Reid coming up short on gun control bill

posted at 8:41 am on April 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Harry Reid got enough votes to open debate on his gun-control bill and the Manchin-Toomey compromise on background checks, but closing debate is another matter. So says both the Washington Post and Politico, who have done some whip counting based on public statements.  Advocates had hoped to get the more moderate Johnny Isakson to swing to their side, but Isakson isn’t biting, says the Post:

The amendment will require at least 60 votes to clear Senate procedural rules and ensure final passage, but it still lacks sufficient support, based on an analysis by The Washington Post. The votes of just 22 of 100 senators are in play, including the 16 Republicans who voted last week to proceed with debate on the gun bill and six moderate Democrats who face difficult reelections in 2014 or represent rural states with strong gun cultures and would face strong political pressure at home for supporting new gun-control legislation.

Among the Republicans, at least nine said said Monday that they plan to vote against the Manchin-Toomey deal: Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

Isakson’s decision is especially disappointing to gun-control groups, who hoped he would vote in favor of the plan after supporting similar proposals when he served in the Georgia state legislature.

Reid has problems among his own caucus, too:

Among the six Democrats, Sen. Kay Hagan (N.C.) announced Monday that she will vote for the plan. Spokesmen for the five other Democrats — Max Baucus (Mont.), Begich, Heitkamp, Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) — said Monday that the senators were reviewing the proposal and soliciting input from constituents before making a decision.

These red-state Democrats had two options if they wanted to support this bill: pull the bandaid off quickly with an early endorsement, or fly under the radar and make a last-minute vote in favor.  If they are soliciting opinions from constituents, they are likely already lost causes.  Why raise your profile among voters — especially for incumbents facing them in 2014, like Pryor — if you plan to cast an unpopular vote?

The cloture vote will come as early as Thursday, so there isn’t much time to get back under the radar:

A cloture vote on the Manchin-Toomey could come by Thursday, Democrats said….

Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are attempting to hash out a floor procedure laying out votes on the Manchin-Toomey proposal.

If Democrasts cannot overcome a GOP filibuster on the background checks bill, any chances for major gun control legislation being enacted in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting would diminish dramatically.

With Republicans filibustering the Manchin-Toomey proposal, a cloture vote on the bill is likely to take place on Thursday at the earliest.

Reid is likely to lose three of his 55 Senate Democrats — Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.). All three Democrats said on Monday that they were still reviewing the proposal and would not commit to backing it.

Only four Republicans are considered solid for support: Toomey, obviously, and Mark Kirk, Susan Collins, and John McCain.  That adds up to 56 votes.  Four votes is a lot to gain in two days on a gun-control bill.

The ACLU, meanwhile, is backing away from an earlier warning about expanded background checks.  The bill’s original approach to expanded background checks had them raising red flags about the potential for the system to be transformed into a national registry, but now they say they are satisfied with the language in Manchin-Toomey.  Greg Sargent contacted the ACLU for an updated response:

Earlier this month, conservatives widely cited a Daily Caller interview with a top privacy lobbyist at the American Civil Liberties Union, in which he claimed he had “serious concerns” about the proposal to expand background checks. Opponents of the proposal — from the NRA to Senator Rand Paul – widely pointed to the ACLU’s concerns to buttress their argument that the proposal would be overly intrusive into people’s privacy and would create a government gun database.

But in an interview with me today, the same ACLU privacy lobbyist tells me those concerns have been resolved in the new compromise proposal put forth by Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin. Not only that, he said the language in the compromise proposal creates strongerprohibitions against any national gun registry than exist under current law. …

But Calabrese says the new Manchin-Toomey language deals with his objections — and then some. He points out that the bill says at the top: “Congress supports and reaffirms the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.” And it also says: “Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to…allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.”

“The existing Manchin Toomey language is even stronger than current law in making it clear that none of these records can become part of a national gun registry,” Calabrese told me.

Calabrese also said he’s no longer concerned that “transfer” isn’t clearly defined enough, because it now specifies just what sort of private sale is covered — ones via commercial portals at gun shows and on the internet. “The Manchin Toomey language deals with that as well, because it makes pretty clear where you need a new background check requirement,” he said.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think conservatives will necessarily take the ACLU’s word for it. The notable feature for the Right of the ACLU’s initial postion (on the Schumer language that preceded the Manchin-Toomey compromise) was that it offered a statement-against-presumed-interests on the Left.  As I wrote at the time of the Manchin-Toomey deal, it’s very weak tea compared to where Democrats wanted to go and mainly reinforces the requirements already in place for commercial sales of firearms, while leaving private transfers alone.  Of all the potential outcomes in the gun bill that had a chance of seeing floor time in the Senate, it’s the least intrusive.  That doesn’t make it great, and it’s certainly not responsive to anything that happened at Newtown, but if this is all that passes after the last four months of demagoguery on this topic, it’s not a terrible outcome for gun owners.

