Report: Bipartisan Senate group nearing compromise on increased background checks for gun sales

posted at 10:41 am on February 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

Reeeeeal curious to see what the vote on this looks like in the House. Expanded background checks is the one plank of Obama’s gun-control platform that draws extremely high support across parties. Here are the numbers from yesterday’s Quinnipiac poll, which are nothing out of the ordinary on this issue:

q

Pew found 85 percent support last month for mandating background checks “for private and gun show sales.” A week later, Gallup saw 91 percent support for background checks for “all gun sales.” Even Wayne LaPierre has been known to talk them up in the past, if not recently. Lots of political cover for Congress to make a move here, in other words. But will voting for any form of new gun regulations expose the average House Republican from a very red district to a primary challenge? If you believe the polling, it shouldn’t; even Republican voters like this idea. Then again, if you’re a GOP incumbent, why take the chance?

The group includes Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, who has an A rating with the National Rifle Association, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, a long time advocate of gun rights, and Chuck Schumer, D-New York, a long time supporter of gun control.

CNN is told the legislation they are working on would effectively require background checks on private gun purchases made with non-licensed gun dealers, according to sources in both parties. That would include closing the so-called gun show loophole.

However, the sources emphasize they are trying to work through this sticky issue so that Republicans, especially Coburn, are comfortable that it would address privacy concerns of gun owners, and would have clear exemptions for situations where a background check should not be needed. The most common example of that scenario is a grandfather or uncle giving guns they already own to a grandson or nephew.

According to sources in both parties, they’re making “significant progress.” The AP offers a few more details, claiming that sales “in remote areas” and sales to gun buyers who’ve already been screened and approved for concealed carry might also be exempt from further checks. Maybe the real question here isn’t whether a majority of House Republicans will support it but whether Boehner’s willing to blow up the Hastert Rule yet again and try to pass the bill with a huge number of Democrats and a few dozen centrist Republicans to push them over the line to 218. The votes are surely there to make this happen given the polling; it’s a simple matter of whether Boehner feels as comfortable cutting his caucus loose on an issue as red-meat as gun control as he did on drier matters like the fiscal cliff and Sandy relief bill.

Here’s Coburn on “Meet the Press” two years ago, a few days after the Tucson shooting, making the case that regulation should focus not on the arms but on the man. Hence his support for expanded background checks now; “the whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals,” he said recently. Exit question: Now that Reid has something to show the Democratic base as proof of progress on gun control, does this mean he’ll drop Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban, which was never, ever, ever going to pass anyway?


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

it’s funny how Redstate and other sites used to drool over Coburn and Demint as their idols– Coburn has become the new Arlen Spector

Funny, no word about “assault magazine” capacity limits, so it looks like they realize background checks are the only thing they can pass at this point just to say they did something

thurman on February 8, 2013 at 1:13 PM

I think that they should force elimination of “Gun Free Zones” as a first step.

As we are all pointing out..that’s where the problem lies. That, mental health treatment and criminal violence(gangs, etc.)

So Congress isn’t really serious about solving the problem of violence, especially the violence in GFZs. We know that.

My recommendation: Propose back to eliminate ALL background checks as a budget saving measure, since it is generally ineffective, inaccurate and costly on the part of business owners, as it can take time that could be better used to sell firearms and supplies. (AKA ‘Broken Window Fallacy’ is in full display by the NICS background check system.)

ProfShadow on February 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Meanwhile California is about to ban all semiautomatic rifles and is going to require a background check for ammo, along with a fee for that background check.

El_Terrible on February 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM

The process should be exactly the same as that used to register illegal aliens and dead people to vote Democrat.

/

Christien on February 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Report: Bipartisan Senate group nearing compromise on increased background checks for gun sales

Anyone who would support any kind of background check, is point blank, to stupid to retain their own freedom, and yes, that does include you Allahpundit.

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM

What fools! They didn’t have this background check regulation in place already?

However, the fact that they didn’t gives them cover, so they
can do so now. It gives the appearance that they formed this
committee, spent days/weeks/months in negotiations and Hurrah!
our government has done great things to prevent gun assaults in the future. This might satisfy some of the people who are up in arms(pun intended), not really paying attention, but, want something done so they can feel good. Lefties/libs are all about
“feeling good” don’t you know.

Our government is all Kabuki Theatre and “all hat, no cattle”
(My favorite phrase coming out of the Perry for President debacle.)

Amjean on February 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM

This explains everything – the land in the majority is utterly stupid. Period.

Beaufort, N.C.

Jan. 17, 2013

TO THE EDITOR:

Republicans and “so-called” conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?

