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

Yeah…hey Senate increased background checks wouldn’t have stopped the MSNBC killer…

harlekwin15 on February 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Dear Idiots,

I will not comply with unconstitutional laws.

SirGawain on February 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM

oh and if Boehner keeps caving on the Hastert/Pelosi rule…especially on guns he;s gonna need to move his office in 2014.

harlekwin15 on February 8, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Oh goodie…

The bad guys are going to get a background check…

Electrongod on February 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Backdoor registration.

Write your critters and say no.

CorporatePiggy on February 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Us serfs await with baited breath to see what rights our political masters have deemed we’re worthy of.

gwelf on February 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Does ANYONE doubt that Bonehead will cave? Anyone? Bueller?

search4truth on February 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM

So if only we would have had these background checks….

Connecticut wouldn’t have happened?

WTF is going on here?

lm10001 on February 8, 2013 at 10:48 AM

oh and if Boehner keeps caving on the Hastert/Pelosi rule…especially on guns he;s gonna need to move his office in 2014.

harlekwin15 on February 8, 2013 at 10:45 AM

You know he is gonna keep caving, and when it is all said and done Rove and company will be there to bail him out in the election because he is the most “electable.”

The GOP has lost its way. Half think we should nominate these fool just because they are electable. Electability doesn’t matter a hill of beans when they are spineless traitors.

melle1228 on February 8, 2013 at 10:49 AM

How do you enforce it? If Bobby sells his pistol to Sue over the kitchen table, how do you enforce it? If Sue then uses it to fend off a rapist, do you then charge Bobby & Sue with a crime? Because she bought a gun from a friend to defend herself? Attempted rapist gets off because of insufficient evidence, but Bobby & Sue go to jail?

rbj on February 8, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I saw cute facebook photo that said:

” My AR-15 will never be illegal.. It will just be “undocumented.”

melle1228 on February 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The devil is in the details.

I’d be curious as to how Joe truck driver will implement a background check on Sue next door neighbor, short of calling the local sheriff’s office to use their NICS connections.

And what about selling a $1200 pencil that comes with a complimentary 30-30 Winchester rifle?

locomotivebreath1901 on February 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The Obama regime has been making it a point to sell our private information data out to companies run by Obama cronies. And we think they are going to do things properly with this data?

One other thing. The federal laws for doing background checks are already on the books. Holder’s DoJ whines that it doesn’t have enough people to do this, especially as they spend their time smuggling automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and suing universities for not providing gluten-free menus as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (true story). What makes anyone think the DoJ will actually be able to handle even more data?

Steve Tsouloufis on February 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Background checks don’t do much to stop slaughters committed with stolen guns.

myrenovations on February 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM

What’s the background check ‘increase’ gonna consist of and what are the disqualifiers?

RepubChica on February 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM

The GOP has lost its way. Half think we should nominate these fool just because they are electable. Electability doesn’t matter a hill of beans when they are spineless traitors.

melle1228 on February 8, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Electability is also basically a myth dreamed up by the leadership to stampede you into voting for their preferred party hacks and shills. A lot of “electable” candidates ran in 2012, unsurprisingly most of them lost badly. Forget for the moment whether these guys are traitors or not; they can’t even winnable elections.

Doomberg on February 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Oh yes. Even now the illegal weapons dealer is putting into effect the government-mandated background checks. I assume it goes something like this:

Dealer: Yo, bro. You ever capped anyone before?

Buyer: Yeah, mon.

Dealer: Okay, okay. Here’s your Glock and 15 round mags. Got that drug money to pay me with?

Turtle317 on February 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM

What’s the background check ‘increase’ gonna consist of and what are the disqualifiers?

RepubChica on February 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM

And who gets to make the call? And how long will the data be kept and by whom? How are HIPPA concerns going to be met?

This is slippery slope territory.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Yes, because that would’ve prevented Adam Lanza from, er, stealing someone’s else’s guns. Oh, wait, not it wouldn’t have…my bad.

changer1701 on February 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Posted elsewhere:

Does each massacre mean we have to lose more freedom?

