Sniper Suspect Obtained a Rifle Despite a Restraining Order and Gun Laws. Under federal law, John Allen Muhammad was barred from buying or possessing a firearm because his second wife had taken out a domestic-violence restraining order against him in March 2000. By Fox Butterfield. [New York Times: National]

As with most things, my views on gun control tend to lean towards the left.  I think that Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms, but that the government has the right to maintain records of who has what in order to help track down criminals - for example, the suggestion of maintaining ballistic fingerprints of guns.  Yes, they can be altered, and no, they won't be foolproof, but they could help with solving crimes much faster than they're solved now - and, as in the case of the sniper, might help prevent some deaths or other crimes.  I don't see that it's such a significant intrusion on the right to own guns that it should be discarded out of hand.

Implementing better gun control measures, however, doesn't mean that we have to create a whole raft of new laws.  I'd be happy with making sure all current laws are properly and fully enforced as a starting point and see what is needed from there.

Muhammad was initially arrested on illegal gun posession charges related to a gun he had actually sold back in 2000.  See, in March of 2000, Muhammad's second ex-wife had taken out a domestic violence-related restraining order against him.  The restraining order not only precluded him from making contact with his ex-wife, it also meant he was not allowed to own or possess any firearms.  In May of 2000, he sold a Bushmaster rifle.  It was his posession of that rifle between March and May of 2000 that was the basis for the firearms charge against him.  Frighteningly, it took until May of 2002 - over 2 years after the order was issued - for it to be listed in the main FBI database.  During that time, had anyone done a background check outside the state of Washington to see if it was ok to sell Muhammad a gun, they would have not have been notified of the restriction placed on him because of the restraining order.

What's worse, the gun he used to kill his 10 victims and would 3 others, was shipped from the Bushmaster factory in June of 2002.  It is not known yet where or how he came to be the owner, but in all liklihood, he either slipped through the cracks (which there are far to many of to begin with), obtained the gun by giving false information for use in the bakground check or he purchased it at a gunshow where no background checks are required.

What it all boils down to, though, is that he should not have been able to obtain a gun, and yet he did. This is a serious problem.

As the above-cited article notes, both the gunshow loophole and the 2+ year delay in getting information entered into the FBI's database could be resolved, but political opponants are blocking them.

As for why it took so long to enter the restraining order into the F.B.I. computer, law enforcement officials said it was not unusual for the process to take months or longer.

A Justice Department study last January estimated that there were two million restraining orders around the nation, but that only 590,000 had been entered in the system.

A bill that would give the states $375 million a year for the next three years to catch up on the backlog passed the House of Representatives but has been stalled in the Senate by opposition from Republicans.

In recent years bills to close the so-called gun show loophole, in which a background check is not required when a gun is bought at a gun show, have faced strong opposition from the National Rifle Association. None have passed.

If it turns out that the gun was bought at a gunshow, maybe it will finally be enough to give Congress the balls to stand up to the NRA and close that loophole.  There's no excuse for it, and if it is costing us lives (which I believe it is) there's no justification for continuing it.   And hopefully Congress will also realize that a 2-year backlog on getting information entered into a database to help ensure that the wrong people don't get guns is also unjustifiable, and need to be corrected as soon as possible.

In just a few days we have an election where all members of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate will be chosen by their constituants.  Perhpas this should be an issue to take into consideration when casting your vote.  The problem isn't limited to the DC area - it could happen anywhere - and something like it is almost guaranteed to happen again if the loophole isn't closed and the database isn't brought - and kept - current.