Local Wars Against Guns

Five million people a year attend gun shows, and in most states the many who buy a firearm at these traveling bazaars are not subject to the background check requirements of the 1993 Brady gun control law. That loophole should be closed, especially now that the FBI is poised to roll out its computerized instant-check system.

Most gun show customers, like the vast majority of those who buy from gun stores, are law-abiding. But last year alone, background checks by vendors barred handguns to 69,000 prospective buyers with histories of felony convictions, domestic violence or severe mental illness.

The Brady law, mandating this background check and a five-day waiting period before a buyer can take possession of a gun, has enjoyed widespread public support precisely because most Americans agree that some people should not get their hands on a gun. But it’s hardly a blanket ban.

The Brady law covers sales through licensed gun dealers--gun shops--but requires no background checks for sales from private collections. That legislative compromise has allowed all kinds of unlicensed tent-show and kitchen-table gun dealers to carve a loophole a mile wide by claiming they are selling from their private collections. President Clinton has ordered the Treasury and Justice departments to recommend executive action within 60 days to fix this problem. This would be both wise and, we hope, feasible.

The FBI launches its “InstaCheck” of potential gun buyers on Tuesday. Brady law provisions end the five-day waiting period and background check once the national computerized background check is in place.

The new setup, assuming it works, will allow gun dealers to dial a toll-free number and learn within minutes whether a prospective purchaser has a criminal past. But we are sorry to see the Brady waiting period end; surely it served to cool off many who sought a gun in an hour of anger or despair.

Although the Brady law is popular, Congress remains reluctant to do much more to limit access to guns. As a result, local officials--the front-line troops in the war against street crime--are acting. Chicago officials recently filed a $433-million lawsuit against 38 firearm manufacturers, accusing them of illegally flooding the surrounding suburbs with guns they must know will be used to commit crimes in the city. Two weeks earlier, New Orleans filed a product liability suit, accusing gun makers of failing to incorporate needed safety features on weapons.

Locally, Los Angeles City Councilman Michael Feuer has taken a different approach, having filed a motion to limit purchases of handguns from gun shops in the city to one per customer per month. He is targeting so-called “straw buyers,” purchasers of multiple guns who then hand them over to third parties like street gang members. His proposal builds on ordinances already in place in Los Angeles and several surrounding cities that limit ammunition sales and require trigger locks to be sold with new guns.

These well-intentioned and laudable efforts illustrate the frustration of local leaders across the nation who are determined to stop bloody gang feuds, street crime and the rivers of guns in their midst. Yet even proponents admit that local anti-gun ordinances present big enforcement problems.

Clearly the best approach is for Congress to pass tougher and more inclusive legislation by taking a page from local efforts. National limits on ammunition sales and multiple gun purchases and requirements for safety features would be good places to start.