from www.newscorpse.com

NBCnews.com:

The National Rifle Association said Wednesday the group is unequivocally opposed to the newly-struck compromise plan to expand background checks — and threatened that it may seek to penalize lawmakers who vote for what it deems “anti-gun” measures by giving them poor grades in their rating system.

The warning to members of Congress came just hours after a compromise on expanding background checks for  gun purchasers was announced, a deal that the NRA itself participated closely in.

“Expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools,” top NRA lobbyist Chris Cox wrote in a letter sent to senators Wednesday night. “Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.”

How does the NRA KNOW this information?  It seems like pure political conjecture to me.  Where is the empirical data?

40% of gun owners have not gone through a background check.  However, most gun owners support the background check.  Is there a paranoia out there being whose flames ares being fanned by the NRA?

No one thing will prevent all gun violence.  If the various measures save one life from senseless violence, we should take a look at it rather than allow the NRA to try to intimidate our elected officials.   I suppose moderate groups will just have to grow as loud and proud as the NRA.  It can be done.  Let’s also start asking the question about what responsibilities do gun owners have?  We have heard about their rights.  We get it.  Now let’s speak about responsibilities.

 

59 Thoughts to “NRA sends warning to senators”

  1. 40% of gun owners have not gone through a background check.

    Where did you get that factoid? Sounds quite high.

    Went looking for the details. Found this.
    “The proposal would expand background checks to cover all sales at gun shows and over the Internet. Those background checks would have to be accompanied by records proving to law enforcement officials they took place.”

    “It would exempt gun sales and transfers between friends and acquaintances without the help of an online intermediary.”

    So, the people at the gun show merely conduct business elsewhere. Like I did. Also, how does one enforce it if transfers between friends and acquaintances can do it without a check. Define “acquaintance.”

    Instead of requiring third party record keeping through an FFL, just open up the check system to the public. The seller makes an inquiry of the buyer and gets back a “yes” or a “no.” No muss, no records kept

    But then, how does ANY of this stop the crime or killings like Sandy Hook. The last spree killers all passed checks. And Lanza would have been able to pass also. He was not considered “prohibited.” And the DOJ states that only a very small percentage of “crime guns” comes from gun shows.

    This bill is merely cover for gun control politicians to say that they got a victory and cover for scared conservatives to point at and say, “Look We care! But we didn’t screw with anything!”

  2. Here we go:

    http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

    This lays out my feelings better than I can.
    http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/10/toomeys-press-release/

    If its not changed and the devil is NOT in the details…I don’t see a problem. But with Chuck Schumer involved…I don’t trust it.

  3. Now…about the responsibilities.
    We have the responsibility to store our weapons safely and to use them safely. You have the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does not authorize the federal gov’t to track ownership. Shooting is strictly regulated. One does NOT have the right to shoot. Lawful gun owners should not be penalized for the illegal actions of a few.

    There were 8353 “gun murders” in 2011 out of 14,000+ murders. If you put the number of privately owned guns at 100 million, currently a low estimate, that means that only .0008353% of guns were used in crimes.

    This bill, if it stays as is, gets some teeth into getting states to put info into the system. However, HIPPAA needs to be reformed to allow mental health info and perhaps, should laws for adjudicating others to be dangerous be reformed? If we’re talking compromise….. how about universal carry put forth we have universal background checks? Compromises mean that BOTH sides give up something to get something. Otherwise, its just taking from one side.

  4. Clinton S. Long

    This is just to provide a counterpoint to the 40% figure. Fact Checker, Washington Post–

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

    I myself a gun owner and potential buyer would have no objection to undergoing a background check in the future if I bought it from someone who didn’t know me. I also don’t think a sale between two private parties is feasible since it would require each gun owner potentially to be able to access the system. It just doesn’t sound like using government resources that makes real sense.

    I am also not opposed to stricter “straw” purchases laws (to give arms to people who wouldn’t pass a background check).

    I am against a national registry.

    You see, in my mind, it is consistent to make real regulations for solving obviously potential problems even if there isn’t a lot of evidence. You know, like photo id for voters. I find it laughable that the same arguments on voter id (no evidence) are used by some gun control advocates who oppose voter id.

    I say make good changes to prevent something in the future even if there is only a possibility that can be foreseeable.

    Good changes can be made without impacting constitutional rights. But it takes compromise and listening to an opposing side to get there.

    1. Maybe a better way to say it would be 40% of the guns owned in America havent been through a background check.

      I know none of mine have been.

  5. @Cargosquid
    Its something…not much but something. Something beats nothing.

    Nothing will stop every incident.

  6. @Cargosquid
    I saw one responsibility listed. Where does this come from? Is it in writing? What happens if you don’t?

    It apparently is real easy to shift the conversation when one asks about responsibility. It obviously is unspoken and really doesn’t carry any weight.

    There isn’t much of an onus on us to prove our responsibilities and the term varies from person to person.

  7. @Clinton S. Long

    I think that the voter ID question centers around the fact that no one can show where voter id is actually a problem.

    Can we say that guns falling into the wrong hands is actually a problem? I believe we can. Have all incidents of mass murder been related to that? No.

    Doing something is better than nothing. I wouldn’t stop there. I do resent being called an anti gun person. However, I also highly resent politicians thinking they can make moral decisions for me.

  8. Lyssa

    What are these thugs so afraid of? The NRA is going to lose the “war”.

  9. Elena

    so do nothing Cargo? How about telling that to a parent from Sandy Hook? What needs to happen with gun ownership will require a transformation in this country. How many dead kids need to be buried before people stop saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. What a moronic statement. People WITH guns kill people.

    It isn’t about one new updated measure saving lives, its about a holisitic approach. Background checks start the conversation. Just this weekend two very young children got a hold of a gun and accidentally killed another child and their father. Gun ownership is a HUGE responsibility and should be treated as such. In my opinion, it is not. There needs to be an education process undertaken like there was in drunk driving.

    “According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.”

  10. Lyssa

    Its moving, slowly, but moving…..

    Controversial gun legislation cleared a key Senate hurdle Thursday, as lawmakers voted 68-31 to start debate on the package which includes expanded background checks and new penalties for gun trafficking.
    Senate Democrats, joined by 16 Republicans, were able to overcome an attempted filibuster by GOP senators opposed to the current bill. Those senators could still slow-walk the debate, but the Senate will eventually begin votes on amendments — one of which is considered crucial to winning support for a final vote.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/gun-bill-clears-senate-hurdle-as-filibuster-falls-short/#ixzz2QAoYG0o1o

    1. Thanks for this update. Finally some good news. I hope those Sandy Hook parents don’t think now that their efforts have been in vain.

      Even if I wanted to, I don’t think I could look one of those parents in the face and tell them no.

  11. @Elena
    So… do anything to appear that we are doing something? The answer to your question may be…YES…we do nothing..if what we are planning to do will waste resources or infringe upon rights. There are MANY things we COULD do…. but not all of them are legal, right, or Constitutional. Of course, my original posts up at the top did NOT state that we should do nothing. I actually gave qualified support for the bill…as long as there is no devil in the details…so why did you even ask me that question?

    The continued use of the Sandy Hook victims, to put it bluntly, is getting obscene. There are other victims of criminal violence, both with guns and without. That question about the Sandy Hook families is used whenever a statement of “we MUST do SOMETHING!” appears. If one supports bans…are they ready to go to families whose lives were SAVED and protected by guns and tell THEM that their lives should be forfeit? Even the NY Times has stated that there are at least 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. By the way… if the families supported the idea that there should NOT be more restrictions…would you support that? Because at least one family has gone on record with that position.

    I have no problem with background checks. I can accept that as a compromise. But those of you that support such should get in touch with the more rabid gun banners, like Chuck Schumer and tell them to butt out. His bill would have made people that handed a firearm to a buddy for plinking into felons….would have made people that left a roommate alone in a house over 7 days into a felons for illegal transfer of guns. And he called it a “universal background check bill.”

    1. We need to start doing something. period. I am not worried about chuck Schumer. He doesn’t represent me.

      I don’t think what the Sandy Hook parents are doing is obscene. I think doing nothing and listen to those NRA reps is obscene.

      I think many people calling us the anti gun folks is bordering on it…it’s a lie. I am not anti gun. I am tired of the big murky middle being left out of the debate or the NRA side throwing all the moderates in with everyone who wants to round up all the guns.

  12. @Elena
    “According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.”

    Do you have a link, because my tables do not show the yearly break down limited to “gun homicides” except for 2011. 8535 “gun murders and non-negligent homicides” out of 14612 total murders. I do have total murders for all the years though.

  13. middleman

    What I’d like to know is how an unelected group (NRA) who represents less than 5% of Americans and doesn’t even reflect the views of all of that small percentage can control the US congress? Even the part of the proposed legislation that has support from over 90% of the country will likely not be passed without being watered down to meaninglessness.

    We have truly lost control of our government. The lobbyists from big oil, big banking, gun manufacturers, etc., etc. have wrested control from the citizens. The framers never saw THIS coming, I guarantee…

    1. I can’t disagree with you, Middleman. Totally amazing.

  14. Starryflights

    Let the NRA issue their stupid ratings. They’re on the losing side if this issue. A bad NRA rating is a adage of honor in many quarters.

  15. Pat.Herve

    +1 middleman.

    What is obscene is that we have people in Congress who are beholden to unelected people who often represent a very small minority. In this case, we have the NRA telling Congress what they can vote for (in terms of the vote being counted or not). Just like the House going in to Budget reduction – and all the Republicans who were there had signed the Norquest pledge – ie, their hands were tied to not bargain before they went in.

  16. Second Alamo

    Lets assume we stop ALL gun sales immediately. Can anyone then state that there will no longer be a threat of mass shootings? If the answer is no, then why the hell are we focusing on the future sales of guns when we need to be focusing on what makes people violent enough to kill others in the first place! It’s a reduction in violence that we need. A gun is just an efficient tool to carry out that violent act. No gun, then use a knife, no knife, then use a bat, no bat then use a rock, and on and on. Hell we’ve banned everything else in this society (except for gay marriage) we might as well start banning the sale of bricks as well.

    1. Very few people here want to stop all gun sales. Taking the argument there is simply not a good description of how most people here feel.

      You can kill a lot fewer people with a knife than with a semi automatic bushmaster. If its your kid involved, you probably would vote for the knife.

  17. Second Alamo

    To Pat.Herve, it’s sort of like lobbyists wouldn’t you say. You lobby against something as well as for something. Obama, when he first campaigned, was going to end that practice. Oh well, I guess you can’t believe everything a man lobbying for votes says, but that transparency thing sure is working well wouldn’t you say?

  18. George S. Harris

    Maybe we citizens should send a warning to the NRA. Maybe we should not vote for any member of Congress who gets an A rating from the NRA. Would it be possible to start such a movement right here in Prince William County?

  19. George S. Harris

    As of 19 December 2012, the NY Times reported that 242 Representatives and 46 Senators were solidly “pro-gun” thus earning them and “A” rating by the NRA. Could be a pretty powerful statement to vote against them.

  20. @Moon-howler
    I don’t think that what THE PARENTS are doing is obscene.

    I think that using them on a continual basis as justification to DO SOMETHING ANYTHING! is obscene. Since I’m all over the web on gun rights, I see this constantly. IF the families want to get involved…great. But whenever a discussion starts, and pro-2nd amendment people start pointing out that certain things are already illegal, or not feasible, or not Constitutional, etc….the discussion breaks down to “Well, go tell the Sandy Hook families…..”

    As for ol’ Chuck Schumer…he may not be a Virginia senator, but his bills can become national law. So, yes..he is “representing you” indirectly or, at least, affecting you.

    If the “murky middle” starts agreeing with people like Schumer..then they are not the “middle” any longer. They ARE anti-gun.

    @Pat.Herve
    Better start voting against all incumbents then…because all of then are influenced by some sort of lobbyists. But, go ahead….. The Tea Party wants to vote ALL incumbents out. Welcome to the party. 🙂

    The NRA’s strength is not their money or numbers. Its that they are able to keep track of where certain votes land. And there are enough NON-MEMBERS that still support their positions that vote.

    @middleman
    Because the idea that the NRA and its positions is a fringe position is a false one. There are enough NON-members that vote that the politicians will represent their constituents.

    1. Cargo, if I agreed with the Cooch on just one thing, or perhaps with Eric Canter on just one thing, that wouldn’t make me a political AH or even a conservative. Agreeing with Chuck Schumer on one thing wouldnt remove me from murkey middle to day glow liberal either.

  21. @Moon-howler
    I saw one responsibility listed. Where does this come from? Is it in writing? What happens if you don’t?

    Listed where? In my post?

    Is there any OTHER responsibility other than to store and use firearms safely? If I do not do either, I would be arrested and charged with a crime.

