Manchin, Toomey close to deal on “expanded” background checks; Update: Deal reached

posted at 8:41 am on April 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

“Expanded” in this case is … a term of art, as you’ll see shortly.  As Harry Reid tries to find the votes to have a vote on his gun-control package in the Senate this week or next, two key players say they are close to an agreement on the central piece of the bill. Joe Manchin (D-WV) says that he and Pat Toomey (R-PA) will have a proposal on expanding background checks for gun sales at shows and on the Internet. The package will contain a requirement by the sellers to keep records of all background checks, but apparently not a federal registry.

CBS is selling this as a major milestone:

As the Senate gears up for the first fight over new gun legislation in two decades, Republicans do not appear to have the votes they need to execute a planned filibuster on Thursday and a bipartisan breakthrough is likely, according to one Democrat.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, claims he is close to a deal with Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey on a plan to expand background checks to cover firearm purchases made at gun shows and online, a measure that 90 percent of Americans say they support. Under the proposed law, gun sellers would be required to keep records of those checks to help police track gun crimes.

Is this a major step forward for gun-control legislation, though? Roll Call also reported this morning on the effort, which actually walks back Reid’s current bill by eliminating the requirement for background checks on private sales and transfers:

The plan is expected to stop short of language currently in the bill that would require background checks on nearly all gun sales, including between private parties. Instead, Toomey aides said, the proposal would require background checks for private sales at gun shows and on the Internet, two areas that are currently exempt.

Nevertheless, support for the plan by Toomey, a reliable conservative with a top rating from the National Rifle Association, would be a major victory for Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama, who have stepped up their calls in recent days to ensure that criminals and the mentally ill do not have easy access to guns.

One quick note about Internet sales. While current law technically doesn’t require a background check for sales over the Internet, it does require a federally-licensed firearms dealer to broker the sale — and that means a background check for the purchaser.  At least to my understanding, all this changes is that the background check will be explicitly required.  That’s also been my understanding about gun-show sales, although I believe that area is a little grayer.

In a sense, a Manchin-Toomey proposal along these lines would kneecap the current push from Senate Democrats, and merely firm up the status quo.  Maybe that’s why the filibuster threat seems to be fading:

Democrats are confident they have the votes to bring gun control legislation to the Senate floor this week. But getting the votes to pass the bill later this month will be much harder.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has not yet conducted a formal whip count, but at least eight Republican senators have said they will not attempt to block an effort to bring up the measure, a senior Democratic aide said.

Fifty-five senators caucus with the Democrats, and Reid acknowledged he might lose a few votes on his side of the aisle. During his weekly press conference Tuesday, Reid declined to make any bold predictions. Asked if he had the votes, Reid responded, “I don’t know.”

Behind the scenes, Reid and his lieutenants are convinced they have the 60 votes necessary to start the debate on the floor.

“He’s always been confident that he can get 60 votes,” the aide said.

At this point, Republicans may figure they won’t lose much in a floor vote anyway, so why take a big political hit in a filibuster?  Let Democrats go on record voting for gun control and assault-weapons bans, as long as the background-check “expansion” that ends up passing doesn’t intrude on private sales and transfers, and doesn’t result in gun registries.

Update: The Washington Post reports that the deal has been reached — and that it falls short of the current demand from the White House:

A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The proposed agreement would be more stringent than current law, which requires checks only when purchases are made through a licensed dealer, but less than originally sought by President Obama and congressional Democrats, who were seeking to expand background checks to nearly every kind of sale.

The agreement should secure enough bipartisan support for the Senate to proceed to debate on an overarching bill that would expand background checks, make gun trafficking a federal crime for the first time and bolster federal funding for school security plans. Senate Democratic leaders have said they will permit senators of both parties to introduce amendments to the measure.

That’s still pretty weak tea from where Democrats started.


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

Third party please, no donations to any Republican!Now even the NRA has gone squishy.The Whig party collapse continues!

Sandybourne on April 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM

The Republicans don’t follow through on their promise to get in the ring? No! Tell me it isn’t so!

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Damn SoCons.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Like I said, these effers can’t WAIT to spring this crap on us after their little backroom deals have concluded.

How does affecting gun shows but not affecting private sales make a difference? What is a gun show but mostly private sellers offering up their merchandise?

