NRA to oppose Manchin/Toomey bill on background checks

posted at 2:01 pm on April 10, 2013 by Allahpundit

Ed called the bill “weak tea” compared to what Democrats wanted initially, but evidently it’s not weak enough:

“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools,” the NRA said. “While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows.

“The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson,” the NRA’s statement continued. “We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.”

The bill requires checks for all sales — including most private sales — but with an exception for sales between family, friends, “neighbors,” and “other individuals.” Who qualifies as a “neighbor” or “other individual” for these purposes? Stay tuned. Erick Erickson hears from a source that the bill might also allow doctors to red-flag a patient in the national background-check database without telling them if he suspects that patient of being mentally ill. That could lead to unintended consequences, starting with some mentally ill people refusing to seek treatment for fear of being entered into a federal registry, but there’s no confirmation yet that it’s true. Something to look for once the text of the bill is released.

Toomey says he thinks the bill can pass the House (“I know there are a substantial number of House Republicans that are supportive of this general approach”) but a better question is whether it can pass the Senate once the GOP starts tacking amendments onto it to further weaken the bill. Democrats are worried:

“Republicans are eager to get into an open amendment process so that they can turn a responsible gun control bill into a round of NRA-backed amendments that only need 51 votes to approve,” warned one senior Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy matters. “This could be a nightmare for Democrats that care about these issues.”…

Given that math, it’s easier to imagine amendments favored by gun rights advocates generating the 51 votes needed to be added to the main legislation than amendments on things like renewing the assault weapons ban or limiting (or outright banning) high capacity magazines.

Of course, Democrats could try to force 60-vote thresholds on pro-gun-rights amendments but that could also threaten to unwind the entire legislation in a procedural quagmire that leaves the final bill failing to muster the 60 votes needed for final passage.

Never mind that. Can the bill in its current form pass, especially now that the NRA’s come out against it? I think it’s got a shot, partly because the polling on background checks will spook Republicans before the midterm and partly because the GOP will want to deny Obama an easy talking point that they obstructed every last effort to keep guns out of the hands of nuts. But the GOP’s not really O’s problem; his problem is convincing red-state Democrats like Pryor and Landrieu who are frantic to show voters back home how pro-gun they are to not oppose the measure. Reid could end up in a spot where he needs 10 or so Republicans to cross the aisle to beat a filibuster on cloture. That seems unlikely, but with Toomey lending some tea-party cred to the measure, maybe not impossible. And if you think Boehner won’t bring a bill to the floor that’s opposed by a majority of Republicans, read this.

Update: Hmmmmm.

Update: “The background check bill, which would close the gun show loophole and expand checks to online sales, is officially co-sponsored by Schumer; Toomey; Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va.; and Mark S. Kirk, R-Ill. But only Toomey and Manchin appeared before the cameras. Toomey, the former Club for Growth president, had told Manchin he would not speak at the news conference if he had to get on stage with Schumer, according to two sources familiar with the talks. Schumer obliged, and Kirk also agreed not to appear in order to provide cover to Schumer.”


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

May these two spontaneously combust, for not defending the Bill of Rights.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM

From good ol’ Bryan

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Erick Erickson hears from a source that the bill might also allow doctors to red-flag a patient in the national background-check database without telling them if he suspects that patient of being mentally ill.

Goebbels can’t handle all his orgasms any longer.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Just souled out, heading to Chicago…the one who doesn’t give a damn about Chicago kids, dead or alive…so long as it’s about gun control.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Ed was wrong. No way is this “weak tea” for the Dems. They have been trying to “close the gun show loophole” for decades! They will see this as a MAJOR win.

unclejack on April 10, 2013 at 2:06 PM

The bill requires checks for all sales — including most private sales — but with an exception for sales between family, friends, “neighbors,” and “other individuals.”

For now, you Bastards – FOR NOW.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Squishy GOP

cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM

That seems unlikely, but with Toomey lending some tea-party cred to the measure, maybe not impossible.

