Getty Images
Of all the high-profile elements of the agenda to prevent gun violence, universal background checks seem like the most obvious no-brainer, at least politically. It's one of the very few ideas that enjoys 90% support -- in any area of public policy -- and opponents generally struggle to think of coherent arguments against it.
With this in mind, when an ideologically diverse group of bipartisan senators -- two Republicans and two Democrats -- got together to craft a background-check bill, there was reason for optimism. This, more than the assault-weapons ban, seemed to be on track for serious consideration.
At least, it did.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is moving ahead without a Republican partner on legislation to expand background checks to private gun sales, a troubling sign for the centerpiece of President Obama's gun-violence agenda.
Schumer has negotiated for weeks with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to reach a bipartisan deal on background checks, but the talks stalled over the thorny question of how to implement an expansion of background checks.
Schumer argues expanded background checks are unenforceable unless sellers or gun dealers who perform the checks are required to keep records. Coburn says gun owners will not accept the bureaucratic onus of keeping paperwork for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
It's a curious argument from Coburn. Sure, it'd be nice to prevent illegal gun sales, but, you know, paperwork is bad.
Complicating matters, Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), both of whom were part of the team working on the bill, issued a joint statement last night saying Schumer's current proposal "is one we cannot support as it stands today." Unlike Coburn, however, Kirk and Manchin appear willing to continue talks to reach a bipartisan solution, even if they're opposed to Schumer's latest version.
And making matters slightly worse still, proponents are also starting to compete with the clock.
Supporters of this and related measures still hope to move quickly, and to that end, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) intends to begin the legislative process in earnest today. Indeed, Schumer hoped to have the background-check proposal finished yesterday, so it could be part of today's committee markup.
Instead, Schumer will introduce his Fix Gun Checks Act without the three senators he's been working with for weeks. It will not include the concessions the Democrat was prepared to accept as part of the bipartisan talks, since from Schumer's perspective, there's no real point -- he might as well push the bill he wants now that he's running out of negotiating partners.
This is not to say the proposal is doomed, and Greg Sargent reported yesterday that supporters "will step up outreach to other Republican Senators -- among them John McCain and Susan Collins -- to win support for the bill."
In the larger context, I'd just add that if gun-safety ideas enjoy overwhelming, bipartisan support from the American mainstream -- Rachel noted on the show last night that 89% of Oklahomans support universal background checks, and Oklahoma is arguably the "reddest" state in the country --- and still struggle to get broad support from Republicans on Capitol Hill, there's a problem.
Leave a Comment:
The GOP says the nuts need their guns to kill off all the politicians when the revolt comes!
That is exactly what it is all about.
They buy that line from the NRA and are paid well to adhere to it, just as Grover Norquist has them in his pocket with his NO TAX pledge. Who do they think they're kidding?
While there are serious nut jobs in the country, they are in such a minority as to have little affect on policy. The NRA promotes their paranoia to its benefit.
I have never believed the GOP (and some Democrats) would allow us to do anything meaningful due to their fear of Wayne LaPierre. How sad for our country that we are being ruled by monsters.
Paul S. Campbell,#1
Almost makes you think of getting yourself gunned up. LOL
There are a few on my list! :)
Here is the best reason I can think of for an assault weapons ban:
Those who we believe should not have guns always have the same types of weapons, ammunition and magazines as the general population has
When the US, for all practical purposes, made machine guns unavailable to the general population, criminals no longer had machine guns
While not exactly the same as machine guns, assault weapons with large capacity magazines accomplish what we do not like about machine guns - they fire a lot of bullets in a short time span
Firing lots of bullets in a short time span is a desired firearm characteristic for certain types of people
Assault weapons in the hands of those people is an unacceptable public safety risk
You forgot skinhead meth monsters! I guess they are included in gang members, drug traffickers and hate groups. Seriously, when you see the fanatics on tv watch their actions. Most of them are spun out of their minds. We used to call them "tweaker moves".
Don,
A civilian AR-15 without a selective fire capability can't fire any faster than any standard pistol or revolver. AR-15's are semi-auto. So is just about every pistol made today.
The biggest mass shooting in US history happened at Virginia tech. The killer there used two pistols, a 9mm Glock and a .22 Walter. A .22 pistol is quite possibly the least lethal round made.
We already have background checks. A criminal cannot buy any gun from a gun store. Yet, for some reason, that doesn't seem to stop them. The old assault weapon ban didn't seem to prevent Columbine either.
I listed the people who I believe think they "need" such firearms .... why do you believe you "need" such a weapon. Large capacity magazines are as much of a problem as the firearms themselves.
Criminals will always own the same types of firearms that are available to the general public. Those of you who demand such weapons share the blame when criminals have military weapons that shoot lots of bullets in a short amount of time and kill lots of people.
