Just give them a few more years.
Posted on 04/14/2013 11:28:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., visited the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board in February, he essentially predicted that Washington would end up where it is today. Asked whether an assault weapons ban had a realistic chance of passage, the longtime gun owner, Vietnam vet and Democrats' point man on crafting legislation in the wake of the horrific Dec. 14 Sandy Hook shooting replied, "You don't think this whole thing's going to get through?" His apparent assessment was that it would not.
With a foot in both the gun world and the sausage factory, Thompson has a keen sense of what is doable. "I would argue that the background check would do the most good," he said. "That's the one area where you can intervene -- before someone gets a gun."
Two months later, the assault weapons ban is presumed dead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he couldn't find 40 votes to support Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill. The Senate's focus is fixed on a bipartisan compromise to close the worst loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
On Wednesday, two lawmakers with A ratings from the National Rifle Association -- Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa. -- unveiled a plan to require background checks on all gun show and Internet sales.
While President Barack Obama and other Democrats supported a "universal background check," the Manchin-Toomey Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act is sensitive to objections made by civil libertarians and gun rights advocates. Noncommercial gun sales would be exempt, which means gun owners would be able to give or sell a gun to a family member or friend.
The American Civil Liberties Union's Chris Calabrese had been concerned with other background check bills because they did not explicitly prevent the government from keeping records that later could be used in a national gun registry. Though the legal language has not been finalized, he told me, what he has seen was "very clear" in stipulating that gun dealers would be responsible for record keeping. The bill would prohibit the federal government from keeping records.
When Toomey and Manchin announced the deal, the NRA reacted by sending out a letter from Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, that called the compromise "misguided." And: "As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools."
I like the NRA's emphasis on passing only laws that work. Cox's claim, however, is difficult to believe, considering that the government denied 1.8 million applications between 1994 and 2008.
"I don't consider criminal background checks to be gun control," quoth Toomey. His effort, after all, is designed to make existing laws work as they should.
Voters elect senators to get things done. Toomey's actions provided a needed contrast to the efforts of a GOP rump that had threatened to use Senate rules to thwart an up-or-down vote on Senate gun bills. That effort tanked when 16 Republicans joined all but two Democrats to move forward.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also stepped up to the plate when he signed up to be a co-sponsor of Manchin-Toomey despite his support for "universal background checks." His approach was bound to fail, for good reason.
Gun owner Dan Baum, author of "Gun Guys: A Road Trip," nailed the problem with gun control advocates when he debated New York Times columnist Joe Nocera on April 7. Baum told Nocera that many gun owners are "perfectly fine" with universal background checks, as long as the plan "doesn't lead to a database and de facto registration."
So why do gun owners resist Washington and do-gooders such as Nocera? "You don't understand guns," Baum said, "and you don't know gun guys, yet you want to make rules for things you don't understand for people you don't know."
Just give them a few more years.
WRONG. Voters elect senators to represent their interests.
Something today's congressmen and women seem determined to avoid doing.
The problem isn’t background checks, it’s requiring that the make, model, and serial number be recorded along with the name and personal details of the purchase.
Check, but don’t register.
And make the check system available for anyone to call in to check out anyone. Including a prospective babysitter or school teacher.
You are correct. Of course, originally, senators were selected by the State to represent the interests of the state. That worked pretty well. But then the popular election of senators was ratified, and now senators represent the interests of the people and as long as they have money, they can finagle their way to re-election even if they never do a darn thing.
What am I missing? If you buy from an FFL dealer at a gun show you go through a BI. If you buy from the internet, you have to have an FFL dealer receive it and BINGO, you go through a BI.
You’re not missing anything. I’ve been saying that very same thing for a week now. This is all smoke and mirrors.
Background checks are conducted on every required transaction at gun shows and on the Internet. Liberals and RINOs are intellectually dishonest and don’t want to reveal that this is the case because a majority of Americans have never been to a gun show or bought a gun online.
Again, this does nothing that would’ve prevented Lanza from getting the guns he did. Short of chipping every gun owner to a specific gun, it’s impossible to prevent Newtown from happening again.