This, plus AP’s “Hmmmm” update make Toomey a hypocritical swine. He can go straight to Hades.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM

shall not infringe!!!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/traitor

traitor [ˈtreɪtə]
n
a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc.

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Toomey, the former Club for Growth president, had told Manchin he would not speak at the news conference if he had to get on stage with Schumer, according to two sources familiar with the talks. Schumer obliged, and Kirk also agreed not to appear in order to provide cover to Schumer.”

May all be damned. They will ruin you.

May they combust, for different reasons, spontaneously.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Just a reminder for people living in PA or WV, call up Manchin’s and Toomey’s office to protest. I called up Toomey’s office yesterday to protest.

thuja on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Toomey, the former Club for Growth president, had told Manchin he would not speak at the news conference if he had to get on stage with Schumer, according to two sources familiar with the talks. Schumer obliged, and Kirk also agreed not to appear in order to provide cover to Schumer.”

So in other words, Toomey’s content to collude with the likes of Schumer to bargain away our rights, but just don’t take pictures of him doing it.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Toomey is a traitor to his oath, his principles and the land.

So is Rubio.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

The background check bill, which would close the gun show loophole

So tired of this nonsense, there is no gun show loophole, the rules for background checks are the same for gun shows as everywhere else.

clearbluesky on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

traitor [ˈtreɪtə]
n
a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc.

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Let’s not be that harsh about Toomey. He isn’t a traitor. He is just making a mistake. People make mistakes.

thuja on April 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM

LOVE the logic: I’ll make a deal with the devil, but I won’t stand next to him.

Jim-Rose on April 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM

You know on another thread I was lambasted for going after TOM COBURN as not being a “limited government Conservative”.

If you can’t even support national borders (AMNESTY), the 2nd Amendment (GUNS), or traditional marriage (GAYS)…..you deserve all the scorn the electorate can pour on you.

COBURN, TOOMEY, and all the Progressive Cons in the D.C. Ruling class, are just a bunch of ____________.

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I only wish this were novel.

Leave a bunch of old men alone and watch what happens.

You guys should be very sick and tired of feeling like Caesar did when the “Senate” took their blades to his back.

I got an email about McCain

Almost turning red in the face, McCain mocked Senators Paul, Lee, Cruz and Rubio and said: “I would not only NOT encourage it [a filibuster of Obama’s assault on gun rights], I don’t understand it. What are they afraid of?”

We’ll answer that question for you, Senator McCain: The American people don’t trust “Maverick” RINOs who lock hands with Barack Obama and attempt to chip away at our Constitutional rights.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just announced that he will force a vote on THURSDAY on gun control legislation. In other words, we can’t waste any time. We need to keep deluging fax machines and crashing phone lines on Capitol Hill until our elected officials get the message.

Make them understand that, as far as the American people are concerned, any Senators who do NOT publicly join the Paul-Lee-Cruz-Rubio filibuster are in VIOLATION OF THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE.

Credit:

https://secure.freedomdonations.com/cfif/obamagungrabiii/?a=1007-gt-lastresistance-cfif-np

IlikedAUH2O on April 10, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Let’s not be that harsh about Toomey. He isn’t a traitor. He is just making a mistake. People make mistakes

His mistake is treasonous. The word traitor is appropriate.

Vancomycin on April 10, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Don’t forget the Democrats’ modus operandi–INCREMENTALISM. Any movement towards further restricting gun ownership should be opposed. Period.

Mohonri on April 10, 2013 at 2:12 PM

The NRA statement is one of mental, moral, ethical integrity (that means, it’s an accurate statement about reality), while the POLITICIANS’ are demanding various egotistical, public relations (read that as “fantasy” or “fantastical” motivated by a vanity need) alterations to our Constitutional rights.