Addendum: Does Manchin-Toomey have a prayer of passing the House if even a couple of Democrats oppose it in the Senate? I highly doubt it, which is another reason this won’t be a terrible outcome for gun owners.


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

Which just confirms that the ACLU is a political organization subject to strong arming.

Skywise on April 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

S’okay, wouldn’t be the first time Dingy Harry came up short…IYKWIMAITYD…

Battlecruiser-operational on April 16, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Gun Control: The libs 3rd rail. Please continue to push it.

bernzright777 on April 16, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Concealed bombs may appear to have taken the headlines.

Electrongod on April 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

I can not and will not support politicians who support any more limits on our Second Amendment rights.
-Gov Palin

I join Sarah Palin – I won’t support any member of Congress who votes for more gun control laws… fb.me/tw0fVwmv

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 15, 2013

The lines are being drawn. this is an issue many of us will not budge on. You can vote 99% with the GOP but if you vote for gun control you are as bad as the dems.

unseen on April 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

The lines are being drawn. this is an issue many of us will not budge on. You can vote 99% with the GOP but if you vote for gun control you are as bad as the dems.

Yup.

Battlecruiser-operational on April 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

If there’s no power expansion and no pork, what the hell is this bill for?

claudius on April 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM

but if this is all that passes after the last four months of demagoguery on this topic, it’s not a terrible outcome for gun owners.

Ed, it’s the bits and pieces like this that, should it pass, continue to erode away 2A.

bernzright777 on April 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM

The bottom line is this legislation is a precursor for a National Gun Registry. Anyone saying otherwise is lying!

jjnco73 on April 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

but if this is all that passes after the last four months of demagoguery on this topic, it’s not a terrible outcome for gun owners.

Spoken like a true collectivist!

jjnco73 on April 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

I can not and will not support politicians who support any more limits on our Second Amendment rights.
-Gov Palin

I join Sarah Palin – I won’t support any member of Congress who votes for more gun control laws… fb.me/tw0fVwmv

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 15, 2013

Wonder if this is having any impact on Senators….Naw.

ToddPA on April 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Reid. Short. Gun.

In the same sentence.

No wonder Harry is such an angry old man.

coldwarrior on April 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Amazing our elected tyrants are still considering this assault (pun intended) on my freedoms in the face of what appears to be yet ANOTHER terrorist attack by radical Muslim dirt bags.

Will. Not. Comply.

Polish Rifle on April 16, 2013 at 9:01 AM

unseen on April 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

guess sarah shouldve done a better job of vetting toomey before she endorsed him.

chasdal on April 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Only focus on gop obstruction
-lsm

cmsinaz on April 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Have any of these Senators been examined by a medical professional as to their mental stability? A Congress person with pen in hand is far more dangerous than a criminal with a gun. The criminal may affect a few innocent people but a Congress person can devastate entire populations.

trs on April 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

you bastards !

TX-96 on April 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

those concerns have been resolved in the new compromise proposal put forth by Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin. Not only that, he said the language in the compromise proposal creates strongerprohibitions against any national gun registry than exist under current law. …

And the ACLU likes to pretend that future sessions of Congress have their hands tied with this. LOL They know that this is a slippery slope and they’re looking forward in the hopes of having Democratic majorities in both houses to move forward on the confiscation plans all liberals have.

ButterflyDragon on April 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Will this new gun control bill affect what we’re doing with the Armed Citizen Project?

DTTS on April 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Concealed bombs may appear to have taken the headlines.

Electrongod on April 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

This might be the only time that Obama prefers to have a terrorist attack be the national topic of discussion.

mintycrys on April 16, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Here’s a development that is getting little national attention in the media, but every politician in Wasington has to be aware of:
http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/

The number of counties, towns, and villages that have voiced opposition to the draconian NYSAFE legislation speaks for itself. If a “Blue” state like New York puts up resistance, how much more will the red and purple (and some blue) states politically resist more firearm controls? Mayor Bloomberg, you’re not very popular in upstate New York.

Thistle on April 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

guess sarah shouldve done a better job of vetting toomey before she endorsed him.

chasdal on April 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Toomey evolved.

Happy Nomad on April 16, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Toomey evolved.

