E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSenators negotiating a bill mandating background checks for all gun buyers are privately expecting the National Rifle Association not to fight the measure -- provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks, NBC News has learned.
If that requirement is met and key Republican negotiator Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma signs on, the powerful gun lobby has signaled to lawmakers that they would not actively oppose the bill -- and not count votes in favor of it as part of its highly influential NRA lawmaker ratings -- according to Senate aides familiar with the stalled negotiations.
Such a deal could clear the way for a universal background check bill, a central tenet of President Barack Obama's gun control initiative, to pass the Senate with significant Republican support. Odds of passage in the House would brighten significantly as a result.
The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox, the group's top lobbyist.
The NRA is still adamantly opposed to expanding background checks to private sales. "To be clear, the National Rifle Association does not support legislation that would criminalize otherwise lawful transfers of firearms between law abiding Americans," Cox said.
EARLIER: Panel advances background check bill, but its path remains clear
Such a decision would mark the first major compromise from the group in the wake of the elementary school shootings that killed 26 in Newtown, Conn. The NRA has signed on to a bipartisan mental health bill and are talking to senators about gun trafficking legislation. But with an assault weapons ban not likely to pass, the background check bill is the main legislative fight over new gun restrictions.
Still, Democrats have balked at this development: Leaving such a provision out, they say, would make the law toothless and would never earn support from gun control advocacy groups.
But without the record-keeping provision -- and the blind eye from the NRA -- Democrats would instead have to squeak their way to the 60 votes needed to pass in the upper chamber, potentially risking the whole package.
Both sides say it's tough to compromise on the issue of records. Coburn and the NRA argue that requiring private sellers to keep a record of each background check and gun sale would start down a slippery slope to a national gun registry. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, say enforcing any background check law would be all but impossible if records aren’t kept, and thus would have little impact on the criminals the bill is designed to target.
Jacquelyn Martin / Jacquelyn Martin / AP
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. walks toward the Senate chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Dec. 31, 2012.
"With about 90 percent of the public calling for a comprehensive background check system, the incentive to agree to a bill that only law abiding people will comply with, and that people we're trying to reach will ignore, is vanishingly small," said Mark Glaze, the executive director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group headed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"Background checks do not and cannot lead to gun registration. It's a lie meant to muddy the debate and distract from our common goal -- saving lives with solutions that Americans support overwhelmingly," Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, said in a Tuesday statement.
Coburn, who holds an "A" rating from the NRA, has been locked in closed meetings with Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., over the background check legislation.
Coburn and Manchin insist they're still talking, and Manchin said he was on the phone Tuesday with the NRA. He and Coburn have shared legislative language with the group as they've worked on an agreement.
"Tom Coburn and I come from a culture, a background, a culture of guns. So I think the NRA would respect and appreciate where we're coming from, with the understanding that we understand our NRA members," Manchin told NBC News on Tuesday. "I'm an NRA member, Tom's an NRA member, and they're looking at that. And hopefully we can find some common ground."
But the background check discussions with Schumer have stalled -- and the New Yorker is now reaching out in an effort to find another Republican who might be willing to sign on. The list includes moderates, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Republican senators who aren't running for re-election, like Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Sen. Chuck Schumer boards an elevator at the U.S. Capitol on March 12, 2013 in Washington, D.C.
Sources familiar with the negotiations suggest that Schumer has only made a public break with Coburn because he's trying to convince groups on the left -- the Bloomberg group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and others -- that they need to give in on record-keeping in order to save a broader package.
Glaze said that's a no-go, indicating that his group -- backed by Bloomberg's billions -- would instead air ads in senators' home states attacking them for not going further in their quest to stop gun violence.
"We're going to take the time to get out into the country and have that conversation with members and their constituents, and we will see where we end up in the late summer," Glaze said.
Asked about the groups' position Tuesday, Manchin emphasized the realities of getting a bill passed.
