Gun control talks in Senate appear to be nearing a deal

[ellisonz]

By Michael A. Memoli and Christi Parsons

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Purveyor]

1. I don't understand all this 'noise' about the Senate passing a gun control bill as everyone knows

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

Fucking 'side-show', imo.

[Laurian]

3. I'm holding out hope that pressure on the House will move some of them, but we have to

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

[msongs]

2. dems + compromise usually ends up smelling bad unless u are a repub. we will see nt

[kelly1mm]

4. No background checks on "non-commercial" weapons sales.

from the article:

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

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

[Bolo Boffin]

5. But this would get gun shows.

And that's a step forward. It's not enough, but it is a step.

[BainsBane]

6. Would it cover online sales?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. It should.

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

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. Online sales are already covered.

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

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

[rdharma]

8. Yes. It would.

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

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

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

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

[slackmaster]

9. That's very strange. All commercial sales are already subject to background checks.

[rdharma]

10. It only covers private sales "where advertising or an online service involved."

Completely worthless BS "compromise" bill!

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

[slackmaster]

11. Background checks don't and fundamentally can't stop straw purchasers.

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

[rdharma]

12. Doesn't stop straw purchaser.......

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

[slackmaster]

13. No, it doesn't have anything to do with stopping straw sales or prosecuting straw buyers.

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

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

[rdharma]

14. You evidently don't know how these cases are prosecuted.

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

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

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

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

No wonder there is such a LOW CONVICTION RATE.

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

[slackmaster]

15. Apparently you aren't familiar with how the background check system works

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

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

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

[rdharma]

16. "A NICS check does not create a paper trail."

Yes, it does. Keep diggin'.

It denies "plausible denial" for the straw dealer.

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

[slackmaster]

18. Requiring a background check on a private transfer does not necessarily imply creating a 4473

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

[Pullo]

19. Then the House gets their turn

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

This has happened before.

[rdharma]

20. No. We don't have to wait. It's in the Manchin/Toomey" agreement.

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

[slackmaster]

21. I'd like to see the acutal text. An "agreement" isn't a bill.

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

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

[rdharma]

22. "legitimately fail the background check"

Sorry! but that's funny!

[slackmaster]

24. Initial false denials are very, very common because a lot of people have names that are...

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

[jimmy the one]

23. Some details of the bg check compromise

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

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

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

The gun legislation Reid wants the Senate to debate would extend the background check requirement to nearly all gun sales. Reid would try to replace that language with the Manchin-Toomey compromise once debate begins, a move that would require a vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/10/senators_unveil_deal_on_gun_sales_background_check_117895.html#ixzz2Q9cLWybe