Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam

posted at 6:01 pm on January 29, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Dianne Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban may be DOA on Capitol Hill, but that doesn’t mean that Congress is dormant on the issue of guns.  A bipartisan group in the Senate have quietly begun working with both gun-rights and gun-control activists on the issue of background checks, and may soon have a competing proposal to Feinstein’s bill that will address mental-health issues and gaps in gun purchases.  USA Today’s Jackie Kucinich reports that a Gang of Four are working on the bill:

A bipartisan coalition of senators is working on a proposal to strengthen and expand background checks for potential gun purchasers in an attempt to break the partisan gridlock holding up regulations on gun ownership.

Members of the group, which includes Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have declined to discuss specifics of the talks or of a potential bill. …

The nation must improve the system to encourage states to report the mentally ill and install protections for doctors to enable them to report patients who are “obviously psychotic” to prohibit them from buying guns, Coburn said. …

Last weekend, Manchin told a West Virginia radio station he was working with Democratic and Republican senators, as well as the National Rifle Association, on something gun rights supporters could back. Such a bill, Manchin said, “basically says that if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check.”

This looks like a fallback position for the Senate, and a fairly safe one.  Recent polling consistently shows broad support for expanding background checks.  A recent CBS poll showed 92% of respondents in favor of universal background checks, which include 89% of Republicans, 93% of respondents living in gun-owning households, and 85% of respondents either belonging to the NRA or living with an NRA member.  (The question was fairly straightforward — “Do you favor or oppose a federal  law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?”)  That’s as close to consensus as one is likely to see on a political topic.  If a CBS poll isn’t to your taste, last week’s Rasmussen poll showed 53% of likely voters favoring background checks on existing gun owners, not on new sales but on being allowed to keep the firearms already owned.

Small wonder that Chuck Schumer calls expanded background checks “the sweet spot.” That will give Congress a chance to claim that they are doingsomething in the wake of the Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson mass shootings while bypassing the more politically dangerous action of banning weapons — especially since there will be no functional difference between banned and allowed semi-automatic rifles, and since murders by rifles of any kind are an exceedingly small percentage of the overall level of homicide victims.  Background checks would have the virtue of addressing the entirety of firearms, too, without pursuing outright bans based on aesthetics.

CBS and Barack Obama use the fallacious 40% reference on gun sales that take place without background checks, and the supposed gun-show loophole that bypasses the requirement.  As Glenn Kessler belatedly ruled, those are Pinocchio-worthy claims.  Dealers who sell firearms at gun shows have to comply with background-check and waiting-period requirements, just as if they sold the weapons in their stores.  Around 14% of gun sales don’t get background checks now, though, thanks to private sales.  In order to change that, Congress would have to mandate that people conduct background checks for private transfers.  That’s not as onerous as it sounds; internet sales use federally-licensed dealers as brokers to handle the transaction, and dealers could offer that service for private transactions, too.  It would add to the cost of the sale, but it’s not an insurmountable issue.

However, that prompts this question: just which tragedy would that have averted?  In Newtown, the shooter got his weapons the way most criminals do — by stealing them.  In fact, a background check thwarted his attempt to buy his own firearms.  The Aurora shooter apparently purchased his weapons legally, but didn’t have anything on his record that would have stopped the sale; even assuming that the Gang of Four expand the investigations into mental health for background checks, the only instances of mental-health assessments he had prior to the shooting appear to have been informal.  The Tucson shooter had an arrest for drug-paraphernalia possession on his record, but never submitted to a mental-health exam.  The background check expansion might be worth doing, but it would have done nothing to stop the incidents driving the public outrage.

Update: I’m with War Planner in the comments: “No problem with background checks; just no permanent registration of firearms.” But let’s be clear that these background checks will not have much impact on the kinds of mass shootings that are driving this debate, although they may help keep firearms out of the hands of more ordinary criminals.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

“Bipartisan” is usually code for “Democrats and Coburn.”

steebo77 on January 29, 2013 at 6:10 PM

So their going to eliminate person to person sales of a tool? I hope the supremes have something to say about restricting commerce and right to own a firearm then.