Happy Nomad on April 16, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Tombey will lose in 2014!

jjnco73 on April 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM

I was never that concerned about a gun control bill passing, but amnesty for illegal aliens makes me nervous. A lot of special interests will make big bucks off this immigration law.

Wigglesworth on April 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Smart Power. A terrorist attack occurs that a huge mass of on-scene police couldn’t stop, but we’re supposed to trust the gubment to be there instantly when some lone jackhole busts through our front door?

Yeah. No. This is the time to reiterate that free citizens in a free nation need to be able to protect themselves.

Bishop on April 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

What? Graham and McCain aren’t voting the same? That’s probably their little secret code of bi-partisanship. The perfect compromise from the gang of two.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Addendum: Does Manchin-Toomey have a prayer of passing the House if even a couple of Democrats oppose it in the Senate? I highly doubt it, which is another reason this won’t be a terrible outcome for gun owners.

The way Boehner and Goodlatte (Judiciary Chairman) have been talking lately, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Goodlatte said a while back that something would definitely get done on the issue. Boehner the other day said something about how he doesn’t need a majority of Republicans to pass a bill. I read into both of those statements that these guys are soft on this issue and they want to pass something.

dczombie on April 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Manchin-Toomey Amendment orchestrates gun registration, read it yourself
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/manchin-toomey-amendment-orchestrates-gun-registration-read-it-yourself/

The so-called “background check” bill is really about gun registration — ultimate and imminent registration of every gun and gun owner in America.

Read the bottom of page 27 of the bill* (below at the asterisk, read it, it’s killer, very short) and you tell me if you think that language stops the federal government from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or… backing up its records forever. It doesn’t. Show me an audit trail. You can’t. It’s not there.

It doesn’t even limit the FBI or BATFE in this regard. It only restricts gun dealers and gun owners. It’s a complete farce.

*P.S. The only thing the feds propose banning themselves from doing in the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer gun-registration bill is to “consolidate” or “centralize” records. Any other activity is unaffected. Only the Attorney General is restricted. Only gun dealers and gun owners are restricted, the FBI and BATFE are not even mentioned. Statutory bans on gun registration in other bills (the Brady bill in 1994 and 1998, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986) have been ignored with no repercussions. It’s a complete and total joke. Any reporter who would read it would know this.

(c) PROHIBITION OF NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY.-
Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
”(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-
”(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-
”(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
”(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
”(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.

Colbyjack on April 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Since there are already background checks done when one buys a gun at a gun show, and since all internet gun sales are done through an FFL licensed dealer – with a background check – at the buyer’s end…why are they touting these points?!
Passing a law that says what a law already in place says is not much “progress”.
And individual (private) sales are not conducted *at* gun shows. The deal may be made, but the sale and transfer cannot be concluded inside the show (at least, at any show I’ve ever seen). It has to take place outside of the show. And the new ‘law’ – supposedly – won’t interfere with any of that.

If it’s NOT to lay the groundwork for a national registry of guns and gun owners…what’s the point of the law?

Solaratov on April 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Sorry, this isn’t fooling me. Barrycare wasn’t suppose to pass, same with more taxes, same with cutting deficits. The GOP will roll over for their belly rub.

Limerick on April 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

(c) PROHIBITION OF NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY.-
Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
”(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-
”(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-
”(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
”(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
”(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.

Colbyjack on April 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM

That probably wouldn’t stop the director of “homeland security” from ‘consolidating’ records, now would it? Or the secret service? Or, for that matter, the secretary of commerce (commerce clause, anybody)? Or HHS?

Solaratov on April 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Oops. Strike HHS. “maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”

Solaratov on April 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

guess sarah shouldve done a better job of vetting toomey before she endorsed him.

chasdal on April 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Palin and anyone else with a thinking mind knows politicans evolve in office. They become part of the cesspool which is why Palin supports contested primaries to make sure the GOP we send to DC stays conservative. the Founding Fathers also knew this. And designed a government so the competeting interest for power balanced one another.

If Tomney is evolving into a RINO you can be sure there will be no endorsement from her for him next time he runs. What the Gop voters have to understand and acknowledge is it doesn’t matter how conservative a person runs for office its how conservative they vote once in office.

this entire gun control and amnesty push is happening now because its the furthest point from ANY election. The politicans want to pass these bills now in hopes by the time the elections come around the voters forget all about it.

Palin and other like her will not let voters forget.

