I'd support some additional background checks, but not most measures that have been or would be put forth. I'm not sure about this bill--only the most carefully crafted legislation with the narrowest provisions would be something I'd consider. I didn't really read up on it in great detail.

Now, I don't think that it would accomplish much of anything. The only thing that might accomplish anything would be truly universal legislation, which would require a registry, which I would never tolerate, and which would be explicitly forbidden by federal law.

4/17/2013 9:19:01 PM

basically, ^.

4/17/2013 10:00:54 PM

A registry wouldn't be forbidden if they past a law to make a registry. Its also interesting that you say it would be the only thing effective since I think you were one of the people X pages ago saying it wouldn't be.

4/17/2013 10:16:55 PM

You're hardly helping to sell the idea by suggesting that we could get rid of the prohibition against registries.

And it wouldn't be totally effective in the sense that lots of people (myself included) would never register guns, law or not. It would be effective in the sense that a mechanism would exist for enforcing the background check to a large extent, though not the registry itself.

4/17/2013 10:33:00 PM

another win for the law-abiding citizens

4/18/2013 12:35:58 AM

Interesting to see how wide the margin was on the national concealed-carry reciprocity (killed, 57-43 IIRC). Almost as wide as the assault weapons ban margin (killed, 60-40)...

4/18/2013 1:38:36 AM

someone should start a filibuster credibility thread

4/18/2013 3:11:28 AM

there is no credibility to the filibuster. it's been perverted beyond recognition

Quote :

"And it wouldn't be totally effective in the sense that lots of people (myself included) would never register guns, law or not."

you're a coward. then again, you like to brag about getting taxed for reckless driving, so I shouldn't expect anything more from you. tell me again how libertarian you are.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 6:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2013 6:21:42 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=OyS3CEIbpJo&NR=1

4/18/2013 6:25:35 AM

^that video has a lot of false information. mainly the numbers.

4/18/2013 7:01:59 AM

what's the likelihood of anything going through now?

Is there another serious threat?

4/18/2013 7:27:39 AM

when was there ever a threat?

4/18/2013 7:45:44 AM

Quote :

"another win for the law-abiding citizens"

First off, I'm fine with gun laws as is and am a believer they simply need to be enforced more.

That said, this quote I FUCKING HATE. No one is a criminal until a law is broken. James Holmes and Adam Lanza weren't criminals until they decided to go on rampages. The Boston bomber wasn't a criminal (at least that we know of) until that day.

None of that means we should sit on our hands and only be reactive all the time.

4/18/2013 7:52:06 AM

lawls at obama getting so pissed during his presser

4/18/2013 8:09:33 AM

The "this would turn law-abiding people into criminals" argument isn't very good, every new law turns something new into a crime that wasn't a crime before. That's the point of clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the constitution, protection from ex post facto laws. You would only be a criminal if you fail to follow the new law, and if you are willfully breaking the law then sour grapes... you are a criminal.

4/18/2013 10:01:55 AM

It's strange to me how the right to bear arms is the only right we are able to keep stagnant.

Our right to privacy has been eroding, our voting rights have been eroding, our free speech rights have been eroding, but with the expiration of the AWB, our gun rights are more free than they were a few years ago. We can't even pass a bill to close gaping loopholes in the existing laws.

The ACLU needs to learn something from the NRA.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 10:13 AM. Reason : ]

4/18/2013 10:13:14 AM

What exactly is this loophole you are referring to?

4/18/2013 11:16:37 AM

that private gun sales don't require background checks

4/18/2013 11:51:05 AM

For those interested in the tactical, Politico has a pretty good write up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-control-vote-obamas-biggest-loss-90244.html

Ultimately, the NRA and Congressional Republicans will hold responsibility, for better or worse, on this bill's defeat. That being said, the White House made a lot of tactical mistakes, reinforcing a growing narrative that this administration has badly mishandled Congress, not just the opposition but even his own Democratic caucus. The President let up on momentum and slow-rolled this bill, allowing both the tragedy to lose its emotional edge and more importantly, giving a cowed and silenced NRA an opportunity to regroup and circle the wagons. They apparently were unfocused in negotiations with Republicans as well, shifting pressure too quickly before getting commitments. Progressives also became unfocused, allowing too many issues to bubble up at once (marriage equality, immigration), diluting focus. Then you had the whole sequester issue that also sucked oxygen out of Capitol Hill.

4/18/2013 12:05:01 PM

anyone might be a criminal, so no one should have rights.

4/18/2013 12:06:01 PM

So I'm a bit confused. Honestly it's been a long time since I've bought a rifle or shotgun but I have purchased handguns more recently. When I bought my .22 rifle and 12 gauge shot gun I did not have to go through a background check. I bought both at Wal-mart. To purchase my pistol I had to apply for a handgun purchase permit and had to go through a background check. Are background checks currently required for all gun sales, even hunting rifles and shotguns, if you purchase from a store?

4/18/2013 12:17:49 PM

Quote :

"allowing both the tragedy to lose its emotional edge"

see this is what kills me. emotions should never be involved in proposing/enacting new legislation. but that is exactly all that has driven these new gun control bills: emotional, non-logical responses that would have done zero to prevent Newtown or any other shooting tragedy.

4/18/2013 12:21:13 PM

Quote :

" When I bought my .22 rifle and 12 gauge shot gun I did not have to go through a background check."

you did

4/18/2013 12:32:50 PM

NICS was fired up in 1998 and is required on all sales from an FFL

4/18/2013 12:51:20 PM

Quote :

"When I bought my .22 rifle and 12 gauge shot gun I did not have to go through a background check. I bought both at Wal-mart. "

You did, probably just didn't realize it. You filled out an ATF Form 4473 and they called the FBI and did the check. It takes tens of seconds up to a few minutes.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 12:52 PM. Reason : ^oh yeh; unless you bought it before enactment]

4/18/2013 12:52:14 PM

Quote :

"see this is what kills me. emotions should never be involved in proposing/enacting new legislation. but that is exactly all that has driven these new gun control bills: emotional, non-logical responses that would have done zero to prevent Newtown or any other shooting tragedy."

So what? We're talking about a bill that's only purpose was to prevent convicted criminals from legally purchasing a gun. That's it. It's just common sense and has nothing to do with emotions. The fact that a bunch of kids had to die for something like that even be brought up in congress is ridiculous and shows how out of control we've become as a country with respect to gun laws.

4/18/2013 12:57:10 PM

the bill did much more than that. one of the amendments was supposed to "fix" the bill though.

FWIW, I didn't have a huge problem with what the amendment was reported to be (I admit, I never read it); but I'm not sad it didn't pass because it really won't accomplish much.

4/18/2013 1:02:11 PM

form 4473 = registration

plain and simple

4/18/2013 1:04:43 PM

It's mind boggling to me how Newtown has been the primary driver of these laws, yet none of the proposed laws would have prevented Newtown.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2013 1:31:00 PM

Quote :

"We're talking about a bill that's only purpose was to prevent convicted criminals from legally purchasing a gun."

Given that convicted felons are already forbidden from owning a gun, I'm curious as to how you think they're legally buying guns.

4/18/2013 1:31:46 PM

well, since criminals aren't criminals until they're criminals, we can't trust them, so we must treat them like criminals before they're criminals so they don't become criminals.

4/18/2013 1:34:31 PM

Quote :

"Given that convicted felons are already forbidden from owning a gun"

I realize you're just being willfully ignorant, but this is totally irrelevant as long as the trafficking of guns between private citizens remains totally unregulated. I could hand a gun to a criminal or documented crazy person, out in public, in full view of the police, with literally no consequences. Which is totally ridiculous. That's what this bill/amendment was meant to address.

4/18/2013 2:00:27 PM

actually, it's illegal to do that. So require registration just makes it doubly illegal.

4/18/2013 2:08:19 PM

^^if you know the person is not allowed to have a firearm, then it's certainly illegal to do so

destroy the forms after completion of NICS and i have no problem with the amendment

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 2:09 PM. Reason : afs]

4/18/2013 2:08:54 PM

how were they planning to enforce background checks in private sales? I haven't really paid attention to it.

