Posted on 04/10/2013 11:11:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) told reporters on a conference call moments ago that his compromise bill with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on gun background checks “doesn’t change in any way” his “conservative record or views.”
The former Club for Growth president acknowledged he was out of his usual legislative area on the issue, but “it became clear to me a bill of some sort was very likely to reach the floor” that would be “badly flawed,” so he reached out to his friend and neighboring state senator Manchin to sit down and talk.
“You’re probably used to hearing me talk about economic and fiscal and monetary policy,” Toomey said. “This is a somewhat unusual area for me to be working with.”
Toomey and Manchin unveiled their proposal at a press conference this morning, which extends background checks to gun shows and Internet sales but does not require record-keeping on private sales and does not extend to gifts, family or friend sales, etc.
“I thought there was an opportunity to try to find some common ground with some of my colleagues,” said Toomey on the conference call afterward. “Background checks are not a perfect solution… but they do help.”
“I think it strikes a very sensible balance,” he added.
The senators received assurance from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that theirs would be the first amendment should the Democrats’ package of gun bills move past the 60-vote threshold to consideration tomorrow.
The Manchin-Toomey amendment would strike the background check language in Reid’s bill — sweeping, universal checks — and insert the compromise language.
Toomey, who’s been under fire from conservatives for inking out a compromise, said he hasn’t “counted noses” to see what chance the language has of passing. He vowed to vote against any amendments to add language about high-capacity clips or the assault weapons ban to the bill, calling that a violation of Second Amendment rights.
“People are going to have a wide range of opinions,” he said. “I don’t think trying to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals is gun control… I don’t expect everyone to agree with me.”
The National Rifle Association, in a statement issued after the press conference, did not.
“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows,” the NRA said.
“President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.”
Manchin and Toomey’s Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
It prohibits the federal government from establishing a national firearms registry, and makes any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records subject to up to 15 years in prison.
It allows dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees and provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his or her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm. Last Congress, Senate Republicans failed to get language in the defense bill that would have stopped the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of vets deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the NICS to prohibit them from buying or owning a gun.
If a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are expected to be completed, Manchin and Toomey say the background check would clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days. The bill requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.
It also authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
Shut up Pat, you gun grabbing a-hole.
I keep thinking of “Backstabber” and “Smiling Faces” from “The O’Jays.” B-P
RE:”If you pass a criminal background check,you get to
buy a gun.”
How about this: If you have an IQ over 80,you get to have
freedom of speech.
Which would effectively shut down the mainstream media.
I mean if we’re arbitrarily adjusting our bill of rights.
Great idea.
Toomey's *star* flamed out fast.
Well the powers that be want to end the America through a backdoor way. And our side keeps having more and more traitors.
1. Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul Support Amnesty
2. Senators Pat Toomey and Johnny Isakson supports gun Control
3. Ohio Governor John Kaisch along with others caved on Obamacare mandates
“If a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours...”
48 hrs? So gun sales at shows are effectively banned.
Here’s the email I just sent:
Senator Toomey, I am extremely disappointed in your amendment to allow expanded background checks. You stated in your conference call that “doesn’t change in any way my conservative record or views.” You are wrong, wrong, wrong about that; it certainly does change your conservative record with the American people. It may make you feel better around Democrats, but we sent you to the Senate to fight for us, not to make friends in Washington, D. C.
“I thought there was an opportunity to try to find some common ground with some of my colleagues,” said Toomey on the conference call. You have seemingly forgotten that there is NO COMPROMISING WITH DEMOCRATS!!!!! You can’t make bad legislation better, you can only defeat it, you can’t make Democrats see reason, you can only defeat them!!! There is no common ground with Democrats, they will stop at nothing until they have completely destroyed America and now you are helping them do it! It is clear to me that you have been in Washington too long!!! I’ll be working against your re-election.
“I took the liberty of . . . bullshitting you.”
-Pat Toomey
Red Steel’s got the right idea. Thanks SeekAndFind.
Here ya go.
Three free faxes per day.
Like having a printer in your Senator’s office.
faxzero.com
Senator Toomey’s Fax #
(202) 228-0284
You’ll need a “junk” email address for this, but it’s well worth it to open one up.
Light him up.
If you see posts of interest to Pennsylvanians, please ping me.
Thanks!
Just wrong headed thinking. There is not sensible balance or compromise on an absolute God given right to defend oneself.
I do actually like that Boehner is sitting back and letting the Dems in the Senate show their hand, but, we didn't need this nimrod helping.
There is a lot to be concerned about with background checks but one thing I don't see mentioned is the content of the check itself. What are the parameters? What is considered risky or dangerous history or behavior? What can the Feds use to deny us the right to own a firearm?
Like everything else the Feds get involve in, when they declare a new right for themselves, set a new rule or acquire a new power they never leave it alone.
They immediately start pushing to expand the scope of their power.
So a "background check" today will probably be a lot different than a background check in two years, five years, ten years.
We know that Homeland Security has already identified Tea Party types and military vets as potential domestic terrorists.
Who knows if they might expand the background check to check if you are the wrong religion, an anti-gay, a military vet, a Boy Scout leader, a member of a WWII re-enactment group, be divorced, etc.
I don't trust any government entity or employee to keep the excercise of authority or power within constitutional limits.
Even if the *only* parameter of the check were the willingness of a federal employee to publicly stake his life on the fact that a particular individual would not come to harm, and if it were clear that the public had a right and duty to enforce judgment against such employee even if the government declined to do so, how many people do you think would be denied?
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.