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

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Folks-

I challenge each of you to refrain from feeding the above highlighted troll.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

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

I guess there are multiple and varied definitions of socon in use, because I am the least bit progressive, in the modern iteration.

tom daschle concerned on April 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

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

BINGO!!!!

That’s precisely what I’m saying.

This proposal is an UTTER JOKE and A DISASTER. Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin should be the butt of JOKES for this reckless idea.

Please FILIBUSTER so you can inform people of the ways in which this will seriously IMPACT American’s rights to buy and sell guns, the negative impact on people’s PRIVACY RIGHTS, and the burden of responsibility this places on gun sellers for the actions of those buyers forever.

THIS PROPOSAL CRIMINALIZES EVERY GUN SELLER.

Please write your Senators and contact Rand Paul and encourage a filibuster. This is not a BENIGN policy proposal; it is MALIGNANT AS HELL and dangerous.

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM

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

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:02 AM

No, it has already happened in CA. They use the sale records to track down individuals who bi-monthly pop up in their records as not being able to own a firearm. The lists are not vetted, so some individuals may still be able to own a firearm.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.

But it is all in our heads that the government would use a registry for cofiscation of ANY sort. Just an unimaginable thought…

Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM

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

Right there with you, me being a hard-azzed Constructionist.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM

And that is what it’s about. They known this will not stop a single murder but, they will have a “safe” and easy target to blame. One that doesn’t need extensive investigation and will be the devil incarnate for the liberals and gun grabbers. They can arrest the “real” criminal who is the hapless law abiding citizen that owned the stolen gun or sold the gun used for the crime. They figure if they can just nail a few dozen people this way that others will get rid of their guns for fear of spending years in jail for the crime of legal gun ownership.

Dr. Frank Enstine on April 10, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Background checks going to put an end to stolen or “borrowed” weapons?

No?

Oh well…another “feel good” law coming at us.

Just enabling “government” to take over every single aspect of our lives…and leaving the citizens with no means to resist.

That’s the progressive plan.

coldwarrior on April 10, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Folks-

I challenge each of you to refrain from feeding the above highlighted troll.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

But…but…he’s such an easy target!

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:44 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.

This is the most popular issue the Republicans have; there’s no need to give any ground on it at all. I cannot think of a better example of how the Republicans quietly support the Obama agenda in full, while giving lip service to conservatism to keep the base voting for them.

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 really don’t know what people here are worried about – which I don’t believe – it’s fear that these “background checks” are essentially a tool to create a national gun registry. A national gun registry has been used in other countries as a precursor to total disarmament of the law-abiding populace. No one here really believes you will stop with background checks. The next time a massacre happens, you will be back demanding either formal disarmament of law-abiding gun owners or some intermediate step such as massive taxation levied on them.

Furthermore, there comes a point where regulation crosses the line from “common sense” into legal harassment. Guns are already heavily regulated as it is. How many more layers of regulation will you require before you are satisfied that guns are now properly regulated?

Doomberg on April 10, 2013 at 9:45 AM

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

How do you breath with your head stuck so far up your a$$???

SWalker on April 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM

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

petefrt on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

I’ve been saying for months that this would happen. Pretty soon just wanting a gun will be considered a mental illness and thus you will not be allowed to have one.

Dr. Frank Enstine on April 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM

So internet “sales” of guns will now consist of photos showing off said guns accompanied by a blurb which says “Not for sale over the internet, but if you would like to meet somewhere for a private transaction give me a call”.

This bill is pap for the bugwit libs who are screaming for something to be done.

Meanwhile the people of Chicago are awash in death for some reason.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Just enabling “government” to take over every single aspect of our lives…and leaving the citizens with no means to resist.

That’s the progressive plan.

coldwarrior on April 10, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Unfortunately millions of morons can’t understand or see that. If only they taught history in our schools instead of “progressive” propaganda.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM

How many more layers of regulation will you require before you are satisfied that guns are now properly regulated?

Doomberg on April 10, 2013 at 9:45 AM

They know as well as we do that the only ‘real’ regulation is confiscation.

Except from criminals, of course. That would be racist or something, because the only way to possibly disarm criminals is to invade every home in the country and search for firearms. Can you imagine the outcry if police in any Chicago neighborhood tried a sweep to enforce a gun ban? Chris Matthews would turn every color of the rainbow in rage.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I accidently sent the grandkids to Appleseed. Honestly, I thought it was about farming.

Limerick on April 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Wow! This “deal” will stop all mass shootings for the foreseeable future…good job.

d1carter on April 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Just finished calling several Senators that are on record NOT supporting the filibuster.