Don...,
Don't forget that you are dealing with someone who wants to eliminate background checks.
...he might as well push the bill he wants now that he's running out of negotiating partners
Bingo.
Let them propose amendments from the floor, and debate them in public view.
So, requiring people to have records stating they are, indeed, American citizens is a good idea in order for people to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Vote, according to the Right. But, requiring records of gun purchases to reduce the number of illegal gun purchases (keeping guns out of those bad guys' hands) is a bad idea. Really?? Really!!??
There's the little difference of the Constitution. The right to bear arms IS explicitly granted by the constitution, the right to vote...well, not so much...not that it is not important, it IS!
Secondly, to the point on grand public support, more here should watch The Rachel Maddow Show and they would have heard a GREAT interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner in which she stated that public opinion should play no role in deciding a legal issue, especially a constitutional one.
Rob: Background checks are not a "Constitutional" issue. Reasonably restricting deadly firearms from criminals is a public safety issue, the courts have decided that. Your argument only has wingnut standing with those that fantasize the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment knowing about thirty round clips...
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this in the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller. Yes, we individuals are allowed to own firearms and keep them in our homes. But as outlined in the majority decision written by Justice Scalia, part III: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
He goes on to say: "…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who wave the Second Amendment flag as if it grants unlimited rights to take our guns wherever we damn well please. Part of this misconception is due to the fact people like Coburn can make the erroneous claim and the media never corrects or questions it with the Heller decision.
What is so scary about having to pass a background check?
So we can just wrap the kids in kevlar and send them off to school , because the robdon gop claim the constitution says crazy people have the right to shoot anyone they want , when ever they want
that is a pretty impressive constitution , huh robdon ?
True, but given the choice between the two, I'd take the right to vote any day.
Missy Cheeks #3,
Sure, depending upon how much they are being paid to believe that BS.
Reason and the will of their constituents is not their first priority, as we see from this example. This should not be a surprise!
These congressmen and women are aware of the SCOTUS and what the 2nd amendment actually means. Reason does not enter into this.
I agree with RobDon!
Americans have a 2nd amendment right to sell assault rifles and 100 round magazines to anyone they want. As a matter of fact, our 2nd amendment rights include the right to own any and all weapons, including those that will stop tanks and shoot down black helicopters that Obama is sending against us.
Now, if we could just force those d@mn red states to go back to the Soviet Union.
All the comments above are reading way too much into my comment. I was not arguing against gun registration or for it, I was merely pointing out that constitutional issues are much more protected and onerous than laws passed by federal or state institutions. Do you still argue with that?
In a word: yes.
Hope that answers your question.
Rob: How come you so often try to play the "Devil's Advocate" game as a post script to your posts? Just own them, the posts, they are yours. We all know how you feel about this and most other issues, it's not rocket science.
"How come you so often try to play the "Devil's Advocate" game as a post script to your posts?"
Because he is a compulsive weasel, most likely.
Lebowsky, I do own them. As far as "devil's advocate," I'm not taking a different position but addressing mischaracterization of my comment. You mean all your posts are interpreted correctly and you never engage in a dialog.
Donna, if the answer is "yes" you do argue that constitutional and legal issues are the same, then make your case. If not, you just DISAGREE, you are not making an argument.
Hey, Entropy!
Classic troll tactic...demand that people treat their flim-flam as legitimate argument.
Classic hater...dismiss anything they say as irrelevant and demand others do the same.
Lol! Don't step on your lower lip, troll!
RE: 3.0
Missy, why would keeping records prevent illegal gun sales? You do realize that gun stores run background checks, right? You do realize that for a gun store to run a background check they MUST have a federal firearms license to do so, right? This would be akin to bars keeping records of everyone they sold booze to to make sure they're not selling to underaged people. You think that the fear of losing their license prevents illegal sales?
The only reason to keep records on this is to trace guns back to buyers. And last I checked, the 4th amendment states:
Are not gun stores required to keep paperwork for tax purposes? Or are they to be excused from doing so because it's "too hard"? I'm sure lots of companies would just love to not have to keep paperwork for tax verification purposes. Shall we let them just, you know, "estimate" their taxes?
As far as I'm concerned anyone who sells any gun, for whatever purposes, should be required to maintain a copy of that sale for at least seven years.
Honestly Alva, what with the faux "logic", inaccurate constitutionalism, and misrepresentation of statistics in regards to the 2nd Amendment, haven't you any other paranoias that need tending?
After all, you wouldn't want them to get angry now, would you?
Alva, you are using waaaayyyy too much logic for most here. Stop that now.
But we all know that those on the right have a grossly self-serving concept of "logic".
Come on, Entropy, give us a glimpse of your superior logic. This time you will not be responding to one of my "flim flam" argument but to Alva. Come on...treat us.
