Skip to main content

Patrick Leahy
Patrick Leahy
The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to begin the "mark-up" of four pieces of proposed firearms legislation Thursday, but Chairman Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, announced a one-week delay when the committee got together this morning. That will give the four members of an ad hoc bipartisan committee time to hammer out  their differences on a fifth piece of legislation—universal background checks for all gun buyers. Expanding background checks is by far the most popular newly proposed gun legislation in the wake of the 12/14 elementary school slaughter in Newtown, Connecticut. Poll after poll has shown 90 percent of Americans favor the idea.

The ad hoc committee drafting the background check legislation has been stymied by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma over the matter of record-keeping. The National Rifle Association, the gun industry's well-funded mouthpiece, and others have claimed that another member of the committee, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, wants to set up a national gun registry. Schumer's office denies this.

Record-keeping of background checks has long been anathema for many gun-rights advocates and other gun owners who see it as a prelude to gun confiscation. Under current federal law, records of people who pass a check by the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that is required for any gun purchases from licensed dealers must be destroyed within 24 hours. Previously, it was 90 days.

Unlike the government, gun dealers are required to keep a record of all their firearms transactions for 20 years. But these are in no way centralized. Federal law already prohibits centralization or any effort to build a federal gun registry. Despite NRA paranoia, any registry is off the table in negotiations.

But for two weeks committee negotiations have been stalled because Coburn says there should be no record of any kind kept of private sales. This sticking point is said to have sent gun-friendly Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia looking for other Republican NRA members in the Senate who might be more flexible in crafting the universal background check legislation. The pace of negotiations has also apparently irked the White House and elicited criticism from Vice President Joe Biden, who has been President Barack Obama's point man on guns since the Newtown massacre. To a meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General on Wednesday, Biden said:

“The proposals they’re arguing as they mark up the legislation in the United States Senate are so porous that they are going to allow a truck to be driven through the holes in the legislation they are proposing, loaded with tens of thousands of weapons,” Biden said. [...]

“For example, they come up with a system where there’s a new version of an instant-check system where you go online and check if you’re qualified and then you go to the buyer in a private sale,” Biden said. “But guess what? They want the law to say no record would be kept. How in the hell would you know if that transaction would be real if no record can be kept?”

Right now, background checks are only required of buyers who get their firearms from a federally licensed dealer. If you buy a gun from a friend or neighbor or an unlicensed seller at a gun show, no check is required. A universal background check would change that, covering all private sales as well. To see more about the proposed law and the other legislation that will marked up next Thursday, please continue reading below the fold.

To enforce the background-check law, however, as Biden says, somebody has to keep records of private sales the way federally licensed dealers do now. Would it be the private seller or someone else?

One method being considered, according to individuals with knowledge of the negotiations, is setting up an internet website where sellers and buyers could meet to conduct the background check or federally licensed dealers could charge a small fee to conduct them. Records of these sales could then be turned over to a licensed dealer, kept by the seller or given to the gun manufacturer. The NICS's record of private-sale background checks would be destroyed within 24 hours, the same way it now destroys its records of sales through licensed dealers.

With Coburn seemingly unbending, it's uncertain whether the week's delay in marking up gun legislation will produce the awaited draft for a universal background check.

If nothing comes to fruition by then, the Judiciary Committee will be looking at the following bills and possibly Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal's Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013:

S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Sen. Dianne Feinstein)

S.54, Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (Sen. Patrick Leahy)

S.374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Sen. Chuck Schumer)

S.146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Sen. Barbara Boxer)

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:45 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Screw this bipartisan approach (15+ / 0-)

    Put forward the bill the way it should be written instead of some full-of-holes piece of crap written to appease Republicans.

    Put forward a real bill that will address the problem and then dare the GOP to filibuster it.

    •  Agreed! nt (9+ / 0-)

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:57:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What would you prefer? n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, BvueDem

        The Bipartisan approach tends to work in favor of zero change which is exactly what you want out of this isn't it?

        •  Me? Register all guns, incl. private sales & gifts (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          I prefer that all guns should be registered. Both seller and buyer (giver and receiver) should be required to register the transaction, in a national registry that is available to FBI, state, and local police.

          A license should be required to own a gun. This should include finger-printing, drug-testing, mandatory liability insurance, tax, safety certification (via approved vendors), and a safety test. Renewable every few (four?) years.

