We'll have to wait until Tuesday to see if this is the final "agenda", but I agree with the subtitle here that this is "A good start" ~ everything here seems eminently reasonable to me ~ I'll post the David Kairys piece in The American Prospect mentioned below next for the solid detail provided ~ I'm especially curious about mpicky's reaction to this ~ Sooz

AlterNet / By Steven Rosenfeld
Biden Unveils 7-Point Agenda for Gun Control
A good start.

January 10, 2013 | Vice-President Joe Biden's first detailed remarks about the package of gun control reforms he intends to present next Tuesday to President Obama are solid first steps.

Speaking Thursday in Washington in between meetings with various gun control constituencies -- from pro-control victims groups and public health physicians on one side to the NRA on the other side -- Biden laid out seven proposals that would more or less reset the federal clock on gun control laws to where it was in 1985, a year before Congress started loosening decades of laws under the Reagan administration and NRA lobbying. Biden repeatedly earned an F rating from the NRA during his tenure in the Senate.

Here are the seven agenda items, which Biden said had near-unanimous support from gun control groups.

1) Close the so-called gun show loophole. In 1986, Congress passed a law allowing people to buy a firearm at one of the thousands of gun shows held each year across the country. These sales require no licensing of the gun buyer, no background checks, no waiting periods before getting the gun, no reporting sales to local or federal authorities. Today, 40 percent of gun sales annually across the county occur at gun shows, and by some estimates 80 percent of weapons used in crimes are bought at gun shows.

“There is a surprising—so far—a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks, not just close the gun show loophole but totally universal background checks including private sales,” Biden said.

2) Universal background checks for gun buyers; and 3) improve background check database. These two proposals are connected and face significant political, technical and legal hurdles. Congress has barred certain groups of people from owning guns for decades, starting with felons in 1934. In 1968, Congress expanded that list to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill—named after Ronald Reagan’s press secretary who was shot—which instituted a federal system of background checks for gun buyers, and extended the waiting period to five days before buyers could get their guns.

The background check system has been in shambles for years, as AlterNet has reported, with three-quarters of the states choosing not to share court information about felons and the mentally ill with federal authorities, and the Supreme Court ruling in 1997 that states didn’t have to comply with the reporting requirement.

Even though Congress passed a 2007 law creating federally administered grants to states to overcome technical hurdles with sending information to the Justice Department (some states submit information electronically; others infrequently mail a CD) only a dozen states account for most of the data six years after that became law. Biden complained about this non-compliance Thursday. However, the solution doesn’t appear to be a quick fix if past is precedent.

“It doesn’t do a lot of good when in some states they have a backlog of 40, 50, 60,000 felons that they never registered here,” Biden said. “So we have got to talk about, there is a lot of talk about how we entice, or what is the impediment keeping states from relaying this information.”

4) Limit high-capacity bullet magazines. Every recent mass shooting has had high rates because the shooters had guns that not only automatically reloaded and kept firing, but were fed a big supply of bullets. Biden said there was near-unanimous support among gun control advocates to regulate higher-capacity magazines.

“I have never quite heard as much talk about the need to do something about high-capacity magazines as I have heard spontaneously from every group I have met with so far,” the vice-president said.

It is notable that in 1934, when Congress passed the first federal gun-control law, one of the key focuses was taking machine guns out of circulation, because they were used by gangsters for some of the worst mass killings. Congress did that by severely taxing those guns, making them unaffordable. Ironically, modern automatic weapons fed by high-capacity bullet clips are as deadly.

5) Allow federal research on gun violence; and 6) remove gag orders on federal agencies that collect gun data. Like the background check hurdles, these two proposals are intertwined. Starting in 1996, Republicans in Congress started doing the NRA a big favor by placing restrictions on key federal agencies’ ability to conduct research on gun-related violence. Those restrictions did not apply to car accidents, in contrast. Similarly, in 2003, Congress barred the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from sharing data in its records that traced gun sales.

Politically, the NRA was being very shrewd. It wanted to steer the public information and debate about gun controls away from the effects of gun violence to the terrain of constitutional freedom. By suppressing the public health science and data sources, it could attack its critics as being shrill and uninformed.

"So there was a real effort to deny the government just gathering the information,” Biden said. “As you know there are restrictions now on any agency in the government just gathering the information about what kind of weapons are used most to kill people. How many weapons used are trafficked weapons? Are weapons used in gang warfare in our major cities—are they legally purchased or are they purchased through strawmen? We don’t have that information. And the irony is we are prohibited under laws and appropriations bills from acquiring it.”

But Biden’s remarks about restoring the federal government’s research capacity were curious. He seemed to steer away from the NRA and instead target a much weaker industry, in terms of its political clout: video gamemakers.