This is the whole reason we have elections on a regular basis to ensure that what a politican says when running is confirmed by his/her votes. If not we vote them out.

unseen on April 16, 2013 at 10:45 AM

What? Graham and McCain aren’t voting the same? That’s probably their little secret code of bi-partisanship. The perfect compromise from the gang of two.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

no it has to do with the timing of their elections. McCain isn’t due up for re-election for another 3 years. Graham’s is coming next year. Watch the GOP senators who vote for this bill almost all of them will have 3+ years until re-election time. Same for the dems in red states. Those up for -reelection in 2014 will vote against the bill. Hagen can’t win in NC regardless and she knows it.

Funny how elections make our politicans care about we the people.

We should shorten all terms by half and hold elections every year then bills like this one would never see the light of day.

unseen on April 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Smart Power. A terrorist attack occurs that a huge mass of on-scene police couldn’t stop, but we’re supposed to trust the gubment to be there instantly when some lone jackhole busts through our front door?

Yeah. No. This is the time to reiterate that free citizens in a free nation need to be able to protect themselves.

Bishop on April 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

agree 100% I noticed the same thing yesterday. All kinds of police around when the bomb went off. they couldn’t protect the citizens from a lone bomber how can they protect everyone from criminals when they AREN’t around?

unseen on April 16, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Tombey will lose in 2014!

jjnco73 on April 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM

think his election is in 2016 thus the reason he evolved. he has 3 years to fool the voters he didn’t evolve.

unseen on April 16, 2013 at 10:51 AM

“The existing Manchin Toomey language is even stronger than current law in making it clear that none of these records can become part of a national gun registry,” Calabrese told me.

Kopel begs to differ with the ACLU:

The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control

novaculus on April 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Insufficient data to render an educated opinion as to whether this is good, bad, or indifferent.

Remaining vigilant.

listens2glenn on April 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I agree with Claudius.

If there’s nothing in the package that ultimately benefits the Dems, why are they voting on it?

I don’t believe for a second even the smallest provision isn’t “bad” for gun owners and the 2nd Amendment.

catmman on April 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM

As I wrote at the time of the Manchin-Toomey deal, it’s very weak tea compared to where Democrats wanted to go and mainly reinforces the requirements already in place for commercial sales of firearms, while leaving private transfers alone.

Ed, this is about as wrong as can be. Manchin-Toomey does *not* leave private transfers alone. If I post here, in passing, that I’m trying to sell an old rifle of mine and someone living in my same state responds…I *must* run a background check on him. That’s a private transfer.

Hell, the language even seems soft to me…if I, again, post here in passing that I want to sell a rifle and I end up selling it to my father-in-law, even though he never saw my post here, the ATF can certainly make my life hell by saying I made a commercial post and I should have run a background check on the guy.

For that matter, if I want to sell a gun to a friend whom I’ve known since kindergarten, I need to run a background check.

Please don’t just take what Manchin-Toomey (and the media) want you to believe about this. It absolutely impacts private transfers.

JohnTant on April 16, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Of all the potential outcomes in the gun bill that had a chance of seeing floor time in the Senate, it’s the least intrusive. That doesn’t make it great, and it’s certainly not responsive to anything that happened at Newtown, but if this is all that passes after the last four months of demagoguery on this topic, it’s not a terrible outcome for gun owners.

If the Left can’t get the whole package, they will always settle for an incremental shift in their direction. Policy almost always moves left. They will take this, then sit back and pray for the next massacre of middle class white children to happen soon.

stvnscott on April 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM

‘Sockit’ Toomey is a true turncoat…Remember that at the next election.

elihu on April 16, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Not only that, he said the language in the compromise proposal creates strongerprohibitions against any national gun registry than exist under current law. …

Had intended to take this statement to task but several others highlighted the main point it only bans DOJ from maintaining a centralized registry. It also weakens protections for those transporting weapons while traveling.

chemman on April 16, 2013 at 11:22 AM

listens2glenn on April 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Head over to the Volokh Conspiracy and read their write up. It will give you sufficient information.

chemman on April 16, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Two sets of letters you never want to trust……ACLU and AARP.

RADIOONE on April 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Addendum: Does Manchin-Toomey have a prayer of passing the House if even a couple of Democrats oppose it in the Senate? I highly doubt it, which is another reason this won’t be a terrible outcome for gun owners.

Last time I listened to you as a prognosticator on something important, you were wrong and we got Obama. And I thought the same as you then. I’ll wait and see what’s “not bad” for me as a gun owner after ALL is said and done.

