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

No more ‘gun bills’.

They’re not getting my guns, and that’s the end of it.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 3:22 PM

How about an amendment to restrict magazine sizes for secret service agents?

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM

They are going to snatch defeat from victory if it kills them.

They shouldn’t filibuster and they shouldn’t make deals. They should let the Dem version come up for vote. Dare the Red State Dems to vote for it.

They either don’t and Obama is embarrassed or they do the Senate is easy to get back.

ChrisL on April 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM

They are going to snatch defeat from victory if it kills them.

They shouldn’t filibuster and they shouldn’t make deals. They should let the Dem version come up for vote. Dare the Red State Dems to vote for it.

They either don’t and Obama is embarrassed or they do the Senate is easy to get back.

ChrisL on April 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I’ve got a better idea: let’s amend this gun control bill into a 50-state open carry bill.

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I’ve got a better idea: let’s amend this gun control bill into a 50-state open carry bill.

crrr6 on April 10, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Better still, kill the bill.

If it passes, ignore it.

Frack ‘em all.

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 3:33 PM

The worst word to say to a liberal when he intends to impose himself on you: “NO.”

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Vote Toomey out of office.

jdun on April 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Toomey is a disgrace and needs to be primaried for violating his oath to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He was also among those having dinner with Obama while Rand Paul was on the Senate floor protecting our rights by filibustering Brennen’s nomination.

FloatingRock on April 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

“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.

Somebody needs to photoshop Schumer into the picture.

FloatingRock on April 10, 2013 at 3:49 PM

OT: There is an immigration march in DC right now, Spanish networks were hyping it, expected to be very big, looks like a major bust.

El_Terrible on April 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Just got done leaving a voice message at the Washington office and sending an email to Senator Rob Portman (R?) of Ohio stating my expectation he will oppose ALL infringements of the Second Amendment and should rather focus on proactive measures to address his constituents REAL problems:

1) Improved mental health that preserves the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship.

2) Initiate enabling legislation for the NRA’s proposal for trained, armed personnel to provide security to all our schools.

3) Iniatiate a national program to break the gangs afflicting ALL of our major cities with uncontrolled violence.

If you are contacting your Senator(s), please think about incorporating some or all of the three items above. I know it’s a radical idea the Senate Republicans might actually try to DO SOMETHING and earn their salary/perks but hey, I am child of the ’60′s. :)

I also noted the proposed Toomey/Manchin deal was completely unacceptable.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 3:53 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

Of course.

“It ain’t fittin’, it just ain’t fittin’!… It just ain’t fittin’ that only the evil rich can afford to buy a Remington 700! It just ain’t fittin’.”

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

According to an article in the Washington Times Policeone.com did a survey of 15000 active and retired police officers and 91.5% said that any gun legislation would not do a thing to stop violent crime and an armed citizenry helps to prevent crime.

flytier on April 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Me recommendation for a photoshop is to have a ghostly apparition of Schumer standing above Toomey/Manchin pulling their strings like marionettes.

FloatingRock on April 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Having never brought a gun from a gun show I’m not sure of the rules.

Do all the dealers there selling guns have to be licensed, thus requiring them to do background checks?

I want to respond to my Senator’s e-mail and want to make sure I have the facts straight.

I know private sales go on there but that would not be the gun dealers, right?

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Internet sales are regulated through dealers already! You have to go thru a FFL for all new guns and many used guns (interstate). The only thing you can do is “private sales” for intrastate transactions.

Hey, if they’re on your gov approved friends and family plan, you can trade guns with them! Not your cousin’s sister’s former college roommate though. Unless they’re in the mexican drug cartels, then its ok, right Holder?

All those exceptions will be abused and redefined. They’ll leave it up to the ATF etc. to define it as they wish. Look at how the ATF deals with “any other weapons” and sporting arms definitions. Shoulder thing that goes up?

oryguncon on April 10, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Also these would be commercial sales?

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:14 PM

OT: There is an immigration march in DC right now, Spanish networks were hyping it, expected to be very big, looks like a major bust.

El_Terrible on April 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM

ICE should be there checking everyone’s “papers”.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Having never brought a gun from a gun show I’m not sure of the rules.
Do all the dealers there selling guns have to be licensed, thus requiring them to do background checks?
I want to respond to my Senator’s e-mail and want to make sure I have the facts straight.
I know private sales go on there but that would not be the gun dealers, right?

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM

All FFL dealers must do a background check on anyone buying a gun from them regardless of where that transaction happens to take place.