ConcealedKerry on January 29, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Don’t trust the feds after F&F. Keep it to the state level and have the states communicate with each other. A guy that is a lifelong state resident won’t be impacted and if a guy just moved in then he should be researched in the state(s) he came from.

DanMan on January 29, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Won’t stop one single crime or murder.

tom daschle concerned on January 29, 2013 at 6:12 PM

You remember TOM COBURN…..the guy that went to Florida to save McCain in 2008.

He’s a disgrace, friend of Obama, and a BIG GOVING, Ruling class wannabe.

He wants to be invited to the parties in Georgetown after he leaves office. It can’t be soon enough.

NO MORE INFRINGEMENT Mr. Senator!!!

PappyD61 on January 29, 2013 at 6:12 PM

It’s still a camel’s nose under the tent.

tru2tx on January 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam

A recent CBS poll showed 92% of respondents in favor of universal background checks, which include 89% of Republicans, 93% of respondents living in gun-owning households, and 85% of respondents either belonging to the NRA or living with an NRA member. (The question was fairly straightforward — “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?”

Fools and damned fools, a pox on all of their houses. What kind of imbecile does not understand that anything you have to ask permission for is something that is a privilege, not a right.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

CBS and Barack Obama use the fallacious 40% reference on gun sales that take place without background checks, and the supposed gun-show loophole that bypasses the requirement. As Glenn Kessler belatedly ruled, those are Pinocchio-worthy claims. Dealers who sell firearms at gun shows have to comply with background-check and waiting-period requirements, just as if they sold the weapons in their stores. Around 14% of gun sales don’t get background checks now, though, thanks to private sales. In order to change that, Congress would have to mandate that people conduct background checks for private transfers. That’s not as onerous as it sounds; internet sales use federally-licensed dealers as brokers to handle the transaction, and dealers could offer that service for private transactions, too. It would add to the cost of the sale, but it’s not an insurmountable issue.

..exactly, this would be just like Obama crowing about his tax victory and — in reality — having 99% of the Bush tax cuts become permanent. No problem with background checks; just no permanent registration of firearms.

The War Planner on January 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

steebo77 on January 29, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Where’s Maverick.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam

So is this a Republicrat, or a Demopublican effort?

sharrukin on January 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Enumerated powers. Show me one power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to do this.

Shump on January 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Where would the government get the authority to control everyone’s personal property like this?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Universal background checks will be completely ineffective without nationwide gun registration. Most states do not register firearms, so enforcement would not work unless there is a central registry. Why would anyone go through an FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder, pay the fees, and spend their time when they can simply sell a gun in a face-to-face private sale. There is no way the government would know the gun’s whereabouts without a registry.

Likewise, gun registration would NOT stop gun crime or theft. Think about it, cars are registered, but it does nothing to eliminate reckless driving, auto theft, drunk driving, and hit & runs. It only serves as a vehicle to higher fees, taxes, and repossession (pun intended by the way).

The only thing gun registration will do is allow the federal government to tax gun owners, and confiscate their firearms.

Universal background checks” is a non-starter. It is simply the government’s foot in the door to taxation on gun owners and ultimately gun confiscation.

dugan on January 29, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Enumerated powers. Show me one power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to do this.

Shump on January 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

It’s in the exact same place that allows the Federal and State Governments to require firearms registrations and provides for the right of every woman to have an abortion. In other words, it in the minds and intention of fools and enemies of the United States Constitution and no where else.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Show me one power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to do this.

Shump on January 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Obama says so. He taught Constitutional Law, dontcha know.

Washington Nearsider on January 29, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Show me one power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to do this.

Shump on January 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM


“Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Washington Nearsider on January 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM

No problem with background checks; just no permanent registration of firearms.

The War Planner on January 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Sorry, but I do. Please be so kind as to show me the definition of “Shall not be Infringed” and then explain how a background check or registration does not completely and totally infringe upon the 2nd amendment.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM

There is no good reason for any additional measures to be taken. SH was a tragedy perpetrated by an evil person. There is no reason for any governmental action.

tom daschle concerned on January 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Enumerated powers. Show me one power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to do this.