We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great president came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us. I don’t know the exact statistics, but I’m quite certain that Chicago is a lot safer that Morehead City, when it comes to gun violence.

But do Republicans and conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not. All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth redistribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution, I’d say, and President Obama needs to change it.

The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.

Please withhold my name because I don’t want to get crank calls.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Meanwhile California is about to ban all semiautomatic rifles and is going to require a background check for ammo, along with a fee for that background check.

El_Terrible on February 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s an undue burden. Back door ban if you will. Stupid libs. I take my 1911 with me to California on my business trips as I like to visit the range to target shoot on my days off. I’ll just get my ammo in my home state and take it with me. The gun groups in California need to get their a$$e$ in gear and start suing the hell out of the state.

jawkneemusic on February 8, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Shall NOT infringe!!!

PappyD61 on February 8, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM

ROTFLMAO… Now that is some beautiful Bishop quality snark…

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM

If only…it were snark.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:29 PM

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM

If only…it were snark.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:29 PM

ROTFLMAO… It can’t be anything but.

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM

You sure it’s not someone trolling? That part about the C-section was quite… er… illuminating. ;)

kim roy on February 8, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM

You sure it’s not someone trolling? That part about the C-section was quite… er… illuminating. ;)

kim roy on February 8, 2013 at 1:38 PM

ROTFLMAO… Exactly, that is way to well thought out to be the insane ramblings of an imbecilic Obama supporter.

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I laughed when I read it – otherwise one would have to cry.

This commenter sums it up good

I would say this is satire, but it is not clever, and therefore think the person was being completely serious. Not to mention if you debate with enough left leaning individuals, you find that they fall into one of two categories. They are either intellectuals whom have a “worship of unreason”, or they are incredibly uneducated about the issues, and stick to talking points. I have actually spoken to Dems who sound exactly like this. Other than the natural born citizen line. The Democrats love the gun laws in Chicago. Yes, they are that stupid.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Meanwhile California is about to ban all semiautomatic rifles and is going to require a background check for ammo, along with a fee for that background check.

This is what happens when you’ve got a one-party legislature. They’re trying to outdo the stupidity of the New York legislature. If these laws pass, and Moonbeam signs them into law, hope they’re ready for the resulting lawsuits. The state has $20 MILLION in SURPLUS funds based on what they now charge for background checks for weapons purchases.

GarandFan on February 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM

SWalker, it’s not on Snopes. Find it disputed on one of the “truth sites”. I’d love to know too.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Heh, it appears real, from whatever angle. Even the cube is amazed

The following Letter to the Editor, published in the Jan. 23 edition of a North Carolina local paper and signed “PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT,” has gone viral on the Web after a reader linked it to a Fox News Facebook page. It had received more than 4,000 comments and been shared more than 12,000 times by Tuesday morning.

Your letters could be just as popular too, if you learned to write and think like that.

This author doesn’t just imitate the People’s Cube – he/she/it practically lives inside of it!

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Heh

This author doesn’t just imitate the People’s Cube – he/she/it practically lives inside of it!

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:50 PM

SIGH. Okay. I stand corrected. O_o

We’re doomed.

kim roy on February 8, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Heh

This author doesn’t just imitate the People’s Cube – he/she/it practically lives inside of it!

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Even the editors at the Peoples Cube think it is snark…

Now, which one of you Cubists wrote this? Was it you, Pinkie?

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

You sure it’s not someone trolling? That part about the C-section was quite… er… illuminating. ;)

kim roy on February 8, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Definitely a Bishop. BOLD ALL-CAPS at the end, just to set the hook firmly.

Christien on February 8, 2013 at 2:05 PM

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I’m not arguing against you – just can’t find anything on it. Usually these are disputed, true or false…nada.

The cube doesn’t say it’s parody. Of course, they don’t have to. They say the person lives in their cube :)

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM

When you gusy find that it’s parody, please post the link.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Background check format:
Are you a democrat?
Have you now go, or have you ever gone to church?
Can you identify the nearest abortion clinic?
Do you now or have you ever, owned a copy of the constitution?
Do you watch Fox News?

Recommendation:
a. request denied
b. request rejected
c. request sent to committee
d. what request?

Don L on February 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The Rs are really stupid. ALL background checks w/b subjective.

Goebbels has multiple orgasms in his grave. The Obama era fulfulls all his ultimate dreams, Utopian or other.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I’m not arguing against you – just can’t find anything on it. Usually these are disputed, true or false…nada.

The cube doesn’t say it’s parody. Of course, they don’t have to. They say the person lives in their cube :)

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM

You never will find anything confirming or denying that it is sardonic snark, because as you are well aware, it comes from an actual print newspaper and has no attribution to it.