Why do 120 Million innocent people have to be punished for the actions of a few criminals?

These are the gun grabber’s idea of “progress”:

Step 1: A criminal goes nuts in a gun-free zone.

Step 2: Politicians jump in to “Do something!” and chip away at our rights and punish the innocent.

Step 3: Since step 2 did Nothing to actually solve the problem, we go back up to Step 1.

Southern by choice22 on February 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The whole idea of the gun show loophole is a myth. There’s no way you could possibly get accurate polling on something like this because the media has lied about what the law actually says, and most people have no idea what the actual rules are an what’s involved in background checks.

And what are they going to do, make everyone fill out a 1040-Arsenal form every year with their taxes? And if they can’t keep NICS up to date as it is, how are they going to keep track of 300 million firearms and their owners as well?

This is just stupid. Any Republican that votes for it deserves to get primaried, and hopefully will.

PetecminMd on February 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

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

Definitely would have stopped Newtown …oh wait….

CW on February 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The end product of “gun control” will be analogous to the private sale of automobiles. Each weapon will have a title issued by the state. And just like buying your neighbors car, you’ll have to re-title it through the state.

I can also see state-minimum insurance requirements, along with an annual registration fee.

BobMbx on February 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Here’s the word from the one of the Left’s heroes:

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

Southern by choice22 on February 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Would this cover Chris Dorner..?

d1carter on February 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Maybe the gang bangers selling guns on the street in Chicago can use their Obama phone to call in the checks, just to keep it legal. /s

MikeA on February 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Anyone remember what the RNC said they would fight for in that list of promises and official “survey” asking for contributions last Fall? I tore mine up but someone might recall…

viking01 on February 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I am looking at this the same way I look at having to present my license to by cold medicine.

It will stop nothing and just make a bigger joke out of it than it already is.

What these people fail to see is that people will only play by the rules when they feel the rules are both right and fair. This is getting very petty and BS-ish. And people will either ignore them or play along just enough to get by them. Solving nothing.

Gatsu on February 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

The problem with the polling is the way the question is asked”

Do you want to close the gunshow loophole?

OR

Do you want to require people to have government approval for private sales of firearms between non-licensed dealers?

AND

Do you approve of this if it requires universal gun registration?

OR

Do you believe the Bill Of Rights should be restricted and if so which ones do you believe should be restricted without a constitutional amendment?

triumphus04 on February 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

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,

Time for some phone calls and e-mails.

Southern by choice22 on February 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

The only way “universal background checks” can work is with universal registration. I’ll pass, thanks.

capricorn on February 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

One more nail in the GOP’s coffin.

Mr. Arrogant on February 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM

The background check for the ex LA cop sure helped…
is he still at large?

Electrongod on February 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

The problem with the polling is the way the question is asked”

Do you want to close the gunshow loophole?

OR

Do you want to require people to have government approval for private sales of firearms between non-licensed dealers?

AND

Do you approve of this if it requires universal gun registration?

OR

Do you believe the Bill Of Rights should be restricted and if so which ones do you believe should be restricted without a constitutional amendment?

triumphus04 on February 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

You wonder how the polling would work out if you asked it this way:

Do you want the Feral government controlling your personal property?

Do you approve of gun Confiscati…. Registration?

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM

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

Washingtonspeak for Pubs trying to find a way to cave without looking like they caved.

How, precisely, will unlicensed dealers be able to do background checks on a potential buyer? How will the dealers be able to verify their own identities; won’t the system require a numbered license (which removes the ‘unlicensed’ issue entirely)?

Sounds like a whole bunch of feel-good nothing that will only allow government to keep closer tabs on purchasers.

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM

I hear Nanzi Pelosi is now demanding trigger locks for cops.

viking01 on February 8, 2013 at 11:10 AM

We all know how the federal government can bastardize the simplest of concepts when it’s written into legislation.