If I were selling at a gun show I would simply put the customer’s name on the gun and tell him to call me later and we can do the deal, i.e. as a private sale not at a gun show. Man, these pols are clueless, pandering dolts.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Why not save time and just repeal the Second Amendment? You know they want to.

joekenha on April 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Under the proposed law, gun sellers would be required to keep records of those checks to help police track gun crimes.

This is a a de facto registry that can be used by the federal government.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM

The package will contain a requirement by the sellers to keep records of all background checks, but apparently not a federal registry.

Until next time, when those records will be required to be handed over to ATFE.

If the liberals who passed the original laws were so incompetent they didn’t didn’t get it ‘right’ the first time, why should be think their ‘fixes’ today will be any better?

No more deals, no more compromises. Unless the Second Amendment is amended out of the Constitution, the politicians can go to hell. Even then, they can’t count on me to comply.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM

The package will contain a requirement by the sellers to keep records of all background checks, but apparently not a federal registry.

They need to add a requirement that these records must be destroyed after 90 days, or some reasonably short period, so that they can’t be used later to build a registry.

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM

You’re my Senator Pat.

Say it ain’t so….say it ain’t so…..sigh

ToddPA on April 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Third party please, no donations to any Republican!Now even the NRA has gone squishy.The Whig party collapse continues!

Sandybourne on April 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM

While I like the NRA, it has always been a little squishy in holding the line. A better organization is GOA (Gun Owners of America). I’ve actually met Larry Pratt, who is the head of the organization, and he is very knowledgeable and outspoken!

dominigan on April 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

At this point, Republicans may figure they won’t lose much in a floor vote anyway, so why take a big political hit in a filibuster? Let Democrats go on record voting for gun control and assault-weapons bans, as long as the background-check “expansion” that ends up passing doesn’t intrude on private sales and transfers, and doesn’t result in gun registries.

We’ve been talking about the Senate bill forever now, but it still has to get through the House. Let’s say something passes in the Senate, what are the odds of it passing in the House?

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Unless the Second Amendment is amended out of the Constitution, the politicians can go to hell.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Is that a suggestion? *snickers*

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Bit by bit, we are losing. When these latest gun laws across the country don’t stop the next mass killings, what are they going to come for?

Kissmygrits on April 10, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Is that a suggestion? *snickers*

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

More like heartfelt wish. Problem is, they’ll want to take us all with them.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Is that a suggestion? *snickers*

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Yes it is. If you want so desperately to strip Americans of their God given right to self defense then get enough people to support a constitutional amendment. Otherwise go Fluke yourself.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM

They need to add a requirement that these records must be destroyed after 90 days

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM

I’m thinking more around ten minutes. But, I’ll ‘compromise’ — eleven minutes!

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I’m thinking more around ten minutes. But, I’ll ‘compromise’ — eleven minutes!

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Let’s say 24 hours. Sales happen late in the day and a dealer may be trying to close shop so he can go watch his son/daughter at a shooting competition.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM

I just spoke with Senator Toomey’s office in Harrisburg. (717) 782-3951

Really easy to get through.

Let your voice be heard. Be polite, but be heard.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Expanded background checks furthur punish law abiding gun owners.

F these tyrants.

tom daschle concerned on April 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM

You’re my Senator Pat.

Say it ain’t so….say it ain’t so…..sigh

ToddPA on April 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Call his office. See my last post.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Let’s say 24 hours. Sales happen late in the day and a dealer may be trying to close shop so he can go watch his son/daughter at a shooting competition.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM

My real preference is Not At All.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Todd, also ask to have the proposal emailed to you.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Sounds good to me.

You know next chance they get, the Dems will use those records to start a registry. It’s as sure as the sun rising in the east.

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Five mins after this passes the next bill for community armories will come up. Watch.

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Call his office. See my last post.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Done, and done.

tom daschle concerned on April 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Sounds good to me.

You know next chance they get, the Dems will use those records to start a registry. It’s as sure as the sun rising in the east.

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Of course they will. It’ll likely happen first in a state like NY.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Call his office. See my last post.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM

I just emailed them….will call at Lunch,

Thanks Hawk

ToddPA on April 10, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Let’s just scrap this idea and do abortion control instead. You know, something that will actually save children’s lives.

