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:
This story and pomp and circumstance, is just another way of lawmakers making unlawful rules as "lawyers" to put the poor in chains of prison, aka: nazi prison camps, to hit the average taxpayer = gun owner, in a two-fold waste of income, through keeping the "peace-keepers" abiding by red-tape to contain or arrest the suspects = tax one, and imprison = tax two and deplete John Q. Public's assets to overthrow freedom, much like "soap opera's" operate, to keep divorce case lawyers wealthy; and once again, the average Joe in servitude income. What about alcoholic insanity? Can't we have a beer and have sport or protection? Then there is the nicotine fit and going postal... there is the disgruntled employee, the foreclosed property, and back to the divorce case and suicidal and homicidal, while lawyers and lawmakers are making all the money, and the "American Dream" is Uncle Tom's Cabin or sheer and docile slavery!
Republicans are against background checks . . . yet they would never tolerate regular people walking around their city, or neighborhood with . . . semi-automatic weapons!
If I hand a gun over the back fence and get cash in return, which is legal, and I make no record of it at all, then there is no evidence of any kind that transaction ever happened. All that remains is the ID number on the gun, whose ownership WAS known until it enters the world of private sale. Can we hold the last legally recorded purchase, hold THAT owner liable if the gun is used in a crime? In other words assume he or she is the one who put the gun into a felon's hand? Without a record of later sales we would HAVE to.
So what exactly does the NRA think "well-regulated" means? The 2nd amendment reads to me like everyone can maintain their own guns but everyone who does must also be enlisted in the National Guard. Which means register the person and just assume he brings his own weapons.
Except that the National Guard didn't even come into existence until the 20th century; amazingly prescience on the part of the Founders, eh?
You are dead wrong, there are a couple enumerations of what a militia is, one explicitly states not under federal control.
If you haven't read this yet, you should. Excellent letter to Obama from a Columbine survivor.
Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I've heard you ask, "why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?"
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating "needs?" This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: "And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this."
Why don't we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn't now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, "If we can save just one person it is worth it." Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the "Gun Free Zone Act." Don't allow America's teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Respectfully,
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
next
now for the idea
next
But the rest of us are suppose to be comfortable with semi-automatic weapons loose in our neighborhood. We are NOT!
Americans aren't comfortable with you on the loose ...
Semi Automatic sounds SO SENSATIONAL, you mean anything other than cowboy and pirate guns?
this is what the prestdent said ,
“Let me be absolutely clear. Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection or collection,” the president said.
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not a single dime.” – Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009
Neither statement was his first lie nor his last..
These miserable knee jerk reactions from our Democrats will not be forgotten come Election Day !
Stupid law that will not have any effect on crime. Why should I have to pay for a background check to give a gun to my wife or my son (who is a police officer)? Straw buying is illegal. Enforce the law and put straw buyers in jail. This is just a back door way to get a gun registry. Registration has always equaled eventual confiscation. We need background checks on Democrats. Most couldn't pass.
WELL I am against gun checks and keeping logs on them because their is a reason for the build up of a civilian private army and i will not listen or follow anybody in a un uniform in my country and i see bad things coming down our way because where there is smoke you can find the truth of fire underneath. so many people are against people who are better off then them but i say get off your big wide butts and go to work or school and make something of yourself instead of depending on the government to do it for you.
just like a guy said as they where all standing around the meat case at a local grocery store this past weekend and since i look at all sides before i say something i said well if we keep going broke i wonder how any of us will be able to afford to eat in the next year or so and this must be why the government is stocking arms and training 18 to 24 years old for the DHS private civilian soldiers and i should say obama's army when people start rioting due to no money or food stamps or even places to live but his answer was to be rioting with the rest while he got his check from the government so we can see what and why he is so popular with these people as they think he will keep them up but boy is he gonna surprise them later on as they will be the first to go as history has shown that to be true as they will be a drag and he will cut them loose as money is running out. history is repeating again and it was ugly then and it will now to but maybe its time for it to happen.
Just what they want. Federal registration, so they know the name and address of everyone who owns gun and where to go to first when they want to disarm America. Why does Homeland Security need 80 billion rounds of ammo, and 10 new Assault vehicles. It's not to use in other countries. If you think the FEMA camps are for disasters that happen,you can just go right on believing it, because no matter what anyone says you won't believe them. Now their getting ready to go to the UN for the talks on the Small Arms Treaty. One of the first things that need to go is the UN. I just can't believe their are that many naive people in this country that can't see what direction we are heading.
