This I am surprised at...

Status
Not open for further replies.

OneWound

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
404
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ey-republican-in-expanding-background-checks-

From the link above, McCain (AZ), Collins (ME), Heller (NV), Coburn (OK), Kirk (IL), Manchin (WV), Coats (IN) (all Republicans), are some of the most likely
Republicans to support UBC's. That being said, the reason why these Republicans are considered likely to favor the Bill will be because of changes that Democrats have made to the bill: ie, allowing Military Vets who have been declared mentally unstable to appeal that decision, and also for background checks to be available on everyone's home computer.
 
Last edited:
Joe Manchin is not a Republican.
Then again, most would say the same about Collins and McCain. :)
Coburn...yes, I am surprised and disappointed.
The others I don't know as much about.
 
These articles nearly always have interesting tidbits. Senator Schumer is reportedly trying to gain support for his bill by offering to let rural gun owners conduct background checks from their home computers. If an online process would be secure enough for people in rural areas (and for voter registration in 16 states), there is no rational reason it could not be used by everyone. The only reason beyond security and privacy that I can think of to make most people go to dealers and pay fees would be to make background checks burdensome and expensive - like poll taxes were once used to discourage voting.
 
there is no rational reason it could not be used by everyone. The only reason beyond security and privacy that I can think of to make most people go to dealers and pay fees would be to make background checks burdensome and expensive - like poll taxes were once used to discourage voting.

Sounds like an equal protection challenge.
 
Coburn...yes, I am surprised and disappointed.

Don't be, according to the article:

McCain and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) are at the top of a list of Republicans considered most likely to sign on to legislation expanding background checks after talks with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) stalled earlier this month.

It sounds like Coburn told them no.
 
Based on letter (canned letters) for Saxby Chambliss, I'll be surprised if he doesn't join this crowd. He's never been a conservative and he's not looking to get re-elected (he would have had a tough primary).

I doubt there's many Pro 2A senators that'll take a strong stand on this. It will come down to the House and that doesn't give me a warm & fuzzy feeling either.

How did the word compromise become a positive thing. I don't think I ever heard it used in a positive way other than from the media regarding politics.
 
Allowing me to do a background check on you tells them that I have at least one gun and it tells them who I sold it to.

Is this check to be anonymous? It is near impossible to hide . So they still know where to start looking when they want to take away our guns.
 
By previous laws the information from a background check is supposed to be destroyed after 3 days. But distributors and retailers are supposed to keep the information on file for 20 years. The information is out there but the BATF has to do some leg work to find it. The media is always going to say laws are going to pass so anti gunners will keep writing their congressmen. I don't think any new laws will pass if only Democrats voted. They see what is happening in Colorado and they remember 1994. Several sheriffs in CO said the laws are to difficult to enforce and one sheriff said the people elected him to protect their property, not take it away.
 
Last edited:
The (sold) purpose of the background check was to assure that the firearm was not being transferred to a prohibited person as defined in the 1968 GCA.

The gun controllers keep trying to convert the universal background check into a permanent registry of who sold a gun to whom. That is not the purpose we were sold on background checks in the first place.
 
Sorry for being stupid but,

If I sell a pistol to my friend, how will the gov't know (seriously, I think I know but would like to hear others opine)?
 
Reply to e-mail regarding UBC's from Schumer

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution?s Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court decisions reinforced this fact, but I believed that this was the case prior to those decisions.

While I certainly respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance. I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, I proposed S. 436, the Fix Gun Checks Act to provide more funding to states to compile required background data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This legislation builds on the National Rifle Association-supported NICS Improvements Amendment Act, passed by Congress in 2007. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will protect law enforcement from criminals with illegally obtained weapons while speeding up the process for purchasing legal firearms.

You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. For example, in the 109th Congress, I secured federal money to expand the scarce hunting grounds in New York State by creating a financial incentive for private landowners to allow hunters access to their property.

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.


Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Disingenuous, venial and pernicious. Yet, this is what I have to put up with as "representation".
 
Quote:
there is no rational reason it could not be used by everyone. The only reason beyond security and privacy that I can think of to make most people go to dealers and pay fees would be to make background checks burdensome and expensive - like poll taxes were once used to discourage voting.


Beyond security and privacy??? Mmkay, let's set those aside for a moment under the assumption that both are beyond valid. The stakes are fundamentally different should a voter registration site get hacked...

As Carl mentioned the potential for abuse is beyond HUGE. At least when you go to an FFL you sign a release for them to run the NICS check and the ATF would shut them down hard if they violate procedures. It would be impossible for anyone to monitor who runs NICS checks on them and when.

What happens if employers started running checks on job applicants? From what I've read there are a statistically significant number of wrongful denials and delays, and even correct denials from offenses decades earlier that could potentially block employment opportunities for otherwise upstanding, qualified and productive people. What recourse would they have against who in a case like that, and what remedy could make them whole?
 
NY'er

I have serious doubts that an online system with public access could provide adequate security and privacy. My point above was that IF such a system could be designed, limiting its use to people in isolated areas and not making it available to everyone would be both irrational and deliberately burdensome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top