Shump on January 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

The current background check law has a line requiring that the firearm be in interstate commerce. And the courts currently interpret interstate commerce power to include anything that affects interstate commerce in the broadest possible sense.

Like it or not, it’s constitutional under the insanely broad court interpretation we live under.

Nessuno on January 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

The same people who think it’s an outrageous outrage that a teenager be required to notify her parents before she kills her baby in the womb want required background checks for guns.

How about this: let’s just make a form available for citizens to go to their local PD to fill out and sign of any/all legal infractions. Sellers can choose or not choose to require this when selling an individual a gun. There. Gun control.

crrr6 on January 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

If I had bought any guns. Wouldn’t I have filled out an FBI background check? With all my info included on that form?

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:26 PM

‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/universal-background-checks-absolutely-not/#axzz2IomN3hMM

Florida – -(Ammoland.com)- Imagine if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

If the Obama Administration currently doesn’t have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It’s backdoor gun registration.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

Colbyjack on January 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Handy easy to use reference point for all future posts from D.C.

Is the person a politician?

Is their mouth moving?

Then they are lying to us.

Such a time saver.

PappyD61 on January 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM

I don,t know what these fools are talking about.Every time i have bought a firearm over the last 10 years i have had to fill out a form and the gun shop called a number to do a back ground check.The word expanded check sets off all kind of alarms.Sen Manchin from W Va.says if your going to be a gun owner you should be able to pass ground check.I agree Sen.Also if your going to be President of the united states you should be able to be completely vetted brfore you are sworn in.

logman1 on January 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Obama says so. He taught Constitutional Law, dontcha know.

Washington Nearsider on January 29, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Obama studied the constitution like a wrecking ball operator studies a building plan.

crrr6 on January 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Where’s Maverick.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Thought he was going by his nickname Marco these days?

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Won’t change anything and it is a trojan horse.

And welcome back crr6. The quality of trolling has gone through the floor lately.

CorporatePiggy on January 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Create the bill, and then hold it hostage until the DoJ/ATF comes clean on Fast & Furious.

Another Drew on January 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Of the firearms I own, about 1/2 were bought at gun shops and the rest via legal private sales.

Better go hit up the want ads before these jackholes decide to infringe even further.

Siddhartha Vicious on January 29, 2013 at 6:29 PM

For anyone hoping to be bailed out by the Supreme Court on this, don’t hold your breath.

They aren’t likely to overturn background checks for private party transfers (PPTs) unless there’s an actual showing of some sort of burden.

Here in CA we have to have a background check for PPTs and it’s not a major issue, aside from the additional cost. But by law, any FFL has to process PPTs, so there’s not a shortage of them. I’d make sure that same requirement is in any federal legislation.

Nessuno on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Enumerated powers. Show me one power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to do this.

Shump on January 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

The current background check law has a line requiring that the firearm be in interstate commerce. And the courts currently interpret interstate commerce power to include anything that affects interstate commerce in the broadest possible sense.

Like it or not, it’s constitutional under the insanely broad court interpretation we live under.

Nessuno on January 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

How is selling a gun to a neighbor or a friend interstate commerce?

Where does this Feral Government overreach stop?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

CorporatePiggy on January 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Nope. There’s one extra ‘r’ in there, and this crrr doesn’t say anything remotely as dumb as the crr6 of yore.

Washington Nearsider on January 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM

People say they support this in the polls because they are not being informed of what that really means.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Where does this Feral Government overreach stop?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Scary version? It doesn’t.

Washington Nearsider on January 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Nessuno on January 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

How is selling a gun to a neighbor or a friend interstate commerce?

Where does this Feral Government overreach stop?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

It doesn’t exist, and it won’t stop, even after fools like Nessuno have given away every last one of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Colburn again…the guy who considers Obama a good friend..

