April 10, 2013

“NRA rejects deal on background checks”

The Hill:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) on Wednesday immediately rejected a bipartisan Senate duo’s proposal to expand background checks.

“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools,” a spokesman for the group said in a statement.

Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) unveiled a deal on Wednesday to expand background checks for gun purchases. Manchin said he and Toomey had been “in dialogue” with the NRA throughout the negotiations, but said he wouldn’t speculate on how the group felt about the final product.

While the NRA says the proposal will do nothing to decrease gun violence, the group said it was a step back from the “universal” background checks the White House said it wants.

“While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows,” the spokesman said. “The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson.”

The Senate proposal would close the so-called gun show loophole and require background checks and record keeping for firearms purchased at a gun show, online or through a classified ad. Failure to meet the background-check requirements would be classified as a felony.

Exemptions aside — imagine the government determining who comes to be thought of as a friend or where the cut off is for “family,” for instance — if Chuck Schumer is involved in supporting this legislation, then somewhere in it is the precondition for eventually eliminating (or criminalizing) all private sales, for problematizing gun transfers of any kind,  and for creating some sort of backdoor database that will act as a registry.

It really is that simple:  if Schumer is for it, I’m against it.

Already, a few people in NY have found that drugs routinely prescribed for panic attacks or seizure disorders or as sleep aids are being cited as justification for taking away firearms from a law-abiding  citizens.  And that’s because the government has records of concealed carry permit holders — who have presumably been finger-printed and, as a condition for receiving their CCW, had already to undergo a more rigorous check than do those people who buy guns at gun shows from licensed dealers.

[…]
“We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone,” the group said. “President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.”

Actually, the Mayor of Chicago should be worried about that, not Obama.  In fact, the less Obama worries about guns and gun violence — which outside of those areas that have the strictest gun control laws is by and large a declining problem — the better for the country and most certainly for the Constitution.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:43am
31 comments | Trackback

Comments (31)

  1. good enough for me

    I too reject the stupid deal

  2. “What do you mean you’re revoking my gun permit? I live in a state that doesn’t require a gun permit! … Well, they can do that because the Second Amendment spells out my right to own a gun. … What do you mean that’s the permit you’re revoking!?”

  3. Exemptions aside — imagine the government determining who comes to be thought of as a friend or where the cut off is for “family,” for instance…

    As long as we can all marry each other…

  4. I am confused, probably because live in CA. In what state can you buy a gun at a gun show and not have to go through a background check via an FFL?

    I am assuming that what they are conflating is when two dudes meet at a gunshow and make a private sale in the parking lot (and of course, this does not have to happen at a gunshow). In CA this is already illegal.

  5. God bless ‘em for bringing Battlefield Chicago into the argument. Not that our talking heads will include that in their “comprehensive” coverage, but still.

  6. And this ostensibly in response to Newtown, which would have happened anyway if these “laws” were in effect before that (“laws” because something about the use of the word implies both order and a respect for rights, which these “laws” seem to be lacking). It’s like banning hot dog buns in response to the Houston stabbings. Complete ignoratio elenchi.

  7. I propose new compromise Senate legislation:

    Dear Americans
    To whom it may concern:

    Please do not murder your mother and then take her guns and go shoot up a school.

    Yours Truly,
    Love and Kisses,
    Emanations and Penumbras,
    Benefits and Entitlements,

    The Senate.

  8. Very “Democratic” name.

    On a list of talking points. Let’s have the bill text, boys.

  9. So far they only have an outline it seems. No details for us little people to see.

  10. Second Amendment Rights Protection Act

    We need acts to protect amendments? If you ignore the amendment, I guess an act is the obvious fix, right?

  11. Maybe Manchin and Toomey can just swap Senate seats. Then they can quit playing twister with each other as they try to figure out how not to lose their reelections.

  12. Seriously, who the hell is advising Toomey here? How many votes in western Pennsylvania is he willing to lose in this futile attempt to appease voters in the Philly suburbs –who won’t vote for him anyways?