Let us all hope that reality wins out here. That would mean that the alterations sought by politicians fail.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM

NRA to oppose Manchin/Toomey bill on background checks

Well so much for the “A” ratings these two bastards had from the NRA.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Let’s not be that harsh about Toomey. He isn’t a traitor. He is just making a mistake. People make mistakes.

thuja on April 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I don’t begrudge a person for making a mistake. I do begrudge a person for making mistakes with MY rights.

They don’t have that prerogative. Not with me, anyway.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Marx is laughing his dead azz off.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM

He isn’t a traitor. He is just making a mistake. People make mistakes.

thuja on April 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Sure, infant executioner protagonists are objective judges.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Toomey, the non-traitor scum

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

So in other words, Toomey’s content to collude with the likes of Schumer to bargain away our rights, but just don’t take pictures of him doing it.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Gun rights is our single biggest, most popular issue. If the Republicans won’t support the conservative position here, they won’t support it anywhere. The Republicans are basically the enemy at this point, as much as the Democrats. No way would Toomey be doing this on his own, either.

His mistake is treasonous. The word traitor is appropriate.

Vancomycin on April 10, 2013 at 2:12 PM

It’s not a mistake and he’s not betraying “his side” either. The Republicans aren’t on our side anymore, and the sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner we can do something about it.

Doomberg on April 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I’m with the NRA on this. If a gun control bill, which does not address the mental health issues that are the crux of the problem, passes Congress, these jerks will cheer and backslap each other for ‘doing something’, and go on to the next crisis with the real problems still out there unsettled and uncorrected.

They’re gutless posers only interested in self-aggrandizement and keeping their high-paying, phony baloney jobs. Tar and feathers the ones foisting this useless crap on us.

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Simply put, more background checks, increased regulations, these things ACCOMPLISH ONE THING: more government (read that, more manipulation by government of individuals’ rights, more taxes needed by government to make government manipulation possible).

“Increased background checks” might just as well be defined as “more government intrusion, less individual ability to use Constitutional rights”.

Increased background checks would not have changed many of the tragedies on record as of this date. They would only have limited the peaceful observation and exercise of rights by citizens.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Does it require that records be kept of sales?

El_Terrible on April 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Erick Erickson hears from a source that the bill might also allow doctors to red-flag a patient in the national background-check database without telling them if he suspects that patient of being mentally ill.

While the government can prevent those, who have been adjudicated mentally ill and those whom mental health professionals have warned are imminent dangers to themselves or others, it cannot infringe on the rights of those that have neither been adjudicated mentally ill nor reported to be an imminent danger. A medical professional’s suspicion that a person is mentally ill is insufficient.

Such laws are likewise an unconstitutional deprivation of a constitutionally-protected right without due process. Each person must be entitled to a hearing before his right to bear arms, his guns can be permanently confiscated or his licence is permanently suspended or pulled.

Gun Taxes, Ammo Licences, Liability Insurance, And Other New Ideas From The Gun-Grabbers Are As Unconstitutional As The Last New Ideas They Had

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM

President Obama should be as MORE committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as than he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.”

Fixed for the NRA

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM

It’s not a mistake and he’s not betraying “his side” either. The Republicans aren’t on our side anymore, and the sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner we can do something about it.

Doomberg on April 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been a Conservative without a Party ever since Ronnie was term-limited.

Most of the Republicans want to lord over us, too.

They and the Communists play chess – with us as the pieces.

F them both.

v

OhEssYouCowboys on April 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Go along with this, GOP, and I’m gone. I still tolerate the emails, letters, and phone calls, but if you agree to this plan and everyone in the GOP outside of my local state rep will be dead to me.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

So in other words, Toomey’s content to collude with the likes of Schumer to bargain away our rights, but just don’t take pictures of him doing it.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I bet Schumer’s been happy as a lark making sure that US taxpayers fund lots of munitions to various other nations and other nations’ various malcontents (or not, point is, providing munitions in large quantities to many a people worldwide, many of them not at all friends to the US).