“The last area… has to do with the ability of any agency to do any research on the issue of gun violence,” he said. “For example, we’re meeting before the week is out with the gaming industry—I don’t mean gambling—with the video game industry.”

7) Target purveyors of violence as a cultural norm. Biden’s most intriguing remarks came after he mentioned video games—which the NRA blamed for inciting violence in its infamous press conference after the Newtown shooting when it proposed arming America’s public school teachers.

Biden recalled working on a crime bill in the 1980s with New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said that Americans have been subjected to years of increasing violence and have come to accept deviant behavior as normal.

“He used the example of the assassination of a mob boss in 1936… making the front page of every paper in America,” Biden said. “And then he stood on the Senate floor and he held up the New York Times and on page 54, he picked it up, at the very back of the paper, where an entire family, including grandmother, mother, father, children, were basically assassinated in their apartment, thinking it may have been about a drug deal, and it made page 54. And he said, ‘We’ve defined deviancy down.’”

Biden is indeed correct that there are many cultural forces and factors that send messages that using guns and violence to settle disputes is acceptable. Anyone who has sat through the latest coming attractions at a movie theater sees many variations on the vigilante and revenge motif.

But what was noticeably absent from this part of Biden’s remarks were how the NRA has been encouraging people for decades to mistrust government and look to armed insurrection, if necessary, as a Second Amendment fantasy, with violent results. Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ would-be assassin, Jared Lee Loughner, was obsessed with the NRA’s "by-any-means-necessary" view of the Constitution and use of arms, according to many media accounts.

Biden made his remarks before meeting with the NRA’s representatives on Thursday. He will present his slate of gun-control recommendations to President Obama early next week. But the seven proposals he reeled off in remarks to the media would essentially reset some of the nation’s gun control laws to where they were in the mid-1980s.

What else could he propose? There have been no shortage of suggestions, such as: a national registry of gun owners; national licensing requirement to buy guns; mandatory registration of gun sales—including transfer titles like used cars; new rules on what ammunition can and cannot be sold; new bans on sales of guns or weapons used by the police and military; stiffer penalties for failing to meet these and other gun laws; limits on the number of guns that can be bought at one time; repealing many of the bad laws sponsored by the NRA since the 1980s.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. This American Prospect piece by David Kairys goes into even greater detail about what gun laws cannot just become law, but would be effective. Kairys, a law professor at Temple University, notes that the NRA has been employing a very cynical strategy for years: “proposing or supporting meaningless or gutted laws, then publically arguing that all we need is to enforce them.”

He concludes, “It’s time for our political leaders to pay attention and act with conviction and courage.”

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/biden-unveils-7-point-agenda-gun-control?paging=off

Here's the Kairys piece mentioned in the op ~ summing up neatly is the line "There are three main obstacles to such reforms: the Supreme Court, the NRA, and the politics of guns.", which are discussed below ~ Sooz

Assault-Weapon Bans Are Not Enough
David Kairys
January 9, 2013
To reduce gun violence, we need a sweeping reform of the way guns are bought and sold.

The Newtown elementary school massacre has finally sparked a discussion about what to do about the 80 gun deaths in America each day, seven of which are children.

But the dialogue remains constrained, as if we know we have to talk about gun control but we’re still afraid the National Rifle Association (NRA) will scold us as anti-freedom oppressors or start shooting. Beyond the obvious—banning assault weapons and limiting the size of gun clips—there is little information or analysis about concrete reforms that could make a difference. We’re still shying away from basic issues like how criminals, youths, and mass murderers get guns, why existing laws don’t seem to provide rudimentary safety, and why so little attention is paid—and so little responsibility ascribed—to the purveyors and profiteers of the gun industry.

Gun crimes are usually discussed as if the transactions and guns involved are illegal, but the truth is that most guns that end up being used in crimes are obtained legally. The problem is not illegal guns, but the essentially unregulated market in devices designed to kill.

Federal law and the laws of most states allow anyone who can pass a Brady Act record check to walk into a gun store and leave with as many guns as they can pay for. The guns are not registered, and purchasers don’t need a license. Beyond the initial check, federal and most state laws allow gun owners to go on their way. Since the Brady Act covers only federally licensed firearms dealers, purchasers who are not licensed dealers can legally resell or transfer ownership without doing a record check and without reporting or registering the change of ownership. This is the “gun-show loophole,” which opens the door for “straw purchases”—those with no criminal record buying for someone who does. Forty percent of gun purchases and 80 percent of guns used in crimes are obtained in this way.

Some states limit aspects of this essentially open market. A Pennsylvania law channels resales through licensed dealers, but provisions inserted at the NRA’s behest make the law nearly impossible to enforce. This is a typical NRA strategy—proposing and supporting meaningless or gutted laws, then publicly arguing that all we need is to enforce them.

