Tom Coburn: No deal on background checks if Democrats demand record-keeping of gun sales

Hot Air ^ | February 25, 2013 | Allahpundit

[2ndDivisionVet]

Here’s the first hard evidence we’ve seen that the big meeting of the minds on guns that the media’s been touting might be overhyped. Plain and simple, says Coburn, if Democrats demand that records of private gun sales be kept, the compromise is dead.

But wait. Kept by who? By the seller, or by the federal government?

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.

It’s true, Wallace does seem to think that the Democratic plan would involve the feds retaining records of gun sales. If that wasn’t being kicked around in negotiations, you’d expect Coburn to correct him — but he doesn’t. Does that mean Wallace is stating the Democratic position correctly, much to the chagrin of Schumer et al. who’d prefer to keep that quiet while negotiations are ongoing? Or is Coburn saying he opposes expanded record-keeping of any kind, whether by the feds or otherwise?

WaPo makes it sound like the records would be kept by a private entity, not by the government, but it’s uncertain which private entity that might be:

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...

[Cboldt]

I can imagine the FEDs going for something like title to a vehicle, to show ownership and transfer.

I won't comply.

[TigersEye]

Why is there any deal on 'background checks?' We already have a national system of background checks called NICS that every single FFL holder must use for every firearms transfer.

How stupid, how corrupt, how evil are these politicians? Is Coburn just another Pubbie running cover for these commie usurpers?

[JimRed]

Even a simple background check is an infringement. If they can’t be trusted to own and carry weapons, what are they doing running around loose?

[Cboldt]

He’s a doctor. And, I think he’s become a member of the elite politicians club too. Time to turn him out.

[TigersEye]

They just don’t seem to understand the concept of ‘natural rights’ at even the most basic level nor the plain language “Shall not be infringed. “

[TigersEye]

I guess I’m not keeping up but I thought he was one of the good ones. If any of them think their oath of office says “to appease popular sentiment” then they need to go.

[cripplecreek]

No deal PERIOD.

If you’re always on the defense, its because you’re always losing.

[SeminoleCounty]

Coburn just another spineless Liberal RINO.....ready to compromise

[GeronL]

even if they agree not to keep the records they will keep the records

[demshateGod]

Coburn is full of himself and full of power. I live in Oklahoma and have watched him over the years. If there’s some piece of crap legislation that every Senator is for, he’ll be on of 2 or 3 who vote against it. If there’s some piece of crap legislation that close, he votes with the party. He’s completely useless to cause of liberty, and only falls on the conservative side when there’s no chance the conservative side will win.

[zerosix]

Tom Coburn - it should be NO DEAL on gun control - period!

Back up and try "criminal control, period!"

Without criminals running amok, totting guns and some modest proposals for, say security officers in schools, with guns AND bullets on colleges and universities, would go a very long way on keeping down idiots who determine to take out their entire class or schools for that matter because.......you make up their reasons.

[zerosix]

Nope! I don't trust this government (or any other, for that matter) with more access to "records of purchases of guns" so that they know exactly whom to target when they're ready to confiscate any and all guns!

This government will NOT do anything to take criminals off the streets yet claim that we don't "need" guns for protection.

Actually, I trust petty criminals more than I trust the government anymore.

No way, letting the camel get more of its nose under the tent and we'll have the entire gun control camel in our living rooms soon.

[Red in Blue PA]

Lie. Defy. Do not comply.

[Malone LaVeigh]

We already have a national system of background checks called NICS that every single FFL holder must use for every firearms transfer.

The trouble "they" have with that is that if that gun is sold or given away after that initial sale, they lose track of it. That form 4473 you fill out when you buy a gun is only useful a a tool to track that firearm while you own it. Universal background checks would have to require some type of registry in order to work.

[grobdriver]

if Democrats demand that records of private gun sales be kept, the compromise is dead.

SCREW THIS!
NO "COMPROMISE"!
NO NEW GUN LAWS!

Now where's muh phone... this Coburn a$$wipe is going to get a piece of my mind.

[TigersEye]

Apparently the "they" you speak of includes Republican pols too.

"Universal background checks" means that Mexico can start smuggling guns back into the U.S. /s

[TigersEye]

Thanks for the explanation on Coburn. He needs to go then.

[i_robot73]

How is not a tax/stamp (ala Poll tax) Constitutional? What other Right(s) require gov’t approval (aka, those aren’t Rights) to utilize?

Hey media! Can you, or the dipshits writing these ‘laws’, tell me how this will reduce gun crime??

[NewHampshireDuo]

All of my future private transactions will have happened in the past.