federal gun regulations, and laxity in the laws of many states, including Nevada, are likely contributing to the ease with which gang members and other criminals obtain their firearms.

Federal law, which includes the Brady Bill inspired by the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, requires that dealers in gun shops have a federal firearms license and withhold delivery of their sales until their customers are cleared through background checks, which today are accomplished in minutes using a national database.

But what if a person who can clear a background check begins making "straw purchases" - defined as those made with the intent of giving or selling guns to criminals? This is where the loophole lies.

Federal law omits any requirement that a private owner's transfer of a weapon be recorded, and that the new owner first undergo a background check. It is estimated that 40 percent of all gun purchases in the country are private deals between individuals.

A few states have passed their own laws to close this loophole. In California, for example, investigators have a state law to work with as they continue tracing the origins of guns used in murders and other crimes in Compton. Gun owners in that state are responsible at all times for their weapons and must notify police of any intended transfer, so that a background check on the new owner can be conducted.

But most states do not have such a law. Nevada, for example, does not require private transfers of gun ownership to be recorded and leaves it up to the seller whether to request a background check on the purchaser. The law even endorses unreported sales, stating plainly that "the failure of (the seller) to request (a background check) ... before transferring a firearm to another person does not give rise to any civil cause of action."

California authorities, in the Compton investigation, said only a couple dozen of the guns confiscated had been reported stolen, according to the Times article. "It tells us that these people (original gun owners) are selling them," an investigator told the paper.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, the Times reported, said the information gathered so far in the investigation "suggests that federal and local authorities need to significantly improve the tracking of weapons that change hands."

Such a requirement would take just long enough for the private seller and purchaser to go to the nearest gun shop and have a dealer with a federal firearms license record the sale and run a quick background check, perhaps for a nominal fee.

Congress should overcome its fear of the National Rifle Association - a powerful lobbying group that believes all personal weapons, from handguns to military assault rifles, should be sold with no government oversight - and amend federal law to require that all gun sales be recorded and be accompanied by background checks.

The Brady Bill, the 1994 federal law that requires background checks on customers of licensed gun stores, will not be truly effective until such an amendment is passed. And Nevada should amend its law to add the same requirements.

Our view is that background checks and record keeping pass constitutional muster and therefore should apply evenly to all guns sales, not just those handled by dealers with federal firearms licenses. Honest gun owners would still enjoy the freedom guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Criminals, though, would have a harder time obtaining guns, and if they did use a gun while committing a crime, they would likely find their freedom coming to an end much sooner.