Skip to main content

View Diary: Committee mark-up of Senate gun legislation postponed. Background check hang-ups irk Biden (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

    I can't find a single quote by Coburn to support that take on the impasse.

    What works in Michigan, where gun owning individuals are in the minority, will probably not fly in Wyoming, where gun owners are approaching a 60 percent majority.  Also, I don't think anyone's banking on mass hysteria.

    •  You can't find such a quote? ... (7+ / 0-)
      There “absolutely will not be record-keeping of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners,” Coburn told “Fox News Sunday” according to Fox. “That will kill this bill.”
      Coburn has yet to clarify whether he literally meant by no record keeping. So for now we'll have to take him him at his word and accept that "no" means "no."

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:38:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        Transcript for context:

        WALLACE: And finally, Senator Coburn, a bipartisan group of senators is reportedly close to a deal to greatly expand background checks of almost all gun sales. But the hold-up is the question of whether or not the government should keep records of those sales.

        Question: you are a member of this group. How close are you to a deal and what's the problem with keeping records?

        COBURN: Well, I don't think we're that close to a deal, and there absolutely will not be recordkeeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners in this country. And if they want to eliminate the benefits of actually trying to prevent the sales to people who are mentally ill and to criminals, all they have to do is create a recordkeeping, and that will kill this bill.

        So, if you really want to improve it, you have to eliminate the recordkeeping and give people the right and the responsibility to do the right thing and, that's check on the NCIS list to make sure you're not selling a gun to somebody who is in one of those two categories.

        •  In nothing Coburn has said publicly any... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, luckydog, stevej, Smoh

          ...indication that he supports private sellers keeping a record of sales. (You present a plan for that, but he doesn't).

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:15:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Agreed.  In fact, it's not clear what sort of record keeping he supports (if any).  But it's only clear that he opposes government record keeping.  I don't know if this is a sticking issue for Schumer or Manchin, and it's possible to likely that Coburn is dealing in bad faith.

            •  I think you (0+ / 0-)

              can take it as read that he isn't making a case for non government record keeping.

            •  but govt must keep the record of applicants (0+ / 0-)

              that's the only purpose of the background check application...(unless it isn't the intent, and for some people, that would be the intent, a registry of guns id'd with owners and addresses) in which case, eliminate the gun id for the national database, and just stick to the background check part of the application, not the gun id.

              ATF only needs to know who and when and where and therefore how many times. The presumption should be that the sale is not for something illegal, so the application need not contain such info, as it is the FFL has to keep that info, I it is available to backtrack where and to who and when a certain gun was sold.

              Records kept at the FFL dealer show the guns dealt with as private sale...and presumably legal guns or else the FFL dealer wouldn't handle the improper illegal sale and risk the shit for a $25 application and record keeping.

              My observation is based on the application posted here a month ago showing the gun id and serial number as part of the application.
                 That info is not necessary for the background check, the presumption should be that the applicant is not buying an illegal gun and the FFL dealer  is acting legally in not selling or handling such a transaction.
                Only the Dept of Pre Crime would need that info.

              This machine kills Fascists.

              by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:52:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Currently, the government does NOT... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                luckydog, notrouble, jeff in nyc

                ...keep records of those who have background checks. Records are destroyed after 24 hours.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:20:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0+ / 0-)

                  does it, a would be straw purchaser just keeps going til he gets it passed, and uses others to apply as well...can't foiul that with this process except that the transfer to the criminal is illegal, now , and still would be, hopefully especially so without the UBC and FFL dealer participation.

                     Tracking those multiple attempts should be a priority...and yet haven't we heard about the ATF tracking some people from state to state with multiple applications? How did they do that without keeping those records...maybe they had reason to track those individuals and there is a provision for that?

                  There should be..if there is any anti trafficing benefits to be derived from this.

                  I would say keep the records 90 days and eliminate the gun id as I suggested..these are for new and used sales.

                  Used sales are harder for LEO to track as the mfg records are long irrelevant for those already purchased and in private hands.