He and the rest of his gun-grabbing Democrats, AND the compliant Progressives in the GOP, are eager as beavers to keep the bullets, bombs, jets, artillery, you name it, flowing to other nations while continuing to chew away at us US citizens.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I don’t begrudge a person for making a mistake. I do begrudge a person for making mistakes with MY rights.

They don’t have that prerogative. Not with me, anyway.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Making a mistake is wearing brown socks with your blue suit. Manchin/Toomey put poll numbers and public bullying ahead of the Constitution and our civil rights. That isn’t a mistake that is a violation of their oath of office and an act of treason (as far as I’m concerned).

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Go along with this, GOP, and I’m gone. I still tolerate the emails, letters, and phone calls, but if you agree to this plan and everyone in the GOP outside of my local state rep will be dead to me.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I agree. This gun grabbing, amnesty and the push for “‘gay’ marriage” are the two issues that will have me registering as Independent and dumping the GOP once and for all if they go along with this.

Just leave the Second Amendment alone. What IS it about “shall not be infringed” that these crazy Congress people cannot understand and certainly do not respect when/if they do?

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Sorry, these (those) THREE issues, not “two”.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Contact Information

Sen. Kay Hagan (NC), 202-224-6342, email HERE or at: http://www.hagan.senate.gov/contact/

Sen. Pat Toomey (PA), 202-224-4254

Sen. John McCain (AZ), 202-224-2235

Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), 202-224-5972

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (NH), 202-224-3324

Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA), 202-224-3643

Sen. Susan Collins (ME), 202-224-2523

Sen. Roy Blunt (MO), 202-224-5721

Sen. Mark Kirk (IL), 202-224-2854

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA), 202-224-3521

Southern by choice22 on April 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM

expand checks to online sales

Another libtard lie – total BS.
If you buy a gun online, it has to be delivered to a licensed dealer in your area – and by current law, that FFL dealer must run a background check on you before you can take posession of the gun.
Online purchase loophole is another non-existent crock of sh1!te.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Sure hope we, (Americans) get to read the bill before it is passed in the Senate, “away from the fog and controversy” #Pelosi

Rovin on April 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Does it require that records be kept of sales?

El_Terrible on April 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM

If I recall correctly, it requires that private sellers keep a paper record of the sale.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM

From good ol’ Bryan

[Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM]

Yeah, he Bryan does good work focusing on real stories.

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM

All this amounts to the creation of a de facto national registry.

Once the registry is a done deal liberals will begin pushing for a mandatory “buyback” program.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Erick Erickson hears from a source that the bill might also allow doctors to red-flag a patient in the national background-check database without telling them if he suspects that patient of being mentally ill. That could lead to unintended consequences, starting with some mentally ill people refusing to seek treatment for fear of being entered into a federal registry, but there’s no confirmation yet that it’s true. Something to look for once the text of the bill is released.

Already doing it in NY. Apparently, if you are taking or have taken anti-anxiety medication, your CCW and permit to own a handgun in NY are being revoked. Exactly what is mentally ill? What happened to HIPAA?

a capella on April 10, 2013 at 2:28 PM

The GOP needs to water down a bill through amendments and get it passed. Getting into the weeds over mental health is a slippery slope I want no part of; the definition of who is considered a risk could be controlled by those we wouldn’t want with that power.

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 2:28 PM

President Obama should be as MORE committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as than he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.”

Fixed for the NRA

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Obama isn’t confronting “the gang problem” because he’s a crappy coward who won’t dare to ruffle the feathers of the ethnic-racial groups he needs to keep him dancing in the White House: Hispanics and Blacks and especially the “urban” crowd among both (which create, fuel and populate all the gangs creating nearly all the problems as to “gun violence”).

Meanwhile, Obama has his helpers malign “White people” because of the White Supremacist gangs that also exist. But Obama is an utter coward as to the rest of them.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM

So in other words, Toomey’s content to collude with the likes of Schumer to bargain away our rights, but just don’t take pictures of him doing it.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Well, Vidkun Quisling was not happy looking in the pictures where he met Hitler. Maybe Toomey doesn’t want to make the same mistake.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Go along with this, GOP, and I’m gone.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Fitting that it will be the Republicans themselves that drive a stake thru the heart of the GOP.

