Dems Halt Universal Background Check Talks With Sen. Coburn

news.yahoo.com...

Senate Democrats set aside their effort Wednesday to win support from conservative Sen. Tom Coburn for requiring federal background checks for nearly all gun purchases, at least temporarily hurting President Barack Obama's chances for pushing one of his top priorities through Congress.

Democrats' failure to resolve a final dispute with the Oklahoma Republican means they've lost a valuable ally, at least for now. Coburn has an A-rating from the National Rifle Association and could have prompted backing from other Republicans and from moderate Democrats from GOP-leaning states leery of alienating voters.

Well, it looks like the chances for Universal background checks have hit a wall. Last week, there was speculation that this legislation would stall, and it has for the most part.

Some of the Democrats pushing for this say they will look for other Republicans that they hope will jump on.

The aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the talks were private, said conversations with Coburn would continue. But it was clear that Democrats' focus was shifting elsewhere.

Even though it looks like the new UBC bill wont be going through anytime soon, Schumer is going to attempt to pass a UBC he proposed a couple years ago. Tomorrow, 4 bills will be voted on in the Senate Committee.

Lacking a deal with Coburn, one of the bills will be from Schumer, requiring nearly universal background checks resembling a measure he proposed two years ago. It will lack some of the provisions he tentatively had agreed to with Coburn, such as an appeals mechanism for veterans barred from obtaining guns because they have been formally declared to have serious mental difficulties.

Even though Coburn and other Republicans couldnt agree on this "new" UBC, does Schumer think his old UBC will get any more support? Either way, all 4 bills are expected to be voted out of committee, and will problably hit the Senate floor sometime in April.

Gosh, what I see here is a conflict of interest. Can you explain otherwise?

reply to post by Gridrebel

Which conflict? That they swore an Oath to uphold the Constitution and now seem to be having it printed on toilet paper rolls as a private joke? Hmmm...

Conflict indeed. A new crop we need. (/Yoda)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Who are - and where were - all of those illegal immigrants released to anyway? Do they have their Universal Background Check?

State sheriffs and State governers don't seem to know.

reply to post by Happy1

I'm guessing more than a fair % of those released don't even go by a single name or social. When one is illegal, that would seem to be a logical part of the issues, so a Universal Background Check would be a safe bet for being among those things not done like they'd have us all get it.

At this rate, someone will mate the idea of National ID card with UBC and hey, we'll all be in a new world. Hope and Change, Yessir!

Doesn't matter with New York,California, and Colorado making their draconian laws other states will follow suit just a matter of time.

People when the left wants something they will never give up.

reply to post by neo96

I'm just fine with it at the state level. I live in a state that has no use for tyranny and won't generally tolerate it. If other states do, well, in pure honesty and realism, that IS how the system was meant to work..actually.

We have no right in Missouri, Texas or elsewhere to tell Illinois they can't have it their way ...so long as it meets with Federal Constitutional Standards (a whole different post). Likewise, and more importantly, they have NO right to tell Missouri or Texas that our freedom loving approach and tack of personal responsibility over regulation is wrong.

The Union and Republic system is a rough road at times, isn't it? I wouldn't have it any other way though. I'm actually happy to see the states breaking apart on policy these days. The push to homogenize the whole nation like a gallon of milk was getting too extreme anyway. There SHOULD be differences between the states in more than just accent and surface culture.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by neo96

 

I'm just fine with it at the state level. I live in a state that has no use for tyranny and won't generally tolerate it. If other states do, well, in pure honesty and realism, that IS how the system was meant to work..actually.

Thanks for that...I always get confused when folks cheer for states rights one minute and cheer for federal intervention the next. Glad to see someone consistent apart from idealogy.