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Coburn-Obama-Personal-Friend/2012/04/19/id/436471

katy on January 29, 2013 at 6:33 PM

If “Prior Restraint” is an unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Speech, and the Press; why are not background checks, and registration, an unconstitutional prior-restraint on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

Another Drew on January 29, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I’m with War Planner in the comments: “No problem with background checks; just no permanent registration of firearms.” But let’s be clear that these background checks will not have much impact on the kinds of mass shootings that are driving this debate, although they may help keep firearms out of the hands of more ordinary criminals.

I really trust the government not to keep a record of who had background checks – de facto registration (or at least identification of high likelihood of gun ownership ).

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM

unless there’s an actual showing of some sort of burden.

Nessuno on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

This would require working through an FFL adding costs to the transaction.

It would also be a real easy way for the government to tightly control who can have a gun.

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. Lenin

And it would lead to registration and then CONFISCATION.

Is not being able to defend yourself and losing you life burden enough?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM

People say they support this in the polls because they are not being informed of what that really means.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM

The American people are fools and America is doomed, 90 percent support abolishing the 2nd amendment and are to stupid to even understand that, while 70 percent support murdering innocent babies. Not only is America doomed, but God Damn it with the average American being this stupid, America deserves to be doomed.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM

If “Prior Restraint” is an unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Speech, and the Press; why are not background checks, and registration, an unconstitutional prior-restraint on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

Another Drew on January 29, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Shut up, that’s why.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Where does this Feral Government overreach stop?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Good question. Truth is it won’t stop. Until we make a serious move to insure that it does.

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

At some point, that gun traversed a state-line; and if the seller was prohibited from selling it, the buyer would have to go to a commercial gun-shop, where the replacement most likely also traversed a state-line.

Another Drew on January 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Here in CA we have to have a background check for PPTs and it’s not a major issue, aside from the additional cost. But by law, any FFL has to process PPTs, so there’s not a shortage of them. I’d make sure that same requirement is in any federal legislation.

Nessuno on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Totally different thing. That is a state law, stupid, but within the purview of the state. Still seems to bean infringement. If they can do that, it means they can move to a more restrictive requirement, then another until the restrictions make it impossible to exercise your rights.

I don’t trust these jokers one whit. “Common sense laws” is just code for the next restriction on the way to abrogation of the second amendment.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:38 PM

What does “expanded background check” mean? It could mean anything.

I’d be far more comfortable with specifics on the table – like a specific list of criminal convictions that would disqualify a person from buying a gun

forest on January 29, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Nessuno on January 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

How is selling a gun to a neighbor or a friend interstate commerce?

Where does this Feral Government overreach stop?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

It doesn’t exist, and it won’t stop, even after fools like Nessuno have given away every last one of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM

At what point do we the people decide how far we want this to run out?

If they can have absurd idea that a person’s personal property is somehow interstate commerce and control it, can we not say that the government is no longer limited?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:39 PM

The current background check law has a line requiring that the firearm be in interstate commerce. And the courts currently interpret interstate commerce power to include anything that affects interstate commerce in the broadest possible sense.

But the “gun-free school zones” law was not. (US v. Lopez) Could get interesting.

Socratease on January 29, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Despite Media Claims, Survey Shows NRA Members United
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/25/despite-media-claims-survey-shows-nra-members-united-n1497516

93% oppose a law requiring gun owners to register with the federal government.
92% oppose a new federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens.

Methodology – The national survey was conducted by OnMessage Inc. Telephone interviews were conducted January 13-14, 2013. This survey consists of 1,000 NRA members and was stratified by state to reflect voter distribution in the 2012 presidential election. The margin of error for this survey is +/- 3.09%.

Colbyjack on January 29, 2013 at 6:41 PM

So, there is a problem with the FBI background check? Or not. If there is, why do they have it? Other than to bolster Galt2009′s assertion that they are over reaching. I am a bit confused. Isn’t the FBI background check Nationwide?

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I’d be far more comfortable with specifics on the table – like a specific list of criminal convictions that would disqualify a person from buying a gun

That’s already been established under the Brady Bill. Though Democrats may try to use this opportunity to expand that.

