Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks

Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks

This is a discussion on Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Senate Negotiators Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks, Coburn Says : Roll Call News Senate Negotiators Not Close to Deal on Gun Background ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Rock and Glock
  • 2 Post By HotGuns
  • 2 Post By ANGLICO

Thread: Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks

    Senate Negotiators Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks, Coburn Says : Roll Call News

    Senate Negotiators Not Close to Deal on Gun Background Checks, Coburn Says




    Four senators working on legislation to expand background checks for firearm purchases are not anywhere near an agreement, Sen Tom Coburn said Sunday.

    “I don’t think we’re that close to a deal, and there absolutely will not be record-keeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners in this country,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “And if they want to eliminate the benefits of actually trying to prevent the sales to people who are mentally ill, and the criminals, all they have to do is create a record-keeping, and that will kill this bill.”

    Coburn has been working with Illinois Republican Mark S. Kirk, New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin III on developing the narrower background check legislation, which aims to ensure that criminals and those with mental health issues are not able to access firearms.

    If that working group reaches an agreement, the proposal could be among the most likely to become law in response to last December’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

    “If you really want to improve it, you have to eliminate the record-keeping and give people the right and the responsibility to do the right thing and, that’s check on the [national] list to make sure you’re not selling a gun to somebody who is in one of those two categories,” Coburn said, in an appearance on Fox News Sunday.

    A Senate aide familiar with the process said Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace erred in the question he posed to Coburn. The aides said there is no discussion of allowing the federal government to keep any records of background checks or sales, something that is already illegal and would not change. What is being proposed is having the seller retain a record of a private sale, just as a dealer does now for a sale that happens at a licensed gun store, the aide said.

    Schumer acknowledged that the negotiations are “challenging, as you’d expect on an issue as complicated as guns”

    “But all of the senators involved are approaching this in good faith,” he added in a statement. “We are all serious about wanting to get something done, and we are going to keep trying.”

    Coburn’s comments followed a speech Saturday by National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre in which he warned against implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchases, saying it is intended to create a national gun registry.

    “Don’t you be fooled,” LaPierre said in Salt Lake City. “There is nothing ‘universal’ nor ‘reasonable’ about it. This so-called ‘background check’ is aimed at one thing — registering your guns. When another tragic ‘opportunity’ presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”

    LaPierre then aired an NRA ad that featured an edited clip of Schumer calling background check and anti-gun trafficking measures under development “universal registration.” The New York Democrat is a longtime foe of the NRA.

    “Let me say it here and now and for the world to hear — for once in my life, I agree with Chuck Schumer,” LaPierre said.
    Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy responded Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that LaPierre’s comments were misleading.

    “It’s not going to be registration,” the Vermont Democrat said. “And, of course, [LaPierre] knows that, but he’s paid very well to stir up his membership and help increase dues-paying members.”

    Leahy noted that he comes from a state with many gun owners, but he said that people he talked to generally accepted the idea of records checks before buying weapons.

    “I don’t think there should be exemptions at a gun show or for straw purchasers,” he said. “We want to say to everybody, so that if you have a violent crime in your background, if you’re under a restraining order, if you have some of these problems, you’re not going to be able to legally purchase a firearm.”
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro


  2. #2
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 14,650'
    Posts
    12,552
    Write these Senators:

    Schumer;
    Coburn;
    Manchin; and
    Kirk; as well as

    McCain;
    Flake;
    Collins;
    Udall, Mark;
    Reid;
    Landrieu;
    Collins; and
    McCaskill

    As well as your Senators.

    I include Reid because he is the omnipotent gate-keeper of the Senate.

    Here's the list of 20:

    There are 20 U.S. senators, in particular, who hold the fate of your freedom in their hands.

    These senators represent states where gun ownership is respected and our Second Amendment freedoms are revered.


    But right now, they're facing huge pressure from the gun ban lobby and Barack Obama to support Obama's extreme gun control agenda!

    So please, call each of the senators below and tell them to vote NO on any gun ban...NO on any magazine ban...NO on criminalizing private firearm transfers...and NO on any gun registration scheme.

    Sen. Max Baucus 202-224-2651
    Sen. Mark Begich 202-224-3004
    Sen. Susan Collins 202-224-2523
    Sen. Joe Donnelly 202-224-4814
    Sen. Kay Hagan 202-224-6342
    Sen. Martin Heinrich 202-224-5521
    Sen. Heidi Heitkamp 202-224-2043
    Sen. Tim Johnson 202-224-5842
    Sen. Tim Kaine 202-224-4024
    Sen. Angus King 202-224-5344
    Sen. Mary Landrieu 202-224-5824
    Sen. Joe Manchin 202-224-3954
    Sen. Claire McCaskill 202-224-6154
    Sen. Mark Pryor 202-224-2353
    Sen. Harry Reid 202-224-3542
    Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 202-224-2841
    Sen. Jon tester 202-224-2644
    Sen. Mark Udall 202-224-5941
    Sen. Tom Udall 202-224-6621
    Sen. Mark Warner 202-224-2023

    Spread your calls out over several days if you need to.

