Text of Proposed Coburn Amendment to S.649

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.

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?

AlexanderA said:

Why is the Coburn plan actually being more restrictive in this than Manchin-Toomey? It seems that there is scope to broaden the exemptions.

Click to expand...

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.