4/18/2013 2:09:13 PM

with de facto registration

4/18/2013 2:09:56 PM

How would I know what the person's legal ownership status is? I'm not required to ask and he could always lie. The cop couldn't even ask him without reasonable suspicion. The scenario I just described is 100% unenforceable under current law.

4/18/2013 2:14:03 PM

Guess you should find out first?

4/18/2013 2:14:48 PM

Quote :

"You did, probably just didn't realize it. You filled out an ATF Form 4473 and they called the FBI and did the check. It takes tens of seconds up to a few minutes."

Ok then you are probably right. So I don't understand the huge issue with requiring background checks for private sales and why all the pushback? I'm totally against banning assault weapons and putting limits on magazine capacity but from what I understand this bill didn't propose that. It was basically to close the private sale background check loop hole right?

4/18/2013 2:43:17 PM

- unenforceable without de facto registration
- under the legislation and current system, all sales would have to go through a FFL to get the NICS check
- Attorney General has some control fee to be charged by FFLs for such checks
- the bill itself was much more than simple registration of all sales and is still alive, I believe. The amendment, which was supposedly to replace the bill, failed, and it was the amendment that supposedly reduced the bill down to just checks on sales. The filed bill was much worse. It would make felons out of common and otherwise legal actions by many/most gun owners.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2013 2:57:03 PM

AH...so the intention was good it was just a shitty bill.

4/18/2013 3:16:52 PM

like i said, destroy the documents after i pass the NICS and i have no issue with the Manchin-Toomey amendment

4/18/2013 3:23:03 PM

Quote :

"It's mind boggling to me how Newtown has been the primary driver of these laws, yet none of the proposed laws would have prevented Newtown."

the families are the first to admit that. it's an attempt to prevent future massacres.

not that hard to understand

4/18/2013 3:25:36 PM

I don't understand why people keep saying it's unenforceable. It could and would certainly be enforced at gun shows with LE officials present. Hence the term "gun show loophole". Transactions initiated through some sort of website would have an electronic trail to follow. That covers a pretty significant chunk of private gun sales that are unregulated by any current law.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM. Reason : :]

4/18/2013 3:31:10 PM

so imagine i post in the TWW classifieds that I would like to sell my evil black rifle and i list a phone number. wdprice calls me up, says "hey, i'll buy that rifle from you. let's just skip the background check." i meet him and sell him the rifle. he mows down a kindergarten class and offs himself. how are investigators going to know that i sold him the rifle without a background check?

4/18/2013 3:37:14 PM

Quote :

"AH...so the intention was good it was just a shitty bill."

pretty much. and as NRR, the biggest issue is eliminating the documentation which results in de facto legislation. As I said, previously, I didn't mind the amendment, though I wasn't a huge fan of it. Get rid of the paperwork and I have no issues with the amendment whatsoever.

Quote :

"gun show loophole"

no. such. thing.

there are private sales and their are dealer sales.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2013 3:42:58 PM

^^As I said, there would be an electronic trail that could eventually lead back to you. Browsing history, phone records, etc... Would you take that risk?

If it were up to me, any sort of gun classifieds website would require users to register and complete a background check before contacting sellers.

^
I know the law. Gun shows are simply the most blatant example of how easy it is for a criminal to obtain a gun without being subjected to any sort of check.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM. Reason : :]

4/18/2013 3:45:27 PM

Not to mention witnesses on both sides of the transaction, family members noticing your gone gone, him gaining the exact same model gun at the same time, etc.

Jesus, it's like no one has heard of investigation before. 'Unenforceable' is one of the dumbest arguments against laws I've ever heard. Just stick to 'personal freedom.'

4/18/2013 3:51:36 PM

maybe you all are having reading troubles.

didn't say: unenforceable

did say: unenforceable without de facto registration

4/18/2013 3:55:57 PM

So you're against back ground checks for all gun sales then? Because the checks in the proposed legislation are no different then the ones already on the books.

4/18/2013 4:12:41 PM