Because owners don’t have to register guns or report transfers of ownership or thefts, law enforcement has no effective way to protect us or to identify who owns a particular gun. Federally licensed firearms dealers must report large-quantity sales to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (AFT), but authorities can do nothing unless they monitor the purchasers and catch them doing something illegal, which requires an inordinate expenditure of time and resources.

This is not a serious regulatory scheme for protecting the public, but a gun-industry-driven marketing system that maximizes sales. The unsurprising result is something we know all too much about—easy access for anyone who wants a gun, and for those so inclined, the capability to rather effortlessly inflict death and misery.

Regulations should respond to the specific inadequacies of the gun regulatory system: no Brady Act record checks for almost half of buyers, no records on guns and owners, unlimited quantities of guns and ammunition, no meaningful regulation of sales or re-sales by non-dealers, domestic availability of war weapons, and excessive bullet clips. Reforms have the best chances of adoption if they also respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own some guns for self-defense and hunting, and are strategically chosen with attention to the politics and culture of guns in America.

Because state laws regulating guns are often undermined if other, particularly bordering, states have looser or no regulations, the most significant results would come from national regulations. The following concrete reforms address the inadequacies of the current system:


There are three main obstacles to such reforms: the Supreme Court, the NRA, and the politics of guns.

The Supreme Court did not recognize any individual right to gun ownership until the 5-4 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia just a couple of years ago. Previously, the Court relied on the specific language of the Second Amendment to limit gun ownership related to militias. Since we don’t have anything like state militias anymore, the amendment was, like the Third Amendment banning quartering of troops in peoples’ homes, outmoded and of little current effect. In Heller, the majority—comprising the Court’s conservatives—adopted a sweeping new, activist interpretation that transforms the Second Amendment into a general protection of the right to self-defense. This despite the fact that self-defense was already well protected then and is now by state and federal law.

In any event, Second Amendment rights, like all constitutional rights, are not absolute. The court definitively overturned only complete bans on possession of handguns in the home for self-protection. And it explicitly left considerable room for constitutional regulation of guns. This opening, and the possibility that the Court will change in the direction of gun regulation after Newtown or with new appointments by a re-elected President Obama, means that many regulations short of prohibition may be found constitutionally valid. Unreliable predictions of constitutional invalidity based on Heller should not limit long-overdue regulation.

The other obstacles to reform are the NRA and the politics of guns. The considerable power of the NRA is not only a function of abundant funding, effective political strategy, and not-so-veiled threats of violent retaliation. Other rich, politically astute, and no less unscrupulous lobbies don’t do nearly as well. Lead paint, asbestos, and Monsanto’s PCBs got banned; tobacco is seriously regulated. Guns exact as great a toll as any of them, but the difference is that some guns also have legitimate uses, namely self-defense and hunting. Most significantly, many Americans identify guns with our highest ideals—freedom, liberty, and, for some, patriotism—and are at least suspicious of gun regulation.

These associations can seem misplaced, if not perverse, for those of us who didn’t grow up around guns and who see a compelling need for their regulation. But we dismiss this point of view at the risk of conceding defeat on gun regulation. Gun-control advocates should respect those who hold these views, which usually take a more moderate form than the extreme NRA version, and respond strategically. Polls show even NRA members want more regulation. The NRA manipulates the moderate version with slippery-slope arguments and paranoid fantasies of the government disarming all Americans.

The task for those who favor regulation is to focus on the divide between gun moderates and extremists with respectful, common-sense appeals, emphasizing the innocent lives being lost daily and the importance of responsible gun ownership. The problem is not just one or a series of attacks, but daily murders and injuries that can at least be rendered less frequent without any threat to sensible and responsible gun ownership.

Finally, in 2004 Congress let the assault weapons ban expire—a ban on the type of weapon used in the Newtown massacre. That’s only a recent example in a reprehensible legislative record characterized by NRA dominance. But we are currently in the most opportune period for gun reform in the last several decades, mainly because of the heightened disgust generated by the Newtown massacre. The NRA’s stance that, as always, the solution is more guns as well as Vice President Joe Biden’s forthcoming taskforce recommendations could help spur gun reform. But it will take an extraordinary, sustained effort.

The lives lost to guns, as well as the economic costs and the damage to the nation’s social and moral core, should no longer be regrettably normal features of American life. It’s time for our political leaders to pay attention and act with conviction and courage.

https://prospect.org/article/assault-weapon-bans-are-not-enough

A couple of decades ago (oil crisis) the feds witheld infrastructure funds from states that didn't reduce highway speed limits.
The same could be done if the states/GOP/NRA refuse to see common sense.

I agree with these. I think 2&3 are going to be hard to implement, so I would like to see how they plan to do so.

