Tom Mauser and the Fix Gun Checks Tour: Disarming lunatics isn't such a crazy idea

tom mauser at rally.jpg
Tom Mauser
Grief alters people. It can devastate and give a new sense of purpose. The murder of his son Daniel in the Columbine shootings has set Tom Mauser on a crusade against gun violence that, over twelve years, has yielded small victories and gradual change -- and plenty of blowback from gun enthusiasts, including the occasional death threat. But even Second Amendment purists don't seem to have a quarrel with Mauser's latest effort, part of a national campaign to prevent the mentally deranged from purchasing firearms.

At a sparsely attended rally at the Capitol today -- the number of folks behind the podium whose lives had been affected by gun violence far outnumbered the audience -- Mauser was one of several featured speakers who denounced the failure of the current background check system to catch "prohibited persons" who seek to purchase guns illegally. The gathering was part of the Fix Gun Checks Tour, a multistate campaign launched by Mayors Against Illegal Guns in the wake of the Tucson shootings.

Current federal law is supposed to bar convicted felons, domestic violence offenders, the mentally ill and others from gun purchases. But the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) relies on data provided by the states, and not all states are supplying full records to the system, citing various privacy concerns or a lack of funding.

"Some states say it's a matter of money," Mauser told Westword after the rally, "but it's an issue of safety for their citizens. They have a responsibility to see that these people don't get a gun."

After Columbine, Mauser successfully pressed for Colorado to close its "gun show loophole" -- shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, though underage, had purchased some of their weapons through an intermediary at a local gun show, where no background checks were required. That's still the case in many states; rally speaker Omar Samaha, whose sister Reema was killed at Virginia Tech in 2007, told of going undercover at a gun show with an ABC crew and buying twenty guns in an hour.

"Buying guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows is as easy as buying a bag of chips at a convenience store," Samaha said.

Neither Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho nor Tuscon shooter Jared Loughner were in the NCIS, despite histories that should have been entered there. Some speakers at the rally seemed determined to impose background checks on every sort of gun purchase, including transactions between individual owners, but at this point Mauser would settle for legislation that would make sure the federal database for existing background checks is as complete as possible.

"That's the low-hanging fruit," he says. "We have the names of people who have been mentally adjudicated, but we're just not putting them in the system. That's something we can take care of now."

New York Senator Charles Schumer recently introduced the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011, and today's rally is part of a larger strategy to get the likes of Michael Bennett and Mark Udall on board as co-sponsors of the bill. Neither one was present -- but then, there were no Second Amendment protesters, either. The people who did show up tended to have had some gun-related tragedy in their lives.

Maybe better background checks would have prevented some of their losses. In some cases, it clearly wouldn't have made any difference. But they still felt compelled to do something.

Twelve years after Columbine, Tom Mauser still feels the same way.

More from our Politics archive: "Tom Mauser, Mark Udall and the gun-show loophole: Why no deal?"

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

I'm a gun owner, always have been, always will be.

This isn't a red flag to me.

My understanding is the the purpose of the rally was to inform anyone interested that as of today, Colorado has not supplied any names (that's zero) of those who would qualify for the data base that already exists.

In other words, Colorado's not in compliance with existing legislation.

In a way, this is the unfortunate case of another unfunded mandate, as the 15 million allocated Federally has been burned. However, on the other hand, Colorado never applied.

I also fully understand the sphincter tightening that occurs in gun nuts when any talk of resonable legislation even like this occurs.

The "gun lobby" is moneyed up, well connected, and very good at messaging. Most 2nd amendment extremists get all information from conservative, republican leaning media sources that are certainly motivated to frame any gun legislation discussion in a "Obama's takin' yer gun" scenario.

This is a perfect example of exactly that.

I.E., read the post above by the handle with all the numbers and letters.

Now, on the other hand, I never heard any play on the Democratic sponsored legislation that now allows firearms in National Parks, but I really can't see how running that on koa, khow, faux news or 710 would further the goober hysteria the conservatives are trying to foster.


Columbine was all about stampeding people into supporting gun control. It is ironic that Mauser has fallen into the trap set by the perpetrators of that crime.


Current federal law is supposed to bar convicted felons, domestic violence offenders, --the-- mentally ill and others from gun purchases

Please reread your words, "the" mentally ill? Like "the" Jews, once? "The" Blacks? You do not intend the words you wrote.

What specifically did you intend?


"But even Second Amendment purists don't seem to have a quarrel with Mauser's latest effort, part of a national campaign to prevent the mentally deranged from purchasing firearms."

I can guarantee you that isn't true. Even if the NRA doesn't oppose these kinds of common sense things (and they more than likely do), there are plenty of nuts out there who think the more guns the better and that the problem isn't with ineffective background checks, it's that not everyone owns a gun. Because then they'd be able to protect themselves. Or something.


Point taken. The Brady Bill makes a specific prohibition for the mentally "adjudicated," people who have been committed to a mental institution or found to be a possible danger to themselves or others through a court-ordered evaluation process, and I should have been more specific in my summary.


Nothing like creating a strawman argument and then attempting to beat it to death, eh. I suppose anyone in your eyes who stands for the freedom of someone to make a choice to buy a gun or not is a "nut"? And yes, many of us are quite concerned when the government, whether represented by Chuckie Schumer or Sarah Palin, can create barriers to that freedom by ~their~ definition of who is "mentally ill."

Jim In Houston
Jim In Houston

Your knowledge of what gun owners and the NRA think is inaccurate and bigoted. You would do better to actually know people and their opinions before you just spew stereotypes.


Thank you.

"The" mentally ill is wildly popular today, it appears from politicians, professors, highly educated and wholly uneducated people, even -unanimously- from the US Supreme Court twice. Those errors, in Heller and in MacDonald, remain unnoticed by journalists, law journals professors, schools of law.

Harold A.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault