Senate Backers of Expanded Gun Background Checks Scramble For Votes......

[MMC]

They don't have the votes for the Background Check. We may shut it down after all. But do take note of Johnny Quest McCain. Collins. Toomey and Kirk. The 4 Republicans ready to Sell out the 2nd and the Constitution. Should have known Susan Collins azz was in the Mix. Still keep the pressure on these 4. Especially McCains azz.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers appeared on Tuesday to be short of the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate, as supporters scrambled to save the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's effort to reduce gun violence.

Debate on the plan forged by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania continued in the Senate for a second day on Tuesday, with no vote scheduled.

Administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, have helped Manchin and Toomey lobby senators. Relatives of victims of Newtown also visited Washington last week and had several emotional meetings with lawmakers in which they urged them to support expanded background checks and other measures.

Among Republicans, only Toomey, Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois have committed to support the Senate proposal. John McCain of Arizona said on Sunday he was "favorably disposed" to it.

Several key senators from states where hunting and guns are popular - including Democrats Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - remain uncommitted.

Opponents of the Manchin-Toomey plan and some other elements of the legislation say the proposals are an example of government overreach that would infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms.

"Manchin-Toomey would impose new obligations on law-abiding gun owners," Grassley said.
Manchin and Toomey, both conservatives and strong proponents of gun rights, have argued that their proposal would simply make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns.
Their amendment includes sweeteners for gun-rights supporters, including a provision that would make licensed interstate sales easier and ban the creation of a gun registry, one of the frequent fears cited by groups such as the NRA.....snip~

Senate backers of expanded gun background checks scramble for votes

Don't ya just luv that look on Manchin's Face. The sell out can't find others that want to sell out like he has.

 

[MaggieD]

They don't have the votes for the Background Check. We may shut it down after all. But do take note of Johnny Quest McCain. Collins. Toomey and Kirk. The 4 Republicans ready to Sell out the 2nd and the Constitution. Should have known Susan Collins azz was in the Mix. Still keep the pressure on these 4. Especially McCains azz.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers appeared on Tuesday to be short of the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate, as supporters scrambled to save the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's effort to reduce gun violence.

Debate on the plan forged by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania continued in the Senate for a second day on Tuesday, with no vote scheduled.

Administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, have helped Manchin and Toomey lobby senators. Relatives of victims of Newtown also visited Washington last week and had several emotional meetings with lawmakers in which they urged them to support expanded background checks and other measures.

Among Republicans, only Toomey, Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois have committed to support the Senate proposal. John McCain of Arizona said on Sunday he was "favorably disposed" to it.

Several key senators from states where hunting and guns are popular - including Democrats Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - remain uncommitted.

Opponents of the Manchin-Toomey plan and some other elements of the legislation say the proposals are an example of government overreach that would infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms.

"Manchin-Toomey would impose new obligations on law-abiding gun owners," Grassley said.
Manchin and Toomey, both conservatives and strong proponents of gun rights, have argued that their proposal would simply make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns.
Their amendment includes sweeteners for gun-rights supporters, including a provision that would make licensed interstate sales easier and ban the creation of a gun registry, one of the frequent fears cited by groups such as the NRA.....snip~

Senate backers of expanded gun background checks scramble for votes

Don't ya just luv that look on Manchin's Face. The sell out can't find others that want to sell out like he has.

Personally? I support a background check.* I think this is just one more way the Republican Party is out of touch.

*Now I don't know exactly what they're trying to pass, but I completely support requiring a background check every time someone buys a gun and every time one renews their license. If that's what was on the table? Too bad.

 

[CanadaJohn]

As I said previously, when the filibuster was broken with 16 Republicans voting in favor of debate, I believe their intent is to get vulnerable Democrats on the record going into the 2014 mid-terms. The four Republicans you mention as possibly yes votes may be outnumbered by several more Democrats voting no in order to save their seats.

As Maggie notes, it all depends on any amendments that may be added, but voted on amendments will also get Democrats on the record.

As I said at the time, this is anything but a sure 51 votes in favor of the legislation and even then getting past the House is a whole other barrier.

 

[Visbek]

More than 80% of Americans support expanding background checks to gun shows. Some polls show support as over 90%.

There are quite a few pro-gun Democrats. However, the NRA donates most of its funding to Republicans. The issue has also gotten so polarized, that it's unlikely that many gun rights voters would vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.

Perhaps those individual representatives have different voter research, but I doubt anyone will suffer from going on record as supporting expanded background checks.