          There's more, but that's a start.  :-)

      •  I have an idea (0+ / 0-)

        What if the NICS check was done by a licensed dealer for private party sales, like done now for out of state sales, and this dealer kept the records like now. Instead, change what part of the information is submitted to the government. Since it is a background check to make sure the person can legally possess a firearm why does information about the firearm need to be included?

        I suggest that the buyer information be submitted, and the firearm information kept only by the dealer. Then no one has to worry if the information is destroyed within 24 hours and it would be impossible to build a gun registry from NICS checks.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:46:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  how does any dealer know any gun's not stolen..? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV, notrouble

          ...in any particular private sale?

          Cheers.

          •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps a stolen registry could be set up, where the model and serial number reported stolen would be available to dealers. Then they could check. Willfully selling stolen guns should be treated like dealers caught selling to someone who doesn't pass the NICS check.  I don't think this is a major concern because the person who possess the firearm is known to be allowed to possess it. Possessing stolen property and a being a felon with a gun are both bad, but the felon with a gun is the only one that is a public safety concern.

            I wonder what is is place for pawn shops to check for stolen property. I know there is some serial number reporting system in place in many places.

            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:21:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know they are cooperative with police (0+ / 0-)

              and are calling if they suspect, and [police, when and if they bother with burglary can examine their books and merc....they say, and so did the nice officer who took my complaint.

              They were genuinely sympathetic, and posted my list..no calls in 6 months on any of it.

              But in that town, lots of pilfered stuff by tweekers...I think they know and don't always buy from some of the more obvious ones. I saw them turn some away in one store.

              I suggested that FFL dealers be required to examine such a list, inputted from ATF, FBI etc as well as local LEO, and be paid for finding anything that matched, the FFL dealer has to keep the record of the gun id now for 20 years afaik...it would be an extra burden on them to do so, incentivizing it would be good I think.

              This machine kills Fascists.

              by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:37:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  quaoar - There may not be 50 votes in the (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, Victor Ward, Penny GC, KenBee

      Senate for a "real bill" and Harry Reid isn't going to bring a bill to the floor that won't pass. A bipartisan universal background check bill can pass the Senate with some GOP votes. The GOP will filibuster a Dem only bill.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:27:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gun records (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      notrouble, Joy of Fishes, Miss Blue

      Meanwhile the gun guys post pictures of themselves with their big guns, and post using their facebook page about their guns, blah, blah blah.  They are leaving their own PUBLIC  record of their gun ownership.  Gotta laugh out loud!!

  •  Well, that was predictable (14+ / 0-)

    There could be a delay, so there shall be a delay. That's the Senate for you. Biden's right -- without record keeping somewhere, the law will be unenforceable, which is exactly what the NRA wants...if there must be a law, make it toothless. Then blame the toothless law and campaign on less gun laws.

    We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

    by tytalus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:58:50 AM PST

    •  Re: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, KVoimakas, Smoh, notrouble

      The question isn't so much whether or not there will be record keeping, but who will keep the records.  The argument seems to be between the side that favors enlisting the FFL as notary and trust and the side that wants to keep those records in the hands of private citizens.  This shouldn't be something that hangs it up indefinitely, especially since you can always require private sellers and buyers set up specific vehicles for maintaining their documentation.  There's a lot we can do with technology these days.

      •  PC - using the FFLs seems like a reasonalble (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, sethtriggs, notrouble

        approach that should satisfy both sides.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:28:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, Smoh, CwV

          I could settle for that (if it were offered for free, even better), but if we could get to a genuine peer-to-peer system; well, the developer in me would love to tackle that project.  One of my goals is to knock the complacency out of some of my fellow gun owners.  Too often guns are treated as just another household item to be hoarded and forgotten about.  If you're going to keep and bear arms, you should also have a stake in accounting for their possession and transfer.  The burden need not be heavy, certainly no heavier than keeping your insurance up to date.

          Also, at some point we're going to need to address the problem of gun owners who, by whatever circumstance, become medically or criminal incompetent to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  It's going to be hell bringing both sides to the table.

          •  Maybe when you take grandpas car keys (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Patrick Costighan

            the guns should be in the trunk of the car when you drive it away.  Maybe someone could start a public service campaign that would have people thinking through gun ownership along with driving safety. A middle ground is to keep the guns at grandpa's house, but in a locked case that grandpa can't open.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:18:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm pretty sure that gun shop across the border (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          S F Hippie, Smoh

          from Illinois that supplies all those guns to Chicago is an FFL.

          Why on earth do you think all FFLs are superhumanly honest and aboveboard?