I’m sure Toomey & Machin’s lines are jammed with calls, but am calling them anyway. That dinner Toomey had with Obama must have been great. Traitors all that won’t stand with the filibuster. I’m sure you all know what these two can do with their proposal.

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 9:49 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

And, if you aren’t a criminal, why would you be afraid of random searches of your house or papers? You know you want to include that, too.

You are a retarded little tyrant, aren’t you? You leftist scum are the most despicable, lying dirtballs on the planet. You are not my countrymen. I share nothing with turds like you and want a divorce so that you are in a different nation. You slime belong in your American Socialist Superstate without any rights, led by the dictats of some third-world, dog-eating retard. I want nothing to do with you or your retard nation – which is most definitely NOT America.

It’s well past time for a national divorce so that Americans can rid themselves of you lowlife slimeballs. You deserve the hell you are fashioning but no one else does.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 10, 2013 at 9:49 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

Actually it does.. According to SCOTUS we have a due process right to privacy. Once the background check is done; the information is usually destroyed. Since it is not being destroyed it can lead to a database.. Even the ACLU has concerns about this one.

According to the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese, “The current proposal for universal background checks raises…significant concerns.” One of which is the fact that the current legislative proposal for universal background checks does not guarantee that information gleaned from the checks will be destroyed within 24 hours. The NICS background check system, which is currently in place, requires personal information to be destroyed within 24 hours.

Because of this, Calabrese said the ACLU is concerned that the form universal background checks being promoted by Democrats could lead to “the creation of government databases and collections of personal information.” And since the legislation being pushed by Reid stipulates that “a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” it’s hard to see how a database that lists every gun and every gun owner won’t be among those created if universal background checks are passed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/ACLU-Opposes-Universal-Background-Checks-Warns-They-Could-Lead-To-Registration

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:50 AM

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Because the ACLU has concerns, I won’t be surprised if the SPLC soon names them a right-wing terrorist organization.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Because the ACLU has concerns, I won’t be surprised if the SPLC soon names them a right-wing terrorist organization.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I love left on left cannibalism. :)

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:54 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

Exactly. With that contemptible Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy in charge you can bet they will pass it. And the immigration bill and the expensive farm bill they didn’t get to last year. The GOP needs to go.

rickv404 on April 10, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I share nothing with turds like you and want a divorce so that you are in a different nation. You slime belong in your American Socialist Superstate without any rights, led by the dictats of some third-world, dog-eating retard.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM

When this happens all I ask is for boarder enforcement. Extreme border enforcement so that the only thing they can do is gaze at our lighted cities across the boarder from their dark hovels.

Dr. Frank Enstine on April 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I love left on left cannibalism. :)

melle1228 on April 10, 2013 at 9:54 AM

+1000

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM

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

Oh, thats already been proven Bishop. Oregon closed the “gun show loophole” over a decade ago. The only private sales going on at gun shows here in Oregon are a few individuals desperate to sell a gun or two and they are supposed to go thru a background check (most shows will have the forms) and call it in to close the sale. A credit card is required to pay the state fee and thus the state now has on record both parties info.

Of course I’m sure no one does what you mentioned aka “meet me down the street in a few hours at the local walmart parking lot”.

FFL dealers won’t mind this because it kills any used market competition they have had at shows. Though the internet has cut into that now anyway.

oryguncon on April 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Let’s deal with the notion of repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution. What would happen if that happened?

1) Would the individual not be able to own a firearm?
2) Would firearms be forbidden?

To the first question, yes, they would. And to the second, no they wouldn’t.

The Constituion is the Supreme law of the land. It is an enumerated document, which means that it states exactly what each person/body can do, not that which it cannot do. There is also the amendment process to amend the constitution. But, the first ten amendments are not considered true Amendments, they are called The Bill of Rights.

Now, these are not Rights that the Constitution gives the People, or that the Government in its enumerated powers gives the People. It is a reaffirmation of the Rights that all individuals POSSESS at birth, given by our Creator. They were added to the Constitution because some of the framers were afraid that if they were not put in there, they would not possess them. But as Franklin (?) put it in the convention, the Constituion was already a Bill of Rights since it had these enumerated powers, and those not enumerated were left to the states. Since it didn’t say anything about the Federal Government having any power to control any of the Bill of Rights, even if they were in the Constitution, the worried politician needn’t worry.

So, if the Second Amendment, or any of those Amendments were taken out, since they did not alter any of the Constituion, but only added to it, the People would still retain the Right to Bear Arms. You would have to change the enumerated parts of the Body of the Constitution in order to change the Federal governments power, which isn’t likely to happen.

The Federal Govenment can not take away a right, they can only take away a priveledge. The Right to Bear Arms is not thiers to destroy. It is mine, has always been mine, and will always be mine until the day I die!

Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

I called Toomey’s offices in Philly and DC this morning. You get a recorded message saying the office is closed, and the answering machine is full.

What a crock. I expected better of Toomey. Yeah, of course I voted for him. But this really stinks, on the optics and the substance.

DaMav on April 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

DaMav on April 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Harrisburg office answered some of our calls.

hawkdriver on April 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM

The Federal Govenment can not take away a right, they can only take away a priveledge. The Right to Bear Arms is not thiers to destroy. It is mine, has always been mine, and will always be mine until the day I die!

Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Sure didn’t stop them after Hurricane Katrina…

SWalker on April 10, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Deal reached…. dear leader to take credit shortly

cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Yeah. Best of luck with that one.

You will, of course, give us regular reports of your progress?…

JohnGalt23 on April 10, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Let’s deal with the notion of repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution. What would happen if that happened?

1) Would the individual not be able to own a firearm?
2) Would firearms be forbidden?

To the first question, yes, they would. And to the second, no they wouldn’t.

The Constituion is the Supreme law of the land. It is an enumerated document, which means that it states exactly what each person/body can do, not that which it cannot do. There is also the amendment process to amend the constitution. But, the first ten amendments are not considered true Amendments, they are called The Bill of Rights.

Now, these are not Rights that the Constitution gives the People, or that the Government in its enumerated powers gives the People. It is a reaffirmation of the Rights that all individuals POSSESS at birth, given by our Creator. They were added to the Constitution because some of the framers were afraid that if they were not put in there, they would not possess them. But as Franklin (?) put it in the convention, the Constituion was already a Bill of Rights since it had these enumerated powers, and those not enumerated were left to the states. Since it didn’t say anything about the Federal Government having any power to control any of the Bill of Rights, even if they were in the Constitution, the worried politician needn’t worry.

So, if the Second Amendment, or any of those Amendments were taken out, since they did not alter any of the Constituion, but only added to it, the People would still retain the Right to Bear Arms. You would have to change the enumerated parts of the Body of the Constitution in order to change the Federal governments power, which isn’t likely to happen.

The Federal Govenment can not take away a right, they can only take away a priveledge. The Right to Bear Arms is not thiers to destroy. It is mine, has always been mine, and will always be mine until the day I die!

Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Everything you have said is 100% correct, but it would never be interpreted that way by any modern legislature or court. Heck, we can’t even get them to recognize the fact that the Bill of Rights means what it says, or that the federal government is limited to enumerated powers. If you were to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but then argue that you weren’t actually “revoking” the right to bear arms, you’d be laughed out of court.

Shump on April 10, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Deal reached…. dear leader to take credit shortly

cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Will that be before or after his temper tantrum that it falls short of what he wants?

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

If no second the right or now privilege would revert to states much like it now does for alcohol and tobacco. It would not prohibit firearms at a state level and I would think that some states like NY, CA, MA, CT and other firearm unfriendly ones would ban firearm ownership while others like TX and UT may expand on it. I really don’t think that firearms can be banned at the federal level but with the feds not following the law these days who really knows.

Dr. Frank Enstine on April 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM

This is weird, ever tried to buy a firearm on the Internet? Both the seller and the buyer must already complete 4473 forms right now.

tarpon on April 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Even that ever-loving liberal, Kathleen Parker, in today’s WaPo, calls the new law nothing but “feel good” garbage – and accomplishing nothing.

GarandFan on April 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I’ve been doing some research on the ‘new’ ideas of the gun-grabbers be they on the Federal, state, or local (new Chicago gun tax) level: taxing guns & ammo, liability, requiring licences to purchase guns and ammo, etc.

This is some of what I’ve found and will put it into 3 posts…

The Supreme Court drew analogies between the First and Second Amendments in District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), in which the Court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to a collective right of maintaining a militia.

The right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, “freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Poe v Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), Albright v Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994), among others.

The Supreme Court has concluded that the procedural protections contained in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment in numerous cases.

In Albright v Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994), the Court said:

‘It was through these provisions of the Bill of Rights that their Framers sought to restrict the exercise of arbitrary authority by the Government in particular situations. Where a particular Amendment “provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection” against a particular sort of government behavior, “that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.’ See Graham v Connor, 490 U. S. 386, at 394-5 (1989)

In Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), the Court said:

‘It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. McGoldrick v Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33 (1940).