                  New sales would be able to be tracked from mfg records to the FFL dealer, their records show the purchaser.
                  That's my idea to get UBC improvement passed...then fund the thing...

                  Now you say the records are  tossed, I hope that in actuality that the LOE's are , as usual, tricky enough to keep records of the records so that some tracking is currently available to them...?

                  This machine kills Fascists.

                  by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:46:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  gun id with applicant/purchaser's name? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        cause that is what I have seen complained about as the de facto gun registration.

        Get rid of the gun id, that info kept with the FFL dealer, uncentralized.

        Application just for the applicant/purchaser.

        It's the multiple applications/purchases that are key here...not what exactly was bought, that info available  from FFL dealer if and when necessary. that's my suggestion to get this to pass.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:41:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Widely reported (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, tytalus, stevej

      You just have to look in the right places - RW and anti-gun-control sites are jubilant about it - there apparently were fears that Coburn was going to "cave" and "compromise"

      Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said Sunday any Senate legislation on gun control that includes a national registry of firearms owners will be a deal breaker.
      “Absolutely will not be record-keeping of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners,” Coburn told “Fox News Sunday.” “That will kill this bill.”

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:39:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        That was in response to a question on whether or not government should track transfers.

      •  like i have been saying, records of the guns purch (0+ / 0-)

        purchased is the sticking point and all but guaranteed to kill this bill..that is, to kill any improvement in the background checks.

        Keeping records of the applicant is necessary but not the actual serial number of the gun(s) purchased. That gun serial number data can be and  I believe is kept at the FFL dealer and is available to the ATF and LEO needs, and should not on a national database....if this legislation is to be compromised and passed.

        If Repubs are sincere about passing a better background check, and if Dems are sincere about a better background check, then they will de-link this data, the national database keeps the applicant's records, not the serial numbers of which guns and who owns them. The actual record of the gun purchase and it's serial number id is kept by the FFL dealer only....I hope.

        The application is then for the applicant only, as it should be.

        Now, the application I have seen shows the gun id to be purchased as part of the application...that is not necessary. At all.

        Not compromising on this is a treachery to us all at this point, and if they, R and D,  won't compromise then this is all about cheap political posturing and fuck them all. To hell.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:07:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Without some way to track transfers, how do you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          know that a gun is being sold?
          And if you don't know that it is being sold, then what makes the buyer and/or seller perform a BC?
          Ever work under the table? Ever pay sales tax on an item you bought at a yard sale?
          If there's no record of transaction or ownership, there's no enforcement of universal BC, it's voluntary.
          I trust that will work about as much as I trust Wall Street to police itself.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:50:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It makes that quote BJ (0+ / 0-)

            'that won't work'. Is that what you are saying?....

            pick a side and stick with it: I hope, and I think you want legislation

            *that might actually get passed- then remove this poison pill.

            *that might prevent some criminals and others proscribed from possession from illegally purchasing and taking possession- then make it easier to pass this UBC by eliminating the most annoying thing to the opposition, also the most costly and likely flawed and a waste of time.

            This transfer without proper paperwork would be then illegal, therefore a crime, and punishable.

            A whole lot of our daily behavior counts on this system, rather than some PreCrime Thought Police thing.

            seriously, this would criminalize, and hopefully control one aspect of the gun possession thing, it's not going to satisfy the gun banners and the gun confiscators whoever they may be.

            What I am suggesting is that the UBC just denies or approves the sale of a firearm to the applicant. No gun id necessary in the application.

            That's all...or approves or denies a sale, one gun..

            What was bought and the serial number would still be available from the original FFL dealer or whoever gets his records and license I would hope. It is the central database aspect that is giving the opposition it's strength..compromise, look centrist, be a pushover, a wimp, whatever you call it, just get the UBC thing done for private sales.

            The national database is the big sticking point , are you suggesting we not compromise and not get private sales covered under the FFL dealer handled UBC?

            That would be silly, imo.

            Small steps, or else we're just posing.