"I respect their position, but basically, we have 535 members, and they all have certain concerns and considerations to be taken. If you want to pass something, you have to work within a, a compromise if you will, bipartisan arena," he said.
NBC's Mike Viqueira contributed.
This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:01 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
NRA says no records keeping, no problem...
Liberals say no registration no deal...
It`s not about a "background" check afterall, is it?
No record keeping. No tracking of gun traffickers or weapons used in crimes. That's what the NRA wants.
Total Registration. Leading to total confiscation.
That`s what liberals want...
Thank you for being the poster boy for paranoia Brian.
"salsaforever
Thank you for being the poster boy for paranoia Brian."
It`s already happening...no paranoia here chip dip.
"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo"
Thanks for playing, chipdip.
I would be interested to find out how many of the fanatical gun control people support abortion?
1) An abortionists position on life is, it is only life if the woman carrying the baby, says it is a life.
2) An abortionists position on rights is, I have the right to choose.
3) An abortionists position is, my life and choice is more important than anyone else involved.
4) An abortionists position is that if you are poor, the tax payer should pay for their abortion.
5) An abortionists position is that anyone that disagrees with them is wrong and mean.
6) An abortionists position is that their decision only affects them.
Why is it then that these beliefs don't apply to other issues?
PS If I want to own a high capacity firearm and can't afford it, the tax payers should buy it for me and you're mean and wrong, if you disagree. This decision only affects me.
Brian, they are confiscating guns from criminals and the mentally impaired........you know the people that conservatives say shouldn't have guns? CONSERVATIVES ARE AS DUMB AS A BAG OF ROCKS!!!
Hey BrianP, they haven't taken my car, my house, my wife yet, get it you idiot ?
This is an excerpt form the article BRIAN cited:
California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.
CONVICTED FELONS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BRIAN? Did you read the f_cking article? LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
Conservatives are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Sadly for you salsaforever, liberals are way way dumber than even that.
see, I can name call, too.
Angela, please arrive on time for your funeral.
What does that even mean?
Seriously, lame dude.
The 2nd amendment is actually a 3 part statement.
The 1st in giving the States the right to a "well regulated Militia" (note: by definition, well regulated in the 1700's meant "well supplied") and the 2nd in giving the right to keep and bear arms to individuals (no qualifiers). The 3rd part, the last 4 words that say it all, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." T Jefferson
That being said, there are many people today, who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government.
They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control. It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coersion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coersion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.
The Second Ammendment is *our* garuantee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe .to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warrented, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance. They were very distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards through the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism to prevent it from happening. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are ennumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose it's will, (unlawfully in their opinion), upon the citizenry.
The Second Ammendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.
There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to to look around more carefully.
Those of us that support the Second Ammendment feel that it's relevence is as valid now as it was when it was first penned.
+1, well written Red...
Well said. I would add, that there is a mechanism in the constitution to change it. I suggest that all of you anti-gun folks use the freedom that the blood and guns of the past bought you, and change the constitution!
Having background checks and requirement is not violating are constitutional rights. We have them at work all the time, so if you work you should not worry. I have my background check every five years and retraining because it’s a industry wide requirement. Why? Well because too many unqualified people screwing up on the job and it works. Why does it work? Because we enforce the rule. My point is, background checks and requirements are good, but if were going to have it for firearms we have to enforce it or its not going to work.
Do you no what " Do Not Infringe means" our fore fathers don't care if you have a background check at work. This is what most don't understand, it's not about anything but the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why do Gungrabbers want to compare a right to what you have to do at work or anything else . Please read the Constitution and Bill of Rights it will explain my right to own a gun
Jobs .all the shooters have been unemployed
Conservatives want a state issued ID and records for a voter but don't want records for the private sale of deadly weapons. Talk about hypocrisy.
"Conservatives want a state issued ID and records for a voter but don't want records for the private sale of deadly weapons. Talk about hypocrisy."
Liberals want the polar opposite, so who`s being hypocritical?