Big John on April 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM

That doesn’t make it great, and it’s certainly not responsive to anything that happened at Newtown, but if this is all that passes after the last four months of demagoguery on this topic, it’s not a terrible outcome for gun owners.

Have to disagree with you on this.
It is a very bad thing for gun owners. This is totally in line with the Dem/prog/socialist incrementalism methods. This law needs a national registration to be enforceable, so if they get this in, the next step WILL absolutely be national registration. And their excuse will be that, gee big surprise, the law they put in is unenforceable and has had no impact on crime, so now we must have the registration as well. Oh, and big surprise, the next step after that will be confiscation – as they are already doing in NY and Kalifornicatia.
Line in the sand time. IT MUST STOP HERE!! No further!!

dentarthurdent on April 16, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Gun Registry:
Over at Volokh Conspiracy, they parse the bill’s registry language and find a gate so wide open that 95% of the Federal Government can walk through it.
The language only restricts the Attorney General, therefore the DoJ.
It says nothing about every other Department, Agency, Administration, etc, within the Federal Leviathan.
This is not a good bill for anyone; even the provisions on interstate transport seem to increase restrictions as compared to current law.
I have a hunch that Toomey-Manchin were jobbed by Schumer/et al.

Another Drew on April 16, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Tombey will lose in 2014!

jjnco73 on April 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM

think his election is in 2016 thus the reason he evolved. he has 3 years to fool the voters he didn’t evolve.

unseen on April 16, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Not this voter. I already wrote to him telling him he will never get my vote again.

CurtZHP on April 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM

The ACLU is very skilled at ensuring legislation and judicial action that appears to support general civil rights instead becomes a left wing weapon to destroy.

pat on April 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The pizza shops in the DC area better get staffed up quick – it looks like Joe Manchin will need to order a bunch of pies in the next couple of days.

Gator Country on April 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM

but if this is all that passes after the last four months of demagoguery on this topic, it’s not a terrible outcome for gun owners.


Seriously, Ed ???

Like a lot of gun owners, I would like to see some good come out of Newtown:

1) Increased funding for mental health that preserves the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship.

2) Enabling of the NRA proposal for trained, armed personnel to protect our schools.

3) A national program to BREAK the gangs that terrorize all major American cities and are responsible for the vast bulk of gun violence in America.

After the last four months of demagoguery on this topic … how is it possible YOU don’t see this as a terrible outcome for gun owners?

PolAgnostic on April 16, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Addendum: Does Manchin-Toomey have a prayer of passing the House if even a couple of Democrats oppose it in the Senate? I highly doubt it, which is another reason this won’t be a terrible outcome for gun owners.

Please. The bifactional ruling party knows exactly what they are doing.

The bill’s original approach to expanded background checks had them raising red flags about the potential for the system to be transformed into a national registry, but now they say they are satisfied with the language in Manchin-Toomey.

Mm hm.

Manchin-Toomey Bill Is Gun Registration
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/04/16/alan-korwin-on-the-manchin-toomey-betrayal/

THE MANCHIN-TOOMEY-SCHUMER KEY:

Read the bottom of page 27 of the bill (read it, it’s killer, very short) and you tell me if you think that language stops the federal government from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or … backing up its records forever. It doesn’t. Show me an audit trail. You can’t. It’s not there.

It doesn’t even limit the FBI or BATFE in this regard. It only restricts gun dealers and gun owners. It is a complete farce.

Show me where they can’t go around and just use all the Form 4473 gun-registration papers you fill out that every dealer must permanently keep — as they are doing right now and have been doing for years. You can’t. This bill allows the federal government to do almost anything it wants with records of you and your firearms, and massively expands the records it can collect — even though it can’t collect absolutely every record at this time, yet.

Rae on April 16, 2013 at 2:46 PM

novaculus
Yes
the ACLU quote contains the “…” that means they cut out something.
Something important, like

” (c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
“(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
“(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
“(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries,”

from your voloch link
everybody should read the whole thing.

jhnone on April 16, 2013 at 4:44 PM

No National Registry..Yeah, just like they didn’t sell guns to Mexican Drug Cartels!

shov74 on April 16, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Nothing is acceptable except for a complete defeat on the issue of gun control. Obama doesn’t deserve even a token bill coming out of the Senate. He and Reid needs to be repudiated completely and without mercy. I’ve written my senators and my congressman numerous times and let them know the importance and symbolism involved here. Absolutely zero changes to existing gun control laws are acceptable. Then when they’re done dicking around with gun control perhaps they can debate serious legislation to institutionalize dangerously insane people.

Metanis on April 16, 2013 at 11:54 PM