Senate negotiations on background check have stalled

[AlexanderA]

At issue is record-keeping. Currently, when a background check is administered for a firearm purchase, the record of the check is destroyed, but the record of the sale is kept, usually by the retailer. Under a bill that expands background checks to include private purchases, the question becomes what to do about the sales record.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/obama-gun-control_n_2761488.html

 

[Texan Scott]

Good. This is where it SHOULD stall. This is where our congresscritters SHOULD say "Nuts to you, then!" and walk away.

 

[ngnrd]

And the only way around that little sticking point in universal background checks is ......




...... universal registration.

 

[baz]

Under a bill that expands background checks to include private purchases, the question becomes what to do about the sales record.

So who is asking that question? Democrats, obviously:

Democrats insist the record must be kept. Without it, the purpose of expanding background checks becomes moot, they argued. There would be no way to show or prove that a transaction took place. In addition, it would make a federal trafficking statute toothless, making it impossible to charge someone for the straw purchase of guns on behalf of those prohibited from owning them.

But Republicans negotiating over the background check legislation are wary of creating anything resembling a federal database. As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported, the main Republican negotiator on the bill, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), opposes keeping a sales record for purchases that take place over the Internet, (a major method for gun purchasers in remote areas ).

Democrats have offered Coburn several options to circumvent the impasse, aides said. They've proposed having the manufacturer of the gun keep the sales record; having the seller of the gun keep the sales record; or having a retailer do the record-keeping as a third-party observer to the transaction.

"We are not committed of one idea of who should retain a record. We just want to make sure there is a record," said an aide to a lawmaker working on the bill. "We are flexible about who maintains that record. ... But [the record] is the only way that makes the background check requirement enforceable."

We need to keep pointing out how this demonstrates that the ultimate objective is a database of who owns what. I.e., Democrats are not really interested in just preventing sales to people who shouldn't have guns. If so, they would be satisfied with a system where, in a FTF sale, I could call, ask whether "so and so can be sold a firearm" and receive a Y/N response, and that be the end of it. But that is not what they want. They want to be able to track the flow of firearms as well.

If you have a Republican Senator, or a Democratic Senator in a vulnerable 2014 election, you should contact your Senator and "explain" this to them, and that any UBC system that tracks the flow of firearms is simply unacceptable. Sure, we do not want a UBC at all, but tactically, if we can "stall" it over this point, we win.

 

[AlexanderA]

The assumption underlying this "negotiation" is that it would take 60 votes to move anything through the Senate (and that, therefore, Republican votes would be needed). The 60-vote threshold is the "silent filibuster." So much for Keene's assertion that the filibuster would not be used. Once again, Keene is shown to have put his foot in his mouth.

I have a suspicion that a lot of Democrats would like to see this not come up to a vote.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

According to the old "Armed and Considered Dangerous" felon survey, most armed felons obtain weapons from street sales--drug dealers, fences, burglars, and other dealers in contraband. About a fourth were supplied guns by fellow criminals. An eighth personally stole the guns they used. The percentage acquiring guns from straw purchase by family or friends with no record from a legal source was about 13%. As the professors who analyzed the felon survey put it, most criminals obtained guns from hard to regulate sources in hard to regulate ways.

How will universal background checks on legal sales really impact illegal transactions? How can UCB impact crime?

At least when the Kings College London published a study that indicated the British ban on handguns had not impacted gun crime in Britain, Ann Pearston head of one of the gun contril groups said honestly that she did not expect an impact on gun crime from her legislation; her goal was to ban legal guns, and she recognized illegal crime guns as a seperate problem and not her concern. This I have learned from following gun control advocacy starting with Carl Bakal in the 1950s: gun haters hate guns and gun owners period. The gun control movement feeds on fear, loathing and moral panic. Crime control is just a pretext.

And I submit that federal UBC aimed at 80 million lawabiding gun owners will not touch the approximate 0.4 million gun criminals and will probably eat up law enforcement resources that might actual affect gun crime and more importantly crime in general.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

"We are not committed of one idea of who should retain a record. We just want to make sure there is a record," said an aide to a lawmaker working on the bill. "We are flexible about who maintains that record.

And that pretty much says it all - they aren't interested in trying to create a background check system that does not record the sale. They don't care where the record is (right now anyway) but they want a record.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yes, tracking the flow of guns (de facto registration) brings us one step closer to confiscation.

Yet, each new massacre also brings us one step closer to confiscation. As gun owners, we defend our rights by preventing such incidents. Some way needs to be found to preclude obviously deranged people, or proven criminals, from getting guns. Doing so is in our own self-interest.