The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. Lovell v Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Schneider v State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Largent v Texas, 318 U.S. 418 (1943); Jamison v Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943).

It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the [Constitution]. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties…and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax. As stated by the Supreme Court of Illinois, a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.’ Blue Island v Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515, 519. So it may not be said that proof is lacking that these license taxes either separately or cumulatively have restricted or are likely to restrict petitioners’ … activities, which are protected by the Constitution. On their face they are a restriction of the free exercise of those freedoms which are protected by the [Constitution].

This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM

In Harper v Virginia Board of Electors, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Court said:

We have long been mindful that, where fundamental rights and liberties are asserted under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications which might invade or restrain them must be closely scrutinized and carefully confined. See, e.g., Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Carrington v Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965); Baxstrom v Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966); Cox v Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), 580-581 (BLACK, J., concurring).

In Lovell v City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), the Court said:

‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, [substitute the right to bear arms, individually, which is protected by the Second Amendment from infringement by Congress] are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. Gitlow v New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Stromberg v California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931); Near v Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Grosjean v American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); De Jonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937). See also Palko v Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). It is also well settled that municipal ordinances adopted under state authority constitute state action, and are within the prohibition of the amendment. Raymond v Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U.S. 20 (1907); Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v Los Angeles, 211 U.S. 265 (1908); Cuyahoga River Power Co. v Akron, 240 U.S. 462 (1916).

In Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), the Court said:

‘The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case, the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom.

The State of Connecticut has an obvious interest in the preservation and protection of peace and good order within her borders. We must determine whether the alleged protection of the State’s interest, means to which end would, in the absence of limitation by the Federal Constitution, lie wholly within the State’s discretion, has been pressed, in this instance, to a point where it has come into fatal collision with the overriding interest protected by the federal compact.’

Obviously, there is a limitation imposed by the Federal Constitution.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM

If you are wondering how hunting licences, duck stamps, etc, are constitutional, they are licences on activities, i.e., hunting, shooting ducks, etc, not the ownership of firearms.

The government may charge a nominal fee to process a background check, for example; provided, that it is not intended to act as a prior restraint and/or burden on the constitutionally-protected right to bear arms. It can also charge a nominal fee to licence ‘dangerous and unusual weapons which are not in the common usage’ such as fully-automatic weapons, but it cannot ban or regulate ‘an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose,’ especially handguns, shotguns, and most rifles. I would also add AR-15s and semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, which are commonly used by Americans for self-defence.

Also, ‘laws, regulations, or rules that render the firearm inoperable and defeat the fundamental purpose of self-defence are unconstitutional.’ District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). No law, regulation, or rule that ‘makes it impossible for citizens to use firearms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.’ Heller, supra. The holding in Heller was applied to the states in McDonald v City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:15 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

So you’re fine with doing the same for the First Amendment?

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Well, Dred Scott was a bad decision, too. So there!
Love,
The Left

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Will that be before or after his temper tantrum that it falls short of what he wants?

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Before the tantrum but after he drags out the corpses of some of the lost children of Newtown to use as a soapbox.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

The Second Amendment cannot be ‘amended.’ It can be repealed and/or replaced, but good luck getting 2/3rds passage on the proposed amendment to repeal it, in whole or part, and 38 states to ratify such an amendment.

Flyover Country will give you the finger.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Well, Dred Scott was a bad decision, too. So there!
Love,
The Left

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Well, the country fought a civil war and then amended the Constitution to, effectively, overturn the decision.

Love,

Someone smarter than the Left

;-)

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:22 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

That’s right Sheep; if you like your gun rights you can keep your gun rights.

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Well, the country fought a civil war and then amended the Constitution to, effectively, overturn the decision.

Love,

Someone smarter than the Left

;-)

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Touche! LOL

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:25 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

Even your fellow lefties get a clue once in a while:

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

Fenris on April 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Those two men who are no better than I have “reached a deal” on my Second Amendment rights? Come. Come on. Come and take it. Let’s go. Get it on.

texacalirose on April 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM

These taxes on firearms and ammunition obviously serve the same purpose as any poll tax ever did. But what I want to know is where exactly is the liberal outrage over these taxes? After all, they disproportionately effect minorities and the poor.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I see you’re at it, still:-) Just finished calling each R Senator.
Won’t say what I said tho.

Getting ready to fax your great research.

Thanks again,

bf

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 10:33 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

If I were ever to run for a political office that happened to oversee a police force, I would find a way to deputize every lawful gun owner. In my state, even the Secretary of State has his own police force.