    1. Not necessarily. I know people who have not stored their weapons safely. Nothing happened to them. They were lucky no one was killed but nothing happened. This is three different people.

      I don’t think there is a law that says you must use a trigger lock on your gun, is there? Is there a law that says you have to keep your gun in a locked cabinet or drawer or safe? Will you be arrested if you don’t do that?

      If you are hunting and stand your rifle or shotgun up against a tree, will you be arrested?

      @Cargo

  22. @Moon-howler
    Let me rephrase then.
    It is my responsibility to store them safely. I will be charged if someone else is hurt due to proven negligence or a minor gains access to them illegally.

    1. That should be the case. I hope it is the ame in all states. I have known 3 different people whose kids have gotten hold of guns, ended up with holes in the wall, scared the hell out of the parents and the kids.

  23. middleman

    Cargo, if you keep making statements like this I can’t take you seriously:

    “Because the idea that the NRA and its positions is a fringe position is a false one. There are enough NON-members that vote that the politicians will represent their constituents.”

    Poll after poll shows that the NRA positions are extreme. Over 90% of Americans favor making trafficking a federal crime and strengthening background checks. A slim majority support a ban on high-powered weapons and large-capacity magazines.

    Alamo, your argument is also unserious. Try killing 20 or 30 kids with a knife or bat before responders kill you. No one is claiming that gun reform will eliminate gun crimes. But as you state, a gun is an efficient killing tool, and a high-powered rifle or a pistol with a large clip is that much more efficient. It’s that reduction in efficiency that will save lives. There are kids alive today that owe their lives to the shooter fumbling with a replacement clip. Those seconds between 10 round clips are important.

    Nice try on the left “using” the parents. These parents, and a lot more all over the country, are fed with the NRA and the gutless politicians who bow down to people like LaPierre and Grover Norquist. If you were in their shoes, I think you’d be right there with them. When you have the majority of Americans, all the major police organizations, many of the mayors, etc., on one side of an issue and the organization representing gun manufacturers on the other, I know which side I’m supporting.

    1. I think the fact that many gun owners openly support these ideas and than are called the anti gun crew exhibits how fringe the NRA position is.

      I am for all those measures and yet I don’t oppose even being with people I think are armed.

      As a pro-choice woman, I understand more than the average bear about the concept of whittling away at rights. On the other hand, it is time. There need to be come stop gaps in the gun community. I don’t own a gun that has undergone a background check.

  24. kelly_3406

    If you read beyond the sound bites, it appears that voters are very discerning about what additional gun control measures they want. Although voters strongly favor more gun control, they want it limited to restricting convicted felons and those with mental health issues, and they strongly oppose a national gun registry.

    These poll results shed some light on the apparent contradiction between polls showing that voters favor additional gun control yet oppose current gun-control legislation. So perhaps the NRA is NOT as far out as the media is painting it.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/12/gun_debate_highlights_voter_distrust_of_government_117925.html

  25. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=193ed8cb-4d1a-43c7-b17a-c68930eeafdc

    Not so fringe.

    I’m all for background checks. The NRA supports background checks. It DOES NOT support registration. And the recent “universal background check” bill have had draconian laws like penalizing owners that leave a gun in a home with a roommate for longer than seven days or lending a gun to a buddy for plinking. That’s along with requiring registration. So, instead of stating that the NRA doesn’t support background checks, perhaps you had better be more specific. The devil has been in the details of the various bills. The gun control crowd seeks more control. No thanks.

    Want a universal background check? Check everyone upon reaching adulthood. If they have been through due process and become prohibited…they get an ID that obviously points out their limitations. If they are clean, their ID endorses ownership. If they later become prohibited, their ID is changed. Everyone shows ID for firearm purchase.

    No third party, no records of guns, no central database except on prohibited persons.

    @middleman
    Poll after poll shows that the NRA positions are extreme. Over 90% of Americans favor making trafficking a federal crime and strengthening background checks. A slim majority support a ban on high-powered weapons and large-capacity magazines.

    Hmmm…. and those surveys of background check desires spells out that to do so, you would have to weaken HIPPAA, allow easier institutionalization, and require registration to work, right?
    As for the making of straw purchases a federal crime…. its already illegal. How is making it MORE illegal supposed to help. The Feds already state that they don’t prosecute the ones that they ALREADY know about. And to be blunt, they ARE experts in gun trafficking. Just as the Mexican cartels and the innocents killed with FAST & FURIOUS guns.