          *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

          by glorificus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:41:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't but most are and do keep long term (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee

            records of gun purchases. We trust FFLs with the overwhelming majority of gun purchases and this seems like a middle ground that can move the bill forward.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:50:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Have you been reading about the minority of (8+ / 0-)

              gun shops that provide the majority of guns used illegally?

              Cleaning them up, which the ATF is forbidden to do, would help greatly, also.

              *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

              by glorificus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:21:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My understanding is that they supply the guns (0+ / 0-)

                largely through straw buyers. This makes the dealers records look clean. I don't see how straw buying can continue to work in such an unfettered way if a background checks are required for the straw buyers "private" sales.

                A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:51:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because there is no limit on how many guns these (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  luckydog, notrouble

                  people can buy and no record of their sale thereafter. I don't know about the upper Midwest, but in the fast&furious mess, the straw buyers were perfectly legal in buying dozens of guns and "changing their mind" and selling them in the parkinglot of the gun dealer. And the Federal agents saw this happening and could not do anything about it.
                  The guns are documented as far as the FFL dealer they disappear once they go out his door and they don't reappear until they are found at a crime scene.

                  If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                  by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:40:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That is the current system, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    glorificus

                    but if those parking lot sales require the buyer to have a NICS check done how can that continue to work? Isn't that the point of mandatory background checks? The straw buyers exist largely because they can't pass the NICS check. If they could pass they could have gone into the dealer and paid a little less.

                    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                    by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:25:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What makes the straw buyer comply? (0+ / 0-)

                      There's no report of the private sale.

                      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                      by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:30:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What?? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        VClib, KenBee

                        The whole point of ending the private party sales exemption is that there WILL be a report of a private sale. The dealer doing the NICS check for the seller has to retain the records for 20 years, like they do with records now. This system is already in place for sales across state lines. If the private party sales exemption is ended then there has to be a criminal penalty for violating that. Right now the seller just claims they "changed their mine" and sells them without any real risk of penalty to someone who can't pass the NICS check.

                        Because some people will break the law is not, in and of itself, reason to not have a law. If it was then we should repeal laws and burglary, car theft, even murder. They still happen, but we have laws in place to deal with those who would commit them. For starters, I would say that violating a mandatory background check should be a felony. Then they won't be a straw buyer again because they won't pass the NICS check to buy.

                        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                        by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:46:38 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  "there WILL be a report of a private sale" (0+ / 0-)

                          To whom? What authority is there to report it to? BATF?
                          "violating a mandatory background check should be a felony"
                          Who would be checking? When?
                          You mean, after a gun has turned up in a crime scene, after it has changed hands maybe several times, the number traces back to the original dealer? Then they try to locate the original purchaser and obtain that person's records? Since there is no record of the BC after 24hrs, it would rely on the seller keeping good documents. Do you have the transfer papers for the used car you sold ten years ago?

                          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                          by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:05:58 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Mandatory background checks... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee
                            To whom? What authority is there to report it to? BATF?
                            The idea is that private party sales will have the SAME seller verification requirement as a dealer sale. Here is a little info about the dealer requirements, from the DOJ.

                            I'm sorry, I am NOT going to support a federal firearm registry. As in, I will not contribute to, support in any other way, or vote for, any politician wanting to create a federal firearm registry.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:13:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  SO if I get this right, (0+ / 0-)

                            the private seller has to keep records of all purchases and sales (an A&D book) and report them to the Feds (Form4473), who must then effectively maintain a database of all those transfers.
                            It must include the name and address of the buyer as well as description and serial number of the weapon.
                            The private seller also has to be available for periodic inspection by BATF.
                            That sounds like a national database of all new gun sales is already in place and this would be expanded to include all successive sales, basically forming a Federal Registry of gun ownership, tying every gun, by number, to a registered owner by name and address. The only guns that would not be in this registry would be ones that don't change hands.
                            This is exactly what you say is unacceptable, isn't it?

                            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                            by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:56:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh No (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee
                            the private seller has to keep records of all purchases and sales (an A&D book) and report them to the Feds (Form4473), who must then effectively maintain a database of all those transfers.
                            It must include the name and address of the buyer as well as description and serial number of the weapon.
                            The private seller also has to be available for periodic inspection by BATF.
                            The seller has to use the services of a dealer who preforms the background check and maintains the records required as a part of that. This system is already in place, it is used to buy a gun from out of state sellers now. I have done this. The seller ships the gun to my dealer. I fill out the paperwork at the dealer and get the gun when the NICS check clears. My dealer charges $25 for a long arm and $30 for a hand gun to perform this service and retain the records. For private in state sales the seller could continue to hold the firearm until the NICS check clears. It isn't always "instant" and can take up to 3 days in a few cases.