Compromise has been their undoing.

Whenever we want them to stand strong they fold.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Go along with this, GOP, and I’m gone. I still tolerate the emails, letters, and phone calls, but if you agree to this plan and everyone in the GOP outside of my local state rep will be dead to me.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I’ve already written to my congressman and now my senator and told them both they may no longer rely on my vote, since I can no longer rely on theirs. I’m done with them.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Well, Vidkun Quisling was not happy looking in the pictures where he met Hitler. Maybe Toomey doesn’t want to make the same mistake.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM

I’m sure Benedict Arnold would not have wanted any photos of his activities either.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Erick Erickson hears from a source that the bill might also allow doctors to red-flag a patient in the national background-check database without telling them if he suspects that patient of being mentally ill. That could lead to unintended consequences, starting with some mentally ill people refusing to seek treatment for fear of being entered into a federal registry, but there’s no confirmation yet that it’s true. Something to look for once the text of the bill is released.

“might allow doctors…”

MIGHT allow doctors? Of course it’ll empower if not order doctors to do so (“red-flag a patient in the national background-check database…”).

Of COURSE that will happen if not already. OUr medical records are already being published online so doctors can “exchange medical records easier” among themselves but what they aren’t telling the public, generally, is that physicians were paid by Obamacare already with computing equipment to do that and part of the doctors’ obligations as pay-back is to allow federal access to those records.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:32 PM

All this amounts to the creation of a de facto national registry.

Once the registry is a done deal liberals will begin pushing for a mandatory “buyback” confiscation program.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM

FIFY.

Rovin on April 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Time to march on Washington…

When weasel politicians like Obama are heroes for defending the right to kill children, but gun rights for self defense from enemies both domestic and tyrannical must be restricted because guns might be used to harm people then we’ve crossed the line on logic.

It’s time to fight for our rights and if that means civil disobedience so be it.

Skywise on April 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM

The GOP needs to water down a bill through amendments and get it passed. Getting into the weeds over mental health is a slippery slope I want no part of; the definition of who is considered a risk could be controlled by those we wouldn’t want with that power.

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I’ve had enough of the GOPs compromises.
It’s time to start drawing lines in the sand – otherwise the GOP is going to lose even more of the conservative vote than they already lost in 2012.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I’ve already written to my congressman and now my senator and told them both they may no longer rely on my vote, since I can no longer rely on theirs. I’m done with them.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM

See you all are lucky. I live in a state with vile criminal Democrats in the Senate and my Congressional district (a drunk woman-hating bully). They don’t care about my votes because they have plenty of stupid people who will follow them to the end of the earth just as long as they give gays the appearance of legitimacy they didn’t get from mommy or something; the illegals get citizenship to go along with their fake voter ID cards, and they attack the NRA.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Once the registry is a done deal liberals will begin pushing for a mandatory “buyback” confiscation program.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM

FIFY.

Rovin on April 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM

True – but darwin had it right as to what the Dems and their RINO lackies will call it – at first.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Does it require that records be kept of sales?

El_Terrible on April 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM

No.

jawkneemusic on April 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM

If you can’t even support national borders (AMNESTY), the 2nd Amendment (GUNS), or traditional marriage (GAYS)…..you deserve all the scorn the electorate can pour on you.

COBURN, TOOMEY, and all the Progressive Cons in the D.C. Ruling class, are just a bunch of ____________.

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Agreed. DITTO ^^.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM

All fascist governments must have different “registries” to manage the population…

d1carter on April 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Attorney: Use Anti-Anxiety Meds, Lose Pistol Permit
http://www.wben.com/Attorney–Use-Anti-Anxiety-Meds–Lose-Pistol-Permi/16002790

Buffalo, NY (WBEN) If you use anti-anxiety medication, should you forfeit your pistol permit? One attorney says that’s exactly what’s happened in two cases here.