  13. It’s getting weird that people haven’t figured out ObaZma actually desires the slaughter of little children and their teachers, insofar as he’s perfectly dedicated to doing nothing effective about putting a stop to such murders: so for instance with permitting — or insisting — that adults in schools such as teachers, principals, vice-principals, cafeteria workers, janitors and the like are armed and prepared to defend their innocent charges from monsters who come to kill them. But this is just how clever a monster ObaZma himself proves to be: he’s very good at hiding himself.

  14. I think that’s correct, sdferr. The Won said something to the effect that by making high capacity magazines of lower capacity, fewer children would be killed.

    Just what? How many are expendable? Why is he only worried about the offspring of white upper-crusty liberal people and not the poverty stricken gang-bangers of our inner cities? What an elitist.

  15. If they really wanted to make an impact, they’d sponsor the “Gabby Hayes Giffords Public Safety and Limited Congressional Appearances Act,” so that Congresscritters wouldn’t give public speeches in their home districts any more. Make the bold statement that anybody wanting to shoot their Congresscritter (and really, who doesn’t fit that description) will have to do it at their office, and not at some large gathering with lots of innocent bystanders (although, honestly, is anybody attending a Dem propaganda appearance ever truly innocent?).

    Who will stand with me to limit the public appearances of self-serving politicians? What monster would dare put the so-called “rights” of elected officials to speak to their constituents ahead of the lives of those constituents themselves? Never Again will we allow our servants in Washington to create target-rich environments in the streets of our hometowns! Never Again!

  16. Ashley Judd. Mentally unfit to own a gun. But perfect to be a Kentucky’s junior senator. Even though she doesn’t live there and thinks that Apple looks sort of rapey.

  17. OT but Michelle Malkin’s website has just gone to Disqus comments.

    If you want rid of me as a poster, be sure to do the same.

  18. Scott Pellethead on See B.S. just referred to these two as “conservatives”.

  19. “If you want rid of me as a poster, be sure to do the same.”

    What, you don’t like a centralized database tracking you all over the web?

    Hater.

  20. When I know I’m being tracked, I wear shoes that look like thirty-inch-long bare feet.

  21. Hey, the Toomey-Manchin “compromise” lets your doc put you on the NICS blacklist without even telling you.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/10/the-toomey-manchin-proposal-will-allow-doctors-to-block-your-right-to-guns/

    Isn’t that special.

  22. Still no text? While I can’t help but be cynical until I see the details, this is still an enormous walkback by Obama. The insanity tracker could most definitely be abused, but that is still nowhere even close to what The Won wanted (and could actually be a good thing, if properly executed. Who doesn’t think it would have been nice to not arm Holmes or Loughner?)

    The background check expansion is a ruse. There’s no registration, no bans, no much of anything in here, and yet Obama’s praising Toomey and supporting this as what “common sense” means today. Bloomie and Co are behind it as well. Mostly, this is a big stupid nothingburger. Or, I’m missing something that doesn’t look like Obama’s surrender.

  23. Until Chuck Schumer declares Toomey-Manchin a dagger aimed at the heart of common sense gun safety measures, I’m entirely opposed to it.

    And even then, I’m still mostly opposed to it.

  24. New Jersey looks likely to follow New York down the “SAFE” highway to hell.

  25. “Encourage and Facilitate the Voluntary Surrender of Lawfully-Owned Firearms for Safekeeping During Periods of Crisis”

    Hurricane planning?

  26. Chucky wants to look like he did something too. There’s always another chance to be evil, until you’re hanging from a lamppost

  27. The insanity tracker could most definitely be abused, but that is still nowhere even close to what The Won wanted (and could actually be a good thing, if properly executed. Who doesn’t think it would have been nice to not arm Holmes or Loughner?)

    First — the ‘insanity tracker’ will be abused. Often. And I reckon that even after they’re caught, the abusers will be neither punished nor prevented from repeating their actions.

    Second — the State should never, never be granted a power on the basis that it might be a good thing if used properly. State powers are seldom used properly, and on those rare occasions when proper use happens, it quickly degenerates into systematic abuse.

    The State will define ‘insanity’ to suit its own needs. Its enemies will be disarmed, and its allies emboldened. Violent criminals will continue to ignore the laws and prey on the law-abiding. Any other outcome depends on the sort of wishful thinking that lets 30-year-olds believe they’ll receive Social Security benefits in their old age.

Leave a Reply