                            The BATF destroys their records within 24 hours of buyer approval under the current system. For this reason I don't see why the BATF needs information about what firearm is being purchased if a sorted list of reported stolen firearms is made available to dealers. This would help to ease concerns by some that the NICS check is being, or could be, used to create a back-door gun registry.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:25:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So every private sale has to be run through (0+ / 0-)

                            a licensed dealer? And that's how the UBC will be enforced?
                            That I'd have to see to believe.
                            " I don't see why the BATF needs information about what firearm is being purchased"
                            Because they use that information to track where crime guns originate.

                            The records kept by FFLs also enable the ATF to trace firearms recovered by LEAs to learn when those firearms were purchased and by whom.
                            So, which would you prefer? Making it more difficult and expensive to get a gun in the first place for everyone, legit and illegit or making it easier to trace a gun back after it has been used in a crime?
                            Or just, status quo, anyone can get anything they want regardless and law enforcement can't do a damm thing about it?

                            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                            by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:00:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Every out of state sale already is (0+ / 0-)

                            run through a licensed dealer. A system is in place, handled by many dealers. Not all gun dealers will do this and those that do charge between $20 and $60 in my area. The dealer I've used for this service charges $25 for a long gun and $30 for a hand gun. Nothing new has to be created to extend this to in-state private party sales. It simply has to be made a requirement with suitable criminal penalties for non-compliance.

                            The information in a NICS check is already being kept in a way that doesn't allow it to be used to create a gun registry. However, part of the push against ending the private party sales exemption is a fear by some that the way the information is submitted it COULD be used for that purpose. I think it should be very possible to disconnect the NICS checks from dealer gun sales records so that no such backdoor registry would be possible. With due process, records about the purchaser of a gun can be obtained from the dealer.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:40:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  That making "violating a mandatory background (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          notrouble, KenBee

                          check ... a felony" is why that cop got to school Graham the other day. The cop said he was interested in keeping guns out of the wrong people's hands, not pushing paper.

                          I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but funds for follow up will be needed. Lots of funds.

                          *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                          by glorificus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:14:22 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Really. (7+ / 0-)

        Not about whether or not there will be record keeping? From the diary:

        But for two weeks committee negotiations have been stalled because Coburn says there should be no record of any kind kept of private sales. This sticking point is said to have sent gun-friendly Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia looking for other Republican NRA members in the Senate who might be more flexible in crafting the universal background check legislation.
        As for the rest, I suspect enlisting licensed gun dealers as go-betweens will work, although in Michigan the records are apparently kept by the police and no mass hysteria has resulted.

        We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

        by tytalus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:38:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  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:
                  KenBee

                  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 believe...so 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:
              fuzzyguy

              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.”
            http://www.foxnews.com/...

            "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:
                luckydog

                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 illegal.....to 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 possible...so 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 ]

      •  Would a state-based records system help (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, tytalus

        calm down the "tyranny" fears? Couldn't the FFLs keep records with the states they operate in? I realize they are "Federal" but it seems to me that the fear of a tyrannical gov't (or more realistically that propaganda tactic the NRA uses so effectively) could be eliminated/reduced from the equation if states kept the records. And, that would seem to be a compromise that Dems could offer to the gun rights group - it would be both an effective way to manage the records and help law enforcement do its job AND it would make Dems look reasonable and willing to compromise. If the right declines, they look unreasonable.

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

          If there's no need to involve any government organization in any aspect of the affair except in auditing transfers involving crime guns, then what's the problem?

          The registry panic is not driven simply be irrational fear of a federal government, but by extent abuse by public officials in states where such things exist.  It's not the fear of tyranny that's driving much of the revulsion, it's a far more proximate disillusionment with increasing of invasion of privacy and official antipathy (in some jurisdictions, including some of our largest states) towards gun owners.

          So no, a state-based registry is not going to fly.  We all agree that records need to be kept, but there's no reason for public agency to do it.

          •  There is every reason for a public agency (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CwV, FogCityJohn, BvueDem

            to do it. The only reason to oppose a public agency keeping these records is to hide trafficking of weapons. Period.

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

              Or thwart political efforts to curtail gun ownership.  We're not going to agree on this, so let's end it here.