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Yes it is. If you want so desperately to strip Americans of their God given right to self defense then get enough people to support a constitutional amendment. Otherwise go Fluke yourself.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM

a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Let’s just scrap this idea and do abortion control instead. You know, something that will actually save children’s lives.

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM

some folks here seem obsessed with abortion and compelled to bring it up on every friggin thread.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Let Democrats go on record voting for gun control and assault-weapons bans, as long as the background-check “expansion” that ends up passing doesn’t intrude on private sales and transfers, and doesn’t result in gun registries.

The gentleman from Toomey’s office tried to assure me this was the case. I’m going to try to be patient to see the full details, but I am so skeptical of anything they do considering they’re being led my McCain and Graham.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM

So…we are going to expand a system that basically doesn’t work.

Great…yeah, definitely a government program. Don’t fix what’s broken…break it some more!

Of course, the government is good at breaking things. Especially this particular administration…not just breaking things, but making things worse.

ProfShadow on April 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

How would this have prevented Sandy Hook. How will is stop gun violence in Chicago?

ctmom on April 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM
some folks here seem obsessed with abortion and compelled to bring it up on every friggin thread.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM

You’re not obsessed with civil rights?

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Let’s just scrap this idea and do abortion control instead. You know, something that will actually save children’s lives.

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM

You obviously hate both kids and women. You want guns around to kill children, and make women who need abortions to be unhappy by being punished with a child.

What are you — a Conservative? (total snark here)

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Criminals undergo background checks? When will you people understand that the only people affected by laws like this are law abiding citizens?

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM

While I like the NRA, it has always been a little squishy in holding the line. A better organization is GOA (Gun Owners of America). I’ve actually met Larry Pratt, who is the head of the organization, and he is very knowledgeable and outspoken!

dominigan on April 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Thank you. I’ve been saying this for years. GOA is more focused on the 2nd Amendment. NRA is a great lobby for the firearms industry. Both important, but with a different focus.

Hat Trick on April 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM

How would this have prevented Sandy Hook. How will is stop gun violence in Chicago?

ctmom on April 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Exactly. But then, if they were serious about stopping such incidents, we’d be talking about violence and mental health. But all they are serious about is disarming decent citizens.

A government that fears an armed citizenry is no longer of, by or for the people.

ProfShadow on April 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM

if I loan my rifle to a neighbor, am I engaging in felony gun traficking?

commodore on April 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM

a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Would you be satisfied with this bill passing or would you think more needs to be done?

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM

some folks here seem obsessed with abortion and compelled to bring it up on every friggin thread.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM

And still others seem obsessed with Idiocy,
and seem to bring it up on every thread..

ToddPA on April 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Weak tea, Ed? One drop of hemlock in your tea every morning will catch up with you.

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM

some folks here seem obsessed with abortion and compelled to bring it up on every friggin thread.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM

We’re upholding the 2nd amendment. You’re standing up for butcherswho snip the spinal cords of live babies. This is not an abstraction – you stand for killing babies. Congrats.

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Since this won’t stop a nut from killing anyone, the next time a Sandy Hook happens liberals will scream for more control … only now they’ll have a handy registry of people who own guns.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:12 AM

That’s still pretty weak tea from where Democrats started.

Ed, don’t buy into the Democrats tactic. They propose something really far to the left, then they walk it back so that it’s only pushing us somewhat to the left, then we claim victory because we got them to do less than what they wanted. But we never move the debate to the right.

This is an abomination, and a gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, in any form. No Republican should support nor vote for this garbage, and no conservative should celebrate the “compromise.” And don’t think that this is a political loss for the Democrats because they “really” wanted more. Democrats are experts at incrementalism, and are happy to get this first step.

Shump on April 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Sounds to me like this compromise bill doesn’t do much of anything, which is fine with me.

DRayRaven on April 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Time to watch it and any amendments that are proposed….

So, take an ad out in a newspaper classified ad “selling my gun collection” … violation?

But put that ad on sports.backpage.com for free…same ad…no violation?

ProfShadow on April 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Would you be satisfied with this bill passing or would you think more needs to be done?

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM

frankly, I don’t think this bill would do much to solve the issue

I’m with Liam, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

DRayRaven on April 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Bwhahahahahahaha, 1500 pages and not a single line will mean much of anything. Ok, sureeeeeeeeeeee I believe that.