Conservatives have no data to support voter fraud. Liberals have data to support gun trafficking from private sales. Comprendez?
They have pepole admitting it on film
Ya guns from the fast and furious deal to mexico .
"salsaforever
Conservatives have no data to support voter fraud. Liberals have data to support gun trafficking from private sales. Comprendez?"
Touche, everyone has heard of fast and furious by now...Capiche?
I would be interested to find out how many of the fanatical gun control people support abortion?
1) An abortionists position on life is, it is only life if the woman carrying the baby, says it is a life.
2) An abortionists position on rights is, I have the right to choose.
3) An abortionists position is, my life and choice is more important than anyone else involved.
4) An abortionists position is that if you are poor, the tax payer should pay for their abortion.
5) An abortionists position is that anyone that disagrees with them is wrong and mean.
6) An abortionists position is that their decision only affects them.
Why is it then that these beliefs don't apply to other issues?
PS If I want to own a high capacity firearm and can't afford it, the tax payers should buy it for me and you're mean and wrong, if you disagree. This decision only affects me.
Like I said Brian no significant data on voter fraud but plenty of data on gun trafficking from private sales:
massacre were bought at gun shows without background checks.
You lose.........loser.
Salsa, I cannot speak about the other stats that you quote, because I do not know. I do know, however, that the guns at Columbine would not have been denied if a background check had been done. There was no known reason to not make the sale. As for the 74% who said they would sell when they knew they shouldn't, how many were prosecuted? Everyone of them should be behind bars for at least ten years. We do not need more laws. We need to enforce what we have. I want severe penalties for gun crime...not being thought of as criminal for owning a firearm as guaranteed by the constitution.
Any way you look at it sounds like a sell out. I gave up on the NRA in the early eighties because they pissed me off. I just rejoined to support what I thought was a cause. Guess I was wrong. with them or without it still stands, If you come for my guns you better bring a lot of body bags. Yes my military career prepared me for that.
It's Bull if it's true I called, wrote in and tomorrow I will be heading over to Fairfax to ask a few questions have a little lunch see who is there that will listen and express my opinion, besides I haven't been to the Museum for awhile.
Cant we just tell Barry and the Boys that we went to High School in the US and be on our way?
Ooops wrong topic.
I find myself in rare agreement with the NRA. While there should definately be background checks they should be stored in a NATIONAL database and the sellers only collectors of information to put into the database. Those sellers shouldn't be responsible for keeping records of that nature. Straw sales should be prohibited period and I would want all firearms registered. Of course, everyone but a few seem to agree that sales to criminals, drug cartels etc should be illegal.
Straw sales are already illegal and as for sales to Criminals and Drug Cartels you better read up on the "Fast and Furious" scandal before you sound even dumber than you currently do.
Funny the NRA playing coy, considering what an worn-out old
whoreprostitute LaPierre is.You look real respectable.A background check of this pic will put you on the p-e-r-v - list
I would be interested to find out how many of the fanatical gun control people support abortion?
1) An abortionists position on life is, it is only life if the woman carrying the baby, says it is a life.
2) An abortionists position on rights is, I have the right to choose.
3) An abortionists position is, my life and choice is more important than anyone else involved.
4) An abortionists position is that if you are poor, the tax payer should pay for their abortion.
5) An abortionists position is that anyone that disagrees with them is wrong and mean.
6) An abortionists position is that their decision only affects them.
Why is it then that these beliefs don't apply to other issues?
PS If I want to own a high capacity firearm and can't afford it, the tax payers should buy it for me and you're mean and wrong, if you disagree. This decision only affects me.
Jim, Do you have a uterus? Do you have ovaries? Do you menstruate? Do you have the capability to bring life into this world without them?
No.
Until you do, SHUT UP!
for the record, I do not support 'gun control' and I'm pro-choice (even though "I" would never seek an abortion for myself)...
Angela, will that mean you will be keeping your yap shut on issues outside of your personal demographic? Keep it real honey.
