THE ARTICLE FIVE
APPROACH.
JOSH MCELVEEN: WE ARE GOING TO
MOVE FORWARD.
BACK TO THE PANEL.
>> MR. O'CONNOR, DO YOU BELIEVE
FEDERAL GUN LAWS NEED TO BE
TIGHTENED?
WHAT DO YOU WANT ADDED TO THE
BOOKS?
MR. O'CONNOR: I BELIEVE IN THE
SECOND AMENDMENT.
IT PROTECTS INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE
GUNS AND PROTECT THEMSELVES AND
FAMILIES.
AND FOR SPORT.
IN FACT, A WOMAN THAT IS A GOOD
FRIEND OF MINE HAS A CONCEALED
AND CARRY PERMIT BECAUSE IN SOME
PARTS OF THE STATE SHE DOES NOT
FEEL SAFE AND I THINK THAT IS
APPROPRIATE.
HOWEVER COME I DO SUPPORT WHEN
90% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT MY
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND MAKING
SURE THAT WE CLOSE LOOPHOLES AND
THAT THEY ARE EFFECTIVE.
THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS ARE NOT
COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE.
FOR EXAMPLE, A COUPLE OF WEEKS
AGO, A HOMELESS INDIVIDUAL IN
MANCHESTER WITH A VIOLENT
CRIMINAL HISTORY, EVEN WITH THE
THREE-DAY LONG BACKGROUND CHECK,
WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN GUNS.
AND THEN WHAT WE ENDED UP HAVING
WAS TO POLICE OFFICERS SHOT.
I DO NOT THINK THAT IS
ACCEPTABLE.
I WANT AN INSTANTANEOUS
BACKGROUND CHECK FOR ALL
AMERICANS.
THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPEDE
THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT, BUT
IT HELPS TO KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE
HANDS OF THOSE WHO WERE VIOLENT
OR COMMITTED VIOLENT CRIMES.
>> RIGHT NOW, SOMEBODY WITH A
CRIMINAL RECORD BENT ON DOING
HARM COULD GO INTO A GUN SHOW
AND POTENTIALLY PURCHASE A GUN
WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK, WHY
IS THAT OK?
REP. GUINTA: I SUPPORT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT
TO PROTECT YOURSELF OR YOUR
PROPERTY.
IF SOMEBODY WALKED INTO A GUN
SHOW AND WANTED TO PURCHASE A
WEAPON, HE WOULD HAVE TO GO
THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK.
SECOND OF ALL, I SUSPECT --
>> NOT EVERYBODY GOES THROUGH A
BACKGROUND CHECK.
REP. GUINTA: IF ANYONE WHO IS AT
A GUN SHOW, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO
DO A BACKGROUND CHECK.
NO TERRORIST SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCESS WEAPONS OF ANY SORT.
PRIVATE SALES, YOU DO NOT
SUPPORT THAT, THE UNIVERSAL
BACKGROUND CHECK?
REP. GUINTA: I SUPPORT THE
CURRENT LAW.
ANY FEDERALLY REGISTERED
BUSINESS WILL CONTINUE AND
COMPLETE THE BACKGROUND CHECK,
THE STATE CHECK AND THE -
CHECK.
THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
PREVIOUS ARE BEING TOLD OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS TRYING TO
PURCHASE A GUN YOU LEGALLY.
THEY ARE NOT PROSECUTING --
ILLEGALLY.
THEY ARE NOT PROSECUTING THEM.
YOU DO NOT NEED A NEW LAW.
YOU NEED TO ENFORCE THE CURRENT
ONE.
>> YOU FAVOR THE BACKGROUND
CHECKS.
DO YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE
FIREARMS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE
EXHIBITED -- PROHIBITED FROM
OWNING?
MS. SHEA-PORTER: IF PEOPLE WANT
A GUN FOR SAFETY OR HUNTING,
THAT IS FINE.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO
PROTECT OURSELVES AND EACH OTHER
FROM PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO US
HARM.
THAT IS WHY THE NO-FLY, NO BUY
IS SO IMPORTANT.
I KNOW THAT MY OPPONENT SAYS
THAT PEOPLE GET ON THE LIST
WRONGLY.
WE CAN FIX IT.
HE KNOWS RIGHT NOW THAT ONLY 60%
OF THE PEOPLE GET A CHECK.
IT IS LIKE GOING TO THE AIRPORT.
AND ONLY 60% OF THE PEOPLE GO
THROUGH THE METAL DETECTOR.
WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT.
IT HAPPENS AT GUN SHOWS AND THE
INTERNET.
FRANK HAS A NEW IDEA, HE WANTS
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CHICAGO --
YOU CAN LIVE IN CHICAGO AND
PURCHASE A GUN IN MONTANA AND IF
YOU PROMISE YOU ARE GOING TO
KEEP IT IN MONTANA, YOU DO NOT
HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING
FOR CHICAGO FOR A CHECK.
THAT IS SCARY.
THE LAWS NEED TO BE ENFORCED AND
WE NEED TO HAVE BACKGROUND
CHECKS.