    And remember: It doesn't matter if you do not live in these senators' states - YOU NEED TO CALL THEM. After all, the votes they cast will affect you no matter where you live!

    Thank you for your hard work and dedication to winning this battle. Now is not the time to let up! Call each of these 20 senators as soon as you can.

    By working together, we can defeat the Obama gun ban agenda and save the Second Amendment!!!

    Chris
    mg27 likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    Kirk, Shumer and Rankin, all rabid anti-gun fanatics, never saw a gun bill that limits your rights that they didnt like.


    “It’s not going to be registration,” the Vermont Democrat said.
    Lying piece of trash. Keep saying it long enough and loud enough and some of the sheep might beleive you.If it's not going to be registration, then why are you giving it lip service?

    These blood sucking and treasonous cockcroaches will never cease until they get what they want.
    mg27 and Rock and Glock like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,574
    Registration is the end game, all of the other 'over the top' restrictions are only on the table to use as leverage to negoiate them away in order to win a 'resonable' national regristration. Granted, they will take everything they can hang on to Anti-2A in the end.

    It is important that the rest of us, regardless of Political Party demand that our representatives hold fast and accept no new Anti-2A Legislation at the Federal, State and Local levels.
    Last edited by ANGLICO; February 24th, 2013 at 11:42 PM.
    mg27 and Rock and Glock like this.
    Socialism Kills! Time proven, with a very large body count! We are a Constitutional Republic....... not a Democracy, get it correct!

    Don't be mistaken for a Gecko45: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14qTdp-Dd30

    ANGLICO Images

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,574
    It is even going to be more confusing after the new patchwork of the true Anti-2A states passing laws, and seeing who can be the most restrictive to your rights.
    Socialism Kills! Time proven, with a very large body count! We are a Constitutional Republic....... not a Democracy, get it correct!

    Don't be mistaken for a Gecko45: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14qTdp-Dd30

    ANGLICO Images

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Is someone dropping the ball on Universal Background Checks or am I not seeing something........

    The "Brady Bill" brought background checks to America, however it went to the Supreme Court who ruled such checks as unconstitutional(as a federal mandate and left it up to states) yet did not strike down the entire Bill:
    In its 1997 decision(Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997) in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. The vast majority continued to do so. In 1998, background checks for firearm purchases became mostly a federally run activity when NICS came online, although many states continue to mandate state run background checks before a gun dealer may transfer a firearm to a buyer.
    Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997 - Google Scholar

    Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
    Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    OK, my take on the Supreme Court ruling of 1997 would still hold true today as far as a Universal Background Check being in violation of the 10th Amendment. Or as I stated --- Am I missing something here?????

    What are your thoughts??
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,774
    If the republicans cave on this then the party deserves to be swept into the ash heap of history!

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    I don't exactly understand this sentence: "If you really want to improve it, you have to eliminate the record-keeping and give people the right and the responsibility to do the right thing and, that’s check on the [national] list to make sure you’re not selling a gun to somebody who is in one of those two categories...”

    It sounds like he is saying people should have the right and the responsibility to check the national
    list (I assume he means NICS). That part makes sense. So, what record keeping is he
    wanting to eliminate? His he talking about requirements that the states turn records over to NICS?
    Is he talking about records of a NICS check that FFLS and other resellers would need to keep?

    What is he objecting to. It isn't background checks, it seems. It seems to be some unexplained
    (in that interview) record keeping requirement he has a problem with. What is that requirement?

    Anyone know?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,016
    There should be NO deal at all. There isnt anything they need to do other than go home and watch football or something.
    If there is a deal any politician of any party needs to be booted out of office at the first opportunity before they set this nation on its head.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  10. #10
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 14,650'
    Posts
    12,552
    What is he objecting to. It isn't background checks, it seems. It seems to be some unexplained (in that interview) record keeping requirement he has a problem with. What is that requirement?
    I'd guess it is an as of yet unarticulated or undefined permanent record kept at the national level. Like the NICS checks logs the Feds keep now, even though they are supposedly purging their records.

    UBC's don't work without registration.

    Criminals will not get UBC's. Therefore, UBC's do not prevent criminals from getting firearms.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales - The Washington Post

    In addition to writing your legislators, you can write the people on the committees that are working on these issues. Maybe we can influence the discussion is our way. I suggested adding Adjudicated Mentally ill persons to the NICS checks, but NO UBC or other Gun Control.

    The names are listed in the WAPO article (link above). I wrote all of them this morning. How about you?
    Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    I'd guess it is an as of yet unarticulated or undefined permanent record kept at the national level. Like the NICS checks logs the Feds keep now, even though they are supposedly purging their records.

    UBC's don't work without registration.

    Criminals will not get UBC's. Therefore, UBC's do not prevent criminals from getting firearms.
    Whether UBCs are worthwhile seems to be moot as far as Coburn is concerned. He seemed fine
    with it, but was concerned about "paper work."

    I'm not advocating UBC or commenting on that. My question is specifically what proposed
    paper work is Coburn concerned with? I can't judge if his objection makes sense or not
    without knowing what it is he is actually objecting to.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

chuck schumer gun universal registration

,

gun bills mental

,

martin heinrich 2nd amendment

,

tim johnson universal background checks

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors