Text of Proposed Coburn Amendment to S.649


PDA






Bartholomew Roberts
April 20, 2013, 01:21 PM
Hat tip to gc70 for the link:
Since a revamp of the background check provisions s now the only thing that can bring S.649 back to life, I thought it was worth looking at what GOA's "Most Important Election of 2004" and GOA A+, NRA A+ proposed as a UBC Amendment:
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=ec4679e8-8e06-4bc8-bbc5-ea18337f9151

Here are the first impressions from my second read through (I read through Toomey-Manchin maybe 10 times and still missed stuff though):

1. You can sell to any relative down to first cousins/spouse of parent/child/sibling with no background check.
2. Qualifying CHL permits exempt nationwide based on state reciprocity
3. All other sales require transfer through FFL OR a 30-day self-check permit (You can run a NICS check on yourself only and it will give you a permit showing you can buy a gun)
4. You can buy a firearm from any FFL, anywhere in the nation as long as it is legal in both states.
5. 15yr penalty for firearms registry
6. Improved language that prohibits ANY officer of the U.S. from registry, not just AG
7. ATF Agents subject to $1000 fine for wrongly seizing records first offense, termination and year in jail second offense
8. No Form 4473 generated on non-FFL sales
9. Not a transfer requiring check unless intended to be permanent
10. The ATF must document it's testing procedures, and re-examine all cases any past cases found to be based on unreasonable or irrational standards.
11. The ATF must audit the NFA registry, and if the registry is found to be inaccurate correct it's testimony otherwise.
12. The ATF must certify before the court that it has not committed any crimes of which it accuses others. If it is unable to do so the case must be dismissed with prejudice. If it does so dishonestly all ATF agents involved in the case go to jail for 5 years or the sentence imposed.
13. Entire law sunsets in 5 years unless reauthorized by Congress - except for registry prohibitions, which are permanent

I need to read it a lot more; but I am interested in what concerns everyone else has. Are there particular legal problems we can identify with this bill since it may be the next amendment to S.649 we see*

*I am really skeptical of that - this bill would let you buy guns anywhere and eliminate a lot of recordkeeping. I think Schumer is lying about his love for background checks and is more interested in the recordkeeping aspect than the checks. If so, this bill is his worst nightmare and he would be better off killing it and ramming something like Toomey-Manchin through during the next tragedy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Text of Proposed Coburn Amendment to S.649" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gc70
April 20, 2013, 09:10 PM
Don't be too hasty JD. Regardless of what happens to S.649, we need to start thinking strategically and thoughtfully analyzing the pros and cons of Coburn's amendment might be a good place to start.

To some extent, we were lucky dodging the bullet this time. The timing of the Newtown massacre slowed action by Congress. Without time for emotions to subside and for us to organize to contact our representatives, things might have been different. We were also lucky enough to have (what we believe to be) a pro-2A House to backstop action by a less-sympathetic Senate and President. If history is any sort of guide, we will eventually face the trifecta of an anti-2A House, Senate, and President.

We can continue to fight defensive actions against our opponents, but any solely defensive strategy only has to lose once. Maybe it is time to go on the offensive and try to disarm our opponents.

We already have background checks. Regardless of reasons or rationality, the vast majority of the general public believes that background checks are a good idea and you can bet your last cent that they are not going away legislatively.

Our opponents tout the publicly popular concept of background checks, but we know they are using background checks as cover to obtain records of firearms ownership for eventual registration. And registration is not nearly as popular a concept with the public.

Why shouldn't we think about seizing the publicly popular concept of background checks -done on our terms- and force our opponents to try to sell registration to the public?

ChaoSS
April 20, 2013, 09:37 PM
If they are going to get UBCs eventually, it should be done as a compromise, with other laws repealed in the same law.

Girodin
April 20, 2013, 09:51 PM
A compromise would be changing the way background checks are done so that you don't even note the serial number or gun, simply check the buyer. That along with the exemptions for certain sales. The compromise for that would be making suppressors, SBS, and SBRs title one firearms. That would be a compromise.

Unless they are actually offering something there is no reason to "compromise" on background checks right now.

gc70
April 20, 2013, 09:58 PM
Turn everything around.