    1. I would like to see real documentation that the NRA supports background checks for everyone. Everything I have seen or heard says the opposite. I have read they do NOT support it because they say it won’t work. Sadly, that’s all i hear out of the NRA crowd….it won’t work. They have yet to offer any suggestions about what will work other than arming teachers. To that I say, it won’t work.

      I wouldn’t mind registering my guns. I don’t think anyone is going to come take them away. I aslso don’t see much use in doing it but I am not going to become hysterical if I had to.

      Who would a prohibited person be? I can see room for a great deal of abuse there because of the different levels of restriction in each state. For instance, there is no automatic return of rights in Virginia like many other states. How would a person get off the restricted list?

      How about undocumented people? Can they guy a guh?

      I still think the NRA is fringe as do most Americans except the NRA crowd.

      Am I pro-choicely fringe because I oppose ultra sounds? How about because I don’t think double doors are required for a procedure room? (part of TRAP laws)
      How about because a costmetic surgeon nor a urologist performing vasectomies doesn’t have the same building code requirements that an abortion provider has?

  26. Heh heh…

    http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=15385

    Steven Hayward at Power Line writes in Liberal Hypocrisy Watch (paraphrased):

    “While liberals are demanding increased background checks for gun purchases, Obama’s nominee for secretary of labor, Tom Perez, opposes allowing employers with federal contrasts to use background checks for new prospective employees.

    There’s an obvious remedy for this problem: a company can require that every new employee buy a gun as a condition of hiring”

    1. I can’t imagine hiring anyone for any job without some background check of sorts. How do you know the person isn’t a criminal?

      Is there documentation for that claim on Perez?

  27. @Moon-howler
    IF you are a felon, by federal law, you cannot possess a firearm.

    1. If you have served your time, where does that leave you?

      @Cargo

  28. @Moon-howler
    Still a felon.

    Now…it has gotten interesting in Louisiana. A judge there, I think to make those citizens “rethink” has declared that since they declared the 2nd amendment to be a fundamental right and subject to strict scrutiny under state law……felons cannot be barred possession of firearms.

    1. NOt all states keep you from owning a gun after you have served your time, do they?

      I thought Virginia was one of the few states where you had to actually get reinstated by the governor.

  29. Since I first stated that I might support the Manchin-Toomey amendment…I wanted to update.

    No.

    Here’s why.
    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2013/04/15/alan-gottlieb-and-support-for-manchin-toomey/

    The devil is in the details and the details will be enacted by regulations.

  30. middleman

    Kelly and Cargo- let me be more clear and specific for you: The NRA OPPOSES any additional laws regarding background checks. This includes opposing closing the gun show loophole and background checks for internet sales. Kelly, since you apparently “read beyond the sound bites,” you must know this.

    Me being specific again: NO ONE IN CONGRESS IS PROPOSING REGISTRATION or TRACKING or a CENTRAL DATABASE. It is actually made a federal crime, even for law enforcement, to do so under the proposed Senate bill.

    You have created a “straw bill” that doesn’t exist to be against. And you are misrepresenting the NRA’s positions to make them seem more rational. I have to wonder why…

    Kelly and Cargo- just so it’s clear: The NRA OPPOSES ALL NEW BACKGROUND CHECKS and NO ONE IS PROPOSING A REGISTRY FOR CITIZENS.

    1. Thank you for clarifying, middleman. I think Cargo and Kelly are trying to make Moon feel like she is losing her mind.

  31. The NRA opposes Schumer’s bill for other reasons besides registration. The NRA opposes the idea of universal background checks because it is unworkable without a registration.

    Schumer’s bill destroys private transfers: (t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

    BUT, if the weapons are not registered…how is this to be enforced?

    Furthermore, Schumer has this little number it there:

    ‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to– ‘(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if —
    ‘(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if —

    ‘(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;

    ‘(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and

    ‘(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days;

    So…in other words…you had better not have rommates while you possess a firearm and then take an 8 day vacation…or lend it to a friend for plinking….hunting…etc.

    so, the NRA is doing the right thing.

    You want a universal background check? Great. Then get YOUR side to write a sensible one without trying to grab more power and add more restrictions.’