AND – if you buy a gun from an online company, the gun must be sent to a local FFL dealer for actual transfer – and that dealer doing the transfer must do a background check on you before turning over the gun. And BTW – that local dealer WILL charge you a transfer fee for handling the transaction – such fess vary by dealer.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM

I know private sales go on there but that would not be the gun dealers, right?

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM

BTW – in Colorado, all transactions at gun shows must have a background check performed.
Of course, if you talk to someone (not an FFL dealer) at agun show about buying his gun, as long as you leave the show to make the transaction you don’t need the background check – that is until 1 July when the new Colorado law takes effect.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Every gun dealer at EVERY gun show is already REQUIRED to do a background check with the FBI before selling the gun.

Every internet “gun sale” requires the gun dealer selling the gun to ship it to another gun dealer who is already REQUIRED to do a background check with the FBI before letting the person who “bought” the gun on the internet take possesion of it.

Another “inconvenient truth” – private sales at gun shows are a tiny fraction of the gun sales both at the show and between private parties.

Why, you ask?

Because guns of all types generally hold more value to their current owner than they do to a second hand purchaser.

Example:

I buy a .22LR rifle use it, maintain it, keep it a few years but then decide I’d rather sell it to get something new. In my mind, the rifle is worth 90%+ of what I paid for it. I am NOT going to sell the gun substantially below that price because guns last for decades.

Someone at a gun show looking to buy that same rifle is looking for a better deal than the new rifle available right there would cost him. He is only willing to offer me 75% maximum of what the new rifle would cost him, if that.

The gun dealers at the gun show will, as a rule, only offer you 50% of the rifle’s new price because they view it as harder to sell (and they are rght) than the new rifle even though they make less profit on the new rifle.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Thanks. I just wasn’t sure if just anyone could set up a booth and sell guns whether licensed or not.

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:28 PM

ICE should be there checking everyone’s “papers”.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:14 PM

.
Can we agree it would be a better thing to FIRE the top four levels of ICE management, break it up and turn the various parts over to the governors of each state along with ALL current funding?

Think we might get better results?

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM

The gun dealers at the gun show will, as a rule, only offer you 50% of the rifle’s new price because they view it as harder to sell (and they are rght) than the new rifle even though they make less profit on the new rifle.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM

My experience at gun shows over the last couple month is that those dealers are making a HUGE profit – gouging level in my view.
I’ve seen guns identical to my AR-15 (that cost me $800 new) on sale (not necessarily selling though) for over $2000.

But I totally agree with your points about buying new versus used. From what I’ve seen of the price differences, I’d much rather spend just a few dollars more and get a new gun that I KNOW nobody else has abused.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:30 PM

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Thanks for the info. Now I can respond my Senator’s e-mail!!

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Toomey has to reckon with the voters of western PA. Living on the boarder here in Ohio, I can tell you those folks will not put up with this and will remember it. That being said, I do not even know what the Republicans stand for anymore; they cave on taxes, they cave on spending, they cave on social issues, they cave on health care, they cave on separation of powers, they cave on the constitution….. It is maddening, I guess Time Magazine was right, we’re all socialist now.

Question, would going on a hunting trip across state lines with your gun constitute trafficking?

OliverB on April 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Think we might get better results?

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Of course – along with EPA, DOE, DOEd, etc, etc.

I was just picturing how funny it would be to see an “illegal Democrat” protest march scatter when they see ICE coming at them.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:34 PM

No one covers this.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 4:34 PM

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

Just out of curiosity…

For years, the drug companies, the FDA, the government, doctors, etc., have been telling people that all of these psychotropic drugs are NOT harmful. That they do NOT cause or exacerbate suicidal or homicidal impulses. The drug companies fight lawsuits and claim the drugs are safe.

Now – out of the blue – New York (and soon, the federal govt.) has started confiscating guns based on present or *past* use of the drugs. Evidently, New York is saying that use of these drugs is so dangerous – and the danger lasts for so long – that anyone taking them is a danger to the community and must be denied guns (though not a driver’s license, chain saws, a license to perform surgery, swords, knives, axes or brush hooks, and on and on.)

If New York has, indeed, determined that these drugs are that dangerous, wouldn’t that leave the drug companies open to massive lawsuits? Shouldn’t the FDA be investigated for malfeasance in licensing these drugs? Or to find out if the drug companies bribed someone to get the dangerous drugs approved for use?

It seems to me that New York has, essentially, hung the drug companies out to dry on this one. It’s going to be interesting to see what the drug cos. have to say about this. If they say the drugs are safe and NY is wrong – that starts putting holes in NY’s case for confiscation. If they say nothing – they tacitly endorse NY’s reasoning that the drugs are unsafe – and they leave themselves open to lawsuits that will bankrupt them.

