Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"

[AlexanderA]

According to Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, a bipartisan group of four Senators (Coburn, Kirk, Schumer, and Manchin) are 95% of the way to an agreement on a proposed "universal background check" bill.

Some ideas that have emerged from this are the following:
1. Exemption of transfers among family members from the background checks.
2. Exemption for concealed-carry permit holders.
3. A mechanism to insure that the background checks don't result in a de facto national gun registry.
4. Having FFL's make the actual calls into NICS (for a nominal fee), but not having the FFL's enter the private transactions into their "bound book," and having the Forms 4473 retained by the sellers, not the FFL's.

(This latter seems to be a sort of hybrid system between having all transactions run through FFL's (as in the ordinary course of their business), and opening the NICS to inquiries by non-licensed individuals.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...san-deal-close-on-expanded-background-checks/

 

[xfyrfiter]

Criminals are not going to purchase guns legally in any case. UBC's are simply a feel good measure foisted on us by the antis.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

And what do we get for giving up what we have now.

 

[Solo]

Maybe points 3 and 4, though I have my doubts.

 

[Tim the student]

Well, it could be worse...

But my attitude remains unchanged: No compromise.

 

[Ryanxia]

Those sound a lot better but I'm still not compromising. We've compromised enough. These are our Rights and they will continue to erode if we don't do something to stop them NOW.

Write your representatives and urge them that ANY universal background check is unacceptable and un Constitutional.

 

[mljdeckard]

I started a thread a few weeks ago about #3, asking if it was even possible, and the bottom line is, even if it is possible to make such a provision NOW, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the law won't be abused in the future.

 

[joeschmoe]

Where in the Constitution did we give them the power to regulate private sales? Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales.
Are they going to tell us how to arrange our furniture in the living room next?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703189

Under what power can Congress regulate private sales? No power for UBC?

 

[wally]

Having FFL's make the actual calls into NICS for a nominal fee

Define this? $5 $25? $100?


If we have to have it, add in:

5) Make the C&R FFL-03 valid for all guns (non-business, individual hobby dealer) and able to call in the NICS checks (to increase the supply of dealers for individual transfers to help keep the fees "nominal").

At least this way we'd gain something.

 

[r1derbike]

Beware the sweet smell of laundered scum of a bill that rises to the top, as the effluent below may not be seen, or smelled and may be miles deep.

 

[MartinS]

Any particular reason why the seller can't make the NICS call?

 

[Billy Shears]

If they get this passed, and the house votes it into law also (hopefully won't happen), this needs to be immediately challenged. Congress does NOT have the constitutional authority to regulate this, and we need to step up and drag them back to their limits if they can't abide by them themselves. If I sell a gun to another resident of my state or city, there is absolutely NO interstate commerce taking place whatsoever, and the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

Of course, Wickard v. Filburn, where a farmer not selling wheat was deemed to to be participating in interstate commerce because his inactivity had an effect on the marketplace, proves that there are no intellectual contortions our ̶l̶o̶r̶d̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ public servants cannot twist themselves through to regulate what they want. This means its vital to get such a lawsuit before the courts now, not later, before one of the now elderly conservative justices dies or retires, and Obama appoints another liberal who believes in a "living" constitution, meaning it can be interpreted how they like to achieve the desired result.

 

[gc70]

From the description in the article, the Senators are 95% on the way to agreeing to 95% of Senator Schumer's S.436 background check bill from the prior session of Congress.

IF the final proposal is patterned after Schumer's bill, the landmines to watch for include:

- the exemption for family members only applies to a "bona fide gift" and;

- a transfer is not limited to a sale, but also includes "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title."

 

[alsaqr]

Beware the sweet smell of laundered scum of a bill that rises to the top, as the effluent below may not be seen, or smelled and may be miles deep.

+1
It gets the camels nose under the tent. Schumer will reveal the rest of his camel as time goes by.

 

[bhk]

What constitutes a 'transfer' needs to be carefully defined. Does passing a handgun to my buddy on the range for him to try a transfer? Does lending my hunting partner a deer rifle for the afternoon a transfer? If not defined in detail, we could be in big trouble.

No new laws on this issue are best, of course.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

Just my opinion, but I don't believe anti-gunners or whatever you wish to call them are even remotely capable of writing a bill which I would consider acceptable. I would reject it out of hand just based on who crafted it and who signed on as sponsors. I'll come to the table ... but I offer NO COMPROMISES.

All I will offer is this:
1. States shall be required to provide data on those adjudicated mentally defective or under involuntary committment orders on the same basis as they report felony and DA convictions. The same frequency to the same data base.

2. The DOJ shall be required to:
a. Prosecute all instances of prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm
b. Prosecute all instances of intentional falsification of information on a 4473
c. Prosecute all instances of a prohibited person in possession
d. The penalties for the above shall be the maximum
e. The sentences for conviction shall be consecutive, not concurrent

That's all I'm willing to give.

 

[jamesbeat]

Yep, enforce the laws we already have!

 

[Texan Scott]

^ We don't have time for that, apparently.

 

[Billy Shears]

Yep, enforce the laws we already have!

^ We don't have time for that, apparently.

It's not a matter of not having time for it, it's a matter of perception. The politician who passes a new law is seen as having "done something," while the politician who says "we already have the laws we need, let's just try enforcing them" doesn't look proactive enough for the low-information voters out there who comprise the majority of the electorate. It's a fundamental weakness of our system that will always provide a strong incentive for politicians to engage in meaningless, symbolic gestures that will accomplish nothing, and may even make things worse. Like gun control.

 

[medalguy]

You clearly don't understand. They don't have the money to enforce the laws already on the books according to the government. It's better to bargain down a felony offence to a misdemeanor and allow the miscreants to serve community service than to send them up the river to already overcrowded prisons.

But Sheriff Joe figured out how to handle that problem, forgot about that.

 

[InkEd]

Can you say useless crap and nationwide non-compliance.

 

[JERRY]

so what are they offering in return for these further infringements?

 

[Old Fuff]

When the camel gets his nose inside the tent it will not be long before the rest is there too. What gun control advocates (Democrat and Republican) want is a beachhead. Get the ball rolling and then build more on the foundation. None of them has explained exactly how this will prevent criminals and the insane from getting firearms when what we have now hasn’t worked.

The BATF&E has admitted on a number of occasions that they are generally unable to trace guns made or sold through dealers prior to 1968. Registration of rifles and shotguns simply wasn’t done before that, and only a few states or cities registered handguns – by whatever method. No one knows how many souvenir firearms were brought into the country after World War’s One and Two.

If gun owners choose to ignore the new law – if there is one – how does the government propose to prove that a particular gun hasn’t been handed down through a family for decades? What are they going to do about literally tens of thousands of inexpensive .22 rifles and some shotguns that never had a serial number?

The fact is that the cited Senators don’t have the slightest idea about the subject, or what stands a chance of working and what doesn’t.

Unfortunately their ignorance is not limited to this one issue. :banghead:

 

[Anmut]

How would this be enforced - with MILLIONS of firearms in non-nazi states that have traded hands since they were originally bought from an FFL, how would there even be a paper trail to prosecute someone? The ONLY way to make a UBC law work would be to have a Universal Registration.

 

[PRM]

It will take more than 4 corrupt Senators to change the Constitution. Then the Supreme Court will weigh in.

Folks need to quit talking about compromise... the left is willing to give up nothing. The only people who are loosing in these hypothetical talks are law abiding citizens. There is nothing in the OP's post that would have impacted Sandy Hook at at all.

Personally, I'm continuing to email all my reps.