    And if its a “federal crime” then who is going to jail because the ATF recorded the state of MO’s CCW records…which THEY illegally shared with the ATF.

  32. Apparently Schumer is against “sensible gun control.”

    He’s against the Manchin-Toomey Amendment. http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/schumer-lies-about-alternative-gun-bill-reveal-his-extremist-views/
    Excerpt:
    “His opposition to any legislation that would benefit gun owners is obvious in the way he is trying to characterize the Manchin-Toomey proposal as a public safety disaster,” Gottlieb said. “Obviously he’s afraid of the alternative bill or he would not have taken the time to demonize it. Their bill provides for gun rights restoration, immunity from prosecution for selling a firearm later used in a crime, interstate sale of handguns and other gun rights benefits, which he opposes, and it prohibits gun registration, which he supports, and adds a 15-year felony prison sentence for government officials who violate the registration provision. In short, the alternative bill represents everything he hates.”

    With this amendment registration would TRULY be a crime…..imprisonment.

    1. Is that Shumer’s opinion or someone’s opinion of what he thinks Shumer thinks? Aren’tt there any quotables from Schumer himself?

  33. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/15/schumer-toomey-manchin-gun-control-bill-undercover-busts-of-innocents-at-gun-shows/

    As I said..the devil is in the details. Now, will this law..if it takes effect, be applied to the criminals that ran guns under Fast and Furious?

  34. “This legislation could change Times Square into the OK Corral,” the senator asserted.

    Said Schumer: “To allow criminals to go to other states, get a permit for concealed carry and then carry their guns concealed here in New York…outrageous.”

    He knows that none of this is true. He’s lying on the second statement. The first is merely opinion.

    1. He is a politician. He is no more playing on emotions than the NRA, in my opinion. He is fighting for something he deeply believes, as you are.

  35. And yet…he is lying. Criminals cannot go out of state to buy guns or get permits.

    I use the truth to the best of my ability to convince people. The ends do not justify the means.

    1. @Cargo,

      I wish La Pierre felt that way. He plays loose with the truth. So does that other dude.

  36. middleman

    From Cargo:

    “Schumer’s bill destroys private transfers: (t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.”

    Cargo, what this paragraph is saying as near as I can tell (and after talking to my friends who are adamantly against any new gun laws and are deeply into this issue), is that if two individuals want to engage in a sale between them, they need to go to a licensed gun dealer, who will, for a fee, I’m sure, take the gun temporarily into his possession and check the background of the buyer. I admit, it’s a bothersome step for law-abiding folks, but it prevents an individual (not a dealer) from inadvertently selling a gun to a criminal or insane person. I don’t see registration anywhere in there…

  37. And if there is no FFL, as in DC? Or the FFL refuses to take on the responsibility?

    How does one enforce this without registration?

    If they want to have universal background checks then open it to the public to use…or do it by endorsement on required ID…. If you have be prohibited…you would have a different ID.

    Manchin Toomey had other issues like stating that transferring or attempting to transfer an gun without a background check to any LEO is a felony, no criminal intent need be proven. Just doing it makes one a felon.

    In Schumer’s bill… if you transfer the gun “privately” yet have to go through an FFL, you would have to fill out the 4473. That paper is on record. It can be accessed by the ATF at will. These forms have been scanned illegally for the past few years during ATF audits. So, that means…the sale is no longer “private.” There will be a record of the sale and of the type of weapon transferred.

    Furthermore, Schumer has other more draconian elements.

  38. Interesting commentary on what happened in the Senate:
    http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/17/live-coverage-the-senate-vote-hopefully/

    Interesting comments and speculation too.

  39. middleman

    Again, Cargo- there was no registry in the bill, and it made it a felony to establish one. There was even a carve-out for individual person-to-person sales that eliminated the need for a background check.

    I think these cowards that cowed to the mighty NRA might have more to worry about come election time…

  40. @middleman
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345845/problems-toomey-manchin

    Read it to see the problems…along with how a registry was possible because MT was written poorly.
    Excerpt:

    Now look at how Manchin-Toomey makes things worse:

    (c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    (m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-

    (1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-

    (A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
    (B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

    (2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.

    Now, we have a specific answer to the judicial question “What is gun registration?” The answer provided by Manchin-Toomey is that gun registration is only something which is done by “the Attorney General.” It is something that only involves the attorney general acquiring particular types of records.

Comments are closed.