Socratease on January 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

The Attorney General already has the power to deny the sale of guns to suspected terrorists, domestic or otherwise. Now they want your doctor to also have the power to deny you your second amendment right. But as already mentioned, the holy grail for the left is Federal registration. That is game, set , match for the eventual confiscation.

weathermen on January 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Maybe the FBI, BATF should have done a thorough background check on Randy Weaver, Ruby Ridge, before they set him up on a sawed off shotgun “possible” transaction and then killed his kid, shot in the back, Wife, shot between the eyes while holding her baby and dog.
Maybe a thorough background check at WACO before barbequing a bunch of men women and children. If you don’t remember these incidents google em and familiarize yourself with what your jack booted ATF and FBI is capable of re US Citizens.

Line in the sand, no quarter, no surrender.

ConcealedKerry on January 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I don’t trust these jokers one whit. “Common sense laws” is just code for the next restriction on the way to abrogation of the second amendment.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:38 PM

And if amnesty is passed, it’s a hop skip and a jump to gun confiscation.

Amnesty -> Dem majorities -> Dem super majorities -> gun confiscation

I’m getting really effing sick of these Gangs of Traitors pushing crap down our throats and stripping us of our rights. We the People are supposed to just shut up and take it. Fornicate yourselves GOP.

TxAnn56 on January 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM

I’d be far more comfortable with specifics on the table – like a specific list of criminal convictions that would disqualify a person from buying a gun

forest on January 29, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Show me where in the 2nd amendment you find that written as an acceptable exclusion to the 2nd amendment. Because on my copy of the United States Constitution it say “Shall not be INFRINGED” Not “Shall not be Infringed except under these circumstances”.

Just in case you think that the Founding Father might have accidentally forget to put that exception in their but really meant to.

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:45 PM

At some point, that gun traversed a state-line; and if the seller was prohibited from selling it, the buyer would have to go to a commercial gun-shop, where the replacement most likely also traversed a state-line.

Another Drew on January 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I know that is one argument for federal over-reach and that there are no shortage of lawyers to try to make that point. However, if one looks at this, the government was able to regulate the interstate movement of that firearm from manufacturer to purchaser; however, once the purchaser has obtained it; unless he sells across the state lines, then they have no further jurisdiction. If it were otherwise, there is nothing in your home that the federal government does not have the power to regulate, evaluate, confiscate, or control because all of it has some origin in interstate or foreign commerce.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM

So, there is a problem with the FBI background check? Or not. If there is, why do they have it? Other than to bolster Galt2009′s assertion that they are over reaching. I am a bit confused. Isn’t the FBI background check Nationwide?

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

That’s with FFL ‘s (Federal Firearm Licensees.)

That doesn’t apply to transactions within a state.

If it does, where does it stop?

Background (or heath) check to buy a Big Mac?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM

If there were exemptions for family, and brief periods of loaning to friends weren’t an issue, I could live with this. But anyone who thinks this will actually do something meaningful is kidding themselves.

SAZMD on January 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM

At some point, that gun traversed a state-line; and if the seller was prohibited from selling it, the buyer would have to go to a commercial gun-shop, where the replacement most likely also traversed a state-line.

Another Drew on January 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I know that is one argument for federal over-reach and that there are no shortage of lawyers to try to make that point. However, if one looks at this, the government was able to regulate the interstate movement of that firearm from manufacturer to purchaser; however, once the purchaser has obtained it; unless he sells across the state lines, then they have no further jurisdiction. If it were otherwise, there is nothing in your home that the federal government does not have the power to regulate, evaluate, confiscate, or control because all of it has some origin in interstate or foreign commerce.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Exactly.

The Fed’s could have unlimited control over our property – where would it end?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Three things scare the blazes out of me:
1) the word bipartisan (it means the left wins again)
2) the word,
compromise (it means the left wins agains)
3) Bonehead is meeting with Obama
again(means the left wins again.)

Don L on January 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Ah, sorry I am being dense. Not unusual. I apparently have a very odd position when it comes to the 2nd, I think full autos should be readily available to citizens.

