E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday advanced legislation requiring all gun buyers to get a background check, voting along party lines to send a version of the bill to the full Senate.
But the bill passed in committee does not represent the legislative language that both sides ultimately expect the full Senate to consider.
Instead, it's a Democratic version of a background check bill, voted upon by the committee because a bipartisan group of negotiators haven't yet been able to compromise on its specifics.
"I've been talking and continuing to talk to colleagues across the political spectrum and across the aisle about a compromise approach, and I remain optimistic that we'll be able to roll one up," Sen. Chuck Schumer said at the Judiciary Committee's meeting on Tuesday. "But we're not there yet."
Senators are working on a package that would require all gun buyers to get a background check before they buy a gun. Under current law, only licensed dealers have to get a background check from a buyer before they sell a firearm. The bipartisan group had agreed on some exceptions, including one for people selling or giving guns to family members.
If that group -- led by Democrats Schumer and Joe Manchin and including Republican Sen. Mark Kirk -- can find common ground, the bill they produce is expected to become the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's gun control agenda in the Senate.
Those negotiations stalled when Republican Sen. Tom Coburn -- who carries an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association -- couldn't agree with Democrats about whether to require private sellers to keep records of the guns they sell.
Schumer and Manchin are now looking for a second Republican co-sponsor, preferably someone with a top NRA rating. They've reached out to a number of GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Johnny Isakson. Schumer is now taking meetings with some of those Republicans.
Senators also advanced a school safety measure on Tuesday. That bill had bipartisan support.
This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:21 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
My God what a bunch of ignorant twaddle.
For the person who was on about people in Arizona buying "lots of assault rifles", to own an assault rifle in the US you must first have a background check (not the "instant check" but one that involves forms filled out by the local police, fingerprints sent to DC, and the whole nine yards), it must be registered, and you must pay a "transfer tax" of several hundred dollars. This law was enacted in 1934. If you transfer it, the the recipient has to go through the same process. You cannot sell an assault rifle in the US that was made or imported after 1986 to anyone except a government agency or someone with a special license from the government that, among other things, allows them to search the premises at any time without warning.
For the person who is on about background checks being registration, I hate to break the news to you but that ship has sailed. Nearly all firearms sales today involve a background check. What is being proposed is not "background checks" but expanding the requirement to encompass private sales.
To the one who is on about the Federalist Papers, Federalist 29 does not address the types of weapons that the militia should have at all other than to state that the training, equipment, and organization should be standardized. If you are going to argue "well regulated militia", then you are going to have toss out the portions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 which prevent citizens from owning the standard-issue military rifle of the United States armed forces. The only reason that that act stands at all is that it was not brought "within judicial notice" that the particular firearm at issue when the act was challenged was of utility to a militia. Madison in any case was not on about the Second Amendment, which was put there specifically because their was a concern that Congress being empowered to establish a "discipline" for the militia might be interpreted to mean that the government could seize privately owned weapons. Remember, when you cite the Federalist papers that the Bill of Rights was not the work of Federalists but was the deal that had to be worked with the anti-Federalists in order to get the Constitution ratified.
J. Clarke
Interesting article but none of this arguement really doesn't matter. You have those on the left that feel I as a free man I cannot make decisions for myself.They twist the meaning of the constitution to fit their political thinking. The real argument comes down to the constitution and how it was framed it was well thought out to prevent the Government from taking the rights of the people for their control and power. This administration has violated the constitution continually. Most of these folks do not realize that they are setting themselves up to eventually lose their rights because they do not like something. They rant and rave about gay rights etc while ignoring others rights to religion and freedom of choice like gun ownership. The whole argument about gun control is people control once the so called assault weapon is banned guess what comes next come the real problem the hand gun. This is just another manufactured crisis by this President to achieve his Marxist Socialist Agenda by demonizing guns, the rich, religion etc.
wow..i had a background check when i bought my guns....so a law requiring back ground checks is redundant..what a waste of time
The NRA is for doing what we call DISHONEST!!!! They are hiding the CRIMINALS and ALL the DISHONEST ones from PUBLIC!!!. It is so obvious that They are hiding the DISHONEST GUN OWNERS and shielding them with the fight for NO BACKGROUND CHECKS or even NOW saying NO RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY THE SELLERS!!!!!
