Gun talks hit a snag in Senate over universal background checks

The Hill ^ | Mar 5, 2013 | Alexander Bolton

[KeyLargo]

Gun talks hit a snag in Senate over universal background checks

By Alexander Bolton - 03/05/13

The centerpiece of President Obama’s gun violence agenda is in peril amid a deadlock among Senate negotiators over how to implement and enforce a proposal requiring background checks for private gun sales.

With time running out for talks, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) remains optimistic about reaching an agreement.

But gun control proponents have grown skeptical about whether Schumer’s main Republican counterpart, Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), is acting in good faith.

Schumer argues — and gun control groups agree — that records must be kept to ensure background checks are conducted before private transactions. Otherwise, any expansion of background checks would be unenforceable, they assert.

But Coburn worries that such a paperwork requirement could lead to a national gun registry, which gun rights groups staunchly oppose, according to Senate sources familiar with the talks.

Obama has ratcheted up his attention on Coburn in recent days. Coburn told reporters the president called him Monday and Thursday but declined to reveal specifics of the conversations.

[KeyLargo]

I was planning on reading Tom Colmen's books and thought that he was a conservative but his association with Chucky Schumer and Obama makes me wonder if he is just another Rino.

[T-Bird45]

Let’s get it right, shall we: COBURN

Even here in OK on a local gun forum, I see posters spelling it COLBURN, even though they likely voted for the guy.

Coburn generally gets it right but this issue has put him into lame-duck, modified let-it-all-hang-out-there while in search of a “legacy” mode since he’s not planning to stand for election again. I have issues with him in other areas but he’s received my vote anytime he’s on my ballot. The current situation is making me question that choice.

[lacrew]

Besides the obvious trampling of rights, I can’t imagine how large a government agency would have to be, in order to track sales and enforce this edict.

[KeyLargo]

Thanks.

I was looking for someone from OK to give some idea of what Coburn is all about these days.

[T-Bird45]

Further to my previous: what I question is Coburn so much as even acknowledging Chuck U. as having any idea of legitimate consideration on most any subject. Coburn does appear to be hanging tough on the UBC because he does have some inkling of the ultimate goal admitted to by the collectivists. I do give him credit on that front but the stupid collegiality of the Senate galls me to no end.

[BobL]

“The centerpiece of President Obama’s gun violence agenda is ...requiring background checks for private gun sales.”

NO!!! Classic media defense of a Democrat. They shift the objective...with the goal of making it into a major victory. In this case the “centerpiece” was an “assault weapons ban” and a limitation on magazine sizes. The background checks were nothing more than a face-saving fall-back.

One other thing - considering how many guns the feds buy, it would be VERY EASY for them to run sting operations on dealers to see if they are complying. For the ones that don’t, hit them with well-publicized felony charges, and there will not be any issue with compliance. In other words, there is NO REASON TO KEEP RECORDS if the issue is compliance. The only person not acting in good faith is Schumer.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I can’t imagine how large a government agency would have to be, in order to track sales and enforce this edict.

I can. Give it time. The US Gov't is well up to the task. It will just take time. Government bureacracy moves slowly. But when motivated and it eventually moves, We The People will get crushed. Sort of like a glacier. No amount of heat will avail us.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Gotta love the objective journalism at work here.

If this does not happen it’s only because Coburn is “not acting in good faith”.

[Travis McGee]

[KeyLargo]

[theBuckwheat]

There are technical ways to perform a background check without giving government the means to compile details on the firearm being purchased. For a transfer, a buyer and seller could be given a unique transaction ID that the seller would keep to show the check was done. But when bureaucrats and politicians want to collect more data and specific details on the firearm involved, it is clear they are laying the groundwork for some further violation of rights in the future.

[KeyLargo]

Universal Background Check = Backdoor Gun Registry
Author
- J.D. Longstreet (Bio and Archives) Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Just so we are clear—I am against the proposed universal background check for gun purchasers.

Why? Because it is pure bovine scatology and a load of horse hockey. Ultimately, a universal background check will lead directly—and quickly—to a national gun registry.