Colbyjack on April 10, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Compromise has been their undoing.

Whenever we want them to stand strong they fold.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I used to think this was just “the GOP is weak.” But it’s not weakness or compromise, it’s a calculated sellout. They are collaborators at this point. One poster uses the term Vichy Right and I have to say I’m coming to agree with it.

Doomberg on April 10, 2013 at 2:40 PM

And No Jobs. Still No Jobs. The “progressives” desire to destroy Capitalism is at the root of all of these problems in cities like Chicago.

And my taxes have gone up, and the sequestration is happening, and I can’t keep my same health care and Obama promised that none of these things would happen when he was campaigning. But oh yeah, GW was a liar…

kirkill on April 10, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Already doing it in NY. Apparently, if you are taking or have taken anti-anxiety medication, your CCW and permit to own a handgun in NY are being revoked. Exactly what is mentally ill? What happened to HIPAA?

a capella on April 10, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Perhaps they cross referenced pharmaceutical records with gun permit records? This is exactly why no one should be allowed to keep records or force anyone to acquire a permit to carry or own a gun. I’m probably going to end up moving to a state with Constitutional Carry laws because Colorado has gone full retard.

jawkneemusic on April 10, 2013 at 2:40 PM

We are “fundamentally changing America”…who knew?

d1carter on April 10, 2013 at 2:40 PM

On data bases–in addition to the things mentioned above, keep an eye out for news on the state longitudinal data systems being built in the guise of education.

At Truth in American Education, Joy Pullman wrote The U.S. Department of Education’s Data Mining Efforts, and at Missouri Education Watchdog, Database in Common Core Explained. Segregation Revisited?

MM wrote this in March about what’s going on in education.

Rotten to the Core: The Feds’ Invasive Student Tracking Database.

INC on April 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM

One poster uses the term Vichy Right and I have to say I’m coming to agree with it.

Doomberg on April 10, 2013 at 2:40 PM

I like it!!

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Just souled out, heading to Chicago…the one who doesn’t give a damn about Chicago kids, dead or alive…so long as it’s about gun control.

[Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 2:05 PM]

It irks me no end that Dems and Repubs alike have no problem considering infringements rights of the people by enacting laws which monitor the activities of law abiding citizens without any pretense of having probable cause, yet they’ll never consider infringing on the rights of felons by occasionally monitoring their activities which much more easily defended on probable cause grounds for the monitoring.

They’re happy to look for the lost keys, but only want to look under the lamppost where there is a bright light to see.

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM

What are the bad consequences from these minimal background checks?

mnjg on April 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM

All this amounts to the creation of a de facto national registry.

Once the registry is a done deal liberals will begin pushing for a mandatory “buyback” program.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM

You barely scratch the surface of far more ambitious plans.
Mandatory gun buybacks (to avoid IRS sanctions, as the Roberts court as deemed legal) will be ‘facilitated’ by members of Acorn across the country. In red states where enforcement is more challenging, the feds will billet Acorn and Black Panther recruits into privately owned homes for up to a year, or for whatever time frame is required to track down and ‘repurchase’ all guns. Of course, the practice of billeting violates the 3rd Amendment, and that’s the goal.

bayam on April 10, 2013 at 2:46 PM

What are the bad consequences from these minimal background checks?

mnjg on April 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The ones already on the books?

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:47 PM

If Schumer wanted anything to do with this, its an even worsebetrayal than it already is.

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Will they resign if this doesn’t stop the mass shootings in America..?

d1carter on April 10, 2013 at 2:48 PM

The DoD just changed security clearance criteria so that you don’t have to report mental health counseling due to sexual assault. The thinking is that victims will be less likely to get treatment if they think it will adversely affect their ability to hold a clearance due to a history of mental health issues.

