Senate group near deal on background checks for most private gun sales
A bipartisan group of senators is on the verge of a deal that would expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions, but significant disagreements remain on the issue of keeping records of private gun sales, according to aides familiar with the talks…
Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records. Records of private sales also would help law enforcement trace back the history of a gun used in a crime, according to Democratic aides. Republicans, however, believe that records of private sales could put an undue burden on gun owners or could be perceived by gun rights advocates as a precursor to a national gun registry…
More Republican support is anticipated in part because the four senators involved in the talks have agreed that any new background check program would exempt private transactions between family members or people who completed a background check in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit, according to aides.
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
Bipartisan Romance!
tommy71 on February 24, 2013 at 8:07 AM
It is no more of an undue burden than teenage girls experience when telling their parents about their pregnancy.
Oh…wait!
BobMbx on February 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM
How would that have stopped Sandy Hook? Aurora? (add incident here)
It wouldn’t have stopped them.
Background checks are cover for gun registration. Gun registration has historically lead confiscation.
Is there some part of “No…it isn’t Constitutional” that alleged “conservative” senators don’t get?
ProfShadow on February 24, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Don’t do this.
petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 8:27 AM
If they would spend as much time reading the Constitution as they do reading opinion polls, we’d be in much better shape, but in the end, the Constitution doesn’t vote or donate to campaigns.
BobMbx on February 24, 2013 at 8:27 AM
I feel another scofflaw attack coming on.
trl on February 24, 2013 at 8:28 AM
“Don’t you be fooled. There is nothing “universal,” nor “reasonable” about it. They ought to stop pretending and stop calling it what it will never be. Criminals will never be a part of it, and I have come to believe that the adjudicated mentally incompetent [won't either]…This so-called universal background check that you’re hearing about is aimed at one thing: it’s aimed at registering your guns and, when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”
They lie.
Naturally Curly on February 24, 2013 at 8:33 AM
‘
We are all felons now in the eyes of our government.
cntrlfrk on February 24, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Camel’s nose under the tent…and none of the “solutions” offered by our esteemed Congresscritters address the real problems of purported mass violence via guns.
Stolen weapons? Gang warfare? The breakdown of family structure/increase of fatherless homes caused by the welfare state? Mental-health issues, esp. the incidence of schizophrenia and abuse in the prescribing of psychotropic drugs to young people?
onlineanalyst on February 24, 2013 at 8:35 AM
I saw this coming long ago, so I sold all my firearms at a garage sale along time ago.
(For the record)
BobMbx on February 24, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Background checks performed by the government should be the same for whatever department wants a background check, and they should not result in a breach of anyone’s privacy.
I want to know the same things about an employee I am going to hire, as I want to know as a person selling someone a new gun.
I don’t want to hire someone who would not pass a universal background check, or would be here with FAULTY paperwork, making them not legal (ILLEGAL) to hire. I don’t want to “have to” hire someone with a mental/emotional problem. I don’t want to pay money to someone that later I am blamed for not knowing they could not legally cut my grass or repair my roof. Or teach my children in school.
Exceptions make bad law.
Fleuries on February 24, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Your beloved GOP…
The GOP will betray you
True_King on February 24, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Too bad you’ll never be able to use them again.
fossten on February 24, 2013 at 8:56 AM
I didn’t find a definition of “background check” in the article. Anybody know exactly what that means?
forest on February 24, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Won’t hold up in court. The Fed’s entire power to mandate B/G Checks comes from the Commerce Clause. Face to Face deals that don’t cross state lines are outside their powers.
JohnBrown on February 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Tom Coburn ,this morning on Fox , said NO.
He indicated that a federal data base would kill any
support from republicans .
Lucano on February 24, 2013 at 10:35 AM
I’m guessing that from now on I will only lend indefinitely firearms and borrow them indefinitely the same way.
No more sales….just a gun nut lending to another gun nut….
If I had any…that boat trip last month….
ProfShadow on February 24, 2013 at 10:58 AM
KMA!
Every politician that votes to restrict our Natural Rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE and labeled a traitor of the Constitutional Republic. You swore to uphold the Constitution…if you can so readily lie to that oath you took why should we ever believe a single word out of your mouths?
Molon Labe!
trs on February 24, 2013 at 11:11 AM