Now, the question is, why did the newspaper in question decide to print that particular “Letter to the Editor” editorial. Think about that one for a while. Therein resides the answer to why you will never find conformation or refutation that it is anything other than sardonic snark.

a) either the editors were completely fooled (which they will never admit to) or

b) the editors knew it was snark and published it specifically for that reason.

And, there is of course a third possibility as well.

c) it was actually written by someone on the editorial staff.

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Why do you exclude option d)?

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM

No wonder, everyone was so convinced here was that Obama was toast!

rightistliberal on February 8, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Sober up and get back to us with that. OK?

Solaratov on February 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM

The MN house hearings are pathetic. Check out the link from the 02/06/13 morning session. All the DFL’ers are interested in is ramming this through ala BambiCare. I told my dad I would leave the state if this passes. I am not turning in or registering my guns, it none of their business. I love MN and the outdoor opportunities but I’m just getting fed up.

The gentleman speaking is a law professor at a local law school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1blSrn3MGNY#t=7550s
(sorry, I don’t know how to do the cool link name thing like you all do)
(posted on NRA late)
VikingGoneWild on February 7, 2013 at 9:45 PM

VikingGoneWild on February 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Mental Health records are supposed to be included in the NICS data-base – this is one of the shortfalls that Wayne LaPierre spoke about the current system in that many states just do not get this info into the system, mainly because the mental-health professionals just don’t pass this info on to LE, or LE just sits on it (Jared Loughner in Tucson is a classic example).

Another Drew on February 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM

My point is that “mental-health professionals” do not have the authority to deny any American their Constitutional rights. Is there going to be some sort of hearing or legal process before people end up on a list?

Murf76 on February 8, 2013 at 3:34 PM

MJBrutus on February 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Your naïveté is staggering. Until the economy is “salvaged” (which could take decades), you think we should wave the white flag of surrender on every other issue. Our freedoms and our Constitution be damned

The prize – the ONLY prize, apparently – is “cutting down on government spending.” Great. Who needs freedom of speech, assembly, protest, religion, the press, etc., as long as our annual federal deficit is under $500 billion?

steebo77 on February 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

MJB doesn’t give two figs whether the budget is balanced and the economy is “saved”.
He’s a liberal…a leftist. And as such, his sole purpose is to distract and obfuscate long enough for the Second Amendment to be abrogated by his obamassiah.

And, yes. He does believe that we should “surrender” to the leftists who want to destroy this country.

Solaratov on February 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM

My point is that “mental-health professionals” do not have the authority to deny any American their Constitutional rights. Is there going to be some sort of hearing or legal process before people end up on a list?

Murf76 on February 8, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Keene mentioned that any notification of mental illness in order to deny someone a purchase of a firearm should be adjudicated.

jawkneemusic on February 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Where to begin? As it stands now there may be a chance that so called assault weapons are to be banned. Who determines what entails an assault weapon? Based on my knowledge, I would consider all weapons potentially an assault weapon, after all they are constructed for this very reason. This would also include all sharp objects and objects that could be used for blunt force trauma. This must be sounding pretty ridicules even to the most staunch Liberal. *Failure

Next we have liability insurance for all gun owners. *Failure

What to do, oh yeah, we can do back ground checks on all law abiding citizens. This will be sure to keep guns out of the criminals and people with mental health issues. The only problem with this solution is criminals do not buy legal weapons (in most instances) and people with mental health issues usually don’t advertise their problem and there’s this little thing called Doctor Confidentiality. *Failure

DDay on February 8, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Woo hoo.

Gun show this weekend. I’m gonna get my 2nd amendment on.

I think I’ll buy from a private individual so I don’t need a background check either.

freedomfirst on February 8, 2013 at 4:51 PM

California has future confiscation covered in proposed legislation. I have yet to read through thread, so if someone else posted this, apologies for the redundancy.

totherightofthem on February 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM

FYI: A despicable group of d-cRAT socialist extremists and RINO TRAITORS is NOT “bipartisan” – they’re all the same.

TeaPartyNation on February 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

I wonder what my senator Tom Coburn conceded, gave up, or agreed to to gain the bipartisanship label. You all know that bipartisanshit only means the republicans conceded everything to the Dems. That is OK, this is the last election where the Repubs will remain a major or plurality party. If some group, that doesn’t include kooks that the DNC controlled press can marginalize, can get together before 2014 and come up with an intelligent program, the repubs may just become a distant 3rd party. Maybe they can run Karl Rove for prexy. Or maybe some rich dude, who really care, will buy up the DNC media and give us back a chance at our country.