Solaratov on April 10, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Having never brought a gun from a gun show I’m not sure of the rules.

Do all the dealers there selling guns have to be licensed, thus requiring them to do background checks?

By law, if you deal in firearms you must be licensed. All purchases from a licensed dealer require an NICS check.

I want to respond to my Senator’s e-mail and want to make sure I have the facts straight.

I know private sales go on there but that would not be the gun dealers, right?

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Private sellers can and do rent tables and buy and sell guns. Typically, these folks deal in particular types of guns because they are collectors. Or you may have the occasional person selling out for whatever reason. Others are just walking around the show. (You’ll often seen slung rifle with a dowel in the barrel holding a sign with a description and price. Walking around with a gun displayed is to invite offers.) No federal law requires a background check for these transactions, but state law may, and all other law applies. For example, it is still illegal to sell to a felon and a non-resident of the state can only take possession through a dealer (thus resulting in a NCIS check). If you go to a gun show and see the crowd you will soon learn your typical gang-banger would feel very much out-of-place.

You had better believe that if you rent a table at a gun show and sell guns, you will be talking to the BATFE at some point. If you don’t have an FFL, you had better have a non-dealing explanation for what you are up to. Around here we often also see the state Dept. of Revenue checking business licenses and tax records.

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 4:47 PM

So if it doesn’t involve a sales receipt and you ‘know’ someone, then that Joey guy down at the bar working out deals of pistols for beer is A-OK!

Yessirree, Bob!

What a cunning stunt of a bill this is.

Wouldn’t prevent Newtown or Aurora or Columbine… worse than useless as it makes them feel its ok to write bills that ‘regulators’ get to figure out for them. Soon even your family will be in the ‘you don’t know them well’ category, especially if ‘the community’ is raising them.

Good job, Statists!

I’ve got your red flag with white circle all ready for you, just put the black emblem of your choice in the center. Don’t worry, its velcro so you can keep on changing sides without having to change your colors.

ajacksonian on April 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Just got done leaving a voice message at the Washington office and sending an email to Senator Rob Portman (R?) of Ohio

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM

My condolences.

Myron Falwell on April 10, 2013 at 4:55 PM

ajacksonian on April 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

And how exactly would they know that a gun sale took place without a background check?
How would they know who originally owned it versus who currently owns it?
Closing that little loophole will be the next step.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM

You had better believe that if you rent a table at a gun show and sell guns, you will be talking to the BATFE at some point. If you don’t have an FFL, you had better have a non-dealing explanation for what you are up to. Around here we often also see the state Dept. of Revenue checking business licenses and tax records.

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 4:47 PM

.
Around here, the guns shows will not provide a table to a “private seller” period because the BATFE has undercover agents in every show. They have been known to roust private sellers who were doing “volume business” (i.e. who comes to a gun show to trying sell 20+ NIB guns) though that was a while back.

After 20+ years of attending shows, I saw one of the extremely rare “moron with a criminal record” attempts to buy a gun from a licensed dealer incidents. The dealer signaled the sheriff at the door while still on the phone with the FBI. The moron tried to “leave suddenly” after being told by the dealer the FBI had blocked the sale – it had to hurt when the sheriff and two plainclothes guys rode him down to the floor like a boogie board.

Hopefully one of our “stricter” judges heard his case.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

After 20+ years of attending shows, I saw one of the extremely rare “moron with a criminal record” attempts to buy a gun from a licensed dealer incidents. The dealer signaled the sheriff at the door while still on the phone with the FBI. The moron tried to “leave suddenly” after being told by the dealer the FBI had blocked the sale – it had to hurt when the sheriff and two plainclothes guys rode him down to the floor like a boogie board.

Hopefully one of our “stricter” judges heard his case.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

If that one happened in the last 4 years, he was likely not even charged.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Hopefully one of our “stricter” judges heard his case.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Obama and Holder’s DOJ basically does not prosecute convicted felons who re-offend by falsifying a 4473 and committing another felony. Using their own numbers and giving them every benefit of the doubt, for the last year numbers are available about 50,000 felon rejectees resulted in less than fifty prosecutions.

Also using DOJ figures, the rejectees are 28% more likely to re-offend in the five years following a rejection than other felons. Doing time for a federal felony would certainly restrict their opportunities for committing those crimes, but actually reducing crime isn’t part of the game plan. Holder is no more interested in prosecuting them than he is in prosecuting the Black Panthers, and for some of the same reasons.