I’ll withhold judgment until I see the bill and it’s associated costs. How much is it going to cost me to sell a gun to my neighbor? Better yet, what if I don’t even have a gun to sell, I just want to see if my neighbor is a nutcase that is allowed to have guns. Who initiates the check and what information is needed? How’s it tie into the mental health system? What’s the criteria for someone being placed on the nutjob list and what database is that being stored in?

Whenever you start regulating Constitutional rights, there’s a problem with the regulation.

ButterflyDragon on February 8, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Oh, dang, does this mean when a criminal buys a gun with the serial number filed off, the guy selling the gun has to do a background check on the buyer? That’s going to push up the prices of black market guns.

The Rogue Tomato on February 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM

non-licensed gun dealers

Is there such a thing?

How do they define the term ‘gun dealer’?

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Background check = gun registration = gun confiscation.

The US government has gone tyrannical if this passes and these scumbag politicians are deserving of everything they are going to receive…for the children.

trs on February 8, 2013 at 11:15 AM

How are HIPPA concerns going to be met?

This is slippery slope territory.

Happy Nomad on February 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM

HIPPA’s out the window…that’s where they’re going with this. They’ll target physicians/mental health care providers who won’t comply on principle, seize their records even. If you wanna own a gun, dear law-abiding, tax-paying Citizen, you will be treated as a potential threat to the more-evolved segment of society who are adamantly opposed to gun-ownership and know they can rely 24/7 on law enforcement to protect life and property at the drop of a hat.

Will they create a ‘czarship’ to implement and oversee the new background checks? ‘Increase’ means intrusion, it’s what they do best. Where’s the NRA on this I wonder.

RepubChica on February 8, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Who cares?

The prize is cutting down on government spending. It isn’t about guns, contraception, immigration and all the other perennial wedge issues. Let’s fight these battles when we have the luxury of not having to worry about salvaging what’s left of our economy and our country.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Awesome, this will certainly solve the issue of criminals using straw buyers or stealing them…oh wait.

hillsoftx on February 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

91% on this website will oppose what 915 of what their fellow American support.

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

rightistliberal on February 8, 2013 at 11:22 AM

“Background” could mean just about anything. It’s disturbing that more people aren’t alarmed by this.

forest on February 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM

you will be treated as a potential threat to the more-evolved segment of society who are adamantly opposed to gun-ownership and know they can rely 24/7 on law enforcement to protect life and property at the drop of a hat.

Right. People like Chris Dorner.

Socratease on February 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM

As for our guys, this is really getting old. We have a man representing a state where every county voted against Obama who is helping Democrats get their collective foots in the door on gun control. We had Senator Crapo from Idaho co-sponsoring this week’s expansion of the deceptively-named Violence Against Women Act. Let me ask you, do you ever find Democrats representing the most liberal states run across the aisle to find a way to pass a national right to work law? Do you ever find Chuck Schumer seeking to pave a road with Rand Paul and Mike Lee to reduce the power of the TSA? Do you ever find Barbara Boxer working with Ted Cruz on compromise options for Social Security choice?

Democrats are the ones who are in trouble, as 7 of their members must win reelection in states carried by Romney. Let’s work together with Republican members to chart a path forward, and force the Democrats to grovel across the aisle begging for a compromise. Then again, compromise is not in their DNA.

jjnco73 on February 8, 2013 at 11:29 AM

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

…they are one and the same now days!…throw that descriptive word on the trash heap where the rest of the bullsh!t goes!

KOOLAID2 on February 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM

“Background” could mean just about anything. It’s disturbing that more people aren’t alarmed by this.

forest on February 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Interesting detail…Might a potential buyer, at some time in the future, have to provide personal references like for a job? A background check was done on me when I went into the military for my security clearance, which involved someone going around my neighborhood asking questions about me.

The potential here for intrusion is high, and we all know liberals are never satisfied with what they first demand. There is always ‘need’ for more.

Thanks for bringing that up. I now oppose the idea even more, when I thought that wasn’t possible.

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Right. People like Chris Dorner.

