Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellisonz

(27,737 posts)
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:02 PM Apr 2013

Gun control talks in Senate appear to be nearing a deal

By Michael A. Memoli and Christi Parsons

April 9, 2013, 6:39 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Senate moved to begin long-anticipated deliberations Thursday over new gun laws as Republicans appeared to lack the strength to block the debate and bipartisan talks over expanding background checks on gun buyers appeared to have led to a deal.

Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who have been negotiating a compromise on background checks, scheduled a joint announcement for Wednesday morning at the Capitol.

The gun bill has been taking shape since 20 first-graders and six staff members died almost four months ago in a fusillade of 154 bullets at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. It would authorize money to secure schools and increase penalties for gun trafficking. But the most significant element, an expansion of the background check system to cover almost all sales, including those at gun shows, has been contentious.

On Tuesday evening, Manchin, who has led efforts to craft a proposal that could draw enough Republican votes to pass the closely divided Senate, expressed optimism that he was near his goal.

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gun-control-20130409,0,852029.story


24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gun control talks in Senate appear to be nearing a deal (Original Post) ellisonz Apr 2013 OP
I don't understand all this 'noise' about the Senate passing a gun control bill as everyone knows Purveyor Apr 2013 #1
I'm holding out hope that pressure on the House will move some of them, but we have to Laurian Apr 2013 #3
dems + compromise usually ends up smelling bad unless u are a repub. we will see nt msongs Apr 2013 #2
No background checks on "non-commercial" weapons sales. kelly1mm Apr 2013 #4
But this would get gun shows. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #5
Would it cover online sales? BainsBane Apr 2013 #6
It should. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #7
Online sales are already covered. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #17
Yes. It would. rdharma Apr 2013 #8
That's very strange. All commercial sales are already subject to background checks. slackmaster Apr 2013 #9
It only covers private sales "where advertising or an online service involved." rdharma Apr 2013 #10
Background checks don't and fundamentally can't stop straw purchasers. slackmaster Apr 2013 #11
Doesn't stop straw purchaser....... rdharma Apr 2013 #12
No, it doesn't have anything to do with stopping straw sales or prosecuting straw buyers. slackmaster Apr 2013 #13
You evidently don't know how these cases are prosecuted. rdharma Apr 2013 #14
Apparently you aren't familiar with how the background check system works slackmaster Apr 2013 #15
"A NICS check does not create a paper trail." rdharma Apr 2013 #16
Requiring a background check on a private transfer does not necessarily imply creating a 4473 slackmaster Apr 2013 #18
Then the House gets their turn Pullo Apr 2013 #19
No. We don't have to wait. It's in the Manchin/Toomey" agreement. rdharma Apr 2013 #20
I'd like to see the acutal text. An "agreement" isn't a bill. slackmaster Apr 2013 #21
"legitimately fail the background check" rdharma Apr 2013 #22
Initial false denials are very, very common because a lot of people have names that are... slackmaster Apr 2013 #24
Some details of the bg check compromise jimmy the one Apr 2013 #23
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
1. I don't understand all this 'noise' about the Senate passing a gun control bill as everyone knows
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:05 PM
Apr 2013

it doesn't have a 'hope in hell' getting through the House.

Fucking 'side-show', imo.

Laurian

(2,593 posts)
3. I'm holding out hope that pressure on the House will move some of them, but we have to
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:17 PM
Apr 2013

get it done in the Senate first. Damn, we gotta try. I'm tired of throwing up my hands and saying everything is hopeless.

kelly1mm

(5,144 posts)
4. No background checks on "non-commercial" weapons sales.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:24 PM
Apr 2013

from the article:

"The deal worked out by Manchin and Toomey would require buyers in all commercial sales, essentially those which are advertised to the public, to go through background checks, according to officials familiar with the negotiations. That would appear to leave out some private sales among individuals but cover the sales that gun control advocates say are a significant source of weapons to criminals."

So people can still sell to friend/neighbors and give as gifts to family members, etc.

Bolo Boffin

(23,872 posts)
7. It should.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:03 AM
Apr 2013

As long as they are advertised. And from what I read, gun trafficking would be a federal offense now.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
17. Online sales are already covered.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:09 PM
Apr 2013

Online sales must involve shipping between two FFL holders, and the receiving FFL holder is required to conduct a background check. Apparently some non-commercial online sellers (largely people listing weapons on "gun auction" sites) are willing to ignore the law (and site rules), contact the prospective buyer directly, and ship the weapon directly. This is a felony (and if the shipping company happens to x-ray the package and see that it's an undeclared firearm, the package will be held and the Feds notified). It's a stupid risk, and I'd love to see more aggressive enforcement.

Another (legal) exception is if the online sale is between two residents of the same state and instead of shipping, they elect to do the transfer in person. This is legal (assuming the buyer isn't a prohibited person), and it's one of the scenarios that expanded background check requirements would address.

 

rdharma

(6,057 posts)
8. Yes. It would.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:56 AM
Apr 2013

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

But it would exempt "gifts" of guns or inherited transfers according to the Manchin/Toomey agreement.

Think about that..... Does Adam Lanza come to mind?

AND...... it's business as usual on private sales except where there was "advertising or an online service involved".

 

rdharma

(6,057 posts)
10. It only covers private sales "where advertising or an online service involved."
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:24 AM
Apr 2013

Completely worthless BS "compromise" bill!

It's going to be business as usual for straw purchasers. That should make the gun nutters happy.

