1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sen. Coburn is selling us out on background checks

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Firehand, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. Firehand

    Firehand Well-Known Member

    Just spoke to his office, and was told 'yes, the Senator is in favor of universal background checks.'

    She very quickly added that he's 'not in favor of registration', but that's cold comfort. One of the big problems with ubc has always been it being used as a backdoor into registration lists; and if they don't have lists, how are they going to know if you did or didn't 'properly' sell your gun?

    Don't know if it'll help, but if you're in OK this is a good time to call his office and register displeasure with this.

    Also, called Inhofe's office; they flatly said he's NOT in favor of UBC.
  2. Thursday45

    Thursday45 Well-Known Member

    Do we have a photo of said senator shooting clay pigeons? You know, so we really know that he's pro-2A. :rolleyes:
  3. Silent Bob

    Silent Bob Well-Known Member

    And to think he has an A+ NRA rating.
  4. HankR

    HankR Well-Known Member

    He needs to hear from a few (thousand) of us. He seems pretty reasonable, maybe he can be educated?
  5. c4v3man

    c4v3man Well-Known Member

  6. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    What is doubly frustrating is they are not even asking for anything in return.

    For example, if they DO force this upon us, mandate it is the standard of firearm ownership of any federally legal firearm nation wide.
  7. razorback2003

    razorback2003 Well-Known Member

    I guess he isn't offering a compromise and getting rid of the Hughes machine gun 86 ban.

    Real compromise.
  8. theshephard

    theshephard Well-Known Member

    letter written

    Done, hope it helps.
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

    Looks like the Coburn rep i talked to last week lied to me.
  10. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Well-Known Member

    He's in Washington, one of elites. What do you want.

    What they want is to get rid of this silly voting requirement. But for now we still have some capacity to punish.
  11. easy

    easy Well-Known Member

    Letter sent
  12. okiewita40

    okiewita40 Well-Known Member

    Here is the email I got back from him.

    Thank you for your email regarding gun control legislation in the wake of the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

    I grieve for the 20 children and 6 adults who were the victims of this senseless and appalling tragedy. Their families, friends, and the community are in my prayers as they mourn the loss of loved ones. As the nation has come together to provide support for the members of Newtown, ultimately, we are comforted that God “heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.” (Psalm 147:3).

    In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, there have been many calls for comprehensive gun control measures and a thorough examination of current federal, state, and local policies. I am open to having an honest examination of all the contributing factors and reasonable solutions to preventing future tragedies such as this.

    There are many factors which should be examined carefully when considering preventive measures to ensure similar situations do not occur again. While a firearm was used to execute this heinous act, focusing on the weapon alone overlooks other key facts including the mental health of the killer. As a physician, I believe our nation could do more to ensure those with mental illnesses that are a threat to themselves and others have access to treatment and are prevented from accessing firearms. To this end, officials at every level of government must examine our laws and policies aimed at ensuring those who are prohibited from attaining firearms, including the seriously mentally ill, are identified and prevented from accessing firearms. Currently, persons who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” are supposed to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index, which is used by firearm sellers to determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to purchase firearms. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (P.L. 110-180) which established incentives for state, local, and tribal governments to increase the compliance of states reporting seriously mentally ill persons to the NICS system. However, a July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that these incentives have not been implemented, and the law has not achieved the intended purpose of improving the reporting rates of mental health records by states. As of October 2011, only 12 states had made substantial improvement in reporting, while almost half of the states, including Oklahoma, had barely made any progress in this area.[1] While states have primacy in passing laws and establishing policies on how to submit records to the NICS index, Congress should review, and amend if necessary, the recently passed NICS Improvement Act to ensure that it achieves it intended purpose of properly identifying and preventing access to firearms for those who are prohibited from it.

    Knowing Congress does not have the capability to legislate away all evil, we must not disparage the rights of the millions of responsible gun owners and the vitally important ability to protect oneself and one’s family. Congress must also remain cognizant of the fact that, when certain types of guns are banned from the public sector, only criminals who already flout the law will be able to procure them. I firmly believe Americans are safer with the right to own and I will continue to fight to ensure the right of law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms is protected.

    Criminals who misuse guns should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, gun dealers who knowingly skirt rules and regulations or intentionally sell firearms to unauthorized individuals should be punished harshly. However, government officials and representatives are oftentimes more interested in attacking the variable, in this case guns, instead of the root problems, which include illegal activity, mental illness and the sensationalism of violence in our culture.

    Since Sandy Hook, several member of Congress have proposed re-instating a ban on assault weapons. Proposals banning certain ammunition clips or ambiguously defined “assault weapons” are unlikely to increase public safety because individuals with criminal plans will not care that their weapons are illegal. It is also unlikely to reduce crime rates, as several studies of violent crimes have found that assault weapons were involved in less than 2 percent of all the incidents. In 2004, a report for the National Institute of Justice examined the effects of the assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2003 and found that “[t]here has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” The lack of correlation between assault weapons bans and crime rates is also notable, as gun violence rates have declined to multi-decade lows, even after the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004.

    There are many instances over the last couple of years where law-abiding Americans have been able to defend themselves or others from violent criminals. For instance, at a recent shooting in San Antonio, an off-duty police officer working at a movie theater shot a gunman after he opened fire in the movie theatre parking lot. Another instance occurred in Colorado, when a parishioner was able to shoot a gunman when he began opening fire on the congregation during a church service, preventing a mass murder.[2] In contrast, the shortcoming of gun control laws can be readily seen in the failure of designated gun-free zones, where criminals have assurance that they will not be confronted by an armed citizen. With only one exception, every public shooting in the United States since 1950 where three or more people were killed occurred in a location where the carrying of firearms was prohibited.

    In the days since the Sandy Hook shooting, local law enforcement in school districts across the country have heightened security at schools through increased patrols and safety measures. I believe every state and each school district must head up the effort to ensure proper protections are put into place and are working effectively. While some have called for federal programs to advance this goal, the federal government cannot be as effective in safeguarding our schools as state officials, local representatives, parents, teachers and school board members. Officials with close contact to the school and the students are best positioned to ensure the correct protective measures are in place.

    For more information on the efforts of state and local officials to increase school safety and NICS compliance, I encourage you to contact your state legislators. You may find contact information for your state representatives at the Oklahoma Legislature website: http://www.oklegislature.gov/. The Capitol Connect website also allows you to easily find your representatives by entering your street address: http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx.

    Lastly, as a society, we must examine the corrosive effects that violent video games and television shows and movies have on our society. Ultimately, individuals make the decision to carry out these ghastly acts, but the sensationalism given to violence by the media and entertainment surely impacts the minds of those exposed to such imagery, especially those suffering from psychosis.

    Again, thank you for your email. Please be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as we continue discussing these important issues. God bless.

    Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
    United States Senator
  13. SiteManager

    SiteManager Active Member

    Letter sent!!
  14. JayBird

    JayBird Well-Known Member

    I hear he is working on exemptions, to include besides family, anyone with a concealed carry permit.

    I am hoping he also goes with reciprocity for all CCW's nationwide(NY and California are very against this), AND the exemption of anyone with a CCW applies for ALL sales. ie, no background check for CCW holders even from FFL's. :D

    The beauty of this is then the Republicans can come out and vote for it and let the democrats in the Senate sink it...or go along with their President.

    If he could go so far as to actually require all states to be shall issues ccw, this could actually be a win in the end.....even if the bill doesnt pass.

    Coburn did something similar to this before. I am hoping it is not just a sell out, but maneuvering.
  15. barnbwt

    barnbwt Well-Known Member

    Who says he's not compromising. That's it right there! He's willing to trade 2nd Amendment freedoms for 1st Amendment rights--that's what we want, isn't it?

    How about an exemption for anyone without a violent criminal record, for starters...

  16. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    Where in the Constitution did we grant Congress the power to regulate private sales? They can regulate commerce, but not private sales.

    Congress does not have the authority to pass such a law.
  17. gym

    gym member

    A lot of these legislators are confused, they think they are helping by asking for background checks. I think once it's pointed out to them they "get it", He seems to be going in the proper direction, just needs to me illumiated a bit.
    I know my Senators in FL and Reps, have softened their stance in the past few weeks, as they also get educated about guns, and gun violence. Don't forget to some of them it's a new political football and they have to sort it out, and see who is telling them the truth and who is yanking their chain. they may be up on the issue, but they aren't up on the consequenses of their actions down the road.
    They now understand more than they did last month, some didn't know which end of a gun was where the bullet exited, we need to walk them through it.
    Once the Feinsteins of the world "corner", some of the "new guys" they can be convincing, and they lie.
  18. JayBird

    JayBird Well-Known Member

    Oh, and if you really want this to be a 'win'

    Add in reciprocity for all CCW holders from ANY state in the 'gun free school zones act'.


    Add in...all the good things in FOPA again. This would allow the repeal of FOPA in the future, thus repealing the Hughes Amendment without removing the good things in FOPA.

    Now that....is a bill I would support. It would not get us a repeal of hughes, but it would line it up for the future. It would prevent the feds from maintaining records(among other FOPA things). It would loosen the federal gun free zone act. It would allow CCW reciprocity with the states and move all states to shall issue.

    Yes, it would 'close the gun show loophole', but I could live with that since they would not have records on what firearms were purchased from any private sales and from any FFL sales where someone had a CCW.

    It would effectively be setting up 'licensed' gun owners and 'unlicensed' gun owners, so there could be some issues to look out for in the future, but that is where we need to keep up the work....which we always will have to.

    Sure, states could still require all gun sales in their state to require a background check, so it would not help out the NYs and Californias out there on that front, but I would love to see Bloomie either have to decide to 'close the gun show loophole' or allow CCW reciprocity into NYC.
  19. gym

    gym member

    Bloomberg will never allow that to hapen, He has the political and monitary capitol to keep guns out of NYC. AS long as he is beathing, we will never get a foothold in the city, having had a NYC permit, I can atest to the difficulty in not just getting it, but keeping it.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  20. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry. I think this might sound good. But its a fantasy somewhere on the same order as hoping the government finally comes clean about the Roswell spaceship crash and admits "Men in Black" was a documentary.

    I'd bet dollars to donuts the compromise is that we accept UBC or we fight off AWB.

    I think we're smarter fighting off AWB.

Share This Page