Socratease on February 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Heh. You mean the Obama-loving, NRA-hating model cop? I don’t like him. Hope he isn’t breathing when they reel him in.

RepubChica on February 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM

1) Many states already have this. It does not reduce violence in those states relative to states that don’t, and it is expensive.

2) The federal government is already dropping the ball on following up on illegal gun purchase attempts as revealed by the background checks. With the increased volume of purchases for them to cover, this will gets worse.

3) The law allows states to do background checks rather than the feds, 13 states do so. Many of these states have budget problems and their background check system is overloaded. Colorado’s system is now taking 8 days or more to perform an “instant” check even though the law requires them to be done in 3, and they are illegally delaying gun sales.

4) The DOJ regularly breaks the law or re-interprets their regulations to increase the length of time they can keep records of gun sales. These records are supposed to be destroyed under the law, but they are being digitized and essentially kept forever. (But Carol Browner’s emails and files which were under court order to retain can’t be found.)

Socratease on February 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM

91% on this website will oppose what 915 of what their fellow American support.

rightistliberal on February 8, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Fellowship in America. What a quaint ideal that is.

Also, the preview button feature is your friend. Go ahead, don’t be shy and introduce yourself.

RepubChica on February 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Coburn needs to retire already.

jawkneemusic on February 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Sen. Bipartisan (R-OK).

steebo77 on February 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Background” could mean just about anything. It’s disturbing that more people aren’t alarmed by this.

forest on February 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Interesting detail…Might a potential buyer, at some time in the future, have to provide personal references like for a job? A background check was done on me when I went into the military for my security clearance, which involved someone going around my neighborhood asking questions about me.

The potential here for intrusion is high, and we all know liberals are never satisfied with what they first demand. There is always ‘need’ for more.

Thanks for bringing that up. I now oppose the idea even more, when I thought that wasn’t possible.

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Please note that the Proppressives have already suggested this, so I am in no way giving them any ideas.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Okay, with that having been said, what’s to stop them from simply checking some secret “watch lists” that have unknown and due process free criteria for inclusion?

Then given this fact, what’s to stop them from simply putting every NRA and every Republican or other political party members on that list?
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Again, the Proppressives have already suggested this, so I am in no way giving them any ideas.

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Unless the government has a list of what guns I own they will have no goddamn idea if I’ve sold one or not.

They must never have such a list.

TexasDan on February 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM

non-licensed gun dealers

Is there such a thing?

How do they define the term ‘gun dealer’?

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM

No, of course not. It’s private sales. You inherit your uncles’ gun collection? That was an “unlicensed gun deal.” You want to rent a table at a gun show and sell one or two to your neighbors? Unlicensed gun deal.

It’s true that we’re trusting citizens to exercise good judgement in selling those guns. But they do. In fact, they have a far better record than the ATF/DoJ/Dept of State.

TexasDan on February 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Let’s fight these battles when we have the luxury of not having to worry about salvaging what’s left of our economy and our country.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Say, isn’t that the battle the Tea Party fired the first shot in? And who, exactly, has had a hand in vilifying and ultimately subduing that Tea Party agenda and fabricated wedge issue after wedge issue to distract from the state of the economy, the debt and unrestrained spending?

RepubChica on February 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Any Senator who signs onto this should forever forfeit any NRA rating higher than a C. And even that is being generous.

JohnTant on February 8, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I’d be curious as to how Joe truck driver will implement a background check on Sue next door neighbor, short of calling the local sheriff’s office to use their NICS connections.
locomotivebreath1901 on February 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM

California already requires background checks in private sales. The buyer and seller go to a federally licensed gun seller, who does the check. Here’s a description of California’s law:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2013/0130/20130130_052638_newbackgroundgraphic.JPG

cam2 on February 8, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Federal registration by another name.

pat on February 8, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Who cares?

The prize is cutting down on government spending. It isn’t about guns, contraception, immigration and all the other perennial wedge issues. Let’s fight these battles when we have the luxury of not having to worry about salvaging what’s left of our economy and our country.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Because once you accept the premise that government *can* do something, even if it’s just a way of prioritizing battles, that particular battle is lost forever. Government will then seek to expand upon that surrender.