Actually enforcing laws that would be effective totally undercuts the gun banners’ agenda of restricting gun rights incrementally, and using each “failure” to reduce crime as an argument that further restrictions (also unrelated to actual crime) are needed.

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 5:21 PM

novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 5:21 PM

This does make for an interesting mobius loop of logic.
We don’t prosecute criminals or keep them in jail, so they keep committing crimes, which gives us an excuse to write new laws, which make more people into criminals,…..
According to the logic trail, once they make all of us gun owners into criminals, in theory, they would then leave us alone, as they do with current criminals who use guns illegally…. (ya, right)

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM

“Today is the start of a healthy debate that must end with the Senate and House, hopefully, passing these commonsense measures and the president signing it into law. The event of Newtown, truly the events at Newton, changed us all. It changes our country, our communities, our town and it changed our hearts and minds.”

- Senator Joe Manchin, today

Newtown did NOT change the Constitution. If you want to change the Constitution, AMEND IT.

Learn the law:

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

Senator Dianne Feinstein: “I’m Not a Sixth Grader”

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Thursday morning……another nail in the coffin of Liberty in the United States.

May the Ruling class ______ in the _______.

Traitors to the Republic.

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act

May the charltans’ brains splatter into a million pieces, from Machiavellian deceit alone.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM

gun Control…..AKA “Treaury Looting Preperation Act”.

Take their guns…….then take their money!!!!

Thanks DC

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 6:47 PM

They aren’t getting my guns…because I lost all of them to my sinking boat last month….

ladyingray on April 10, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Good. And a ZERO RATING WITH THE NRAfor both of these senators would be appropriate too.

THIS is unconscionable; and it’s a thinly veiled step toward making all legal, law abiding gun owners in this country into criminals via laws demanding record-keeping of private information. It’s a NON-STARTER, even according to Tom Coburn. Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin cannot hide their attempt to shill for Obama/Holder’s marxist, anti-constitutional gun-grabbing agenda.

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/04/10/stockman-to-use-blue-slip-to-kill-manchin-toomey-scheme-deliver-u-haul-gift-cards-to-democrats-who-vote-in-favor/

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM

If Ed Morrisey thinks this is weak tea, he’s naive.

You really ought to chuck the complacency and do your research.

Head on over to D C. Clothesline and read Tim Brown’s latest on the Toomey-Manchin proposal.

It’s an abomination.

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 8:55 PM

The worst word to say to a liberal when he intends to impose himself on you: “NO.”

Liam on April 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Between rape tents at OWS, dem politicians telling women to vomit on rapists or just flat out telling them they’ll likely take one for the team rather than letting them arm themselves, Bill “You should put some ice on that” Clinton, Ted “Waitress Sandwich” Kennedy, I get the feeling that liberals don’t understand that “no” means “NO!”

CurtZHP on April 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Gun owners of America blasts Toomey on GOA website.

mountainaires on April 10, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Manchin/Toomey

…Frick/Frack

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2013 at 10:33 PM

I know private sales go on there but that would not be the gun dealers, right?

Barred on April 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM

BTW – in Colorado, all transactions at gun shows must have a background check performed.
Of course, if you talk to someone (not an FFL dealer) at agun show about buying his gun, as long as you leave the show to make the transaction you don’t need the background check – that is until 1 July when the new Colorado law takes effect.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Then you just say meet me in Laramie, WY to complete the transaction.

Dasher on April 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM

RESIST.

Kenosha Kid on April 11, 2013 at 4:29 AM

Vote Toomey out of office.

jdun on April 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Look, I appreciate your point of view. And it is worthy of consideration but I heard Toomey on a local station, AM 790 this morning, from the Lehigh Valley (Pennsylvania). Toomey recognizes just how controversial this is but he also has some provisions in the bill that are rather surprising, aka that government officials have to follow this law just like any other citizen or risk felony prosecution. Now I know this is not a strong argument, but I also know that Toomey does NOT want a Federal gun registry either which is also a part of his legislation drafting. I think this is a better argument although Toomey denies this is federal (read liberal) “incrementalism”. I have lingering doubts about this, too, only because he is proposing this legislation at all. You could also look at this argument from Manchin’s supporters POV that it does not do enough.

In the end however, this may be only political cover, to perhaps, take back the argument of gun control for conservatives. That conservative argument looks something like, it’s not everyday gun owners but nut jobs and criminals who commit these horrible acts, and those issues are clearly not being addressed as they should be.

DevilsPrinciple on April 11, 2013 at 9:51 AM

They are only trying to change the 2nd amendment; what’s wrong with that?

Pardonme on April 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2