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Sorry, but I do. Please be so kind as to show me the definition of “Shall not be Infringed” and then explain how a background check or registration does not completely and totally infringe upon the 2nd amendment.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Coming on strong today SWalker. We don’t register to vote by party and we don’t register guns in Texas. The basic rule around here is if you know how many guns you have you don’t have enough. It would collapse our econmy to be taxed on guns owned and no pol will dare propose for it. Besides, there all at the bottom of the lake.

DanMan on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Three things scare the blazes out of me:
1) the word bipartisan (it means the left wins again)
2) the word, compromise (it means the left wins agains)
3) Bonehead is meeting with Obama again(means the left wins again.)

Don L on January 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

4) Reaching across the aisle (it means the left wins again)
5) Gang of 8 (it means the left wins again)
6) John McCain is on TV (it means the left wins again)

Just to add a few more

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

How about a law insuring one’s “right to privacy” with their gun?
Unlike abortion, at least guns (arms) are mentioned in the constitution.

Don L on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I wish they would go after the real problem…

Another School Shooting, Another Psychiatric Drug?

Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Selective fire as well.

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Besides, there all at the bottom of the lake.

DanMan on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Mine were all turned in at gun buy backs when I was on vacation in various and sundry blue states.

TxAnn56 on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Ain’t that the truth!

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Ah, sorry I am being dense. Not unusual. I apparently have a very odd position when it comes to the 2nd, I think full autos should be readily available to citizens.

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

You are not the only one. That was an over-reach by the FDR administration. Then, it was just heavily taxed. More recently, it has been restricted to only older full autos. This seems to be an unreasonable restriction.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

…Besides, there all at the bottom of the lake.

DanMan on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I saw this tax coming and decided to sell all of my guns and rifles last weekend at the gunshow. It’s for the best, really.

Fenris on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

If it were otherwise, there is nothing in your home that the federal government does not have the power to regulate, evaluate, confiscate, or control because all of it has some origin in interstate or foreign commerce.

Wickard v. Filburn

Socratease on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Exactly.

The Fed’s could have unlimited control over our property – where would it end?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Actually they already do have unlimited control over not only our property, but us as well. The question is not, where would it end, but when will enough America’s wake up to what has already happened and do something about it.

The difference between a right and a privilege is that you do not need to ask permission or submit a request or jump through any hoops to exercise a right.

If the Government can seize one single home in America for a failure to pay property taxes, in any state, then not only do the citizens of that state not have the right to own property, but in truth and reality, neither do the citizen of any other state.

If the citizens of any State in the Union can arbitrarily be denied the right to purchase or own any product that is legally sold, then no one has the right to own any property.

A privilege is a temporary grant to do or posses something that can be revoked arbitrarily by whomever granted that privilege.

That so many American Citizens cannot grasp the difference between a Right and a Privilege is profoundly disturbing.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Ah, sorry I am being dense. Not unusual. I apparently have a very odd position when it comes to the 2nd, I think full autos should be readily available to citizens.

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:53 PM

That’s okay – the question needed to be asked.

My issue is that this is just the start o a chain that results in the Government calling in our property.

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM

And who’s going to manage that database and how trustworthy are they, what’s the guarantee that information won’t be used for malevolent purposes?

Speakup on January 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Someone I know is a class 3 holder. He has a separate out building for his license. He told me the reason for that was to insure they could not come into his home. I only know anecdotally about that level of weapon as I do not own any. ; )

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 7:02 PM

GOP now quickly swirling the bowl.

Mr. Arrogant on January 29, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Time to expand background checks on Assault Knives? Sad news from here in New Hampshire:

LITTLETON, N.H. (CBS) – A man has been arrested and charged with the murder of a boarding school trustee at a hotel in New Hampshire.

Police say they were called to the Hampton Inn in Littleton Monday night where they found Dr. Catherine “Kitty” Houghton, 70, with multiple stab wounds. She was rushed to Littleton Regional Hospital where she died.

Investigators say Rodney Hill, 37, of West Danville, Vermont, stabbed her in the lobby. He was later found outside the hotel and arrested.

He was arraigned Tuesday afternoon in Littleton District Court on two counts of second degree murder.