WOW!!! folks. There is wide spread criminal activity and they do not want to go the HONEST and STRAIGHT PATH of SAFETY and PROTECTION the CORRECT WAY.
THE NRA IS HIDING AND PROTECTING THE DISHONEST GUN OWNERS AND MFG'RS !!!!
Alain, that is incorrect, sorry.
Wow, Alan, do you think the dishonest murderers are going to comply with any law?
Bob
The laws are intended to help identify and convict criminals. There is no expectation that criminals will obey any law.
The NRA is for doing what we call DISHONEST!!!! They are hiding the CRIMINALS and ALL the DISHONEST ones from PUBLIC!
My point was that the people in your above quote, do not abide by any applicable law, let alone any new background check proposals. I'm not sure I see how the NRA is shielding these people. Now, if in your reply you mean that the law is to help identify and convict law abiding people who comply with the new laws, but then go on to break some other law, that may be true, but the ones committing most of the crimes now, are not abiding by the current laws on the books. I'm pretty confident they will have no problem ignoring any new ones.
A panel vote is as news worthy as a kitchen table vote. It does nothing. It wont pass a full senate vote so why bring it up. Even that panel holds little faith that the rest of the senate cares about their panel vote.
I think Alain may be new to the planet.
I wouldn't mind if everyone owning a gun was required to have a CCW. I think that would be a fair way to solve the problem at hand. Just like everyone driving a vehicle is required to have a drivers license.
That doesn't make sense and it would cost an awful lot to boot to the gun owners. I don't have a CCW and don't plan to get one because I don't carry concealed. I don't even own a hand gun. I have been checked everytime I have purchased a weapon. That should be sufficient.
The real problem with all of these laws is they fail to recognize mental health problems. If this loophole were closed, the laws on the books would work.
I think all sales of sugary soft drinks and fatty foods or those given privately should require the business or the private individual to do a medical background check of the purchaser.
Because of the enormous cost to the taxpayer for treatment of overweight health problems, this would seem the logical path.
More people kill themselves every year by bad nutrition choices, putting tremendous strain on the health care system.
I love it!
So why does the stupid law get air time and there's only a sentence on the School Safety Law? Are you, at NBC, biased in some way?
Bias in SOME way,, haha,,, total bias for their agenda,,, which is ban guns, lean left, and encourage free stuff for votes.
"...require all gun buyers to get a background check before they buy a gun." Pure fallacy. Recidavist criminals overwhelmingly commit the vast majority of gun crimes. There guns come from thefts or straw purchases. They do not, nor will they ever submit to a background check. This legislation is hollow, politically expedient opiate for the masses.
As an American I expect also to have all combatants in all foreign countries who are supplied weapons which are fully automatic and include rocket launchers and military hardware to summit photo, name, fingerprints and have a through background check. It should also be noted any weapon ending up in a terrorist or criminals hands, that the issuer be held liable for that weapon. As I am now concerning my weapon.
I hope lawmakers consider the rights of all the dead from gun violence, and not just those of gun owners. Criminal don't have any 2nd amendment rights. And its the governments job to see they cant buy weapons. They also need to start putting people with mental health issues on that background check list, so they cant buy weapons either. Its the governments job to deal with public safety issues. And gun violence is certainly a public safety issue.
Dont cave to threats from the gun manufacturers.
More laws wont solve all of the violence, but the more that is done, will certainly save lives.
Criminals will always find a way to get a gun....
dixie
And it will be very easy for them to obtain guns if the NRA continues to block laws designed to prevent them from getting guns and to block enforcement designed to bring them to justice.
Dong is an ideologue. If obama stops, dongs nose will go right up his.....ignore his opinion
RP
Cute ..... Your lame attempts at humor have not progressed since middle school.
Back when I was in high school (50 years ago) virtually anyone who could afford it, had a gun or two. There was no such thing as a background check or a waiting period. If you wanted a gun, you went out and bought one. In the high school parking lot, it was not unusual to see a pickup truck with a rifle or shotgun sitting in the gun rack. But we didn't shoot each other. Conflict were settled with fists, if it came to that. Now, something has changed -- but what?
I don't have the answer to that. But I do know one thing. What has changed is not that guns are more available now. They were more available then. So why should anyone believe that restricting gun ownership will solve the problem.
This is merely a "feel good" non-solution.