Here's an example of your type of logic on the Left:
Doug, thinks a sale of this record should be REQUIRED to be maintained for at least seven years! Wow. Guess he doesn't know that it is already a requirement but it must be maintained for 20 years!
And don't give me that...oh, he knew that, he was talking about private sales and the such, he was lowering it to seven, he knew the law required 20 years!
That's the type of uninformed logic you support, Entropy!
Robbywobby, your attempts at manipulation and trying to create your own reality are always so lame. Doug Stamate dealt with the "anarcho-syndicalist's" hogwash quite sufficiently. Well, here's a dose of reality from Doug:
"Honestly Alva, what with the faux "logic", inaccurate constitutionalism, and misrepresentation of statistics in regards to the 2nd Amendment, haven't you any other paranoias that need tending?"
If Doug sees fit to deal with your pathetic objections, he can do so. You had better deal with your own paranoias and get some anger management help. Although it's much more fun to watch you get livid. :-P
And I still want the "anarcho-syndicalist" to repeat his "arguments" for eliminating background checks.
Ha...LOL. You are the one throwing out insults and name calling and you think I'm the one who is livid! Wow! Now that is hilarious. I'm one of the most laid back individuals you may ever meet. "Livid" is not even in my repertoire of emotions.
What makes you think I'm angry?
Lol! It's the old "I'M NOT ANGRY!!!" Defense! That was really cute, RobbyWobby. Don't you want to see the "anarcho-syndicalist's "arguments" for eliminating background checks? You and he seem to be pretty tight these days.
:) emoticons don't lie!
Feel free to point to evidence that I am angry though. I love challenging you to back up your words...which you never, ever do. Hmmm? Wonder why?
"[E] moticons don't lie"?!?! I certainly don't need to dissect your comments when you make statements like that. And I note that you are ignoring the issue of the background checks. Don't you want to see his "argument" for eliminating them? Hmmmmm?
I've addressed it before...I'm not against background checks. See...I can participate in dialog.
You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is ?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you says, "What's mine ?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is ?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone ?"
But something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Having to borrow words to try and get your point across, huh? Okay...you win.
Again, how typical and how petty. I'm done here, too.
I asked my Town Clerk where I can sign up for the Slave Patrol. Just want to do my part, you know?
I'd hope the dear senators, all of them, realize the ironic moment here:
Overwhelming evidence shows great majority support for gun safety legislation on many levels, and now some among the senatorial brood (not to eventually mention those over there in the House) will use the institution to deny what the American people desire and deserve!
Watch as Schumer's bill gets filibustered somewhere along the way! -Kevo
Why is anyone surprised that stuff like this isn't going anywhere...it's not about public safety, Sanity, or legality. It's about the only thing the GOP cares about...Money.
This is legislation that the Gun Industry doesn't want passed...this isn't about the NRA and what they can or can't do to during an election...it's about S&W and stock portfolios
Totally off the wall on this one. Gun manufacturers have no stake whatsoever in this controversy. Expanded background checks are only for resale of weapons . Background checks are already the law for the purchase of new guns. Private sellers are the target of the new legislation.
They all buy bullets don't they?
Inspect12: You are completely wrong on "Background checks are already the law for the purchase of new guns." Backgrond checks do not apply to the sale of 'new' guns at any gunshow. The extension of the law is not just for private seller or re-sellers but also gun shows. Which is where all of the criminals currently buy there guns!!
I can understand in part, the opposition to keeping records but not for the reasons stated about 'extra' paperwork. The records are a form of national gun registration which is what the wingnuts are afraid the government will one day use to confiscate their weapons.
My knowedge of the current background check system involves a process where the dealer contacts the FBI wtih the purchasers info. The FBI then runs a check to see if they have a criminal record. They then approve or deny the sale. The FBI must then purge their database in some short time period after the transaction. So there is no 'registration' of that gun to a particular owner. I have learned this info from business dealings with the FBI call center in West Virginia about 5 years ago.
If some gun dealer knows more about this, please post.
Bob
Gun shows are no different than you buying a gun from a craigslist type seller. You cannot buy a brand new gun from a private seller. New guns for sale at gunshows are only sold by licensed firearms dealers. A private seller can only sell used firearms.
No offense, Steve, but you might actually mention the details of the bill. or at least post a link, so that we can look at the proposal ourselves. If the hang up is "keeping records", it kind of depends on what sort of records they are, doesn't it?
The idea that keeping records is an onerous burden is ridiculous. People are required to keep various records for tax purposes, real estate sales, etc. The number of records would be copies of the ID's that were presented to the seller, the type of gun and the background check that was returned to the seller on inquiry. I seriously doubt that gun sellers are going to be required to keep records that are more than records for an itemized tax return.
Well, what you say makes sense, but since we don't know what is in the bill, we can't really say if it's "onerous" or not.
So the majority of the senate will vote to pass this , and of course that means it fails , but at least the pro filibuster dems can pretend to care , how freakin worthless can you get?
The filibuster reform senators should just walk out in protest , shine a light on what a joke DC has become , at least FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING , WOULD LOOK LIKE THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING , rolling over again and again makes them all look bad
Potango, #8,
What if they are all bad? Then what?
India,
If you mean all senators may be bad, I repectfully disagree with you. I believe that there is a strong probability that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and maybe Al Franken are not.
Sad old veteran, LOL
Of course, you know I love those three, and let's not forget Jerrod Brown! I miss Dennis Kusinich of OH (forgive me for the misspell, Dennis), and Tom Harkin to name a few more. I shouldn't make sweeping statements. I know well they aren't all bad.
Did I forget Sen Ted Kennedy? He was wonderful. What a loss for the country.
I really enjoyed your enthusiasm about the WEALTH DISPARITY VIDEO , that is a great example of an issue that is very important , yet it will never see the light of day in the senate , it is not even on obamas agenda that I can see , which just makes me give up all together on our government
We fight , we raise money , we vote , and end up with a dysfunctional joke of a senate and leadership , FLOP
WHAT THEN?
Go tend to the farm , the kids , and the local community .... I have fulfilled my civic duties at this point , @ least we tried ...We helped elected our Iowa Sen Harkin years ago , and we kept our U S house blue , but over all our gov does not represent the people any more , it represents wall st and the wealthy
Patango, #8.4, Thanks for the response.
That video was a real game changer for me. It was a real epiphany. From that moment on, I see and hear everything both parties say in light of that reality.
It felt like a punch in the stomach. Then Rachel put up Bernie Sanders' video and he spoke of it as a war. I know he's right.
And we're losing.
And I want to know how this happened, which party or parties did this, and WHY. And I won't rest until I do.
Stalling and failing on issues with 90% approval. What is the chance of any serious action by this Congress? We are assured the lobbyists will be happy they maintain their position over the U.S. citizenry.
As the news about the Newtown massacre unfolded, I fell into a deep depression, from which I haven't recovered. I have a bet with myself - I'm betting that absolutely nothing will change. Not one thing. So far, sadly, I'm winning that bet.
Paranoia is by definition irrational. The line from the NRA is that if the paperwork exists, it will find its way into a sinister government database which the Illuminati will then use to have FEMA round up potential opposition when they decide to take over the government, burn the constitution, and invoke the New World Order. Dun, Dun, Dunnnnnnn, as it were.
That's very true, and the Catch-22 of emotional disorders like this, where people feel they are unsafe unless they own this deadly weapon which actually makes the rest of us less safe than otherwise.
You can't tell a crazy person they're crazy and expect them to agree with that diagnosis, unless they're medicated or not actually crazy, just politically Conservative.
And round and round we go...
That seems to be what they are all thinking. But they would not admit it.
Nathan, really? Here is the text to Missouri House bill 545 that the Democrats there proposed:
When your side is proposing that you take people's property away without Due Process of Law, then you no longer get to use the "gun owners are paranoid" argument.
related link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
That's a bit off topic as we're talking about background checks, not an assault weapons ban. Still, the proposed law you quote gives people the option to keep their property. They just have to fix it so that it cannot be used to rapidly murder large numbers of people, and then they can keep it.
Isn't it nice living in a country where a handful of privileged corporate whores can determine the fate of millions?
Citizen Pain, #12
Oh yeah, which is why I keep my passport updated. LOL
Bernie Sanders is our 21st century "John the Baptist", a voice crying in the wilderness.
No one is listening.....
Couple the paranoia on the Right regarding keeping records of gun-owning, law-abiding citizens and Rand Paul's concerns with American citizen's being droned-down while enjoying a latte at a local Starbuck's makes me think the RWNJs are more concerned about having a database where those drones can find American citizens than they are about protecting American citizens from actual, run-of-the-mill gun violence. Again, hyperbole wins out. Worry about the worst-case scenario, no matter how far-fetched it is, rather than work on what is actually happening each and every day.
USA: March 7, 2013 Killed in drone strikes: 0
USA March 7, 2013 Killed by guns: 1,910
13 hours of Congressional time used up by Rand Paul.
Good job, Pauly.
Absolutely -- One of the best statements and explanations I have heard all year. Great!!! Gives me hope that we have intelligent, insightful people left in this country.
Missy: Please review the 4th amendment. Paranoia has nothing to do with it. A blatant violation of our rights is the issue. It is unconstitutional for the gov't to know what I own. Just as it's unconstitutional for them to know what you own.
Constitution of the United States, Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Sorry, Alva, wrong again. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that restrictions may be placed on where guns may be taken, who may own them and the conditions of that ownership.
Failing to abide by the law provides the "probable cause". Any seizures of guns that might occur because you, or anyone else, refuses to abide by the law, are legal and Consitutional.
No one argues that common sense laws make sense however the fear is that common sense laws progress in their intrusion. A universal background check sounds acceptable to a lot of people but it would go from one check on one person per purchase, to that check qualifying one to own a type of gun, to that check linking your purchase to a specific gun which is a registration and an absolute no-go. The encroachment keeps progressing with each criminal gun act until the right is completely lost. Then we will be left with no rights, armed criminals who still don’t obey the law, politicians who can abuse and change the law at will with no fear of the people.
Veronica: That makes not a whit of sense. Only folks who have decided gun ownership trumps actual truth can follow your twisted narrative...
Veronica, let's rephrase your argument replacing guns with cars, shall we? And then see if it makes sense.
A universal background check before driving a car sounds acceptable to a lot of people (it's called getting your license) but it would go from one check on one person per car purchase, to that check qualifying one to own a type of car (say, different requirements for having a motorcycle vs. a car, driving a long haul truck, etc), to that check linking your car purchase to a specific car which is a registration and an absolute no-go (hmm, not so much - pretty sure this happens in every state). The encroachment keeps progressing with each criminal car act until the right is completely lost (well, if we all lost the right to drive and own cars, we might get in front of climate change, to say nothing of making steps toward solving obesity. But I digress.). Then we will be left with no rights, criminals driving cars who still don’t obey the law, politicians who can abuse and change the law at will with no fear of the people.
While we do have criminals driving cars, and not-really criminals who don't have car insurance -- almost everyone who wants to drive and own a car can do so, in spite of all the rules, regulations and costs involved. I don't forsee that changing.
This kind of validates my observation in #13, doesn't it? "If we start here, we could end up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there". Again, it must be exhausting living on the edges of all those slippery slopes.
Missy Cheeks, are those nuns with guns?
Yup.
Which order is that?
Watch for a published list later today showing every Senator and Congressmans NRA rating and their vote on these issues as well as the percentage of their constituents who want backround checks passed as well as other measures. 2014
Who is running the government? The NRA, Norquist, the Koch bros.? How can anything get done without consulting these people or groups. 90% of the population support background checks, yet agreement cant be reached. Over 70% support a balanced approach of closing tax loopholes and cuts to lower the deficit and debt. But we are ignored like a stepchildren. Yes we have a two party system but when one party and parts of the other are "governed" by special intrest and the wealthy who does the average person turn to? You could say the voting booth, but for newly elected officials there is a lobbyist waiting with a fist full of dollars to begin the corruption. The only way it seems is, lobbyist and campaign finance reform. Think that will ever happen? Not!
Honestly I just don't understand, I know we all love Politics, we all think this great Democracy is ever changing etc..
But Lucy holds the ball and everyone STILL thinks there is going to be a kick!
I just don't understand. Republicans have ZERO intention of acting as if they are actual representatives of the people and each and every time they make you THINK they are, you've lost!
Hawk,#17
Gosh! They never made me think that!
Is the GOP delaying action in hopes that the memory of Newtown and pressure to stem gun violence will fade? Coburn uses "too much paperwork" as an excuse to walk away from the negotiations. That is really dishonest. Most of the GOP want to do NOTHING about gun control and these flimsy excuses are outrageous. The pundits have already declared the assault weapons ban is DOA. Are we really going to allow that the Newtown massacre just doesn't matter enough?!?
"It's a curious argument from Coburn. Sure, it'd be nice to prevent illegal gun sales, but, you know, paperwork is bad."
Nah, it's a little deeper than that. The paperwork argument is about their paranoid fear of registration leading to confiscation. They don't want anyone to know who has guns, because then Nicolae Carpathia will send his UN thugs to take them away.
This, if the Republicans did it; we would call a BAIT-AND-SWITCH. A good proposal (background checks) replaced with an unconstitutional one. (an effective gun registry)
Enforcement? The man never heard of a sting operation? Do we ask liquor stores to record the names of people they asked for a driver's license? I call BULLSH*T! Recording the background check is NOT a necessity for enforcement. It's a camel's nose effort by liberals (my beloved peers, mind you) to violate the 2nd amendment. This is NOT what the Republican sponsors signed up for and he's changed a LONG awaited bi-partisan concession into a progressive gun-grab. It was a gimme. Handed to us all on a silver platter. We couldn't leave well enough alone. Goddamn you, Schumer. If Democrats lose in purple states, it's YOUR fault, you thoughtless saboteur.
This scuttling of the first meaningful gun violence prevention in 20 some odd years will be Chuck Schumer's second hand-stamped f*ck-up.