              •  You might want to read your own comment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FogCityJohn

                one more time. I think you'd be all for it if it did what you just said.

                In any case, thwarting gun hoarding is a worthy cause, so I'm happy to join it.

                •  can we stick to the background check issue (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Patrick Costighan

                  instead of dragging  everything into the catbox?

                  The background check has a specific purpose: not as a means to deal with hoarding, or weapons trafficing..those are benefits that may result, but the check should be just for an applicant and the background, if there is anything that precludes him from purchasing, not having, a gun.

                  Police do not use the application to search for any guns if someone is denied the right to purchase having failed a background check.

                  The main issue here is adding the private sales requirement.

                  The attempt to keep gun id records linked to the purchaser is what is going to kill this attempted legislation, whether out of arrogance, ignorance, or lack of sincerity I can't say.

                  You can either compromise on this, with no loss of anything, or not paqss and pose as outraged.

                  I know what I prefer..a funded and enforceable background check that is useful and not exorbitant and overreaching.

                  This machine kills Fascists.

                  by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:15:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                    I'd add one more provision.  A 5 year sunset.  In all likelihood, reauthorization would be a no brainer, but a sunset would force Congress to evaluate the program and make changes as needed in order to keep it running.

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 05:55:44 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Re? (0+ / 0-)

                  As I said, we won't agree on that issue.

          •  Poor oppressed gun owners (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Penny GC, BvueDem
            it's a far more proximate disillusionment with increasing of invasion of privacy and official antipathy (in some jurisdictions, including some of our largest states) towards gun owners.
          •   "by extent abuse by public officials in states (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            luckydog, BvueDem

            where such things exist"?
            Examples?

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:53:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh please. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BvueDem

            A claim like this requires some kind of backup:

            The registry panic is not driven simply be irrational fear of a federal government, but by extent abuse by public officials in states where such things exist.  It's not the fear of tyranny that's driving much of the revulsion, it's a far more proximate disillusionment with increasing of invasion of privacy and official antipathy (in some jurisdictions, including some of our largest states) towards gun owners.
            Invasion of privacy?  Official antipathy towards gun owners?  Abuse by public officials?  Really, I'd love to see some proof of this.  

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:41:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

    I'd prefer the buyer and seller maintain records; you could actually spawn a cottage industry of personal trusts to manage the necessary documentation, and in this day and age it can all be done electronically.  In fact, the more I think about it, the more background checks and an individual liability insurance mandate for gun owners go together.

    •  who makes sure that the records are maintained? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, Glen The Plumber

      ...and how is that accomplished?

      Cheers.

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        The buyer and seller bear responsibility for maintaining the record.  In other words, if you encounter a break in the transfer chain from gun manufacture to crime gun, you have convincing evidence of an illegal transfer.  This is exactly how it would play out with a national registry.

        •  how does a background check on an individual... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, decembersue

          ...reveal the chain of transfer of the gun from manufacturer to the purchase at hand, if the checker (the gov't) has no records on the gun itself?

          Cheers.

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            If you're not going to build a national registry, then I as a seller or a buyer I have no excuse not to record the item being transferred.

            Private sellers and buyers should meet the same auditing requirements imposed on FFLs, and the small scale of the peer to peer trade + technology makes such a burden almost negligible.

            •  each gun transfer occurs w/ a full title history? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              ...how do the buyer and seller verify that title history?

              Can the "scale of the peer to peer trade" accurately be called "small scale" or "negligible"?

              And rephrased from above, who verifies that the "auditing requirements" are being met?

              Cheers.

              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, each transfer occurs with full title history.

                Appends to the history can be digitally signed and verified to guard against both repudiability and forgery.  

                Law enforcement can audit buyers and sellers when the need arises (in the midst of an investigation, with warrant in hand).

                •  so your system requires internet access...? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, decembersue

                  ...for all potential buyers and sellers, and a great big database of personal identifiers and digital signatures, along with all of the specific guns owned by specific people.

                  What happens if a private buyer or seller determines that a firearm's title history is broken?

                  And, repeating an unanswered question...

                  Can the "scale of the peer to peer trade" accurately be called "small scale" or "negligible"?
                  Cheers.
                  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                    You'll need a central authority for background checks, but not for anything else.  The keys (which you can expire periodically to ensure up to date background check information) and history store will be entirely in possession of parties to the transfer.