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

You’ve already been schooled several times on the fact that garbage like this does absolutely nothing to stop homicides or crime in general. So yes, infringing upon my liberties for no good reason whatsoever is especially galling.

Criminals do not subject themselves to background checks. They obtain their weapons illegally. And those rare psychopaths who decide today is the day they murder 20 other people would all pass a background check anyways. As has already been pointed out umpteen million times none of these new laws would have done anything to stop people like Lanza or Holmes.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

You liberals are the ones over-reaching. Why should the law-abiding be subject to such scrutiny to exercise a stated explicit right? You libs freak over stop-and-frisk laws; you freak over ‘profiling’ at airports. At least in those instances a probable cause case can be made. But you liberals object to them strenuously. Not so with these alleged ‘background checks’.

We let you get away with what you have now. If you didn’t get it right the first time, that’s your problem. No more do-overs.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

only now they’ll have a handy registry of people who own guns.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:12 AM

and so friggin what? what are you afraid of?

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

I’m with Liam, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

You’re an idiot.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Liberalism–writing policy that solves nothing all under the guise of accomplishing something…

hillsoftx on April 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

some folks here seem obsessed with abortion and compelled to bring it up on every friggin thread.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM

We like to point out the hypocrisy of ghouls like you who scream, “What about the children!” during these gun control pushes.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 9:16 AM

and so friggin what? what are you afraid of?

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Like I said, you’re an idiot. Australia created a registry of gun owners then shortly after that they passed a mandatory “buyback”. This is what the democrats will pursue here.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM

You liberals are the ones over-reaching. Why should the law-abiding be subject to such scrutiny to exercise a stated explicit right? You libs freak over stop-and-frisk laws; you freak over ‘profiling’ at airports. At least in those instances a probable cause case can be made. But you liberals object to them strenuously. Not so with these alleged ‘background checks’.

We let you get away with what you have now. If you didn’t get it right the first time, that’s your problem. No more do-overs.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

um, please take a step back and refrain from addressing me as ‘you liberals’. you don’t have a clue what I am. I have no qualms over profiling and believe it is a useful tool for the police.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM

if I loan my rifle to a neighbor, am I engaging in felony gun traficking?

commodore on April 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Only if he takes it to a range with soft primered ammo and the gun malfunctions and shoots multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Then you go to jail.

Dexter_Alarius on April 10, 2013 at 9:18 AM

a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

If you are a criminal, tell us how this legislation will prevent a tragedy from occurring from anyone determined to reek mayhem…wasn’t that that the impetus for this bill in the first place? FAIL.

hillsoftx on April 10, 2013 at 9:19 AM

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM
frankly, I don’t think this bill would do much to solve the issue

I’m with Liam, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Exactly.

So please quit with your liberal indignation about gun owners being leery of any legislation.

“a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM”

So, a background check doesn’t strip any American or any rights, you say, but repealing the 2nd does.

Thanks for being honest and proving not just mine, but all of our points.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:19 AM

How does this not infringe on our right to firearms?

Buddahpundit on April 10, 2013 at 9:19 AM

We’ve been talking about the Senate bill forever now, but it still has to get through the House. Let’s say something passes in the Senate, what are the odds of it passing in the House?

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

If recent history is any judge, about 95%.

Fenris on April 10, 2013 at 9:19 AM

I’m with Liam, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Actually, you’re not. I want to see it strengthened.

I know what you meant in your original post to me. But grasping subtlety isn’t your forte, it seems. You missed the part (purposely?) where I said that even if the Second is somehow repealed, no one can expect me to comply.

Del can grade you best, but I’ll give your effort a D+, only because I’m in a good mood.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Bit by bit, we are losing. When these latest gun laws across the country don’t stop the next mass killings, what are they going to come for?
Kissmygrits on April 10, 2013 at 8:54 AM

That’s my thought. They get something on guns, then (illegal) immigration, then SSM. Forget about the threat from North Korea, these Progs have an agenda! After that, what’s next on their wish list?

conservative pilgrim on April 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM

and so friggin what? what are you afraid of?

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Everyone get this?

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM

and so friggin what? what are you afraid of?