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM

These taxes on firearms and ammunition obviously serve the same purpose as any poll tax ever did. But what I want to know is where exactly is the liberal outrage over these taxes? After all, they disproportionately effect minorities and the poor.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Hold on there, bigot, why would a poor person need a gun, don’t they all live in gated communities and exclusive Manhattan condos like Diane Sawyer and Beyonce do?

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM

After all, they disproportionately effect minorities and the poor.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM

That’s not the aim, so it’s not an issue for the Left. The ones they want to disarm the most are white suburbanites — those who Obama&Co blame for the failures of (Dem-controlled) cities. Those people are real targets. That’s why liberals push hardest for gun control when a mass shooting takes place in white suburbia. They want those people on their side the most during the drive, to later shove them aside when the goal is reached.

In a word: political pawns.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:38 AM

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

I have a question regarding this system. Does one have to buy a firearm to have the background check made? Could I go into a shop have the background check made and then decide not to buy a firearm?

Oh a second question. What are the current rules for record keeping on the bill of sale for a firearm?

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Call me a turncoat, traitor or RINO if you will, however I see no problem with a simple expansion of the existing back ground checks we have to cover modrn day sales that weren’t invisioned when the current law was put in place with the help of the NRA.

Where I will stand on your side, and will defend vociferiously, is that there be no possibility that there is some sort of national gun registry or that the right to gift or give a gun to a family member is infringed.

Otherwise this whole deal is a big bag of nothing because they didn’t take on the real problem……mental health.

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

After all, they disproportionately effect minorities and the poor.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Just the other night, one of our trolls got pissy hearing about the high murder rate in Chicago that liberals ignore. The fact of it gets under his skin, and he doesn’t like that.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

In a word: political pawns.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:38 AM

I know that, but their hypocrisy must be pointed out as well. So many of these gun grabbers falsely claim they don’t want to actually disarm us, yet taxes like these will disarm law abiding minorities and the poor.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 10:44 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

You are so right! My grandmother used to say, “Do not give in an
“inch” because they will take a “mile”.

This issue is my line in the sand for repubs. I don’t care what else they have done that might be held to conservative principles or their supposed good intentions in this fight. If they are not smart enough to realize what is going on, or know what is going on and do nothing to prevent it; either/or, I think we should do our utmost to vote them out of office.

I just don’t know where their heads are and am afraid they don’t really care at any rate.

Amjean on April 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Problem is, there is no way that a national registry can be guaranteed to never happen. If that isn’t a future plan — and you can bet your bottom dollar unless Obama taxes it first — among many liberals, you’re not seeing the root of the problem.

The matter of ‘mental health’ is also an arbitrary subjective thing. Should an otherwise law-abiding person with no criminal record be barred from owning a gun if he goes to AA to clean up his life and stay sober? How about a gay person who underwent treatment, including medication, to get over depression? That is a common ailment among gays who feel alienated by their desires? And, how far back should a ‘mental health’ issue be counted? If the treatment was ten years ago for such a matter, should that person still be banned on mental health grounds?

Questions, questions…

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Hold on there, bigot, why would a poor person need a gun, don’t they all live in gated communities and exclusive Manhattan condos like Diane Sawyer and Beyonce do?

[Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM]

Well, I’d wager the odds of a poor person living near a drug dealer or drug user is lower than for people like Sawyer and Beyonce. And what good are the rich’s gated communities, if people like Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn are inside the fence?

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

yet taxes like these will disarm law abiding minorities and the poor.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM

And an obnoxious liberal will tell you that poor people shouldn’t be buying guns in the first place, if they’re so poor they can’t afford the tax. So your argument, though totally valid and correct, won’t register among liberals. Therefor, expect your view to be dismissed as a straw man.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Background checks should be expanded to deny gun sales to liberals on the grounds they don’t possess the cognitive horsepower to safely operate a firearm.

Colion Noir eviscerates the public polling done on background checks.

kurtzz3 on April 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM

As long as the current record destruction process is in place this seems like no big deal. If the senate doesn’t have that little detail – they can add it with the support of the ACLU in the House.

Then the law is total showmanship – and it does nothing but provide feel good nothingness. We are not at the point yet where we can convince politicans to do nothing – that is some time in the future. Because it appears this does absolutely nothing that isn’t already required.

Zomcon JEM on April 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Therefor, expect your view to be dismissed as a straw man.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM

That’s fine. I never imagined that pointing out to a leftist how hypocritical they are would ever change them. It is everyone who isn’t suffering from being a mentally unstable liberal that needs to see this hypocrisy.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

That’s fine. I never imagined that pointing out to a leftist how hypocritical they are would ever change them. It is everyone who isn’t suffering from being a mentally unstable liberal that needs to see this hypocrisy.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

You’re good at it, too!