            Look, between criminals, sure, they don't give a crap, just like we all have been saying, this controls the good citizens who don't want to be illegal..say you are at a gun show, you mention you were thinking of selling your black scary gun just because, a guy says,' hey brother, I might be interested, could we do that out in the lot, we've known each other from gun shows, you know, wink, wink, ...'

            That is the way things are done now..a FFL dealer at a show would be risking his license and freedumz to sell in the parking lot without the UBC, especially for a higher price..and aren't likely to risk it, but a private citizen does exactly this, buy and sell at gun shows, without the UBC. Currently.
               With this private sale being made illegal to avoid and transfer without a background check, the seller..and the buyer for that matter, is risking that he is dealing with an ATF agent.

            They would now be subject to arrest.

            That is what the majority of owners would fear, as , guess what, they are ordinary people who don't want to be arrested.
              A key point to remember: most gun owners are not criminals, and don't plan to be.

            As to the not recorded since 'Hector was a pup' gun, now being sold, now being put into the system for the first time: I don't think a spotty record/database of newly sold but long used is going to be much good, especially harmful as a proposal  if it prevents the benefits of the expanded UBC.

            To be helpful as a national gun registry database, it would have to be made into law, and don't even start to tell me that is going to happen, when this simple law is in danger.

            If it is searchability you want, that is a problem when the used gun is not entered in a searchable national database: but remember, it is in the FFL dealer that has sold it, legally, and now has a name and address and gun id and serial number on file.

            A law enforcement problem?...maybe,but the ATF could very certainly require that the FFL dealers search their database for gun sn# 123, made by, model, and see if they have it in their records. That would be a burden on the FFL dealer, but that is the deal, they have to keep records and make them available.
              Hell, pay a reward for any gun that the ATF/LEO puts in the wanted list, make the FFL dealer certify they have examined the weekly list and have no such record...again, a sting is very compliance would be high I bet, and, again, pay them for finding a wanted gun, wanted info by an LEO for a criminal investigation.
              And that is how a used gun gets to be known and in the system without a national database...

            And remember a new gun is now tracked , I believe, from the mfg to the point of sale, and that is a national database...the FFL dealer also has to keep that local sales record, keep it secure,  and make it available on demand. If there was a software that could help that, run offline, that would really help get new legislation passed as well as make the FFL dealer and the  LEO's jobs easier. And us safer.

            But one thing at a time.

            You want improvement, right?

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:47:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not interested in passing a law just to (0+ / 0-)

              pass a law. An ineffective system can be worse than nothing.
              Look at prohibition or the drug war.
              How do you prove that a BC has been done? The record is gone in 24 hrs. The private seller has to keep a hardcopy record? How long? Do you have the transfer papers from a used car you sold years ago?
              How is the transfer of the ownership in a private sale reported and to whom? If it's not recorded, then why would anyone have any reason to do the BC?
              Have you paid sales tax on every used item you've bought at yard sales and such? Of course not, because there was no way the state would ever know, unless it was something like a car or a boat that you needed to get a tag for.
              The "most annoying thing" to the gun control opposition is any kind of effective control. If people who should not have guns are prevented from buying them, their sales will suffer.
              The majority of gun owners may well be law abiding, model citizens. And people like that should not have any problem with registering their weapons, passing a BC, obtaining proper training and licenses for their weapons, et cetera.
              But enough gun owners are NOT model citizens. If they were then there wouldn't be the mass casualties we suffer every year in this country.
              Easily one out of every four gun owners that I've known have been unfit and would definitely not have passed BC. Gangsters, drug dealers, alcoholic wife beaters, prescription drug abusers, senile. name it.
              But they can get them and they do.
              That's what I want to stop.
              And relying on people to be upstanding citizens and voluntarily go through the UBC procedure, probably have to pay a fee, wait, deal with paperwork from the GUBMINT..."not gonna happen". These transactions will be off the books and BC will be forgotten.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:42:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  grrr, the dog ate my comment (0+ / 0-)

                but seeing the other comments and my other answers elsewhere, I think we covered it :>

                thanks for hanging in there......

                This machine kills Fascists.

                by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:13:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site