The saying “the perfect is the enemy of the good” comes to mind. The biggest commonality of the mass shootings of the past couple of years is mental illness, either known beforehand or discovered afterward, and the shooters in the other ones that come to mind immediately — VA Tech, Batman movie, Gabrielle Giffords press conference — bought their guns themselves.
“Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa. — unveiled a plan to require background checks on all gun show and Internet sales.”
He must be talking about private sales at gun shows and private sale through the internet.
In Texas, if you buy a gun from a company, not a private individual, at a gun show, you get a background check right then.
A few months ago, I bought a Ruger 22 LR over the internet from Kentucky Gun Company and it had to be sent to a dealer here so a background check on me could be done.
I wonder what the definition of a gunshow is in the legislation.
I believe the proposed legislation requires NICS for private sales at gun shows.
The internet sales requirement is weird. The only scenario I can envision where it would be a change is in forbidding a private local sale that was somehow initiated and paid for over the internet.
Either way, they’re both infringements.
There are many bad things in this bill but the most dangerous is based on analysis I've seen from both the Heritage and Gun Owners of America. Basically there is vague wording in the bill that would seem to allow the Attorney General great latitude in the maintenance of records thus leading to a central registry given that they are going to have more data on all of us. Remember also, that we are dealing with a lawless Attorney General and justice department that violates federal law pretty frequently.
Even now NICS insta-check records that are supposed to be destroyed are being kept and backed up. GOA has reported numerous cases of ATF agents copying the 4473 forms during periodic FFL inspections.
This could have been stopped last week but it wasn't thanks to the traitorous Republicans that sold us out. The strategy will be to pass the so called compromise and not pass the AWB and other amendments showing how wonderful a bipartisan, “common sense” compromise is. Given the asshole Speakers of the House comments already on this bill, it might get through there too with the help of democrats and establishment republicans loyal to Boehner.
A registry is what the left has always wanted. They are much closer to getting their wish.
What if you post to your brothers and sisters on Facebook or via email that you have a gun for sale or transfer, is that “internet” (requiring a background check).
It provides that you can transfer to family members (including inlaws) without background checks. It allows for the interstate purchase of handguns from FFLs, and it finally closes the FOPA loophole by specifically allowing for overnight stays, stops for fuel or food, and emergency medical attention as part of interstate travel. It also changes the FOPA from being an affirmative defense to prohibiting arrest or detention by state authorities. (This is what New York and New Jersey were doing; arresting people who transported firearms, then forced them to appear in court to assert the FOPA as an affirmative defense.)
Summary of the Toomey amendment here.
Full text here.
Any venue with more than 75 guns on display or for sale, except for private collections in a home.
The bill proposed has plenty of trojan horses in it for our side, and takes about 20 steps toward restoring our rights for a very small one backward.
I think the NRA will be with this one as well, and I think Obama may veto it. It is much like when Senator Coburn forced Obama to sign the guns in parks bill as part of the budget he wanted.
This has all kinds of stuff that Obama and the anti-freedom people hate. It is a real “compromise” in where we get a lot, and they get to save face, and get very, very little.
“There is really only ONE fact you need to know. Obama, Bloomturd, and the Brady bunch have blessed this bill.”
I bet they have not blessed this one. They are going to come out strongly against it.
It destroys their registration scheme. It sets them back twenty years, at least. This bill is one huge trojan horse for our side.
Toomey, Manchin, and Coburn have laid a trap for Obama with this bill.
It has a good chance of passage, because it has “Universal Background Checks”. The thing is, it has no way to a registration system, and actually makes it much, much, harder to ever enact one.
Yet, it is a Universal Background Check bill. So... If Obama signs it, he sets back “gun control” about 20 years or more.
If Obama vetos it, he has to explain why he vetoed a bipartisan universal background check bill.
Big, big, trap.
Bullshit! it is like telling the Jews that they would be trnsported to the camps by air conditioned trains. any tampering with the Second Amendment should be off limits. And that is exactly what “background checks” are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.