Replies

Judge this not by the good it might do in the right hands, but the harm it will do in the wrong ones.

I'm not. I believe in 'trust but verify' though not 'knee jerk before researching.'

"...and improving enforcement of existing laws regarding state information-sharing for the background check database..."

One of the problems everyone has acknowledged is that states have not been turning info on convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent over to the Feds to be put into the NICS database. Another is that some states (CO for instance) do their own background check with their own database thus missing info from the rest of the nation and wasting money in the duplicate effort. I see nothing in the statement above about Grassley's bill to indicate anything other than solving those problems. The words "enforcing existing laws" are at least some indication that the bill is not intended to expand the parameters of 'background checks.'

Beyond that everyone seems to be missing the political meaning of introducing a competing bill. It's a common method used to kill the first bill with no intention of passing the latter one. Something that's beyond the thinking of the would-be president.