                    THe question of what happens to a buyer and/or seller when a break in the history is discovered is a matter of law.  If someone attempts to reintroduce a criminally transferred gun into the legitimate secondary market, the break will be immediately evident.  I assume law would require the recipient to report the incident.  As it stands now, even a national registry has to deal with non-compliance of this sort; either you're honestly participating in the system or you're evading it illegally.

        •  the government (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV

          should maintain the record. Forever. Period.

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

            Are you willing to burn a deal on background checks for that?  If so, why?

          •  stick with the applicant, not the gun (0+ / 0-)

            there has to be some presumption of innocence here, unless all you want to do is not get a better background check covering private sales.

            The govt does not need to know the gun id, it should be presumed that the FFL dealer, the seller, and the purchaser are all acting legally.

            Keep the applicant record, sure, exactly correct, the gun id is of no use. If it is necessary the FFL dealer has it.

            The only justification for the central database is for used weapons, guns that have not been recorded as has not been ever done, with many millions not able to be traced from the mfg as is currently done with new guns.

            That is a problem for law enforcement, but having that data national is a mighty task and would be useless until many or most private guns are transferred thru this system...and that record keeping will not pass muster, politically.

            The background check, yes, the registry, no, and certainly for private weapons as well as new transfers...new transfers are kept track of from the mfg to the dealer, so they are trackable now, with out some national gun owner database, it is available for new guns purchased thru the system, ie 'new guns', available to law enforcement.

            Conflating any registry attempt with background checks will fail...but I am of the opinion that the dems want it to fail so as to paint the repubs as obstructionist for a wider agenda, one that won't have gun control in it. It's politics, not public safety.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:28:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "it should be presumed..are all acting legally"..? (0+ / 0-)

              ...well, they wouldn't be acting legally if the gun was stolen...and gun enthusiasts don't seem to be suggest any way to make that determination except through the gun itself.

              Can you show any numbers that would back up your advocacy for the presumption?

              Gun enthusiasts don't seem to be able to even present numbers of private sales per year.

              Cheers.

              •  no reason to presume illegal, basic. (0+ / 0-)

                that is kind of basic to life here.
                Right or wrong...and this is a fundamental question: if you presume illegal we're done talking, essentially.

                1. a used gun's previous owners may or may not be known, it totally varies. Grandad may have stolen it in 1922, how do I know, or bought it from someone who found it, won it at cards, whatever...

                2. you asking for unknown numbers Fu won't work on me grasshopper.

                3.  A gun I purchased from a FFL dealer in 1984 may have some record of once being stolen somewhere, and it may have been resold by a police department somewhere...so really, there has to be some presumption of innocence here, otherwise you are being disingenuous and saying all used guns are stolen, and/or are likely to be.

                4. If I go to sell a gun, (and this concerns many people currently in possession of a gun they may have bought or been gifted many years ago), the thought that this can lead to new arrests of innocent people for ancient data is a good reason for people to oppose this what-looks-like-a-national database,..and again, are you for some progress, or if you aren't going to get a national registry, trash this UBC improvement?

                This machine kills Fascists.

                by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:01:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  as described, no backup for your assertions.. (0+ / 0-)

                  ...just some commentary about "may or may not" and "if"...

                  Cheers.

                  •  That nonsense is getting old LD, we've all seen it (0+ / 0-)

                    asking for statistics is cheap, do your own research, I would say you haven't.

                    I am suggesting a strategy passing this legislation for improving the UBC, a widely supported change.

                    Why are you trolling that?

                    Cheers? really?

                    I am not cheered by your constant repetition of this cheap tactic nor your apparent willingness to NOT get a bill passed that will improve the chances of keeping my criminally crazy in law from easily buying a gun...again.  

                    This machine kills Fascists.

                    by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:25:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it's your assertion, you can support it or not... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...either there's something to the presumption that you proposed above, or it's just speculation and unsupported opinion.

                      The rest of your comment is diversion...

                      Cheers.

  •  the records should last til gun/melted down (4+ / 0-)

    clime parches on. terms: ocean rise, weather re-patterning, storm pathology, drout-famine, acceptance of nature.

    by renzo capetti on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:08:55 AM PST

  •  Joe Manchin: Have you asked Susan Collins for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, PorridgeGun

    her support? Seems it would be an offer she couldn't refuse. I realize Maine's a big hunting/sporting state - but universal background checks are 90% favored. She couldn't say no, could she?