Steve Benen, when writing for his own blog noted that Schumer's endorsement was an important factor in the nomination of Attorney General Michael Mukassey in 2007:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12901.html
Mukassey would later endorse the US government's warrentless wiretapping:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013462.php
(BTW, I'm STILL waiting for this to be reconfirmed as illegal, Mr. Obama. It's already unconstitutional and IMO the blackest mark on your record, sir.)
While it isn't Schumer's fault, per se and no Bush appointee was going to be a whole lot better, Schumer has a very unfortunate habit of lending his name to things that blow up and should have been plainly obvious if not for his endorsement.
Going forward, when Chuck Schumer starts getting involved in something, be worried. The man lacks judgement.
How dare you criticize the senator from Wall Street!
william: Way too many strawmen you threw out there to comment on, and you willfully portray Senator Coburn as reasonable. I support what Schumer is doing and proposing, if we allow the Coburns to water down background checks, they will be useless.
RobDon
Sandra Day O'Conner was selling her book. She carefully answered questions in a way that would not create any controversy.
While I agree that public opinion should not influence the justices of the courts, it appals me to know that our (predominently republican) legislators don't represent the people that voted them in and serve their donors instead.
Yes, and if O'Connor really thinks the Bush v. Gore decision was non-political, then she is delusional. To be blunt, I think she is over-rated.
This is ridiculous. I live in Norman, OK. Shots were fired yesterday outside of a prominent local arts center (the Fire House Art Center) and a park just after school hours. There were children practicing soccer at the time. (See the Norman Transcript story here: http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x1837425080/Shots-fired-in-central-Norman).
I truly hope Senator Coburn will rethink his support of this bill. We need to fix our unhealthy obsession with guns and violence in our country. We should all have a right to live safe and productive lives.
How's this for coherent?
1) What other rights do you need to get permission to practice? Are there background checks before you can practice your right of free speech? To go to church? To petition the gov't for a redress of grievances? Background checks before you can have your 4th amendment right of privacy? Background checks before you're allowed not to be a witness against yourself? Background checks before you can be free from cruel or unusual punishment?
2) Background checks are a direct violation of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment states:
Just as the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed", the 4th amendment says "shall not be violated". Yet, background checks function as a defacto search of the property you seek to obtain. Furthermore, such a search is not reasonable. In Katz vs. US (1967) the US Supreme Court established two rules in regards to the 4th amendment.
Would anyone feel like their privacy was being violated if the FBI were told what car you were buying?
They also violate the 5th amendment:
Background checks force you to be a witness against yourself.
Background checks also violate the common law protection of presumed innocence. Unlike any other part of American life, background checks assume guilt and that you must prove your innocence.
Background checks also violate the 14th amendment.
Background checks are direct violation of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
Furthermore, if background checks were universal, then this would mean that if a father hands down a gun to his siblings, his siblings would have to get a background check before he could do so. It would further complicate probate law where firearms would be inherited. It would make no exception for states that already have a state-wide universal background check system. It would lay claim that the Congress could enact legislation based on the commerce clause, when a financial exchange does not cross state borders. It's a violation of the Constitution prohibition against ex-post-facto laws and Bills of Attainder.
So, tell me, how is a criticism of the blatant violation of multiple Constitutional rights lacking in coherency?
Alva: Amazing how selfish you are. Your guns trump public safety, and gosh darn it you are going to scream out how inconvienent it would be to you personally for our society to try to keep guns out of criminals hands... Fortunately for society your arguments are specious and laughable, and supported by gun nuts only...
I think Alva keeps a photo of Wayne LaPierre on his nightstand.
Lebowsky, how is the protection of our Constitutional rights selfish? I noticed that failed to address any of the points I raised.
We've had background checks for 20 years, and in that time, only 1.8% of gun sales have been declined. Yet, criminal activity still seems to be going on. So tell me, just as a practical matter, how effective are background checks at preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals?
How many purchases by a private seller or at a gun show may have been declined? Right now, we will never know because there is no required background check. Secondly, the majority of guns used by criminals are either stolen or via straw man purchases, both of which would be impacted by legislation. To say something doesn't work despite being in process for 20 years, when you don't take into account 40% of purchases that are outside of the background checks, is much like saying motorcycle helmets won't save lives when you look only at high-impact collisions. You have to have ALL the pertinent information before declaring something "ineffective".
I know a couple of people who own guns legally who in my opinion should absolutely never be allowed anywhere near a gun, but how should that be dealt with? No one has a good answer to that question, and the kneejerk feel good reaction to Newton, has only served to double or triple the cost of firearms, inspired people who never even thought about owning a gun to go out and get one, and due to the panic rush on ammunition they can't even go out and shoot. I had a guy offer me five times the cost for a box of twenty 5.56 rounds. The cold hard truth is that the only way to stop gun violence is to take away all the guns.
