Criminal history record information; adds definition of firearms show vendor. (HB745)

Introduced By

Del. Chuck Caputo (D-Oak Hill)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Transfer of firearms; criminal records check; penalties. Adds a definition of "firearms show vendor" and requires that a criminal history record information check be performed on the prospective transferee before the vendor may transfer firearms at a gun show. Under current law, only licensed dealers must obtain such a check. The bill also adds a definition of "promoter" and requires that the promoter of a gun show provide vendors with access to licensed dealers who will conduct the criminal background check. Read the Bill »

Status

01/18/2008: Failed to Pass in Committee

History

DateAction
01/08/2008Committee
01/08/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 084474456
01/08/2008Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
01/09/2008Impact statement from VCSC (HB745)
01/17/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB745)
01/18/2008Passed by indefinitely in Militia, Police and Public Safety (15-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: SB109 and HB592.

Comments

VACPS, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

PBI in full committee on 13-9 vote with all Rs voting against the bill. Then 2 Ds changed their vote and tally is recorded as 15-7. Upon reconsideration, the 2 Ds voting against the bill switched votes to support the bill.

Ronald Hintze writes:

I have attended many "gun shows" -- this is NOT where illegal firearms are traded. It's wrong headed to target legitimate transactions; focus on the criminals.

Ronald Hintze writes:

I attend gun shows. The criminal element is NOT at guns shows. This is wrong headed and an affront to legitimate dealers, licensed or otherwise. Vote no; this is BAD public policy.

Jennette Franklin writes:

Instant background checks pose NO PROBLEM to legitimate gun buyers. We should not be protecting the rights of criminals and mentally ill. We need to be thinking of protecting us, the public.

Jennette Franklin writes:

We need instant background checks at gun shows. This poses no problems for legitimate gun buyers. Unlicensed sellers can have licensed dealers perform this task for them. We need to have impediments to criminals and mentally ill persons.

Sara Ann Miller writes:

It seems to be something that dealers would request as well and not be a problem for them. Who would think of selling a gun to someone with a criminal background or a history of mental illness? I wondered why this is not done by the industry-hmmmm.

Carson writes:

It should be not be illegal for two individuals (not dealers) to engage in a private transaction without government intervention or background checks. The way this bill is written it will end the gun show industry in VA, which I believe is the real goal of the bill, not to stop the 0.007% of guns bought at gun shows that end up in crimes. And that 0.007% includes ALL firearms bought at gunshows nationally, not just private sales, so the number of guns that end up used in a crime after being purchased through a private sale at a gunshow is so minuscule it's impossible to measure.

Tony G writes:

This is a free association constitutional issue. That two people want to barter over a legal item is not the government’s purview.

What really sickens me is that the families of some of the VA Tech shootings were USED to attempt to promote this bill.

Fact is that were this law in place the shootings would not have been prevented by it because the shooter did not obtain his firearms from a private sale at a gun show.

It was wise that the bill was tabled.