Well, follow me here. A woman is sexually assaulted and goes through mental health counseling. She decides to get a firearm for personal safety. Yet when she goes to make her purchase she finds out that the system has flagged her for mental health reasons. Doesn’t that make her a double victim? How can the left engage in these wars on women?

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Should we doing background checks on knife purchases..?

d1carter on April 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM

No.

jawkneemusic on April 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM

This says gun sellers will keep records of the background checks to “aid” police. In essence, it creates a list of people who buy guns.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM

President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.”

This.

changer1701 on April 10, 2013 at 2:50 PM

How can the left engage in these wars on women?

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Does her bladder still work? Does she still have a working esophagus? I don’t see what the problem is.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:50 PM

You barely scratch the surface of far more ambitious plans.
Mandatory gun buybacks (to avoid IRS sanctions, as the Roberts court as deemed legal) will be ‘facilitated’ by members of Acorn across the country. In red states where enforcement is more challenging, the feds will billet Acorn and Black Panther recruits into privately owned homes for up to a year, or for whatever time frame is required to track down and ‘repurchase’ all guns. Of course, the practice of billeting violates the 3rd Amendment, and that’s the goal.

bayam on April 10, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Well, how odd that the DOJ recommended a gun registry and buyback coupled with a ban.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:52 PM

What are the bad consequences from these minimal background checks?

mnjg on April 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The better question is – What will they actually accomplish?

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Mandatory gun buybacks (to avoid IRS sanctions, as the Roberts court as deemed legal) will be ‘facilitated’ by members of Acorn across the country. In red states where enforcement is more challenging, the feds will billet Acorn and Black Panther recruits into privately owned homes for up to a year, or for whatever time frame is required to track down and ‘repurchase’ all guns. Of course, the practice of billeting violates the 3rd Amendment, and that’s the goal.

bayam on April 10, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Heh. I know you’re trying to mock, but, really, if the ACORN and Black Panther types are going to billet themselves in the Sandhills ranches while confiscating rancher guns, will there be pay per view? You may want to consider it.

a capella on April 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM

“The background check bill, which would close the gun show loophole and expand checks to online sales,

Again I ask: Who is coordinating this latest lie that internet gun sales are unregulated?

This BS started popping up last week, and as I suspected the memo went out to all the usual suspects, because it is now part of the official BS narrative.

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM

“That could lead to unintended consequences,…”

You think…?

Seven Percent Solution on April 10, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Again I ask: Who is coordinating this latest lie that internet gun sales are unregulated?

This BS started popping up last week, and as I suspected the memo went out to all the usual suspects, because it is now part of the official BS narrative.

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Exactly – as I said at 2:26, more big lie – repeat as often as possible and it “becomes truth”.
Any online sale must be transferred through an FFL, and they must do a background check.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM

What are the bad consequences from these minimal background checks?

[mnjg on April 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM]

Theoretically? Not much on it’s face, depending on what the costs to the individual seller is. Of course, to develop a national registry, one first has to make sure the law requires all sales/transfers are recorded, before one can have a national registry.

The problem is what are the good consequences? None really.

The problem also is, what are the details of the bill? All we know right now is the Senator’s sales pitches; let’s see the full bill before deciding one way or the other.

Lastly, what does the bill do to solve the problems that created this fuss in the first place? Again, let’s see the bill, but it doesn’t sound like it will do anything at all.

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM

It will allow them to claim it as a victory when it already existed.

a capella on April 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM

bayam on April 10, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Well, how odd that the DOJ recommended a gun registry and buyback coupled with a ban.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 2:52 PM

The chucklehead troll’s attempt at satire would have been funnier had it contained an element of truth.

The way things like this really go down:
You, the law-abiding gun owner, minding your own business and not hurting anyone, gets a letter from a government agency. It states that pursuant to some new regulation, your firearms are now illegal. They know you own them, because they have records. The letter goes on to spell out financial and/or imprisonment penalties for non-compliance. You decide to stand your ground and hire a lawyer. The following year, you are bankrupt and disarmed.