Angela, please arrive on time for your funeral and please refrain from talking to empty chairs. Comprendez?
Oh I get it now, Salsa is a low IQ, name calling, man...
as i said before over and over , as
the NEWS uses and these people use the death of babys to try to push a law and wave it at the next person that goes to a school to kill our kids
they do not want to talk about how to put a stop to any one going to any of our schools with a gun a knife a bat or any type of weapon to do our kids and our teachers harm,
with out any measure we dare them to say we are doing everything we can to make sure your kids are
as safe as we can make it ,we are setting room in the office of the principles office so the officer can do his paper work there as we do care,
but i dont think i have seen this from anyone , but the NRA,
for the background check as you get pulled over they run you though their system to check if you are wanted and if your a good guy or not,
when you buy a gun
did you know that when they call you in to see if you can buy the gun and they say yes or no,
i was in a gun dealer and a police officer was told he had to wait to take the gun home that day,
he was like me i dont care if i have to wait its an old gun and its just a wall hanger ,
but that was funny tho, but we do need to do something about these thing and do nothing
is not going to happen , we will make it where you do not have to worry when you drop your baby off at school and put you kid on a bus that you know they will be ok ,
i will write next to the system that need to be in place,
next
I would be interested to find out how many of the fanatical gun control people support abortion?
1) An abortionists position on life is, it is only life if the woman carrying the baby, says it is a life.
2) An abortionists position on rights is, I have the right to choose.
3) An abortionists position is, my life and choice is more important than anyone else involved.
4) An abortionists position is that if you are poor, the tax payer should pay for their abortion.
5) An abortionists position is that anyone that disagrees with them is wrong and mean.
6) An abortionists position is that their decision only affects them.
Why is it then that these beliefs don't apply to other issues?
PS If I want to own a high capacity firearm and can't afford it, the tax payers should buy it for me and you're mean and wrong, if you disagree. This decision only affects me.
Jim is obviously a reject under background checks and is therefore against them.
JM,
Too silly a post to warrant a thoughtful reply.
Yes, it is too silly to be thoughtful about drilling a hole in the back of the skull of a fetus and sucking out the brains a few days or weeks before it is born and calling this a "choice" . No matter, we are only talking about "tissue", right? You guys would make Pol Pot proud.
Funny stuff there Jm.
in a new system from the old, the old
when the gun dealer calls in to see if you can take the gun or not ,
they give them your name ,
your S.S no.
where you was born.
and the type of gun,
long gun or hand gun,
and then they check you , and say yes you can take the gun , or no they are still checking and they will call back ,
i got held up on my 1906 Winchesters and then i get home , the gun dealer calls me say i can pick up the gun , will i said ill be in town tomorrow or the next ok thanks,
''that is the check that is right now,''
as i will add a bad guy will not go though this and if so on the bottom says if you have given any false about if you are the buyer and if you lie in this forms , the law is 10 years and 250k in fines,
next to the new one that should be ,
"The NRA is still adamantly opposed to expanding background checks"
What do these SOBs have to hid ? ? ? Oh, I forgot, guys and gals like LaPierre are a bit wacko, and probably wouldn't pass the test.
If you believe that the NRA won't oppose, I have a bridge I would like to sell.
Any opposition offered by the NRA leadership is meaningless; they're the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
In November they lost EVERY single election in which they chose to support a candidate and they will lose now.
pee in a cup ill be right back
I am a liberal democrat and I own guns......I donot like the direction these gun bills are going! I disagree with the way the Obama administration is trying to restrict honest Americans even further from owning guns! The problem is when you are out gunned by criminals and that if they want or need a gun they will bi pass the legal means in which to get them leaving us tax paying law abiding citizens on the outside looking in and way behind the curve ball! This just seems scary to me that criminals have easier access to guns illegally than I would legally doesnt make sense to me but hey seems like the government has some master plan and it doesnt look good!