  •  Schumer's property seizure bothers me (5+ / 0-)

    I think Police Department's (Feds, and local govt, too) incentive to gain monies from seizures is reason enough to be wary.
     On one hand, if you obtain monies from illegal transactions, it could be fair to confiscate those monies, but to then seize someone's house or car because the transaction occurred there, goes against just punishment.
    I've never felt those types of seizures were constitutional. At the least, they are an excuse to rake someone over the coals, which goes against that whole "cruel and unusual punishments" thing in the Eighth Amendment.

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:34:32 AM PST

    •  "Schumer's property seizure" is an NRA ad... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      S F Hippie, stevej, KenBee, FogCityJohn

      ...and talking point, and it seems to have already been discredited. That's mentioned and linked in the diary.

      Additional...

      A menacing image of Sen. Chuck Schumer from a new NRA ad that claims the New York Democrat is pushing for a national gun registry, rather than just universal background checks.

       Schumer has repeatedly voiced opposition to a gun registry. The ad is playing up a slip of the tongue, in which Schumer meant to say he is pushing “universal background checks” and accidently said “universal registration” instead, Schumer spokesman Max Young said Monday.

      "The NRA knowingly used a clip, out of context, where he misspoke,” Young said. “He used the correct phrase — universal background checks — several other times in the interview.”

      Cheers.
      •  That's nothing to do with what I am talking about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tom Seaview

        I'm talking about the provisions under his bill for seizure of property.
         Read the bill. Read my comment, then go rant at someone else.

        "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

        by meagert on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:59:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "registration = confiscation" isn't "seizure"...? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevej

          ...ok.

          Cheers.

          •  That's nothing to do with what I am talking about (0+ / 0-)
            ‘(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
            I'm talking about the provisions under his bill for seizure of property.
             Read the bill. Read my comment, then go rant at someone else, again. But your too busy being righteous to understand what I'm talking about.

            It's the same used on old hippies growing a couple of plants in their house. In come the cops, there goes their house. Sux royal!!

            "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

            by meagert on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:27:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Is anyone seriously (0+ / 0-)

    expecting anything concrete to come out of this?

  •  We need a national registry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CwV

    and the gun control movement needs to make this a priority. It's the only way to identify weapons traffickers. In addition to legalizing Marijuana, we can substantially improve the situation in mexico by taking some responsibility for the mess that we are creating by allowing such proliferation. We are bad neighbors.

    Start hammering away at it now, and eventually the court will change and congress will change and we'll get our way. But it needs to be identified as a priority.

  •  Too much faith in databases here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meagert, Patrick Costighan

    I've been ranting for weeks about the inaccuracies of databases, and just about everyone here on Kos still thinks that a database is the answer.  No database, anywhere, is free of errors.  A database is extremely difficult to maintain, and every update introduces more errors (notice I didn't say "has the potential to introduce errors").  There will be no accurate database of who can purchase a firearm and who cannot, just as the "No Fly List" database is wrong (often horribly wrong), any other database will contain exactly the same type of errors.  Compounding the problem is the source material for the database, which also contains errors.  There is going to be chaos.

    What is the answer?  Hell, I don't know, but I do know that a database as complex as is proposed, containing every resident of the U.S., and containing the criminal and mental history of every resident is an impossibility.  More than 320 million people, many with multiple entries due to name changes, etc., each individually entered--think about that for a while, and then get back to me.  What computer system can even handle that much information, parse it and retrieve it on request?  Care to take a guess as to the cost of such an endeavor?

  •  So, just a thought, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, KayCeSF, FogCityJohn

    no more gun shows or private sales. Period. Only through a licensed dealer. Period. No need. Anyone wants to sell their fire arms needs to go to a licensed dealer. They don't want it, turn it in a gun buy back or donate.

    United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

    by Penny GC on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:32:23 PM PST

    •  Ok, I sell my firearm to my dad. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeff in nyc, Patrick Costighan

      How am I found out?

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:48:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When he commits a felony or (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KayCeSF

        resell.

        United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

        by Penny GC on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:51:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why? How do you know he got the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jeff in nyc

          firearm from me?

          And if neither of those things happen?

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:52:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            luckydog, KayCeSF

            the firearms sales man will see that the name on your fathers ID does not match your name in the file when they check.
            This will not help all the issues, but nothing will.
            If there is no felony or no resell, not alot can be done, but nothing IS being done.
            But when the name doesn't match then police are called for the investigation into who owns the gun and why it is not in the hands of the 'owner of record'.