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM

The better question is – What will they actually accomplish?

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I have no idea either way… The issue here is that the Left has badly lost the gun control fight this time as they get almost nothing of what they originally wanted… Remember the shiting in the pants among conservatives when just few months ago the Left was pushing for an assault weapon ban? Do you remember how many on our side thought that is a done deal and assault weapon ban is going to become a law this year?

mnjg on April 10, 2013 at 3:00 PM

The police state is upon you. Both sides will enable it, with glee.

You are NO longer free people.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Again I ask: Who is coordinating this latest lie that internet gun sales are unregulated?

This BS started popping up last week, and as I suspected the memo went out to all the usual suspects, because it is now part of the official BS narrative.

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM

That is what I thought… There has been already background checks on many gun sales so I do know why they need to write a bill confirming what exists and why some on this forum are acting like there have never been background checks on gun sales.

mnjg on April 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM

What are the bad consequences from these minimal background checks?

mnjg on April 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM

It’s called deprivation of constitutionally-protected rights, especially due process.

The mental health requirements that are being passed – 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 going to probably not going to survive strict scrutiny. Yes, governments have a compelling interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of those adjudicated mentally-ill or those that are ‘an imminent threat to themselves or others,’ but the laws are overly broad and are not the least restrictive means that the government can use to achieve that interest. While the government can prevent those, who have been adjudicated mentally ill and those whom mental health professionals have warned are imminent dangers to themselves or others, it cannot infringe on the rights of those that have neither been adjudicated mentally ill nor reported to be an imminent danger to themselves or others. That someone might have taken ADD or insomnia medication in the past is NOT proof that the person is ‘an imminent threat to himself or others.’

Such laws are likewise an unconstitutional deprivation of a constitutionally-protected right without due process. Each person must be entitled to a hearing before his right to bear arms, his guns can be permanently confiscated or his licence is 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 with the state proving that the individual is an imminent danger to himself or others. 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 insufficient to prove that the state has a right to deprive of her constitutionally-protected right to own a gun for self-defence. There MUST be more. She MUST be an imminent threat to herself or others.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM

This nonsense about NOT HAVING A Filibuster needs to end. I urge Rand and the gang to filibuster. Otherwise,the GOP’s idea of stopping gun control is to slowly allow the second amendment to be destroyed.

I am so damn tired of my rights being sawed off so some selfish GOPer can feel better at a party.

love2rumba on April 10, 2013 at 3:04 PM

As far as the Left’s silence is concerned, 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 before being allowed to undergo an abortion, 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. After all, they once argued those of the poor that they deemed mentally-defective be sterilised so that they could not breed, Buck v Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). They always know what’s best for everyone else, especially the poor and most vulnerable. Dontcha know?

But, using the Left’s own arguments, why should the poor be denied ACCESS in order to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights or have such burdened with taxes, background checks, licencing fees, or insurance requirements?

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; thus, 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 3:05 PM

Lest we forget … the purpose of gun control is to protect the left, not the children.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Lest we forget … the purpose of gun control is to protect the left, not the children.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Well, they’re sort of the same thing.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Let’s not be that harsh about Toomey. He isn’t a traitor. He is just making a mistake. People make mistakes.

thuja on April 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM


Let him go “make a mistake” in a men’s restroom or with underage escorts provided by a campaign contributor.

The Tea Party folks in PA must be pretty weak to put up with this treasonous, duplicitous shite.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Sounds to me like “the community” should help me buy that gorgeous Remington 700 if I can’t afford it myself. Equal access and all that.

a capella on April 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM

My thoughts exactly – if it requires keeping records – kill the bill. Let’s see what is in it.

Zomcon JEM on April 10, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Where is all the Toomey love? I thought he was such a golden boy for conservatives?

Looks like a RINO turncoat to me!

So Ed thinks the bill is “weak tea” and the NRA says “No f-in’ way!” I’ll go with the NRA, thanks.

Adjoran on April 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2