We compromised on the issue of background checks which enshrined the idea that government is allowed to exercise prior restraint on a constitutionally-protected right, and now we have a buttload of people who simply accept the premise that government is allowed to grant you permission before you exercise a right.

JohnTant on February 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Who cares?

The prize is cutting down on government spending. It isn’t about guns, contraception, immigration and all the other perennial wedge issues. Let’s fight these battles when we have the luxury of not having to worry about salvaging what’s left of our economy and our country.

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 – after all, they’re just “wedge issues.” Worrying about the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms is a “luxury.” Worrying about the consequences of wholesale amnesty (many of which ARE economic) is a “luxury.”

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

Again, the Proppressives have already suggested this, so I am in no way giving them any ideas.

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Oh, I know you’re not. If we can think of it, they already have. Yet they call us paranoid. Go figure.

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM

This is so easy … just make the background check system available to citizens, just like PACER and state court records, and remove any requirement for any details of the firearms itself to perform the check. I suspect that a law such as this will be face significant passive resistance to the point of mostly ignoring it. Seriously, how will the gov’t know if I sell/trade a shotgun to/with the guy down the street? Unless they are creating a database of firearm serial numbers and tracking the sales in which case opposition to the new law would be huge.

deepdiver on February 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM

non-licensed gun dealers

Is there such a thing?

How do they define the term ‘gun dealer’?

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM

No, of course not. It’s private sales. You inherit your uncles’ gun collection? That was an “unlicensed gun deal.” You want to rent a table at a gun show and sell one or two to your neighbors? Unlicensed gun deal.

It’s true that we’re trusting citizens to exercise good judgement in selling those guns. But they do. In fact, they have a far better record than the ATF/DoJ/Dept of State.

TexasDan on February 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Yeah, but they’re play fast and loose with the language – generally a dealer would be someone engaged in the business of selling guns – technically that’s illegal, so they are addressing a non-existent problem.

Do people realize that they letting the government get a foot in the door in controlling their private property?

What’s to stop them from imposing all kinds of draconian taxes on those transactions?

[Again, the Proppressives have probably already thought of this, so I am in no way giving them any ideas.]

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM

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

Backstabbing, treasonous GOP cowards colluding with the America-hating imbeciles of the left. So what’s new? These people are pure scum. The whole lot of them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM

This is so easy … just make the background check system available to citizens, just like PACER and state court records, and remove any requirement for any details of the firearms itself to perform the check.

I suspect that a law such as this will be face significant passive resistance to the point of mostly ignoring it. Seriously, how will the gov’t know if I sell/trade a shotgun to/with the guy down the street? Unless they are creating a database of firearm serial numbers and tracking the sales in which case opposition to the new law would be huge.

deepdiver on February 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I’d like to see some Brave Republican (yes, I know that’s quickly becoming a contradiction in terms) propose such a plan and see how the Proppressives object to it.

It should be plain to all that the sheeple are lining up to be sheared and they don’t realize it.

It’s turning my stomach.

Galt2009 on February 8, 2013 at 12:11 PM

What do they mean exactly by background check? By the shop owner, the local police, FBI, what? How long will it take, when millions of people apply?

In Obamaerica, the only jobs available will be IRS collection agent and background checker.

PattyJ on February 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM

If we get a national gun registry, can we block local governments from implementing their own registries by claiming the principle of “pre-eminence” of the federal law? (Like they tried to argue for Arizona’s immigration law?) For those of us who live in places like Chicago, that’d be a great unintended consequence of their gun control efforts!

Dr Snooze on February 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM

This is so easy … just make the background check system available to citizens, just like PACER and state court records, and remove any requirement for any details of the firearms itself to perform the check.

No.