We should not wait for our opponents to take the initiative and sell their proposals to the public (even through lies or misdirection).

We should be making proposals for what we want and let our opponents try to get us to agree to a "compromise."

RPRNY
April 20, 2013, 10:08 PM
Background checks are easy to sell to the nation right now and because the media lied so much about Toomey - Manchin many people are pissed off that background checks didn't pass. As noted above Coburn would expand background checks (satisfying the ignorant masses that vote) but would gut the intentions of gun owner discrimination advocates.

"No more gun control" is a sentiment with which I agree but it is probably not politically viable. Compromise is possible. Coburn for a national concealed carry is too much to hope for but Coburn in exchange for a lesser concession makes good political sense and takes the wind out of the control advocates sails for the next tragedy.

vamo
April 20, 2013, 10:38 PM
I am ok with giving antis a bg expansion so long as we get something in return; that way they can't just chip away incrementally. Pistol sales across state lines and some real penalties for keeping records is a good start, but we might be able to get more.

beeenbag
April 20, 2013, 10:49 PM
No.... No more negotiations. The second amendment is ABSOLUTELY ALL WE NEED! I don't even want to give the antis enough respect to even sit at the table with the commie scum!

How about we stop talking, compromise, negotiations, give them this we will take that.

How about we go on the offensive and take what the constitution guaranteed us as Americans. Lets make them "compromise" when we push for legislation to make Machine guns non-registered items, then settle for only SBR, SBS, and suppressors... this time.

miller.lyte
April 20, 2013, 10:57 PM
I'd get on board with it if#3 was OPTIONAL and not required.

JRH6856
April 20, 2013, 11:32 PM
While I disagree in principle with the idea of asking permission to exercise a protected right, the Coburn amendment:

gives the nattering nabobs of negativity what they say they want (expanded background checks),
prohibits what they claimed was not the goal anyway (permanent records),
takes something back that is currently prohibited (out of state handgun purchases),
and denies the initiative to the anti-constitutionalists.

It seems like a good move. If I have to compromise my principles, I would rather do it on my terms, not theirs.

JRH6856
April 20, 2013, 11:41 PM
No.... No more negotiations. The second amendment is ABSOLUTELY ALL WE NEED! I don't even want to give the antis enough respect to even sit at the table with the commie scum!

How about we stop talking, compromise, negotiations, give them this we will take that.

How about we go on the offensive and take what the constitution guaranteed us as Americans. Lets make them "compromise" when we push for legislation to make Machine guns non-registered items, then settle for only SBR, SBS, and suppressors... this time.
Making machine guns non-registered items is a non-starter. It would get slapped down quicker than Di-Fi's AWB 2013.

beeenbag
April 20, 2013, 11:43 PM
ok, so we "compromise" for a watered down expanded background check system... then what? You expect the Antis are going to be happy and back off? Do you think this is ALL they want and are willing to "give" us across state handgun purchases (something that we should already have) to get it? If you give them ANYTHING it just takes a pawn from our side to fight with. They will keep coming, they will keep "compromising" it will never end. We need to start taking some liberties back, without giving up anymore.

beeenbag
April 20, 2013, 11:45 PM
Making machine guns non-registered items is a non-starter. It would get slapped down quicker than Di-Fi's AWB 2013.


I am aware of that, it was simply an example of a hypothetical situation in which we let them "compromise" a little.

cfullgraf
April 21, 2013, 12:19 AM
The pro-Second Amendment side needs to get proactive and go on the offensive.

Crime control bills need to be prepared and submitted. Improvements in existing gun laws need to be prepared and submitted.

If these bills are good and even if they are voted down, then the anti-gunners will be in the hot seat as to why they opposed progress.

Not doing anything and continuing to be on the defensive is not be an option.

gc70
April 21, 2013, 01:04 AM
I'll give it a second glance,Randy. I respect you greatly. But it still boils down to control. I believe beenbag has it down right. We have to go on offense.Offense wins games.

Yes, JD, offense wins games and we have been playing defense.

I don't like the general idea of background checks, which is essentially asking government permission to exercise a right. However, I accept the political reality that background checks are probably not going away, so why not try to turn them to our advantage.