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

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

partisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM

And some folks here are obsessed with ignoring the Constitution and confiscating everyone’s legal guns, and then make fools of themselves on every friggin thread. Look in the mirror.

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed, because I am afraid of guns. They scare me when they make loud noises.

non on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Edited for clarity.

Del Dolemonte on April 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM
The Second Amendment cannot be ‘amended.’ It can be repealed and/or replaced, but good luck getting 2/3rds passage on the proposed amendment to repeal it, in whole or part, and 38 states to ratify such an amendment.

Flyover Country will give you the finger.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM

In their world, if the milleniums old definition of marriage can be changed, then the Second Amendment can certainly be amended.

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM

This is a list of repub traitors to the 2nd amendment (as of yesterday):

Kelly Ayotte, NH
Susan Collins, ME
Johnny Isakson, GA
Tom Coburn, OK
John McCain, AZ
Lindsey Graham, SC
Mark Kirk, IL
Pat Toomey, PA

Amjean on April 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I guess my real issue is that internet or gun show seller’s shouldn’t be exempted from the same background check requirements as my local brick and mortar gun store, that I support and in return supports my community. Just as a good referee applies the rules evenly in a football game, they should all have the same requirement level. I am not looking to increase the requirements or restrictions just make the application the same.

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM

You’re good at it, too!

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I try. :P

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM

These taxes on firearms and ammunition obviously serve the same purpose as any poll tax ever did. But what I want to know is where exactly is the liberal outrage over these taxes? After all, they disproportionately effect minorities and the poor.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Yes, taxes on firearms and ammunition act just like poll taxes (I cited Harper, which ruled such were unconstitutional) … and soliciting licences on the Jehovah’s Witnesses and others to distribute religious material, which were the issues in some of the cases I found. As I noted, however, the Court in Heller drew analogies between the First and Second Amendments.

The liability insurance requirement is also a prior restraint and an undue burden on rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The poll tax analogy is, especially, powerful considering the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutionally-protected right to vote, per se. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973).

The mental health requirements – like the SAFE Act in New York, which prohibits ANYONE, who has ever taken any psychotropic medication, which would include drugs for depression, anxiety, insomnia, ADD, ADHD, etc, are likewise an unconstitutional deprivation of a constitutionally-protected right without due process. Each person must be entitled to a hearing before his guns can be permanently confiscated or his licence permanently suspended or pulled.

The state has an interest in protecting the public from those that pose ‘an imminent danger to themselves or others,’ but those that had temporary mental conditions, which have been resolved (past insomnia and mild depression after a spouse died, anxiety and insomnia during a financially-trying period in the past, etc) cannot be deprived of their right to bear arms without a hearing and the state proving that the individual is an imminent danger. There must be some adjudication. In most of these cases, the burden on the state is going to be too high for it to survive strict scrutiny.

The state could easily show why a Jared Loughner or James Holmes should have his weapons confiscated temporarily and maybe permanently based on the plethora of evidence that existed prior to their crimes, but the fact that a woman took an anti-depressant 10 years ago for 6 months after being raped is not enough to prove why she should be deprived of her constitutionally-protected right to own a gun for self-defence.

As far as the Left’s silence, it should surprise no one. It is apparent that they only care about the rights they choose. The fact that the phrase ‘the people’ is used in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments and is considered to refer to individuals, not the collective, in 4 of those by the Left doesn’t mean that they are ever going to admit that it applies to the Second, too.

If a state attempted to put a tax on abortions or require that women carry health insurance that covers mental health issues, the Left would go nuts. If the Federal government attempted to require the people and/or the ‘press,’ which is not limited to newspapers, television, magazines per prior Supreme Court rulings, and have individual bloggers obtain licences following background checks before being allowed their First Amendment rights, the Left would go nuts. If a locality attempted to require residents to get a licence before they could buy Plan B, which is what Connecticut is doing with ammo, the Left would go nuts. I long ago stopped being surprised by their selective outrage and cafeteria constitutionalism.

And, of course, the fact that Progressives believe that the poor should not have a right to self-defence is par for the course. They once argued that the poor that they deemed mentally-defective be sterilised so that they could not breed. They always know what’s best for everyone else, especially the poor and most vulnerable. Dontcha know?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM

I guess my real issue is that internet or gun show seller’s shouldn’t be exempted from the same background check requirements as my local brick and mortar gun store, that I support and in return supports my community.