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

An absolutely lost cause. He wouldn’t get it until he was lead away to a concentration camp or gas chamber.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM

How does this not infringe on our right to firearms?

Buddahpundit on April 10, 2013 at 9:19 AM

how does it infringe your right to firearms? from my understanding, as long as you’re a law abiding citizen, you’ll be able to continue getting firearms

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:22 AM

um, please take a step back and refrain from addressing me as ‘you liberals’. you don’t have a clue what I am. I have no qualms over profiling and believe it is a useful tool for the police.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM

You applaud every single liberal power grab du jour, but nawww, you’re not a liberal. GTFO of here already, loser.

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Ed:

Vis a vis the laws concerning Internet sales…if it’s a sale across state lines, the FFL must get involved except in limited circumstances. The main exception off the top of my head is a long gun sale can be conducted across the lines of two adjacent states.

However, handgun sales across state lines must always go through an FFL.

Requiring NICS checks on all “internet sales” is basically a background check requirement on private sales within the same state. From there it’s just a hop skip and jump to requiring it in all cases.

I’m disturbed that conservative voices are so blase over this “compromise.”

JohnTant on April 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM

um, please take a step back and refrain from addressing me as ‘you liberals’. you don’t have a clue what I am. I have no qualms over profiling and believe it is a useful tool for the police.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Years of your posts on various threads here tell all I need to know about you. Playing a game at ‘righteous indignation’ right now doesn’t cut it, far as I’m concerned.

Why do you think so many people shorten your moniker to ‘partisan’?

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM

and so friggin what? what are you afraid of?

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

The government.

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

- Thomas Jefferson

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Do you realize how utterly STUPID, RECKLESS, and DANGEROUS this policy will be?

No one will want to BUY a gun from any individual.

Why? Because the seller will now run a “background check” on that individual, and have all sort of information on them as a result.

It’s a PERFECT INVITATION to identity theft; moreover, now sellers are going to be required to KEEP THOSE RECORDS, whereas right now, the feds are required to dispose of them after a certain period of time.

So, THIEVES who burglarize a home, will have fantastic access to the PRIVATE INFORMATION ON ANY BUYER whose background check is filed at the home of the burglary victim!

Classified ads to sell a gun? Got to do a background check on a buyer.

And, if you think the SELLER won’t be held responsible for anything that is done with that gun for the foreseeable future, you’re smokin’ rope, people.

YOU–as the seller–WILL BE RESPONSIBLE forever after, and God help you if you don’t have the record of the BACKGROUND CHECK you did on that buyer!

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM

how does it infringe your right to firearms? from my understanding, as long as you’re a law abiding citizen, you’ll be able to continue getting firearms

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Every time a liberals asks something like this. Remember they mean, this.

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:25 AM

how does it infringe your right to firearms? from my understanding, as long as you’re a law abiding citizen, you’ll be able to continue getting firearms

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:22 AM

You don’t get it … liberals never stop. This is merely a stepping stone to the next gun control measure with the goal being a total gun ban.

Liberals never stop … at anything.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:25 AM

“Infringe” is a very comprehensive word. It means nothing even on the fringes can be done to impede citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Buddahpundit on April 10, 2013 at 9:25 AM

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Many private sales will just simply go underground.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Is this where you blame SoCons?

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM

a more stringent background check doesn’t strip any American of any rights. If you aren’t a criminal, what’re you afraid of? Stop overreacting on this issue.

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

More stringent than what occurs now? How exactly do you plan on doing that, calling the FBI twice for each person?

#stupidgungrabbersarestupid

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Drudge: New York Police Confiscating Firearms from People Taking Anti-anxiety Medication

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

For sale, long, black, scary looking scrap metal. Call 1-800-Limerick.

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

I’m with Liam, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Please Oh please encourage Dems to push this. I beg you to!

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

how does it infringe your right to firearms? from my understanding, as long as you’re a law abiding citizen, you’ll be able to continue getting firearms

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Please see above, you demwit, for a list of the ways this bill infringes on American’s Second Amendment rights–a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Under the proposed law, gun sellers would be required to keep records of those checks to help police track gun crimes.

It is a defacto gun registry, plain and simple.

Does the law stipulate that background checks that need to be kept are only for ones that a gun is sold, or do they have to be held for all inquiries, even if a gun is not sold?