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
11. Background checks don't and fundamentally can't stop straw purchasers.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:26 AM
Apr 2013

Because a straw purchaser is someone who can pass a background check, who buys a weapon for someone who can't.

 

rdharma

(6,057 posts)
12. Doesn't stop straw purchaser.......
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:34 AM
Apr 2013

Errrp derrrrp! But it provides the tools needed to PROSECUTE straw sales! THAT'S THE POINT!

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
13. No, it doesn't have anything to do with stopping straw sales or prosecuting straw buyers.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:59 AM
Apr 2013

All a background check does is ensure that the person who is the APPARENT buyer of a firearm is not disqualified from buying it.

The bill under consideration would expand the types of transfers for which a background check is required. It has absolutely nothing to do with the detection or prosecution of straw purchasers. It would, at least theoretically, make it more difficult for a prohibited person to buy a firearm; and I think that's a good thing.

 

rdharma

(6,057 posts)
14. You evidently don't know how these cases are prosecuted.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:17 PM
Apr 2013

As you said..... "All a background check does is ensure that the person who is the APPARENT buyer of a firearm is not disqualified from buying it."

It does that AND provides a paper trail....... that's ll it has to do!

I know the law...... and one of the elements necessary to get a conviction is proving "INTENT". Check your statutes!

Without a paper trail (like a background check), all the straw dealer has to claim is that he had no idea that the buyer was disqualified from owning a firearm. From there on it's "he said/she said".

No wonder there is such a LOW CONVICTION RATE.

Your "nuh uh" argument doesn't hold water in the real world ...... and I think you know that!

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
15. Apparently you aren't familiar with how the background check system works
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:33 PM
Apr 2013

A NICS check does not create a paper trail. NICS returns a thumbs-up or thumbs-down result, or a "not sure". It doesn't track activity, and by law the record that a check was performed has to be discarded. There is no permanent log record.

The paper trail created when the firearm changes hands, and the record is kept in the licensed dealer's files. That system has been in place since 1968, changed since then only to include additional categories of people who are prohibited from acquiring firearms. The bill under consideration would make no changes to that system. Prosecutions are based on people making false statements on the paperwork - For example, giving a false answer to the question "Are you the actual purchaser of this firearm?" Giving a false answer on that question makes a person a straw buyer.

A background check is NOT a paper trail. It's just a background check.

 

rdharma

(6,057 posts)
16. "A NICS check does not create a paper trail."
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:38 PM
Apr 2013

Yes, it does. Keep diggin'.

It denies "plausible denial" for the straw dealer.

"The firearms dealer is required to keep the Form 4473 for 20 years, and all records are subject to inspection by the ATF"

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
18. Requiring a background check on a private transfer does not necessarily imply creating a 4473
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:16 PM
Apr 2013

We'll both have to wait to see what the Senate comes up with.

Pullo

(594 posts)
19. Then the House gets their turn
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:30 PM
Apr 2013

I'd expect any BC bill that comes out of the House to be shaped very differently than what the Senate passes. The House version(if there is one) will no doubt be crafted in such a way to make it irreconcilable as possible with Senate version.

This has happened before.

 

rdharma

(6,057 posts)
20. No. We don't have to wait. It's in the Manchin/Toomey" agreement.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:03 PM
Apr 2013

"The vote to proceed to the measure will come just one day after Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) announced a bipartisan agreement to require background checks for gun sales at gun shows and online websites. Under their amendment, sales of firearms in these venues will be treated in the same way as gun purchases at federally licensed gun shops: individuals will have to undergo background checks that will be RECORDED with a federal licensed dealer".

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
21. I'd like to see the acutal text. An "agreement" isn't a bill.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:07 PM
Apr 2013


If that is accurate, it would expand the venues where a straw purchase is possible. But I don't see anything there that would increase prosecution of straw purchasers, of of people who simply attempt to buy a firearm and legitimately fail the background check because something in their background conflicts with one or more of the questions they have already answered and affirmed on a 4473.

A large number of straw purchases happen now and are not prosecuted.
 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
24. Initial false denials are very, very common because a lot of people have names that are...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:25 AM
Apr 2013

...similar or identical to those of individuals who are prohibited from having firearms.

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
23. Some details of the bg check compromise
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:48 AM
Apr 2013
Currently, the background check system covers sales only by licensed gun dealers. The compromise would apply the system to all commercial sales, such as transactions at gun shows and online. The sales would have to be channeled through licensed firearms dealers, who would have to keep records of the transactions.
Private transactions that are not for profit, such as those between relatives, would be exempt from background checks.
.. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who led an earlier unsuccessful effort to strike a bipartisan background check deal, is backing the compromise after changes were made from an initial version of the deal between Manchin and Toomey..
The {schumer} changes included eliminating language that would have required states to recognize permits to carry concealed weapons issued by other states and eliminating language that would have limited background checks to sellers who sell at least five guns annually, said the aide
{good show chuck shumer, nip those loopholes in the butt... er, bud}

Some Republicans might vote to begin debate on the legislation but eventually oppose the measure on final passage.

Oh what a surprise, then can campaign on both sides of the fence depending on his 2014 audience! - I voted to begin discussion on background checks! (flip flop) I voted against background checks!

The gun legislation Reid wants the Senate to debate would extend the background check requirement to nearly all gun sales. Reid would try to replace that language with the Manchin-Toomey compromise once debate begins, a move that would require a vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/10/senators_unveil_deal_on_gun_sales_background_check_117895.html#ixzz2Q9cLWybe
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Gun control talks in Sena...