You're about as liberal as Sheldon Adelson, Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, and Mark Levin all wraped up in a love bundle.
Such a liar.
Enforce what is on the books and leave legal gun owners alone. Do Not Infringe
Actually this story is inaccurate
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/3/statement-from-chris-w-cox-nra-ila-executive-director-regarding-inaccurate-nbc-story-alleging-that-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-bill.aspx
It'll never pass! We have to much power!!!!!!!! Watch dictator!
According to the NRA, this article is not true.
The NRA should not even be allowed to the table when it comes to discussion about legitimate gun laws. Consider these inconvenient facts:
The NRA does not allow even its own members to select the NRA board of directors. Accordingly the NRA does not represent gun owners, or even its own members when it come to establishing NRA policy.
The NRA is responsible for laws that make the black market in guns possible. The laws are called the Tiahrt amendments - Google them and learn what indecent and irresponsible lobbying the NRA has engaged in.
The NRA's board of directors consists, in part, of gun manufacturers and criminals: NRA board member Pete Brownell owns Brownells Inc. NRA board member Ronnie Barrett owns Barrett. Both are weapons manufacturers. Oliver North, a convicted felon, who sold arms to Iran in violation of his oath as a military officer and who did so while Iran held US citizens hostage is also on the NRA board. So is Ted Nugent who has confessed that he has a predilection to sex with under-age girls. So there you have it - a cabal of gun manufactures, traitors, and child molesters - what a great sample of humanity.
The primary public spokesperson Wayne Lapierre is a pathologic liar who accused ATF agents of being "jackbooted thugs" while those same agents were giving their lives to perform their sworn duties.
The NRA is also responsible for the act of congress that has kept the ATF leaderless for years since it now takes an act of congress to appoint an ATF head. They then complain that the ATF is not well lead while being themselves responsible for that very lack of leadership.
Make no mistake - I am not an advocate for assault weapons bans or any other gun bans. I do not believe that restricting access to guns is appropriate nor do I support bans on high capacity magazines. What I oppose are criminal organizations that pretend to be legitimate. It isn't guns I am against - it is the criminal excesses of the NRA.
Whether you agree with the NRA or not, this story is false. NBC needs to issue a correction.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/3/statement-from-chris-w-cox-nra-ila-executive-director-regarding-inaccurate-nbc-story-alleging-that-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-bill.aspx
Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
Posted on March 12, 2013
An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.
The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks". This statement is completely untrue. The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.
The NRA supports meaningful efforts to address the problems of violent crime and mass violence in America, through swift and certain prosecution of violent criminals; securing our schools; and fixing our broken mental health system.
The NRA leadership are pigs at a trough.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you half wit Dumocrats not understand?
Demanding that guns only be sold to legitimate buyers (i.e. NO criminals) is not infringement - what part of THAT don't you understand?
What part of the 2nd Amendments has limits don't you understand?
"The right of the people to keep and bare arms", pretty much says it all 'salsa'. What part of that do YOU fail to understand?
Oh I don't know..........I was referring to Antonin Scalia's comments on limits to the 2nd Amendment...........hun. Comprendez? You do know whom Antonin Scalia is don't you.......hun.
Salsa, get over yourself.
You did not paraphrase (is that too hard a word for someone as limited as you to comprehend?) Scalia. You took a phrase out of the loony lefty liberal playbook and failed. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this subject and your side lost. You're never going to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, or people who will just disregard any new stupid laws that try to take them away from being able to protect themselves. See how well banning guns worked in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles.
Time for you to pull your head out from your butt and take a big whiff of reality...
........"highly influential NRA lawmaker ratings" LOL oh yeah the chickenhawks all want to ensure their "rights to bear arms"........... unless it involves serving the country in the military, (right Dickhead Cheney, Ted the Diaper Nugent) then all bets are off. How about you want to own guns you actually belong or have served in a "real" well organized militia" that alone would keep most Republicans from ever owning guns. ROFL!