Gun background check bill in danger of stalling in Congress

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
www.latimes.com...


WASHINGTON — The centerpiece of President Obama's initiative to lower gun violence, a law that would require background checks for nearly all gun purchases, is in danger of stalling in Congress, signaling a steep climb for any potential changes to the nation's gun laws.


The article was made yesterday, and the Senate committee was supposed to begin deliberations today. Im hearing that the Senate today has decided to postpone any work on this for awhile. If they do start again in a week or so, even the background check bill looks like it will have trouble in the House.


Separately, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he would oppose any expansion of background check requirements. His committee would oversee any gun bills in the House.


It seems the provision that's killing this bill is the requirement to keep records.


Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the key negotiators, said this week that any provision that required gun owners to keep records would "kill this bill."


I was originally thinking this background check bill would go through somewhat easy, but I guess I was wrong. It looks like Biden is realizing that this bill may falter.


Biden did not mention Coburn by name, but it was the first time the administration publicly acknowledged that the bill was faltering.
edit on 28-2-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


GOOD!!!!! Let it die a slow death.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
ah yeah i read that earlier glad you made a thread about it! this is glorious news we are WINNING and they know it they underestimated us and now with the nra smelling blood in the water we just need to keep the pressure up and keep telling them over and over and over we shall not be infringed!



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Good riddance. Hands off our gun rights Feds!



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Agreed.

The only thing I support that is a little bit similar to this, is possibly allowing private sellers to access the NICS check system on people buying from them. That is, only if the private seller wants to. No requirement to do the check, and no requirement to keep a record. All up to the seller.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by macman
 


Agreed.

The only thing I support that is a little bit similar to this, is possibly allowing private sellers to access the NICS check system on people buying from them. That is, only if the private seller wants to. No requirement to do the check, and no requirement to keep a record. All up to the seller.
That would be a great compromise. As a private seller at times, I would love access to NICS for a quick check to be sure. It would make me feel better anyway....but only as an OPTION and not a required part of a larger registration and tracking system.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, les we become unwitting victims of the darkness." - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

this is why we fight!
we are in that twilight stage where we are unsure if the government will be successful or if we the people will prevail and maintain our rights ,we must not go quietly in to the night!

we should stand unified as one in stopping this infringement of our rights before night comes and we realize we fought to late or not hard enough

"We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions--bound together by a single unity, the unity of freedom and equality. Whoever seeks to set one nationality against another, seeks to degrade all nationalities. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt"

we must stop them from dividing us,from being turned brother against brother for that is their goal because if we are ununified we will not prevail in the face of oppression and tyranny

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." - Albert Einstein



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by americanwoman
Good riddance. Hands off our gun rights Feds!


Amen to that!

Don't turn into Canada!



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by buni11687
 


GOOD!!!!! Let it die a slow death.



Yessir!

Don't let this crap happen in the US like it did in Canada.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I hope that this bill does fail.

By keeping records, they will have pretty much established a gun registration system and we all know where that leads to eventually.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by macman
 


Agreed.

The only thing I support that is a little bit similar to this, is possibly allowing private sellers to access the NICS check system on people buying from them. That is, only if the private seller wants to. No requirement to do the check, and no requirement to keep a record. All up to the seller.
That would be a great compromise. As a private seller at times, I would love access to NICS for a quick check to be sure. It would make me feel better anyway....but only as an OPTION and not a required part of a larger registration and tracking system.


How about instead of allowing a private individual have access to NICS, have both parties go to a Local FFL dealer, pay $5.00 and have them do it prior to sale?

That would cover everybodies bases.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 
I like the idea...but...there is a problem. You could set it up that way and I could set it up that way. Either of us would have it operate without a huge bureaucracy behind it to turn into a registration and tracking system.

Could we trust politicians to set it up formal enough to have a local FFL handle the check and NOT build in a ton of regulation and registration along with it? Just can't trust those wily politicians. They're worse than that silly Fudd character running around with his shotgun.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by macman
 


Agreed.

The only thing I support that is a little bit similar to this, is possibly allowing private sellers to access the NICS check system on people buying from them. That is, only if the private seller wants to. No requirement to do the check, and no requirement to keep a record. All up to the seller.


Perfect idea, this is something I've talked with a lot of people about, and I can't see any legitimate reason why the government refuses access to the system for private sales. I've sold plenty of guns, I usually have the buyer sign a bill of sale and I check their ID just so I have at least something to show that I got rid of the gun, in the case a gun gets used for a crime and traced back to me.

I've had a few people refuse to show ID or sign the Bill of sale They didn't get my guns. I assume those people would have refused me calling in a background check too.

Maybe they were just very paranoid and didn't even want the person selling them a gun to know who they were. They will always find someone to sell them a gun, but it's not going to be me.

I'm totally against forcing all private transactions to go through an FFL, which is what they are currently trying to make happen. There are tons of issues with doing that.