The real question is, how do you keep deranged people from getting guns while not trampling on the rights of sane people? Surely this is not an insoluble problem.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"...they want a record." After Canada abandoning their national long gun registry as a waste. Will they ever learn, or are they stuck on stupid?

 

[alsaqr]

The dedicated anti-gunners in the US senate want a searcheable database of gun sales: No surprise here. These are the same senators who want to register guns and gunowners. i watched senator Leahy's lame attempt to peddle his UBC on TV the other day.

 

[JohnBT]

""So much for Keene's assertion that the filibuster would not be used."

I haven't seen or heard a member filibuster on this subject, have you?

 

[Fremmer]

I guess that DOJ memo about registering guns so that they can be confiscated later hasn't gone over so well.

No registration (a/k/a "record keeping")! No compromises! No new gun control!

 

[cfullgraf]

"...they want a record." After Canada abandoning their national long gun registry as a waste. Will they ever learn, or are they stuck on stupid?

The folks in Washington will never learn. They get the idea that "It will work this time".

There are already laws on the books to minimize the purchases the anti-gunners are trying to eliminate. What is wrong with enforcing them?

I do not know why our elected officials think everything can be solved by enacting new laws.

 

[Tirod]

Missing the point - elected representatives are hired precisely to enact more law. It's their job, and what they do.

We'll never see a flat tax or a hard number budget because they are playing in a vault of money dividing it up along legal guidelines. If they can't make law or change law, it reduces there significance to zero. There would be about a month's amount of work annually, no budget battles, no pork bills sending defense contractors work to their state, and therefore, no reason to give them campaign contributions to influence the process.

How many people running for office refuse all corporate contributions and state they will propose a law to eliminate them? Most voters wouldn't cast a ballot for an ethical candidate, he or she would be "too principled" for the job.

There's an old saying, you get the Congress you deserve.

 

[Fremmer]

They cannot and should not violate our 2nd amendment rights, and me must continue to say NO.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Are they planning to just-flat out ignore FOPA?

18 U.S.C. 926

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

 

[Dframe]

The leftists have ground their teeth and gone crazy for decades that they can't have a permanent record of EVERY sale that takes place.
Make NO mistake "universal background check" is just a sneaky gun grabber name for BANNING private sales. Forced registration and eventually confiscation can't take place until you KNOW who owns the guns and where they live.

 

[JRH6856]

Are they planning to just-flat out ignore FOPA?

18 U.S.C. 926

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

According to the portion you quoted, FOPA only prohibits the Attorney General from creating a database of the records required by FOPA. It does not prohibit Congress or any other agency from creating such a database from those records or from records mandated by another law.

 

[Phatty]

According to the portion you quoted, FOPA only prohibits the Attorney General from creating a database of the records required by FOPA. It does not prohibit Congress or any other agency from creating such a database from those records or from records mandated by another law.

Not to mention that all laws of Congress can be amended by Congress. So if there is a statute saying that no gun registry can be created, Congress can simply pass a new statute permitting a registry.

 

[phillipduran]

The real question is, how do you keep deranged people from getting guns while not trampling on the rights of sane people? Surely this is not an insoluble problem.

I don't think we should focus on how to keep deranged people from getting guns, but should instead focus on how to protect each other from deranged people.

How many normal people can turn deranged if pushed or overstressed? A deranged person just needs 1 burglary to become armed. One visit to drug dealers or gang members could probably get a deranged man a gun that was stolen.

The fix is defense. There are so many guns out there that trying to keep them out of anyones hands is going to be a futile attempt.

Treat murders like we treat fire. Allow good people access to the fire extinguishers everywhere to put them out where they occur. We're not hearing about any Utah school shootings. . .

 

[MachIVshooter]

According to the portion you quoted, FOPA only prohibits the Attorney General from creating a database of the records required by FOPA. It does not prohibit Congress or any other agency from creating such a database from those records or from records mandated by another law.

I'm trying to find the actual full text of FOPA (not that easy....), but it does, in fact, prohibit government from creating/maintaining a registry of gun owners.

 

[JRH6856]

As noted, it really doesn't matter what FOPA says as any law passed by Congress can be repealed or superseded by a later act.

 

[rjrivero]

Enforceable? Then you need to prosecute the laws that are broken. Start with Fast and Furious. Continue with David Gregory from Meet the Press. Either back the laws that are on the books, or don't add more pokers in the fire than you can handle.

 

[jamesbeat]

I don't think we should focus on how to keep deranged people from getting guns, but should instead focus on how to protect each other from deranged people.

If THR ever had a quote of the year competition, that should be the winner.

 

[SSN Vet]

Universal registration be damned! It's time for these Tea Party cats to earn their stripes and tell the Democrats to stuff it!