I suspect that a law such as this will be face significant passive resistance to the point of mostly ignoring it. Seriously, how will the gov’t know if I sell/trade a shotgun to/with the guy down the street? Unless they are creating a database of firearm serial numbers and tracking the sales in which case opposition to the new law would be huge.

deepdiver on February 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Incorrect. Such a law would see performing such checks become MANDATORY for all transactions in no time. And, aside from the offenseive nature of the whole idea, you would just love to see the fees ont hose checks start to skyrocket as the feral government finds another source of revenue.

No. No. NO!!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Us serfs await with baited breath to see what rights our political masters have deemed we’re worthy of.

That’s “bated”. Sorry to be a nag. I just don’t like to see our side look uneducated to the lefties who troll here.

hachiban on February 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM

What do they mean exactly by background check? By the shop owner, the local police, FBI, what? How long will it take, when millions of people apply?

In Obamaerica, the only jobs available will be IRS collection agent and background checker.

PattyJ on February 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Don’t even need the government, really. There are Internet sites to look up if a person has a criminal history. All you need is the proper spelling of the name, know a little of the person’s residency history, then run through the list till you find the one you seek. Everything from parking tickets on up can be found, without an SS number.

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Eric Holder: Obama Decides Who’s ‘Entitled’ to Second Amendment Rights
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/02/08/Eric-Holder-Obama-Just-Wants-To-Decide-If-You-Are-Entitled-to-Your-Second-Amendment-Rights?

Colbyjack on February 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Us serfs await with baited breath to see what rights our political masters have deemed we’re worthy of.

That’s “bated”. Sorry to be a nag. I just don’t like to see our side look uneducated to the lefties who troll here.

hachiban on February 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Well, if we’re going to play grammar police, then let’s change the “us” to “we” too! :-)

cam2 on February 8, 2013 at 12:32 PM

How can anyone be denied the RIGHT to own a gun without some kind of judicial action regarding that particular individual? Being a felon, for example, strips certain rights. But what if the person in question is crazy but hasn’t been in any trouble. On what constitutional basis is he deprived his Second Amendment rights?

See… this is why Republicans keep getting into trouble. We don’t expect socialist Democrats to have an answer for that. But we certainly expect better from the party of “limited government”.

Murf76 on February 8, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Nonsense, Liam, that’s not going to be a compliant background check.

BTW, Allahpundit misrepresents what Wayne Lapierre was saying about background checks in the OP.

SPQR on February 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Colbyjack on February 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM

I’ll entertain that silly notion where you linked when Obama walks on Lake Erie.

These liberals are something else. I’m still trying to figure out just what they are, though.

I didn’t watch the vid and won’t, so your stomach is easily stronger than mine. LOL

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM

The Background Check referred to is the National Insta-Check System (NICS) operated by the FBI, and independently by a few of the Several States (ones that require a waiting-period). It can be accessed by internet, and requires the # of a State-issued ID (ie: Driver’s License), the person’s DOB, and address info (SocSec # is optional, but can be handy when several people have the same name and DOB).
But, the check has to be initiated by someone who has authorized access: an FFL, or Law Enforcement.

CA, which has a ten-day waiting period, requires a background check on both the buyer, and seller, and that the firearm must be surrendered to the custody of the FFL for the 10-day waiting period. If the buyer “falls out”, the state then runs the seller’s info to see if he is eligible to receive back his gun. If he “falls out”, the gun must be surrendered by the FFL to LE.

Beginning in Jan-’14, rifles and shotguns (long-guns) will be “registered” to the buyer as hand-guns are currently, and have been since the 1920′s.
CA, at that point, will begin a system of gun registration for all new purchases, and private-party transfers, which will be quite handy when they want to “go door-to-door and pick them all up” (Senator Diane Feinstein’s own words in 1994).

Another Drew on February 8, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Eff off Coburn you douchebag.

Jaibones on February 8, 2013 at 12:38 PM

The current background checks are ridiculous and offensive enough. I can’t believe these GOP tools are actually going to help make them worse. And they don’t really do much of anything.