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM

They aren’t. This has been a giant lie from the word go. Any licensed dealer, no matter where he is selling, must perform a background check. At gun shows there are private sellers not covered by the current law. However, they are a minority at gun shows.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Advertising in a newspaper to sell something privately was probably envisioned by the Framers.

And by definition, any background check must include registration. People being required to keep records? That is a registry.

What we are seeing here is more incrementalism, being sold to us as harmless but in reality will be twisted to serve Statist ends. Don’t fall for it.

JohnTant on April 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM

As someone who has had tables at lots of the gun shows around Texas and Oklahoma, I can say that since I am not a licensed dealer (FFL that is) and all the guns on my table were aquired by me theorugh private purchase, I believe I can sell those at a gun show as a private sale to anyone walking up to my table without a background check or paperwork other than a bill of sale that is. My gun, not a stores inventory. So out of all the gun shows I go to, I’d hazzard a guess that over 50% of the sellers at the shows are not licensed gun dealers

44Magnum on April 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM

A thousand times better than I could ever put it.

NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM

And an obnoxious liberal will tell you that poor people shouldn’t be buying guns in the first place, if they’re so poor they can’t afford the tax. So your argument, though totally valid and correct, won’t register among liberals. Therefor, expect your view to be dismissed as a straw man.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM

But, why should the poor be denied ACCESS in order to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights or have such burdened?

Remember, we are told that, if the poor cannot afford health insurance or abortions, they are being denied access to healthcare and the constitutionally-protected right to abort their children so we need to subsidise them so that they will have equal access to basic rights and not face de facto discrimination.

If we are supposed to pay for abortions and contraceptives through Medicaid because the failure to do so would be a de facto denial of access to same for the poor, shouldn’t we also pay for the poor to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Nah. All constitutionally-protected rights are equal, but some constitutionally-protected rights are more equal than others.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I guess my real issue is that internet or gun show seller’s shouldn’t be exempted from the same background check requirements as my local brick and mortar gun store, that I support and in return supports my community. Just as a good referee applies the rules evenly in a football game, they should all have the same requirement level. I am not looking to increase the requirements or restrictions just make the application the same.

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Background checks are done, though. And, far as I know, no one can directly receive in the mail a firearm; that ended after JFK was shot, because Oswald got his rifle through the mail like he was ordering a pizza. Now, far as I know, if I order a firearm from a website, the seller can only send it to place with a Federal permit to be able to sell guns — like your local sports shop.

The existing laws do work. Trying to ‘tighten’ them now won’t stop further massacres, but they are a hair away from pure infringement that will one day become outright.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM

:-)

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM

But, why should the poor be denied ACCESS in order to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights or have such burdened?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Haven’t I told you to stop being so smart and right all the time? You really get liberals upset, you know, you Big Blue Meanie! ;-)

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM

the 2nd amendment needs to be amended or repealed

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM
Folks-

I challenge each of you to refrain from feeding the above highlighted troll.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

My dog just took the biggest crap, so I’ve got plenty of troll food to spare.

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Nah. All constitutionally-protected rights are equal, but some constitutionally-protected rights are more equal than others.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Yes, and I was born with the desire to marry my gun.

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 11:18 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

You don’t have to be a convicted criminal or even an unconvicted criminal to fail your background check.

If you don’t have anything to be afraid of, I’m sure that you won’t mind those wireless wiretaps either.

After all, only criminals have something to fear. Right?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM

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

nonpartisan on April 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Sure I do. You are a fundamentalist environmental hypocrite that currently is suckling on the teat of big energy/oil to power the electrons you use to post your screeds on all sorts of topics. Why do you hate the atmosphere by increasing its CO2 load? Why do you hate the children by being a hypocrite?

chemman on April 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Simply organize a gathering of people selling their private merchandise. It isn’t a gun show though there are many people who happen to be selling guns, who are we to tell people what they can sell at a non-specific “show”.

Throw a few Cupie dolls or a handful of old pennies on the table next to the guns, “There, see, I’m selling other things too. This is NOT a gun show.”

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM

This is a list of repub traitors to the 2nd amendment (as of yesterday):

Kelly Ayotte, NH
Susan Collins, ME
Johnny Isakson, GA
Tom Coburn, OK
John McCain, AZ
Lindsey Graham, SC
Mark Kirk, IL
Pat Toomey, PA

Amjean on April 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM

In my opinion if any R is not FOR the filibuster and joining it, then they are FOR Gun Control.

I even had one Senator’s aide tell me (Thune-SD) that he planned on voting no on cloture. Idiots to think that we don’t want the vote to come to the floor for a vote!! That’s what the filibuster is for!! So you can add him to your list.