Take the idea of a consumer portal and self-generated permits, then extend it to all sales and do away with all other recordkeeping -that's right, no Form 4473- all an individual or FFL would have to record is the permit number, not even the name of the person who presented the permit.

AlexanderA
April 21, 2013, 01:30 AM
Here are my specific comments:

1. You can sell to any relative down to first cousins/spouse of parent/child/sibling with no background check.

The Manchin-Toomey plan would have exempted transactions between "friends" as well as between family members (in fact any transactions that were not publicly advertised or in a commercial setting such as a gun show). Why is the Coburn plan actually being more restrictive in this than Manchin-Toomey? It seems that there is scope to broaden the exemptions.

3. All other sales require transfer through FFL OR a 30-day self-check permit (You can run a NICS check on yourself only and it will give you a permit showing you can buy a gun)

Once the self-check mechanism was in place, why could it not be used for purchases from FFLs as well as from non-FFL sellers? This would save the trouble and expense of duplicative NICS calls.

General comment: From the point of the view of the pro-gun side, Coburn needs additional sweeteners such as nationwide carry reciprocity and/or repeal of the Hughes Amendment. The fact is, the political balance has shifted in favor of the pro-gun side after the vote on the Manchin-Toomey plan. Frankly, using my crystal ball, I don't see the Coburn plan, or any gun bill, going anywhere until after the next elections at least.

JRH6856
April 21, 2013, 02:34 AM
Federally mandated nationwide carry reciprocity is not a good idea at this time. Maybe later after the tide of public opinion has turned and firearms are accepted as a desirable benefit rather than a necessary evil. Allowing federal mandate at this point gives the fed. govt. too much control and makes it too easy to further restrict the right to bear arms nationwide.

Shadow 7D
April 21, 2013, 02:56 AM
It's worth is in being advanced COUNTER to UBC, and in a way, kinda like Grassley, provides cover for Senators to POINTEDLY SAY, "We voted for improved background checks and the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY shot it down"

That said, it puts you under a system like Illinois, and if you ask our member from IL how well it works, they can express their sentiments, one CRUCIAL part is IT MUST BE "Will Issue"

Now, here's the kicker, they will know WHO has guns, but NOT what
and this isn't the short game folks, in football you can block the long passes and lose to 4 downs of 3 yard drives. NO MATTER WHAT,
the next step is to 'Fix' UBC with registration, cause 'criminals are still getting guns.....'

So, why give an inch

gc70
April 21, 2013, 04:06 AM
Now, here's the kicker, they will know WHO has guns, but NOT what

Our goals should include eliminating information about both WHO has guns and WHAT guns they have. I want to see the demise of 4473 forms. The information on a 4473 absolutely DOES NOT need to be retained to prove a successful background check. 4473s are simply a device to capture information about a person and firearm, ostensibly for possible future law enforcement use, but equally viable to construct a registry or facilitate confiscation.

Consider how an anonymous background check system might be structured. Go online to get a permit number, which the government retains for the term of the permit, but any other information is immediately destroyed. When you buy a gun, the seller goes online to enter the permit number and get a validation number, which the government retains permanently, but any other information is immediately destroyed. At that point, the buyer, seller, and government all have the same validation number to show that a successful background check was performed, but no other information is retained.

Would such a proposal pass in Congress? Probably not, but it would saddle the gun grabbers with trying to defend being against background checks and for intrusive government information collection, which would change the entire complexion of the debate.

Shadow 7D
April 21, 2013, 05:36 AM
But, THIS IS THE KICKER
it can't be, consider the current system, it two part, one the FFL, who keeps a PAPER record of the transaction which includes pertinent information, the second federal which gives a GO/NOGO

when the transaction is backtracked, there is a record of WHO did it, so the database is going to be there, to get the permit, what is it going to be held for 20 years at a county clerks office????

Bartholomew Roberts
April 21, 2013, 06:59 AM
Nationwide CCW Reciprocity Amendment was already voted on and Reid voted Yes for it. That means that amendment is dead unless there are 60 votes in the Senate to reconsider it (it had 57 votes). So that is not going to be one of the compromise items. Further, we know that Schumer specifically stripped that provision from Manchin-Toomey, so we know he and his supporters will oppose any compromise that has it.