The story posted on NBC News alleges that the 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. Source: Chris Cox Executive Director, NRA.
ok for a new system to work ,
you will need the forms we use now but to add to it
the type
the model
the maker
the ser, number on the gun,
and then a copy of that form sent to the people that do the checks and then it is then put in a system
easy as that ,
the gun dealer still has to keep all copy's of the gun sell in there files for 7 years, and never to be destroyed ,
just in a filings cabinet for records , and if they stop being a dealer them record are sent to the main office for them to file,
and if the person that owns the gun and whats to sell it ,will have to go though a gun dealer to get it out of his name in to the new owners name,
i dont know why this is so hard ,
i can give examples of why you need to do this,
next
So Heritage...you are all for registration but with a different name......The Gov't has no buisness in my business.....if I buy a firearm and later down the road want to sell it, that is none of their business....it is my private property and it is a private sale...... I will not ever agree to anything even remotely like this..... the Gov't has no need or right to know what type and number of firearms I own.....
The hell with the NRA! If they agree to this Bill, something is wrong with it! I say go for a Bill that pisses off the NRA, that's the Bill to push forward! I own a gun, I like guns, but the NRA is way out of it's place. I am so disappointed with the NRA. I think we all have has enough of lobbyists in this country!
Taking the meat out of the sandwich
By taking the records portion out is like taking the roast beef out of the sandwich and leaving you with the bread and veggies.
This is exactly what the NRA is trying to do with this bill. That's the exact point of this bill if we are ever going to learn about gun, mental illness, and whatever problems firearms ownership causes.
There are many angry and mentally ill men mostly who posses guns that really should not have them. My Dad included.
Just another way to gut the bill........ whats the point of demanding checks, if no records need be kept?????. Absolutely in character for NRA to try and find a way to destroy the bill. We NEED to stand up to them, so we have no more slaughter of innocents... STAND UP FOR SANDY HOOK INNOCENTS and unconditionally demand total background checks, just for starters
Background check without model and serial number!
Universal Background checks will never pass the House...
Obungo will lose the Senate in 2014
Pray for those innocents past and future that you are WRONG...MORON
There can be no question that the NRA promotes Gun Violence by it's extreme positions
just a new form , so we have a new system like i said way back there is our kids safe . this is what we been talking about every scent that crazy guy did this to these kids in a school,
and we have not done any thing to make sure the kids are as safe as we can make them,
the idea i gave you might save one life thats was what they wanted , so there the idea,
but to put a police office in a office in a school would make some crazy guy think that he might not be able to do harm there ,
as we try to make scents out of why and what whould make him do this, we watch these people jump on this ban wagon,
make the kids safe is what we should be makeing a law for ,
a police officer at a school , would make a bad guy think twice i would hope,
Columbine had police officers on site... look what good they did?????????
NO NO NO.... Even Pres Nixon and Reagan wanted gun control.
Guns sole design is to KILL people. Every other dangerous "weapon" like cars, alcohol and drugs are controlled, and slowly we are seeing real decreases in their damage, while Guns continue to spiral out of control
This is a false article that "NRA won’t oppose background check bill".
And I quote from the source directly:
"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."
And this if from Me - Instead of trying to create more laws to ban the law abiding American citizen, why not enforce the laws that are already on the table and make the punishment STICK. No good time off for good behavior. The dead are not allowed to return to the living after 30+ years. Neither should the criminals. Criminals in jail sleep better than the homeless and eat better than the starving. That is not right and needs to be fixed. Make the punishment for shooting someone or killing someone tougher. An eye for an eye. Again, enforce the laws that are already on the books and actually enforce them.
I'm so happy that criminals will be forced to get background checks to carry their illegal guns.......
Liberals argued that voter i.d. laws would be unconstitutional because they could possibly cause an expense to potential voters (i.e.- the cost of getting an i.d.). .....with this same logic, I assume libs will propose that all background checks will be provided free of charge, courtesy of our already broke government?? ....if not, wouldn't the same constitutional argument apply????
Why should anyone who can't pass a background check be allowed to vote? Let your voter registration card be you permit to buy a gun; problem solved!
If I buy a boat from someone, I have to reregister the boat to my name so that I can get insurance,. If I buy a car I have to reregister the vehicle with my name so that I can get insurance in my name. If I buy a weapon from a friend or I inherit a weapon fron someone or I buy a weapon at a gun show, there is no trail of who owned that piece of property before I had it.
Isn't it time to require that anyone who owns a weapon registers that weapon because weapons are alot more dangerous than a boat or vehicle because they (the weapon) can be hidden and used by anyone for other than honest reasons.
Actually many more people are killed by vehicles, aren't they? If cars and boats are the same as guns, why wasn't a right to own a horse put into the Bill of Rights?
No Scott...it is not time...... you do not have to regfister your car if you do not drive it on public roads....no need for insurance either...... Gov't has buisness in my business....... and they do not have a "need" to know what type and quantity of firearms i own...that is my business and mine alone
So we now know what the legislation will be. Background checks without permanent record keeping. Thats what I thought should be all along. I am optimistic that this is an example of something finally working in Washington.