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I long ago stopped being surprised by their selective outrage and cafeteria constitutionalism.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM

That phrase is pure gold.

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Obama to repubs…”Good boy..roll over..roll over. Sit. Good boy.”
*throws ball to fetch*

Mimzey on April 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

wireless wiretaps either.

After all, only criminals have something to fear. Right?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Did you forget your coffee today?

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 11:25 AM

To ALL members of Congress…we are watching you and keeping records for the future trials for treason and crimes against humanity.

xmanvietnam on April 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Maybe next they’ll propose a law requiring that all criminal obey all the laws.

Feelgood b.s. from your posturing panderers, as usual.

profitsbeard on April 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Gun shows typically have tables from licensed dealers (gun shops, pawn shops, etc.) that do most of the selling [I rent a table and sell accessories at shows every few weeks; makes for great people-watching]. They are required now to run background checks and do.

Usually there is some aisle-selling by attendees but in my experience not nearly as many as gun-grabbers claim. And a fair percentage of those are sold to the dealers that…run background checks when reselling. Sure, book..cover, but but most private-party sales I’ve seen at shows are between folks that don’t look terribly nefarious.

For the attendee-attendee sales that I’ve seen in front of my table the seller has verified that the buyer is a state resident (checking their DL).

A very few dealers have set aside and label “Private Sale” areas, legally selling guns that do not require checks but I’ve never seen anything in those areas that a self-respecting do-badder would be seen with.

skoot65 on April 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Or you could figure things out like scalpers did with game tickets: Buy this t-shirt for $1000 and get a free gun.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Obama to repubs…”Good boy..roll over..roll over. Sit. Good boy.”
*throws ball to fetch*

Mimzey on April 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

*and while blazing up the grill*

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM

If you want to keep crazy people from getting guns why don’t you pass laws regulating crazy people? Then you could leave the 2nd alone and end this charade.

Metanis on April 10, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Then the law is total showmanship – and it does nothing but provide feel good nothingness. We are not at the point yet where we can convince politicans to do nothing – that is some time in the future. Because it appears this does absolutely nothing that isn’t already required.

Zomcon JEM on April 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

What it *does* do is allow them to say they ‘did something’ – and allow the camel into the tent a bit farther… at the next opportunity – like with Obamacare’s ultimate failure – they will not say, ‘we were wrong’, they will say ‘we didn’t go far enough’, and will push for more. And it will be easier, because we will have continued to set precedent that the actions they are taking are acceptable and ostensibly are aimed at solving the problem, so further actions must also be acceptable, etc…

Midas on April 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM

We don’t “need” more ineffective legislation. I can see that the politicians need to save face over saying something needed to be done and then not doing anything, but that’s their problem.

Toomey ought to know that standing alongside McCain on anything at all is pure risk.

virgo on April 10, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Or you could figure things out like scalpers did with game tickets: Buy this t-shirt for $1000 and get a free gun.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Schumer and his ilk have that covered. Their background check legislation would mandate checks on ANY transfer – even temporary transfers.

Say, you and your family are going to Europe for a month. You live in an area where there has been a spate of break-ins. In addition to protecting your assets like jewelry, etc, you also don’t want your weapons to ‘fall into the wrong hands’ so you bring your stuff to your parents’ house for safekeeping. Under the legislation proposed, you would have to have a background check run on your parents before the transfer.

Before you could loan a rifle to your brother for his hunting trip, you would have to have a background check run on him.

Instructors teaching people to shoot would have to run a background check on their pupils before allowing them to try out each gun. Say you don’t know what kind of gun you want and want to ‘test-drive’ them. Under Schumer’s legislation, your instructor would have to run a background check on you before you are allowed to fire each different weapon because it is a ‘transfer’ even if you only fire the weapon once in his presence and return it immediately.

Failure to do background checks on the above would be a felony under Federal and some state laws.

But, don’t worry. These are ‘common sense’ proposals!!!

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Did you forget your coffee today?

Nutstuyu on April 10, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Not a big coffee drinker, but why did you ask?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM

What it *does* do is allow them to say they ‘did something’ – and allow the camel into the tent a bit farther… at the next opportunity – like with Obamacare’s ultimate failure – they will not say, ‘we were wrong’, they will say ‘we didn’t go far enough’, and will push for more. And it will be easier, because we will have continued to set precedent that the actions they are taking are acceptable and ostensibly are aimed at solving the problem, so further actions must also be acceptable, etc…

Midas on April 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM

This is it exactly. ^^^^

Damn these people and their incrementalism. They are all traitors.

PatriotGal2257 on April 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3