If it is the latter, then if someone decides to NOT purchase a weapon for whatever reason, a “seller” may have quite a bit of paperwork to hold on to for possible future investigations. Especially for internet sales where you could have several possible buyers being entertained for one weapon.

Would this be a felony like current law on gun sales? It is currently the law that National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) background checks are destroyed after 24 hours, and it has been that way since 2004 for the DOJ.

As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer. The requirement that approved purchaser information be destroyed within twenty-four hours has been included in the appropriations bills funding the Department of Justice (which includes ATF and the FBI) every year since 2004.

Once again, politicians acting badly. They are changing that law, so will it be a federal crime, or not.

Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

For sale, long, black, scary looking scrap metal. Call 1-800-Limerick.

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

I’ll trade you for a pile of plastic boxes with springs inside.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Drudge: New York Police Confiscating Firearms from People Taking Anti-anxiety Medication

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

In the future all conservatives and Republicans will be diagnosed with mental problems and have their firearms confiscated … comrade.

For the children of course.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

In the future all conservatives and Republicans will be diagnosed with mental problems and have their firearms confiscated … comrade.

For the children of course.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

They are already trying to do it to Veterans..

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If you got any pointy things for them we might have a deal.

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Please Oh please encourage Dems to push this. I beg you to!

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

I so want to see them try, too. Maybe we’ll get back to Original Intent, where states like TX actually start creating militias. And the Federal government has to pay for it!

Maybe, too, the members get fully-automatic weapons. Then we’ll see how fast crime drops.

Oh, the possibilities!

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM
I’ll trade you for a pile of plastic boxes with springs inside.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

And I have a 5 gallon bucket filled with cleaned and case lengthed dog whistles. Ready for instant dog whistle use or whatever you choose to do with them.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

A Million Rifle March on Washington. Let ‘em sweat.

Archivarix on April 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Many private sales will just simply go underground.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Well, then those sellers will be criminals under the law, won’t they?

Is this where you blame SoCons?

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM

No, this is where I blame progressives/socialists/faux conservatives like Pat Toomey

But there is plenty of blame to be heaped on so-called “social conservatives,” who are nothing but progressives in their policy agendas.

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

A Million Rifle March on Washington. Let ‘em sweat.

Archivarix on April 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Yeah? Good luck with that one. I guess you don’t know that a “march” in DC requires a PERMIT? No, I guess you weren’t aware of that, huh?

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I so want to see them try, too. Maybe we’ll get back to Original Intent, where states like TX actually start creating militias. And the Federal government has to pay for it!

Maybe, too, the members get fully-automatic weapons. Then we’ll see how fast crime drops.

Oh, the possibilities!

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Not to mention the fact that it will make them actually become transparent about their motive. It isn’t about the “kids” at all. And maybe it will wake up some of the LIV voters because it will hit their homes too.

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Christians, Jews and Tea Partiers hardest hit.

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Well, then those sellers will be criminals under the law, won’t they?

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Yes, but being a criminal under an unconstitutional law is preferable to being cattle. A universal background check will do nothing but bring those who cherish liberty into conflict with an overzealous federal government. This law is inviting armed conflict between citizens and the government.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Is this where you blame SoCons?

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Most of them can’t tell me what socons would actually pass federally if you could guarantee that the 10th amendment would be respected and the Dems couldn’t use the federal government and the judiciary as their own personal mafia..

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Not to mention the fact that it will make them actually become transparent about their motive. It isn’t about the “kids” at all. And maybe it will wake up some of the LIV voters because it will hit their homes too.

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Yes, it would.

Also, the state can easily place armed militia at schools to protect against loonies, thus freeing up police to better serve the communities against ‘regular/common’ crimes.

And liberals think we truly need them to make for a better America.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Pointy things, huh, well would you accept instead some 1-pound containers of black dust?

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM

um, please take a step back and refrain from addressing me as ‘you liberals’. you don’t have a clue what I am…

noforeskin on April 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM

……besides being an A$$hole?

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

No, this is where I blame progressives/socialists/faux conservatives like Pat Toomey

But there is plenty of blame to be heaped on so-called “social conservatives,” who are nothing but progressives in their policy agendas.

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Okay. Just trying to keep it straight who’s destroying the gop and needs kicking out.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3