As to a compromise, you cannot compromise with someone who is trying to push you into the sea. Unless you are giving up ground short term in order to gain more ground later (a risky move), every compromise puts you closer to having your head underwater where your opponent wants to see you ultimately. In my opinion, most of the antis in the Senate want to push us into the sea... the AWB and magazine background checks are a perfect example of that. They knew those measures would make gun control more difficult and the Congressional Research had already determined them ineffective. They just wanted to kick "gun culture" in the teeth out of spite.

Despite that, I think the Coburn Amendment is one of those risky moves where we might gain more ground than we lose. Here are my reasons why:

1. During this last debate, the antis continually mocked those who opposed UBCs on the grounds that it would lead to registration. Senator Schumer openly mocked Senator Cruz on the Senate floor (politely as Senate rules require; but the intent was clear). VP Biden less politely mocked the "black helicopter crowd" publically. IF we can propose a system that does away with record-keeping but expands UBCs beyond Manchin-Toomey (as this bill claims it does) then we put the antis on the spot - they must now put up or shut up. If registration isn't their ultimate goal and they don't mean to push us into the sea, then this is a great deal for them.


2. If I am right and they aren't dealing in good faith, they will have to refuse this deal and it may open some gun owners eyes to the fact that "Nobody wants to take your guns" is nonsense; because I am betting Schumer rejects even broader background checks than Manchin-Toomey because it doesn't keep records. It even has the potential to inject a little reality into some hostile reporters who think this notion is foolish.

3. The antis tried to use "Background checks on sales" but the actual bill Schumer proposed was hideous. It banned even temporary transfers without going to an FFL to fill out a 4473. Giving them background checks and taking away their ability to do recordkeeping renoves their future potential to package a lot of nasty legislation with a future "background check" bill and pull that trick again in the future. "It is just background checks. No reasonable person opposes those." You guys remember the conversations we had here with fellow gun owners?

4. As some of you have already noted, once you have recordless transfers between private sales that are still background checked, why wouldn't you allow the same system at FFLs? And of course, this bill will also let CHLs buy interstate (based on state reciprocity) and let you buy interstate from FFLs. This logical "good first step" in the opposite direction has great potential to open up recordless interstate sales everywhere. This not only reduces the burdens of legally owning a gun so that gunowners are likely to become more numerous and have greater political power, it has the potential to lay the foundation of removing one of the long time concerns of gun owners - the 4473.

5. The 5 year sunset provision is also a big plus in my book. It means whatever happens, the law has to be reauthorized in another vote by Congress. If that vote fails for whatever reason, we keep the registry protections and things go back to the way they are now.

My biggest concern is whether the Coburn Amendment can actually deliver on its promise of recordless background checks? Can this system work? Is it going to create problems that future legislatures can exploit towards a registration track?

Bartholomew Roberts
April 21, 2013, 11:17 AM
Why is the Coburn plan actually being more restrictive in this than Manchin-Toomey? It seems that there is scope to broaden the exemptions.

Under Manchin-Toomey, you had to do all deals through an FFL, so the greater exceptions were made to ease the load on folks in rural areas. Under Coburn, you have the self-NICS portal and proposed phone app, which means anyone with a phone can do the check without having to drive 100 miles to an FFL.

It is an interesting dilemma for gun control side that should be instructive. It actually covers more sales but has fewer records. How they react to it should make it clear whether they really want background checks or really want records. I am betting records.

Bruno2
April 21, 2013, 12:59 PM
I say no to any of it. I am not willing to negotiate. Why should we give up any ground? We have already given up too much. Just the fact that a person convicted of a non violent felony when they were 18 causes them to not be able to own a firearm when they are 72 is a very stupid concept. So you guys want to have a more intrusive examination of who gets to buy a gun? I don't.

The gun grabbers will never give up . They will always want more and as generations pass the concepts become more accepted. So in a few more generations those violations of our 2a rights just become part of life. People are used to them so they don't mind giving up a little more. Then after a while there is no more cake.

