[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Page 25174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CONDOLENCES ARE NOT ENOUGH

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech 
massacre, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine commissioned a panel of experts 
to conduct an independent review of the tragedy and make 
recommendations regarding improvements to Virginia's laws, policies and 
procedures. Late last month, the Virginia Tech Review Panel released 
its report.
  The panel was given the difficult task of reviewing the events, 
assessing the actions taken and not taken, identifying the lessons 
learned, and proposing alternatives for the future. This included a 
detailed review of Seung Hui Cho's background and interactions with the 
mental health and legal systems, as well as the circumstances 
surrounding his gun purchases. Additionally, they assessed the 
emergency responses by law enforcement officials, university officials, 
medical examiners, hospital care providers and the medical examiner. 
Finally, the panel reviewed the university's approach to helping 
families, survivors, students and staff as they deal with the mental 
trauma incurred by the tragedy.
  Among other things, the report points to weak enforcement of and gaps 
in regulations regarding the purchase of guns, as well as holes in 
State and Federal privacy laws. It talks about the critical need for 
improved background checks and the inherent danger the presence of 
firearms can present on college campuses. Tragically, many proponents 
of gun safety legislation have previously unsuccessfully attempted to 
enact the very improvements recommended in the panel's report. The 
tragedy at Virginia Tech underscores the need to strengthen gun safety 
laws. I urge Congress to wait no longer in taking up and passing 
sensible gun legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent to include the Virginia Tech Review Panel's 
primary recommendations regarding firearm laws in the Record.

       VI-1 All states should report information necessary to 
     conduct federal background checks on gun purchases. There 
     should be federal incentives to ensure compliance. This 
     should apply to states whose requirements are different from 
     federal law. States should become fully compliant with 
     federal law that disqualifies persons from purchasing or 
     possessing firearms who have been found by a court or other 
     lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others as a 
     result of mental illness. Reporting of such information 
     should include not just those who are disqualified because 
     they have been found to be dangerous, but all other 
     categories of disqualification as well. In a society divided 
     on many gun control issues, laws that specify who is 
     prohibited from owning a firearm stand as examples of broad 
     agreement and should be enforced.
       VI-2 Virginia should require background checks for all 
     firearms sales, including those at gun shows. In an age of 
     widespread information technology, it should not be too 
     difficult for anyone, including private sellers, to contact 
     the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program for a background 
     check that usually only takes minutes before transferring a 
     firearm. The program already processes transactions made by 
     registered dealers at gun shows. The practice should be 
     expanded to all sales.
       Virginia should also provide an enhanced penalty for guns 
     sold without a background check and later used in a crime.
       VI-3 Anyone found to be a danger to themselves or others by 
     a court-ordered review should be entered in the Central 
     Criminal Records Exchange database regardless of whether they 
     voluntarily agreed to treatment. Some people examined for a 
     mental illness and found to be a potential threat to 
     themselves or others are given the choice of agreeing to 
     mental treatment voluntarily to avoid being ordered by the 
     courts to be treated involuntarily. That does not appear on 
     their records, and they are free to purchase guns. Some 
     highly respected people knowledgeable about the interaction 
     of mentally ill people with the mental health system are 
     strongly opposed to requiring voluntary treatment to be 
     entered on the record and be sent to a state database.
       Their concern is that it might reduce the incentive to seek 
     treatment voluntarily, which has many advantages to the 
     individuals (e.g., less time in hospital, less stigma, less 
     cost) and to the legal and medical personnel involved (e.g., 
     less time, less paperwork, less cost). However, there still 
     are powerful incentives to take the voluntary path, such as a 
     shorter stay in a hospital and not having a record of 
     mandatory treatment. It does not seem logical to the panel to 
     allow someone found to be dangerous to be able to purchase a 
     firearm.
       VI-4 The existing attorney general's opinion regarding the 
     authority of universities and colleges to ban guns on campus 
     should be clarified immediately. The universities in Virginia 
     have received or developed various interpretations of the 
     law. The Commonwealth's attorney general has provided some 
     guidance to universities, but additional clarity is needed 
     from the attorney general or from state legislation regarding 
     guns at universities and colleges.
       VI-5 The Virginia General Assembly should adopt legislation 
     in the 2008 session clearly establishing the right of every 
     institution of higher education in the Commonwealth to 
     regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so 
     desires. The panel recommends that guns be banned on campus 
     grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law.
       VI-6 Universities and colleges should make clear in their 
     literature what their policy is regarding weapons on campus. 
     Prospective students and their parents, as well as university 
     staff, should know the policy related to concealed weapons so 
     they can decide whether they prefer an armed or arms-free 
     learning environment.

                          ____________________