But, it’s interesting that a guy can be turned down for a background check on a gun but is then allowed to go purchase a car and be in total control of hurling a 2500+ pound hunk of metal down the road (near all sorts of people). It’s just crazy.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Well, if we’re going to play grammar police, then let’s change the “us” to “we” too! :-)

cam2 on February 8, 2013 at 12:32 PM

And “us” and “we” should be us and we.

steebo77 on February 8, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Nonsense, Liam, that’s not going to be a compliant background check.

BTW, Allahpundit misrepresents what Wayne Lapierre was saying about background checks in the OP.

SPQR on February 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Oh, I know. Government is insidious, to say the least.

I’m not sure of what AP said of LaPierre’s stance on background checks. For me, they should be limited to the question, “Is the applicant a convicted felon or ever been judged by a court to be mentally incompetent or otherwise unstable?”

If not, the check is complete and the purchase goes through.

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 12:40 PM

You can usually tell how “bipartisan” Coburn is intent on being by how recently he’s shaved.

steebo77 on February 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Murf76 on February 8, 2013 at 12:33 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

And “us” and “we” should be us and we.

steebo77 on February 8, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Italics are not part of English grammar. It’s “us” and “we”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM

And, what’s to stop someone from simply manufacturing their own firearms? It is possible. You don’t have to buy the ones made by the big mean corporations – you can “grow your own”. Given some machining skills and attention to detail, they aren’t that difficult – not even semi-automatics.

GWB on February 8, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Italics are not part of English grammar. It’s “us” and “we”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM

You’re both wrong. It’s Us and Them. /wry grin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcG47CpsU6c

Liam on February 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

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

The guy in Aurora, too. His doc had passed his concerns on to police two weeks before he went to that theater, iirc.

GWB on February 8, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Italics are not part of English grammar. It’s “us” and “we”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM

If you’re referring to a word as a word (or a letter as a letter, number as a number, etc.), then it should be italicized (or underlined when handwritten), not placed in quotation marks.

steebo77 on February 8, 2013 at 12:54 PM

rightistliberal on February 8, 2013 at 11:22 AM

The comment is as nonsensical as the handle.

GWB on February 8, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I think the question about legislation comming to the floor of the House is posed BACKWARDS.

The question is:

What Republican would GAIN by voting FOR a gun control bill?

In spite of the desperate totalitarian mindset of the media elites, I cannot think of any Republican in that catagory.

Freddy on February 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Let’s stop this narrative that “the majority of Americans support extended background checks”. That’s only an artifact of how the DNC public relations branch (formerly known as the MSM) has been reporting this false issue. If the truth ear were made known to American citizens about what this really means and how it won’t stop squat in terms of crime, this would not have that broad level of support. Of course the public relations arm of the DNC will not report the truth.

People understand bans and confiscation, thus it is not as easy for the DNC media wing to sway support for those efforts, the background checks are an easy topic to sneak past people because it sounds so reasonable until one examines the implications.

AZfederalist on February 8, 2013 at 1:04 PM

O to hell you rotten statist bastards. AND you mush-minded ‘moderates’.

rayra on February 8, 2013 at 1:04 PM

What they call this is completely meaningless until they release the details of the law.

JellyToast on February 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM

They’ll declare you all insane and take your guns.

Molon Labe

It’s unconsitutional. Go to Hades, all in DC and elsewhere.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Mine aren’t illegal, just “out of status” firearms.

On second thought: Boat trip!

Bring your firearms! We’re hunting merwabbits. Hope no one loses a firearm overboard. It is pretty deep out in the ocean.

ProfShadow on February 8, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Yes, the best people to enhance safety by reducing gun violence include those photographed with their booger hooks on the bang button.

What could go wrong with experts like these involved?

Christien on February 8, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Bring your firearms! We’re hunting merwabbits. Hope no one loses a firearm overboard. It is pretty deep out in the ocean.

ProfShadow on February 8, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Keep kidding yourself. These are charlatanic thugs.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:11 PM

I hate the Rs way more than the tyrannical Ds.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2