Advocates for gun rights see any legislation as a step towards that end, if there was a little more trust in our government maybe there would not be so much paranoia, but I don't see the government doing anything to inspire that sort of trust at all.
I doubt if you have been to a gun show. In New York state all sales have to go through a NICS check. Private sales are not allowed at NYS gun shows. New Jersey has no gun shows. There is a good argument to be made regarding gun trafficking. However, gun trafficking should not be confused with legitimate purchases from licenced dealers. Gun shows are not the wild free for all's that they once were, certainly not in the NY tristate area.
nytweed: Using one of the most sane States as your example, New York, is misleading and you are fully aware. Here in California we too have closed the gun show loophole, but all one has to do is drive over the border to Nevada or Arizona to get out of the background check requirement.
That is why I do not have any problem with background checks (neither does the NRA). It is only a problem when background checks are linked to other measures. The gun controll lobby is too clevery by half. I would like to see an enhanced nics check with mandatory state participation. But I don't like the idea of any government knowing where every firearm is.
Actually, nytweed ..... Wayne LaPierre favored background checks 15 years ago but now opposes every aspect of the new gun law proposals, including the universal background check provision.
nytweed: who do you think you are fooling when you claim the NRA is for background checks? Seriously... you must think we all are stupid. And this notion that the government should not be trusted with a database needs much more than your personal disapproval to reach a debate/discussion level.
And I still want the "anarcho-syndicalist" to repeat his arguments that there should be no background checks at all. At least, they should be good for a laugh.
Missy,
If you're talking about private sales, and no paperwork or background checks are performed on private sales, then how do you know it accounts for up to 40% of all gun sales? Is the 40% number just made up?
Virginia is a pretty pro-gun state, but I've never seen a private sale conducted at a gun show that didn't involve a background check. Given the gun laws on the books, private sellers will often require a conceal carry permit before they will sell a private person they don't know a gun. The gun shows in my area can't even get insurance to hold a gun show unless there's a 100% background check of all sales.
Lebowsky, if you drive over the border to Arizona and buy a gun when it would be illegal for you to own said gun, then you have just committed a crime. In the state of Virginia, having an illegal gun on you is a mandatory minimum of 5 years behind bars.
Now, given all this, tell me, how is it that criminals are still getting their hands on guns? Do you really think that thugs are buying guns at gun shows? Don't you think they would stick out like sore thumbs at a gun show?
Alva
Your comment makes no sense to me. People in the business of knowing how criminals obtain guns have produced statistics based on their studies. You doubt those statistics based on your own personal observations. Instead of researching to understand the basis of the statistics [which, by the way, are from the ATF who I presume know a little about guns] you come onto Newsvine and complain about the statistics.
The ATF knows how criminals get guns. You don't. You think you can recognize a "thug" who could not pass a background check at a gun show. You can't. You also can't recognize a straw purchaser. We need better laws. Don't stand in the way.
Alva: Sure... All that Nazi stuff for sale at gun shows never brings unsavory folks, only fine upstanding perfectly coiffed deoderant-wearing country clubbers go to gun shows...
Don, don't confuse what I'm saying. It's pretty clear how criminals get guns. Guns on the street are primarily stolen. Straw purchasers provide the rest. The ATF knows that if the same guy is buying a new AK-47 at an Arizona gun store that he's a straw purchaser for the Mexican cartels. It's not a secret. We just don't have strong enough federal laws in regards to gun trafficking. But that's something entirely different from background checks. After all, how are you going to run a background check when someone hands another person cash for a gun in a street ally?
Lebowsky, I never said there wasn't a neo-nazi element at gun shows. I've mentioned it before around here. But I gotta tell ya, neo-nazis may be many things, but they're not generally responsible for the 11,000 people who die from firearm homicides every year.
"But I gotta tell ya, neo-nazis may be many things, but they're not generally responsible for the 11,000 people who die from firearm homicides every year."
That's a tactic I call "praising with faint damns". I still want him to repeat his argument saying there should be no background checks.
First, the mere fact that someone collects NAZI relics doesn't make them a NAZI. Some of the most active collectors of this stuff are Jews. I know this doesn't make sense but it is a fact and has been known in the trade for decades. A lot of Blacks collect racist memorabilia. Anyway the amount of Nazi stuff you see at gun shows at least in the northeast has declined quite a bit in recent years. And there are people who collect military relics and memorabilia. Some collect civil war some collect Spanish American war or WWI and yes some collect WWII. In 2008 you saw a lot of offensive anti obama stuff at gun shows and this has pretty much disappeared at least in the northeast. You would be surprised at how diverse the folks at gun shows really are. As for the government being trusted with a database this is a very real concern. Governments are not some magic entity conceived and nurtured in virtue. At the beginning of WWII, under political pressure the Japanese on the west coast were rounded up and sent to internment camps. In the 1950's and 1960's it was no secret that supposed communists were being put on lists ready to be rounded up and sent to camps under the MCCarren act. Most recently we have a list of thousands of people who cannot fly on an aeroplane. The only crime most of these people are guilty of is having the wrong last name. The worst thing you can give the government is a computer and a list. Lebowsky....hmm....that's a Polish name? Is that your real name? Your papers please.....hmm.....would you please step into this room we have some questions to ask you. That's how it starts. I would add that the NAZI's were excellent at creating and maintaining databases.