Investigators told WBZ NewsRadio 1030, Houghton did not know Hill and the murder was random. She was a guest at the hotel at the time of the murder.

WBZ-TV has learned Houghton was at the hotel for The White Mountain School Board of Trustees winter meeting.

Houghton was living in California. She was planning to sing with the school choir Tuesday night.

Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2013 at 7:04 PM

And who’s going to manage that database and how trustworthy are they, what’s the guarantee that information won’t be used for malevolent purposes?

Speakup on January 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Joe the Plumber’s information certainly wasn’t released illegally to score political points, surely our privacy will be respected vis a vis our weapons.

Washington Nearsider on January 29, 2013 at 7:05 PM

The bipartisan love affair continues. And the romance is getting torrid. lol

tommy71 on January 29, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Let’s be blunt about this whole thing:

1) We know this and the other further infringements won’t do diddlysquat to stop the next massacre.

2) But that’s a feature and not a bug to the gun grabbers – because they will build on what they done so far to implement registration.. All the While solemnly promising it won’t lead to CONFISCATION.

3) And since Registration will not stop the massacres, the gun grabbers will use further crisis to CONFISCATE our guns.

4) Yet, that won’t stop the massacres…

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 7:07 PM

That’s not as onerous as it sounds; internet sales use federally-licensed dealers as brokers to handle the transaction, and dealers could offer that service for private transactions, too.

I’m with War Planner in the comments: “No problem with background checks; just no permanent registration of firearms.”

Exactly what makes you think this misbegotten nightmare will not morph into gun and gun owner registration?

The BATFE and the FBI are already keeping records they are not allowed to keep.

Why should the federal government have snooping rights when I give a gift to a family member or make a private sale to someone I know? How far do we permit the government to invade our privacy, with no discernible effect on crime rates, but significant progress to gun and gun owner registration?

How much will this stalking horse cost, in return for no discernible effect on crime rates?

I can tell you this much. Millions of gun owners will not comply. I think that is exactly what Schumer and Feinstein want. Because the end result will be criminalization of wide swaths of gun owners.

novaculus on January 29, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I think we’re being led down a dangerous path….

The major players in this scheme are Sebellius and Holder.

Sebellius has the ability to add ALL medical records into that data base, which can include prescription and electronic medical records. PJMedia and Daily Caller have both had small bits on these topics recently. She also has the ability to “tweek” and expand the definitions of what is mentally ill.

Holder also has the ability to re-evaluate the types of crimes that can have you disqualified to own firearms.

In short – none of it is good.

In the meantime, while I very much agree with our soldiers getting treatment for PTSD, I suspect that they will be one of the first mental illnesses to be reclassified…. the government already has their records and it’s a simple switch to flip.

Also – for all of us who don’t plan to tell our doctor whether we own firearms, consider – Doctors accept federal medicare/medicaid monies which makes them a Federal Agent, it’s a felony to lie to a federal agent.

2nd Ammendment Mother on January 29, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Wickard v. Filburn

Socratease on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

I’m familiar with that stretch. On the other hand the case with the Gun Free school zone law was a repudiation of that. Also, Wickard v. Filburn was somewhat different in what it defined as the interstate commerce effects. That is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions. Ever. Until Benedict Roberts’ decision this past year. That one ranks right up there.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 7:08 PM

If I had bought any guns. Wouldn’t I have filled out an FBI background check? With all my info included on that form?

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Yep. Had to fill one out today. What I think is stupid, is the redundancy of background checks every time I buy a gun. I had a background check performed to get my CC permit, yet I still have to go through the same thing with every FFL required purchase.

chewmeister on January 29, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Let’s see how safe it is. If progs want to expand background checks, make them provide nationwide “Shall Issue” CCW permits with both civil and criminal personal liability for civil rights violations by government officials who inhibit or delay issuance.

Dusty on January 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Yes, you are correct, it’s a depressing point, but correct all the same.