At its core there is very little difference between a background check and registering a weapon. In fact many are referring to he Universal Background Check as “Universal Backdoor Gun Registration.”

How’s that?

Well, first and foremost, your name is suddenly on a government list of names of people who want to purchase a weapon. RED FLAGS go up all over our progressive/socialist/Marxist/authoritarian government! “Gads! Another gun nut! We’d better keep a close eye on him/her!” See, anyone, and I do mean, ANYONE, expressing a desire to purchase a weapon, of any kind, in America today is considered by our government as a threat, a potential domestic terrorist.

Actually, it appears a universal background check law is the only part of the gun control proposals in Congress that has any chance at actually being passed into law.

In case you don’t know, the UBC would extend background checks to purchasers of guns at gun shows—and—private sales of guns. (That is to say—if you decide you want sell your 12-gauge to your hunting buddy Joe, then Joe must undergo a government background check before he can actually buy the weapon from you!)

What about gun sales or transfers of guns between family members? Well, you may be surprised to learn that there are those pushing—HARD—for background checks of family members transferring or selling guns within the family. That would include the centuries old tradition of grandfathers and fathers passing on their guns to the next generation...

Read at: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53549

[BCR #226]

Any firearms registry is illegal under FOPA. If they touch FOPA, the Hughes Amendment must be repealed. If not, don’t dare go down this road.

[KeyLargo]

VIDEO:

Punching back twice as hard… Democide is the greatest killer of disarmed people

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=6268

[BlueMondaySkipper]

How about this. Add an endorsement on drivers licenses for gun purchases. All you would need to do to buy a gun would be to show your ID. If you have the endorsement, you’re good to go. No sending any information about the gun whatsoever to the feds. You could even add in specific types of guns, such as pistols, rifles, full-auto, etc. If the Dems are gonna insist on background checks, and citizens are subjected to them, once you prove you’re a good guy you should be able to get a machine gun or whatever else you wanted.

[KeyLargo]

“How about this. Add an endorsement on drivers licenses for gun purchases. All you would need to do to buy a gun would be to show your ID. If you have the endorsement, you’re good to go.”

So then you are saying that anyone considering purchasing a firearm would voluntarily have their state government identify them on a list then as a gun owner and or potential gun owner?

Uh, sounds like registration to me.

Illinois already has that in the form of a FOID card.

But I do not think that residents in conservative states, unlike Illinois would agree to such a gun owner registration as Illinois residents have done by voting for Democrats.

[Atlas Sneezed]

records must be kept to ensure background checks are conducted before private transactions. Otherwise, any expansion of background checks would be unenforceable

---

Utter bull$#!&.

This can be enforced two easy ways, without the confiscation database:
1. Retrospectively, after a felon is found with a gun, and rats out the seller.
2. Stings, just like for underage alcohol sellers.

[KeyLargo]

Government

Missouri Dept. of Revenue Allegedly Compiling Data on Concealed Carry Holders, Forwarding It to Company With Ties to Gov’t
Mar. 5, 2013 3:46am Jason Howerton

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/05/missouri-dept-of-revenue-compiling-data-on-concealed-carry-holders-and-forwarding-it-to-company-with-ties-to-government-lawsuit-alleges/

[Atlas Sneezed]

This can be enforced two easy ways, without the confiscation database:
1. Retrospectively, after a felon is found with a gun, and rats out the seller.
2. Stings, just like for underage alcohol sellers.

---

And in contrast, I fail to see how getting gun registration data from people the system approves helps catch people who sell to those who are not permitted to own a gun.

[Atlas Sneezed]

So then you are saying that anyone considering purchasing a firearm would voluntarily have their state government identify them on a list then as a gun owner and or potential gun owner?

Uh, sounds like registration to me.

Illinois already has that in the form of a FOID card.

---

Not if the “endorsement” is one put there by a judge whose ruling has disqualified you from gun ownership. A clean, normal license would be adequate for a purchase.