My suggestion is that private sales go through an FFL holder. When my husband buys a gun off the internet, it has to be shipped to an FFL holder, who then does the background check and releases the gun to him. Private sales should happen the same way. When you sell a car privately, you go to the license agency and sign the car over. Same concept here.

Makes sense.

I don't see how any of these 'laws' would have prevented the tragedies that have taken place.

They aren't "laws" but proposals that establish a starting point.
No "laws" will solve all the issues but it's better than sitting around doing nothing because there's no magic wand to wave around to make it all go away.

I tend to agree with Monster's statement...sadly.

I keep hearing the words "a starting point"-- I myself have used those words and I have to ask "Starting point to where?" Obviously we all want a safe society to move about in, one where we do not have to worry about our children's safety as they attend school but doing "something is better than doing nothing" I find to be a poor rationale; I offer the Patriot Act as an example of "doing something" that in fact was a hysterical response that resulted in a lot of harm.

Gee, let's remove all the seat belts from vehicles since they cannot save everybody's life in every situation.

Lol--touche!

As I and others have said repeatedly, the problem extends far beyond just the ease of anyone obtaining weapons and ammo ~ I understand Biden's "mandate" and I agree with his approach ~ yes, guns/ammo are a major factor ~ but we also need to refocus on mental health for any policy to be effective in decreasing violent gun deaths ~ I also believe the horrendous recession and massive loss of jobs/difficulty in finding new jobs has played a significant role, leading many people to desperation ~ and we can't, or at least shouldn't, give a pass to the "culture of violence" that is popular and far too common in our entertainment ~ movies, TV, books, video games ~

Sooz

The desperation resulting from job loss is largely due to all the gaping holes in the alledged "safety net".

If you really want to control guns, start by taking control of the messaging that promotes their use and "need". Laws aren't going to accomplish anything as long as there is a cultural element that runs counter to the intent of any legislation.

We are an image driven society, more so now than at any time in human history. Much of our cultural mores are derived from or defined by imagery. Therefor, the dissemination of alternative memes and imagery can effectively serve to balance the messaging to a far greater degree than rigid enforcement of unworkable laws. Isn't it better to encourage cooperation than to force compliance and risk resistance?

Gotta do both, Sid.

Again, I state, I don't see how any of these 'laws' would have prevented the tragedies that took place. Doing something for the sake of doing nothing is ridiculous. If you outlaw the 'size' of the magazines, you are going to create a black market for them and drive it underground. Chances are, the only time you are going to be able to hold someone responsible for having one in their possession is when they do a mass shooting.

I wonder why it is that the other developed countries have more restrictive gun control laws and significantly less gun deaths.

Which "laws" are you referring to? The current ones are certainly not working.

monster, you raise legitimate points ~ I'm not being snarly but what do you suggest? ~ I will never accept mowing down people, including children and young adults in school, because someone is having some kind of psychotic breakdown ~ I will never accept the "stand your ground" laws so long as they are read as a "freebie" for someone to release their own emotional hostilities on others ~ I don't accept there is any need for private citizens to own military-grade weapons ~ and I will never accept that we can't disagree on <whatever> without fear of being killed ~

The whole violence-centric mindset is an enormous and tangled/complex problem ~ we live in a crowded world, with [literally] millions of opinions on everything ~ it's a given that everyone will never agree on everything ~ I see gun regulation as addressing one part of the problem and the best place to begin ~ we seem to disagree on that and I'm sincerely interested in knowing your thoughts ~

Sooz

we seem to disagree on that and I'm sincerely interested in knowing your thoughts ~

And what do you have as a solution to the ongoing massacre of your citizens?

The only answer to your "wonder" that I come up with, oskar, is the cultural overload of violence we are bombarded with 24/7/365 ~ violence has become a "norm" here for far too many ~ and a large segment of the population sees "difference" as a call-to-arms ~ did you know that the NRA was in favor of gun regulation ... during the Black Panther era? ~ what does that tell us? ~

Sooz

The thought that chills me the most is that the assault weapons/high ct. magazines etc are designed with only one aim in mind--the killing of people. These weapons are not practical for hunting, target shooting etc. They are manafactured with the express target of people.

I understand a person perhaps feeling the need to conceal and carry (note I said conceal) for self defense purposes in certain situations, but for the life of me I cannot fathom anyone needing an assault weapon unless they were mercenaries or something...

To go out and buy an assault weapon demonstrates a willingness/propensity to slaughter another human being...sobering...

We have exactly the same "cultural overload of violence" here in Canada.

Ironically, USian gun deaths are sufficiently numerous to make a statistical difference in the life expectancy of USians.

For me personally, that's more horrifying than ironic, oskar ~

Sooz

The irony being that all those guns are for self protection... or so says the NRA.