Old Country Boy on February 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

They can’t keep up with background checks for the NFA items, if everything has to go though fingerprinting and background checks there will be no sales. Also, I don’t think my kid should have to go though a check to keep the guns I leave her (or her mom) when I die. This is a grab, it is just a slo-mo grab, but a grab none the less.

rgranger on February 8, 2013 at 8:44 PM

As an okie, I was fit to be tied ever since both supported McVain early and often. Thanks for the moments of fiscal sanity,but neither deserves another term. If they change their mind and try to run again I’d wholeheartedly support primarying them just on principle since they’ve slipped below the 80% mark a long time ago.

AH_C on February 8, 2013 at 10:55 PM

It really amazes me that Marxism still has this much traction. It’s never worked. It was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. It’s like a teddy bear of the mentally crippled.

WhatSlushfund on February 9, 2013 at 3:27 AM

The the latest “gun control” push is due to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Tell me how “increased background checks” would have stopped it. AZ,CO,CT shootings. All done by individuals with mental issues. Unless this problem is addressed, NOTHING will be resolved.

jack herman on February 9, 2013 at 6:45 AM

guys, we can post comments and replies all day but how do we STOP THIS???? we need to pound the wrongs with this plan into Ed and Allah’s thisk skulls. background checks are inherently evil and do nothing to stop any of the killings. Killers will kill.

dip it in cider on February 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM

This is nothing more than the next step to full registration. First background checks, then Brady restrictions, next stricter background denials and more intrusive databases. Drip-drip-drip then no rights and confiscation. Republicans just roll over and are happy with their cocktail parties.

ironked on February 9, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Criminals are NOT going to run background checks on each other when they sell each other a gun! It’s already illegal!!!!!!!!!

TX-96 on February 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Shall NOT infringe!!!

PappyD61 on February 8, 2013 at 1:27 PM

+1

TX-96 on February 9, 2013 at 4:28 PM

I think it’s pretty obvious that Coburn has been in Washington longer than he should.

Just finding himself in agreement with Schumer should have caused something akin to spastic colon.

applebutter on February 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM

There are so many issues here. Anyone who agrees with background checks between private individuals is a fool.

Why?

Because you have to remember what the long game is here. This is NOT about stopping gun violence. If it were then by looking at the last several years worth of shootings we would immediately outlaw the following.

A. crazy people with guns (allowing mentally ill loose period)

B. Islamic radical terrorists with guns (Seattle, D.C. sniper, Arkansas, Ft Hood)

C. Black and Hispanic gang members with guns (Chicago, D.C., L.A., Oakland, and on and on.

Add those three elements together and you would cut gun violence down by 90%. That would sure enough beat the “if we can save only one life it is worth it” bull we hear all the time.

So, if they are not doing that why are they doing this??

Again, registration. I was in an intel unit in law enforcement for a while. If you think that your “background” check between you and your buddy or son or daughter isn’t going to be held forever you are not only a fool, you are an idiot.

The NSA is building a facility that will house almost every email, text message and other citizen information that will occur in this nation. The government is arguing it has the right to keep this information so that IN THE FUTURE if you commit a crime, they can track you backwards for years. They will know who you talked to, what you texted, what you emailed. FOR YEARS!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Now take that desire and apply it to gun records. If the goal is to disarm the citizenry, thus removing the last threat of government control (read history people) then it would make sense they keep track of your activity. You sell a Glock to your buddy. They now know you own guns and you are flagged, and your buddy owns a gun and he is flagged. Someday that flag will bite you in the rear.

Then they make background checks of ammo purchases legal and when you say “Hey I own a .38 revolver” and register the same, but buy .223 ammo at a store, they will know you are lying. That means PC for a warrant and a knock at your door by the police.

This is so obvious it is painful.

Again, what is the long game? Feinstein- God love the elderly “Cardinal of the Senate” and her total inability to be secretive- said her goal was to disarm American in one generation.

And background checks are a good first step.

Call Colburn, email, write. Make him listen to reason.

If a licensed dealer does a background check that is okay. It was his choice to work in that environment. But if I want to give my son a gun or my friend a gun or want to swap guns with a buddy, it isn’t their damned business.

archer52 on February 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM

No more legislation on guns. Censure Obama and Holder for blocking investigation of deliberate distribution of guns to drug cartels.

Screw the liberal Republicans willing to sell out the Second Amendment.

DaMav on February 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM

They’re still gonna come for magazines over 10 rds capacity. Just went shopping 2 days ago hoping to find some more 12 rd mags for my Sig. None to be had for love or money.

quikstrike98 on February 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2