One issue I can think of, what happens when you inherit guns? With this new law there is no such thing as "giving' someone a gun. I have inherited guns, and have also given away guns to friends for free.

But if you require it to go through an FFL, you turn it into a commercial exchange, a purchase, instead of just the gun being "given" to someone. If it becomes commercial, it would stand to reason it will be illegal to pass down guns to your children, as someone under 21 cannot buy a pistol, and someone under 18 cannot buy anything. But right now you can legally give your children those guns, or allow them to inherit them, but if every single transaction becomes commercial, and required to go through an FFL, I think that might become illegal.

So what happens if you are 18 with no family, and you inherit a pistol from a parent or grandparent? Who is going to "hold onto" that pistol for 3 years while you wait to turn 21?

Sounds like this law will end up causing quite a few firearms that have been passed down through the generations to be seized by the government instead of inherited by the younger generation.

Unless they put some special wording in there to make absolute sure that you can still legally "give" and/or inherit guns without going through an FFL. But then this law becomes totally impotent, as you could simple say you were "giving away" guns to all these people, when in actuality you were selling them.

Overall this bill is garbage and should burn to death as soon as possible.

But simply allowing private sellers access to the background check system would be a great idea.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Could we trust politicians to set it up formal enough to have a local FFL handle the check and NOT build in a ton of regulation and registration along with it? Just can't trust those wily politicians. They're worse than that silly Fudd character running around with his shotgun.




You do have a point. I don't think DC could pass a law that consisted of just one simple paragraph that could be easily enforced. They would add all sorts of other things to it as well. more than likely, additional taxes. Sure, the cost of the transaction would cost $5, but the tax on that transaction would be $20 if DC had their way.
edit on 28-2-2013 by TDawgRex because: Fat fingas again



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982

But if you require it to go through an FFL, you turn it into a commercial exchange, a purchase, instead of just the gun being "given" to someone. If it becomes commercial, it would stand to reason it will be illegal to pass down guns to your children, as someone under 21 cannot buy a pistol, and someone under 18 cannot buy anything. But right now you can legally give your children those guns, or allow them to inherit them, but if every single transaction becomes commercial, and required to go through an FFL, I think that might become illegal.



Not necessarily, the purchase could be similiar to when you sell your car and do a title transfer. Sure additional taxes are paid to the state, but rarely do people complain about that. And when they do, it's a quick "Grumble, Grumble" and that's that.

The sale is done.

edit on 28-2-2013 by TDawgRex because: Fat fingas



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I hope it dies and is buried forever. What needs to happen on a national scale is what is happening in NYS right now. People need to start getting together and uniting against all these crazy laws they have in the works. Massive protests in D.C., people nationwide using a few sick days in a row, among other things suggested here and on other sites (Legal things). These folks in power are not gonna stop coming at us from all directions so it is only in our favor to do the same, they have an agenda a very twisted one that will spill over to other rights in the near future, please folks the time to be lazy is not now.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
You're seriously objecting to a bill would make it harder for the mentally ill and criminals to obtain guns?

Wow. How many Newtown's and aurora's will it take for you to look past your precious hunks of metal. You're embarrassments.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


How about we change no laws and start enforcing the ones that are already on the books. Or is Eric Holder too busy flying around the country in his government jet?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by whywhynot
 


Yep. I would definitely endorse that, but of course that is too easy for DC and doesn't do enough to punish law abiding citizens.

I've wondered much the same myself. Why do they keep passing new laws and regulation when half the time, they contridict existing laws.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
You're seriously objecting to a bill would make it harder for the mentally ill and criminals to obtain guns?

Wow. How many Newtown's and aurora's will it take for you to look past your precious hunks of metal. You're embarrassments.


There is not a number high enough that would make me surrender freedom.

That is the cost of living in a free society. Freedom does not mean you are wrapped up in bubble wrap and nothing bad ever happens. Freedom means that YOU are responsible for your safety and the safety of those you love/care for. Freedom means that you accept that you are NOT safe, because true safety is impossible without tyranny

It's obvious that you do not value freedom anywhere near as much as I do, and that's fine, but the USA isn't for you then. There are plenty of places around the world that value safety more than freedom. Here, freedom is supposed to be the #1 issue. If you can't handle it, leave. If freedom scares you, then leave. But don't try to tear our freedom and liberties down in the name of "the children" it's incredibly cliche' and dishonest.

Why are 20 kids in newtown more important to you than the thousands that die in the ghettos of America? Why are they more important than the thousands that die in Africa? The middle east? They aren't. They are all humans, and they are all children.

If people want to protect their children, then PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN. You need not involve laws and the government with this. The reason you turn to the government is because it's too much of a hassle for YOU to protect your child, so you lay the responsibility on everyone else. To me, THAT'S the embarrassment.

edit on 28-2-2013 by James1982 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join