It's simple, just don't deal with them. I don't want the gunshow loophole closed. Take my states seatbelt laws for example. It started out as a secondary offense which means that the police couldn't pull you over for it. however, they could cite you for it if stopped for something else. A few yrs later one of our reps decided to make it a primary offense. Since they already had their foot in the door people weren't as opposed to it as they were when it was imposed on us the first time. With not much opposition it passed and now we get our privacy violated by a nosey state trooper daily. So anybody that thinks any UBC self regulated or not wont turn into gov record keeping or suddenly require your children to be subjected to a UBC to inherit your guns has their head in the sand.

Give them the inch and it will turn into a mile like it or not.

Tinker
April 21, 2013, 02:03 PM
Never bargain with villians who seek your eventual destruction.

Don't give them an arm, a toe or even a lock of hair.

Tinker
April 21, 2013, 02:17 PM
An example... I just read about the new confiscation going on in California now in another thread. Thought this quote appropriate to this point.

We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them, Leno said in a statement..

gc70
April 21, 2013, 02:39 PM
I am not willing to negotiate.

Neither am I. And neither are the gun grabbers.

Gun control advocates have not changed their position, but they have repackaged it to make it more attractive to the public. Their mantra of "we don't want registration or to take away guns, we only want to make sure the wrong people don't get guns" is a total lie, but it is a 5-second sound bite that people hear and it resonates with the public. Most people tune out our side's 5-minute factual rebuttal shortly after it begins.

The Coburn amendment has no chance of passing in the Senate; Schumer has already told us that by rejecting it. But the Coburn amendment or a more pro-2A version has the potential to change the terms of the debate, change public perception, and force gun control advocates to show their true intentions.

"No" is not a winning PR plan or political strategy. We need to claim the high ground in the debate, take the fight to our opponents, and put them on the defensive.

JRH6856
April 21, 2013, 05:50 PM
"We don't want registration or to take away guns, we only want to make sure the wrong people don't get guns"

"Who are the wrong people?"

"Anyone who wants a gun."

Old Shooter
April 21, 2013, 06:00 PM
Every compomise is a step backwards.

A "compromise" for the liberals is just another bite out of the elephant.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 21, 2013, 06:27 PM
gc70 gets my point... The less trustworthy you think these people are, the better this deal is because they either have to eat a big setback to their plans (IF the record-less provision works) or they vote down background checks themselves and explain their votes to the public.

k_dawg
April 21, 2013, 07:02 PM
If they conceed on ANYTHING, it is absolutely wrong. There are many heinous violations of the 2nd in many states and cities.

Any _compromise_ should require those be addressed. For example, what ever standard for UBC should be mandated to be truley universal: including DC, Chicago and NYC.

Mandate _shall issue_ and make it a federal felony for anyone in government to attempt to do otherwise.

etc etc

Bartholomew Roberts
April 21, 2013, 07:30 PM
k_dawg, those are not realistic proposals. There were only 57 votes for CCW reciprocity, so mandatory shall-issue and overriding local laws is unlikely to get the 60 votes needed. It also misses the major purpose of the exercise, if you attach things like that to the bill, it gives the antis an "out" to vote it down.

To my mind, the whole purpose of a recordless UBC is to expose their hypocrisy. They claim they want UBCs and that fear of registration is paranoid. If you can give them a UBC that can't be used for registration, they have to put their money where their mouth is. The Coburn Amendment was already rejected by Schumer, that is why he sought out Toomey. You'll also notice that a Reid did not schedule it for a vote, even though background checks were supposed to be "the sweet spot."

I don't think the antis want a vote on this amendment precisely because it would expose their hypocrisy.

razorback2003
April 21, 2013, 08:05 PM
Add in a Hughes repeal and I might call it a compromise worth looking at. Other than that, no thank you.

gc70
April 21, 2013, 09:28 PM
... I might call it a compromise worth looking at ...

Who wants to compromise? I don't. But I would like so see a strategy or ploy to disarm our opponents' dishonest posturing and put them on the defensive.

If you enjoyed reading about "Text of Proposed Coburn Amendment to S.649" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!