 

[MMC]

Personally? I support a background check.* I think this is just one more way the Republican Party is out of touch.

*Now I don't know exactly what they're trying to pass, but I completely support requiring a background check every time someone buys a gun and every time one renews their license. If that's what was on the table? Too bad.

I understand Maggie.....but the law is already in effect with background checks. Moreover look at the reason Toomey and Manchin cite. They simply argue their proposal would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns.

That is a straight up lie Maggie. It is already Illegal to sell criminals guns, nothing they have proposed will make it more difficult for criminals to get guns.

Nor do they even have anything else about mental health with backgrounds checks. Illinois already has Mental health issues tied to our gun laws. Some other states have it too. So this is where Obama needs to lose.

Both Team Obama and Biden have been harping on Kirk and Toomey with Manchin and Schumer. They are not strong enough to stand and definitely not with Collins and McCain jumping ship.

 

[LaMidRighter]

As I said previously, when the filibuster was broken with 16 Republicans voting in favor of debate, I believe their intent is to get vulnerable Democrats on the record going into the 2014 mid-terms. The four Republicans you mention as possibly yes votes may be outnumbered by several more Democrats voting no in order to save their seats.

As Maggie notes, it all depends on any amendments that may be added, but voted on amendments will also get Democrats on the record.

As I said at the time, this is anything but a sure 51 votes in favor of the legislation and even then getting past the House is a whole other barrier.

Looks like you called it. I'm still furious that it is getting even this far though.

 

[TurtleDude]

Personally? I support a background check.* I think this is just one more way the Republican Party is out of touch.

*Now I don't know exactly what they're trying to pass, but I completely support requiring a background check every time someone buys a gun and every time one renews their license. If that's what was on the table? Too bad.

so if i want to give my wife a gun I should have to spend 50 dollars to get a licensed dealer to do it

or be required to keep records of every gun I have owned, when I got them and what I did with them?

why should I do something criminals will not do

 

[TurtleDude]

I understand Maggie.....but the law is already in effect with background checks. Moreover look at the reason Toomey and Manchin cite. They simply argue their proposal would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns.

That is a straight up lie Maggie. It is already Illegal to sell criminals guns, nothing they have proposed will make it more difficult for criminals to get guns.

Nor do they even have anything else about mental health with backgrounds checks. Illinois already has Mental health issues tied to our gun laws. Some other states have it too. So this is where Obama needs to lose.

Both Team Obama and Biden have been harping on Kirk and Toomey with Manchin and Schumer. They are not strong enough to stand and definitely not with Collins and McCain jumping ship.

many people feel SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, even if it won't do squat

 

[MMC]

many people feel SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, even if it won't do squat

The loophole myth was debunked.....they have the form 4473. So they know ATF can pull it and it would include Citizens with no records whatsoever. Biden admitted they don't have time to take it into court. Good thing Grassley is sticking.

 

[LaMidRighter]

so if i want to give my wife a gun I should have to spend 50 dollars to get a licensed dealer to do it

or be required to keep records of every gun I have owned, when I got them and what I did with them?

why should I do something criminals will not do

The fact that I have to pay either a dealer or a law enforcement agency for permission to sell my property is more offensive to me than anything, for a program that won't effect criminals in any significant way. I either lose value over the initial estimate of my sale price for the weapon or I lose money by having to eat the transaction fee, **** that.

 

[CalGun]

I do too, but I doubt they are proposing it in a manner I'd support. In fact I doubt the anti gun lobby would accept a back ground check the way I'd do it. Because to do so they'd need to establish some rights for law abiding gun owners that do not presently exist; like shall issue CCW permits, no wait period for those with permits, and no FFL required to do a simple check in an online database.

Personally? I support a background check.* I think this is just one more way the Republican Party is out of touch.

*Now I don't know exactly what they're trying to pass, but I completely support requiring a background check every time someone buys a gun and every time one renews their license. If that's what was on the table? Too bad.

 

[CalGun]

This is the point. Make gun ownership less attractive to start reducing the size and capability of that evil "gun culture" the left hates so much.

The fact that I have to pay either a dealer or a law enforcement agency for permission to sell my property is more offensive to me than anything, for a program that won't effect criminals in any significant way. I either lose value over the initial estimate of my sale price for the weapon or I lose money by having to eat the transaction fee, **** that.

 

[CanadaJohn]

so if i want to give my wife a gun I should have to spend 50 dollars to get a licensed dealer to do it

or be required to keep records of every gun I have owned, when I got them and what I did with them?

why should I do something criminals will not do

I highlighted the operative words in your post. Many of you may know that about 10 years ago the Liberal government in Canada established a "long-gun" registry requiring that anyone who owned a certain size weapon or larger had to register that weapon with the government and pay a fee for the privilige of doing so. It was very popular in the heavily populated urban areas of Canada, areas where most people didn't have legal guns and extremely unpopular in the more rural areas of Canada where owning a weapon was a way of life, used for hunting and protecting property from bears or whatever that may come on their land and kill or harm their livestock or other animals. The legal owners of such weapons were obviously insulted doubly because not only were the legal owners of guns being treated like criminals and criminals obviously ignored the law, but the legal owners had to pay the government to do so. I should also mention that the registry, in a country with a tenth of the US population, cost the Canadian taxpayers over $1 billion to establish and maintain over and above the fees collected.

The registery was marginally useful in locating stolen weapons that were used in crimes and recovered by police, but it was largely useless. A new Conservative government was elected a few years later, partly on a promise to get rid of the registry. Due to Canada's multi-party system, they were unable to get rid of the registry until a couple of years ago when they finally had a majority government and the votes to do it. Needless to say, the liberals and socialists fought hard to keep the registry and even some of our Provinces, where liberals ruled, sued the federal government to get access to the data for residents in their provinces. It's still going through the courts, but the federal government has been able to keep the records from the Provinces that sued and has destroyed the records from those that didn't.

Background checks may be reasonable to ensure that no person legally barred from owning a gun is able to purchase one from a dealer or other sales agent, but they are not fool proof by any means and do nothing about the illegal trade in weapons across borders and among gangs nor curtail gun violence and crime. What they do often lead to, however, is a false sense of security and identification data that some legislators want to get their hands on.

 

[MMC]

Senate Background Check Bill in Jeopardy, Lacks Necessary Votes.....

When a ban on “assault weapons” was completely dropped from the Senate’s gun control package, anti-gun advocates shifted their focus to more attainable measures, such as universal background checks. The bipartisan Manchin/Toomey ‘comprise’ proposal provided a glimmer of hope for gun-control advocates (and even some pro-gun groups), but Politico is reporting that even this has little chance of passing:

This bipartisan proposal, which expands background checks and closes the controversial “gun show” loophole, is gaining nearly no steam in the House, and in the Senate, it’s no better.

Senate Democratic leadership considered pushing back the vote to Thursday or later. Manchin and Toomey said Monday evening that they were short of the votes they needed.

With Republicans filibustering the Manchin-Toomey proposal, a cloture vote on the bill is likely to take place on Thursday at the earliest.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, endorsed the Manchin/Toomey background check bill on Sunday in anticipation of a Senate vote this week. “Believe me-- I’m solidly 100 percent pro-gun, but we get back, in return for a meaningless background check, which I admit will not solve the problem, criminals will still get their guns anyway, we get back a whole bunch of things we don’t have right now. We get more rights and more freedom. To me that’s a win,” he said. A statement was also released on the organization’s website further explaining CCRKBA’s position.

Not everyone is as supportive, however. Last week Sen. Tom Coburn expressed concern that the background check proposal amounts to a new tax on guns. Additionally, at least nine of the 16 GOP senators who voted to advance the bill say they oppose the background check compromise. The NRA also criticized the measure.....snip~

Senate Background Check Bill in Jeopardy, Lacks Necessary Votes - Leah Barkoukis

Toomey thinks it will be close.....hopefully Coburn has reinforced why there should be no going forward. Which btw.....Coburn knows Obama better than most other Republicans.

 

[Henrin]

Anyone that names a bill designed to violate the second amendment “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.” needs to burn in hell. **** these assholes.

 

[MMC]

Anyone that names a bill designed to violate the second amendment “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.” needs to burn in hell. **** these assholes.

Yeah well Right now the Anti gunners aren't liking it too much. Plus Now they know Obama's Centerpiece The Background Check is in jeopardy. Pressure has to be Put on McCain and others.

 

[MaggieD]

I understand Maggie.....but the law is already in effect with background checks. Moreover look at the reason Toomey and Manchin cite. They simply argue their proposal would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns.

That is a straight up lie Maggie. It is already Illegal to sell criminals guns, nothing they have proposed will make it more difficult for criminals to get guns.

Nor do they even have anything else about mental health with backgrounds checks. Illinois already has Mental health issues tied to our gun laws. Some other states have it too. So this is where Obama needs to lose.

Both Team Obama and Biden have been harping on Kirk and Toomey with Manchin and Schumer. They are not strong enough to stand and definitely not with Collins and McCain jumping ship.

If I sell a gun to you, do you have to have a background check? See, I have no problem with that providing that background check is reasonably priced and readily available. Gun shows? Same thing. It's my understanding gun show sales don't always require a background check. I know if I sell my gun to you I don't need one because I've already done that, following the letter of Illinois law.

so if i want to give my wife a gun I should have to spend 50 dollars to get a licensed dealer to do it

or be required to keep records of every gun I have owned, when I got them and what I did with them?

why should I do something criminals will not do

Because it makes sense to be able to readily establish a trail, in my opinion. $50? Highly doubt that. But if that's the cost, I myself would pay it.

 

[MMC]

Biden on gun bill: ‘I think we’re there’.....

Vice President Joe Biden told a former congressional aide Tuesday during a visit to the Capitol building that the Senate was just two votes short of reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to pass a gun reform bill through the chamber.

After a speech honoring Gabriel Zimmerman, who was killed in the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., that severely injured his boss, former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Biden told former Giffords aide Pam Simon that the bill would pass and that two votes were needed.

"We will win," Biden told Simon, who survived a gunshot wound in the shooting.

When asked about his comments, Biden told reporters that the vote count on the gun bill was "fluid."......snip~

Biden on gun bill:


Wishful thinking there Joe.....lets hope he is wrong even if they extend out the date of the vote.

 

[jamesrage]

More than 80% of Americans support expanding background checks to gun shows. Some polls show support as over 90%.

If these polls actually reflected the American public then they would have already passed universal background checks. Just because those polls say 80 or 90% doesn't mean 80-90% of the emails, faxes, phone calls and letters our elected officials are getting say they want universal background checks.

There are quite a few pro-gun Democrats. However, the NRA donates most of its funding to Republicans. The issue has also gotten so polarized, that it's unlikely that many gun rights voters would vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.

Democrats and republicans are not the same all over the country.Someone like Mitt Romney would never be able to run as a republican in Oklahoma while a democrat in Oklahoma would probably never win as a democrat in San Fransisco.

Perhaps those individual representatives have different voter research, but I doubt anyone will suffer from going on record as supporting expanded background checks.

I would say that the 80-90% is a lie.

 

[TurtleDude]

If I sell a gun to you, do you have to have a background check? See, I have no problem with that providing that background check is reasonably priced and readily available. Gun shows? Same thing. It's my understanding gun show sales don't always require a background check. I know if I sell my gun to you I don't need one because I've already done that, following the letter of Illinois law.



Because it makes sense to be able to readily establish a trail, in my opinion. $50? Highly doubt that. But if that's the cost, I myself would pay it.

why do you want law abiding people to be saddled with something criminals won't do and if they are the seller cannot be prosecuted for failing to do

 

[MaggieD]

why do you want law abiding people to be saddled with something criminals won't do and if they are the seller cannot be prosecuted for failing to do

Because it makes sense for law-abiding citizens. And it's one more charge for those who sell/buy illegally.

 

[Ray410]

One should be extremely suspicious of a government that wants it's citizens disarmed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because it makes sense for law-abiding citizens. And it's one more charge for those who sell/buy illegally.

you aren't thinking clearly. why should I have to pay a fee to sell property to friends or give something to say my brother

and no YOU CANNOT CHARGE A CRIMINAL for FAILING TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF

you can not charge a CRIMINAL WITH THE FAILURE TO REGISTER A WEAPON EITHER

you can charge him for possessing the weapon but you cannot force him to incriminate himself

and GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROSECUTED Only 277 of the alleged 2 million who have LIED On the 4473 form do you have any belief that the enforcement of this proposed law will be any better

are you aware of the fact that not one single study could find that the background checks in place today have DONE A SINGLE THING to decrease violent crime with weapons.

the entire purpose of this law is to fail so that those who want registration can claim registration has to be passed to make the law effective

why does it make sense for any gun owner to support a step towards registration

why does any person who supports the constitution support a law that has no proper authority under the constitution?

what makes a second hand sale (which can only be between residents of the same state) part of INTERSTATE COMMERCE

 

[blaxshep]

Because it makes sense for law-abiding citizens. And it's one more charge for those who sell/buy illegally.

One more charge that Biden has already admitted they don't have time to enforce? Brilliant!

 

[MMC]

One more charge that Biden has already admitted they don't have time to enforce? Brilliant!

Not to mention just because Joe opens his mouth and thinks he has the votes. Doesn't mean they actually do. Although all those on the Right should be letting Johnny Quest McCain hear it. Time for Johnny to quit kissing the Democrats azz.