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Whats left? Ah yes. I won’t be surprised if there is a Gang of six working on climate change legislation. :-)

tommy71 on January 29, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Someone I know is a class 3 holder. He has a separate out building for his license. He told me the reason for that was to insure they could not come into his home. I only know anecdotally about that level of weapon as I do not own any. ; )

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Your acquaintance is a very wise man. ;-)

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Whats left? Ah yes. I won’t be surprised if there is a Gang of six working on climate change legislation. :-)

tommy71 on January 29, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Oh, I’m sure that’s coming soon.

chewmeister on January 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Yes, you are correct, it’s a depressing point, but correct all the same.

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Not as depressing as being forced to recognize that people you respect and admire have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to the point where they cannot grasp even the obvious.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 7:14 PM

F.U. pols. This will not be effective without registration, sooooo….

Bishop on January 29, 2013 at 7:14 PM

McConnell folding? Say it ain’t so?

Mr. Arrogant on January 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM

And the moment the DSM makes being a conservative a mental illness, the Left will have won.

What this will do is discourage people with lesser mental problems who also support their natural rights from seeking help.

Yes, that is the ‘sweet spot’ all right.

ajacksonian on January 29, 2013 at 7:20 PM

OK, for the brainwashed and indoctrinated among us. What is a background check on firearms purchase or ownership.

ANSWER: It is a check to see if the person submitting to a background check has the PRIVILEGE of purchasing or owning a firearm.

It really is that simple.

Once again, what is the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

ANSWER: A right is something that you do not need permission to excessive. While a Privilege is something that is temporarily granted and can be arbitrarily revoked at the whim of whomever granted that Privilege.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 7:20 PM

BTW…where did the president learn about skeet shooting?

Why, when he was but a mere lad growing up in Hawaii, of course.

See the video here.

trapeze on January 29, 2013 at 7:21 PM

And right there at the top of the page is an ad for mayors against illegal guns. O_O

Bishop on January 29, 2013 at 7:22 PM

A friend who owns lots of guns told me no-one needs a 30 round clip.
I told him no-one needs a Corvette or Camero.
He said yea but the kid in the Colorado theater had a ninety round clip no=one needs a ninety round clip.
And I said yes and it jammed as they are wont to do, if he had had one hundred ten round clips he might still be firing.
The RIGHT to keep and bear arms was not just a right to hunt, to defend ones self against ones neighbors, but to defend ones self against a tyrannical government that would seek to take away ones rights and that we surely have now.

ConcealedKerry on January 29, 2013 at 7:22 PM

internet sales use federally-licensed dealers as brokers to handle the transaction, and dealers could offer that service for private transactions, too

Some already do private purchases. Some refuse.

You purchase a handgun, there is a permanent record and searchable database. It’s called DROS (Dealers Record of Sale).

GarandFan on January 29, 2013 at 7:23 PM

ANSWER: A Right is something that you do not need permission to excessive exercise. While a Privilege is something that is temporarily granted and can be arbitrarily revoked at the whim of whomever granted that Privilege.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Stupid spell check…

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Agreed.

chewmeister on January 29, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Agreed, redundancy does zero to solve the real issue.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Mountain Men (hillbillys) are highly under rated for smarts. This country’s citizenry will be thankful some day and the rating will improve. ; )

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I can’t believe how people just ignore the whole history of gun control and the law.

None of this stuff will have a significant effect on crime. When the latest “common sense measure” fails, it inevitably spurs calls for further restrictions, as what was “common sense” the last time obviously didn’t go far enough. It is an endless circle of justification for ever increasing restrictions, none of which are designed to actually prevent crime but rather to incrementally restrict, further and further, the rights of gun owners.

We are talking about stepping into a situation where we no longer can choose to arm ourselves without the government’s permission despite our legal right to posses a firearm.

When this monstrous leap into government power over us fails to reduce crime, the very next “common sense” measure to close a non-existent “loophole” will be the forced submission for background checks and de facto registration every gun not obtained through an FFL with a background check.

Freedom and privacy are not “loopholes”. Giving one inch of ground on measures we know will be ineffective but will increase the government’s power over gun owners is simply insane. Just plain nuts.

novaculus on January 29, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3