Look out...the black helicopters are comin' to git ya! That is the same troll who doubled down on the lie that the NRA still supports background checks.
nytweed, all those things are true, but let's get real here. Nobody is going to collect nazi memorabilia and also have warm fuzzy thoughts about minorities.
alva
Actually, alva, the #1 source of guns for criminals is illegal sales without background checks by licensed gun dealers. The current Congress has ensured, influenced heavily by the NRA, to underfund the ATF which prevents the oversight necessary to regulate these criminal gun dealers.
The NRA has been a major impediment to not only new gun laws but also enforcement of existing gun laws and if you support the NRA you are assisting criminals to obtain guns.
Don,
In concluded long ago that those on the right are fine with having criminals get more guns, because the Gun Cult uses that phenomenon for propaganda purposes to agitate for more guns, guns, guns. Also, their severe "My ass is golden syndrome" prevents them from realizing that they could be victims of crime.
I listened to Maddow's comments last night on public opinion and background checks. This is the problem. No one, NRA included oposes background checks. The last time I bought a firearm they did one on me. What gun owners do not want is a back door into establishing anything even resembling a gun registry. Why is this such as issue? Very bluntly, the gun control lobby has in it a large number of dishonest, liars. They lie about their objectives, they lie about their methods. Oh you say it cannot happen. For those of you not old enough to be around in 1967 let me give you a bit of history. In 1967 New Yorkers were scared out of their wits by a vision of black men in photographs with shotguns and bandoliers of shells. New York had at time a perceived crime wave. Actually it was not nearly as much of a problem as the press made it out to be. While NY at the time had very strict regulations on handguns there were essentially no regulations on long guns (rifles, shotguns etc) Long guns were never much of a crime problem anyway. But the gun control establishment started yelling register the guns, register the guns we have to know who's got the guns (yes, some of those guns might be owned by the poor and minorities). And so, in this panic, legislation was submitted to the city council to "register the guns" or so they said. Councilman Ted Weiss was to shepherd this legislation through the city council. Now, Ted Weiss (later congressman Weiss) was known as a liberal voice of some considerable integrity on any number of issues and he allayed our fears by claiming that this was only registration and that the fee would never rise above $3. And so the legislation was passed. Before it even took effect the fee had risen, I believe to $20 (remember this was 1967). It is now up well over $100. Instead of a simple registration system it was a permit system with requirements almost as onerous as New Yorks notorious hand gun laws. Now I don't know if Councilman Weiss knew all of this before hand or whether he just got snookered by the gun controllers but it is now all but impossible to own a firearm in New York City. Ted Weiss was an ideal front man because of his reputation for integrity. At a time when opposition to the Vietnam war was politically risky, he opposed the war. But the point is that in a free society it is a danger to put this kind of information in the hands of a national police agency. That is what the debate over background checks is all about and Rachel Maddow should have known that this was the core of the problem. If she did know then the whole presentation of statistics last night supporting background checks was and exercise in dishonest liberal dramaturgy. I have yet to see a public opinion survey which asks "would you support a background check, coupled to a gun registration scheme?" Finally, the latest ploy of the MSNBC talking heads is to demonize the NRA. Sorry that isn't going to work either. I have my differences with the NRA but they are not always wrong. The actions of the New York's governor unfortunately proved just how accurate the NRA' s prognostications have been. Finally just for the record I am that rarest of all birds, a liberal, progressive Democrat who also is a target shooter. I do not own a semi-auto firearm and I am a member of the NRA. When the gun control lobby and its media functionaries learn to appreciate the life style of hunters, target shooters and collectors and develop a sense of honesty and an ability to work with firearms owners then and only then can they make a case for any kind of gun control. Last night's propaganda show does not auger well.
The NRA's Wayne LaPierre does, in fact, oppose universal background checks. Fifteen years ago he supported background checks ... now he does not. I wonder why.
No you are wrong. The NRA has continued to support NICS consistently. The NRA does not support background checks that are linked to firearms registration. That is the stumbling block for background checks. So the real question is does the gun control lobby want to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not own them or are you coming for my firearms. If it is the latter then this is probably going nowhere in congress.
Last night Rachel was asking if politicians would listen to the NRA despite the overwhelming majority favoring background checks for ALL gun sales. It seems the answer is Yes, the politicians are going to listen to the NRA no matter what anyone else says.