            United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

            by Penny GC on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:05:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That is EXACTLY why a national registry (0+ / 0-)

            of ALL guns is crucial and the lack of one makes a mockery of BC. There's no way to know when a private sale takes place no way to know who owned what gun, so no idea if this was just bought today or twenty years ago.
            And the incentive for gun owners to register their guns is that possession of unregistered guns should be a felony. Just like a bag of heroin.
            That would  motivate people who take their guns places to get them registered ASAP. A little harder with people who's guns never come out of the safe.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:08:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  being legal would incentivize people if passed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Patrick Costighan

              I would not want the gun I bought ten years ago to be in some cold case file, I want to know and deal with it now, not by surprise someday.
                I may have lost the receipt to the gun  by then..or whatever family member then has it or tries to sell upon my passing.

              That record would be at the FFL dealer for 20 years. That is going to be another loophole...in 20 years :>

              If I buy, or if I sell, I want the UBC check, especially if dealing with strangers...buying from a FFL dealer store as I usually have I am not as worried about, their license if their business life.

              Some family members I have I would not buy from without that check either....and they probably wouldn't sell to me...and we avoid each other anyway...but should their child inherit, I would still want the UBC check just to clear the child and myself from any lasting legal juju associated with that gun. There would seem to me to be an immunizing effect for using the UBC.

              I already said to you elsewhere I think the ATF could incentivize the local dealers cooperation in finding guns involved in crimes that may be in their local database, the one they save for 20 years. The dealer I have bought from is a serious sheriff posse kind of dude anyway, I bet he reads the ATF lists in bed...:>...other dealers, not so much.
                 But dealers I have seen  would rat out a customer for $50 or $200 immediately, you betcha, imo....especially since I would bet their license is dependent on it. Those records can be examined without warrant by an ATF agent anytime, afaik, so oops! might well be a last straw.

              This machine kills Fascists.

              by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:08:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

              You don't need a national registry.  You just need an audit trail, and that trail can be maintained by citizens just as well as manufacturers and retailers do today.

        •  The real answer (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee, KVoimakas

          There is a good chance, even if the gun was in the database, that the serial numbers were entered incorrectly.  Or the original owner's name has a misspelling, or the SS# had numbers transposed.  About 1/5 of all database entries contain such errors.  For every false "positive" there is a false "negative"--that is how it is with a database, it is math.

          •  true that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KayCeSF

            but something has to be done and all issues cannot be addressed at once. Small steps to real victory.

            United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

            by Penny GC on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:06:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I just want everyone to know (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, Patrick Costighan

              just what a difficult task this is, and to realise what an expensive undertaking it will be.  If the IRS computers can't handle the citizen's database, and it is well-publicized that it cannot, then the government must be prepared for an incredibly expensive undertaking, and even then, the outcome will be less than 100% accurate.

            •  Re: Small Steps (0+ / 0-)

              Take larger steps and spend a few minutes thinking about the problem.  You can solve the issue of data entry if you have an audit trail that doesn't require a central database.

          •  Is that true for DMVs? (0+ / 0-)

            They seem to have some kind of error correction so that they know when your registration has lapsed.
            And 20% of all banking database entries are incorrect? srsly?
            I find that very hard to believe.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:12:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that wouldn't tell anybody anything, (0+ / 0-)

          since there would be no record anyway. Private sellers wouldn't be required to file records.

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

          by jeff in nyc on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:51:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except (0+ / 0-)

            there would be no legal private sellers, only lisenced dealers. No private sells!

            United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

            by Penny GC on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:56:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not trying to win an arguement (0+ / 0-)

              or score points (as this is entirely impossible with this topic) just would like to see all sales go through the proper channels and no I do not think private sellers should be legal. It is an opinion, maybe just mine. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Next!

              United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

              by Penny GC on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:59:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  You would not be found out, as far (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee, KVoimakas

        as I understand it. The question is whether we would even want the government to know of inter-familial sales, which seems a bit much. I don't think the spirit of Background Checks for private sales should include situations like that--certainly I am not in favor of it.

        “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

        by jeff in nyc on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:53:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oddly, I am in favor for it (0+ / 0-)

          I think it too big a loophole, and the simple protection from your crazy in law's legal tangles should be enough to justify it.

          It may well be a future change but one that may be too political to  do now, if ever.

             

          This machine kills Fascists.

          by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:54:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

      Pick an objective.  Do you want to reduce gun violence or spit on gun owners?  If the former, you don't get to say "screw you, period" and have that be the end of the conversation.  You work to accommodate everyone as much as possible and still be able to get the job done.

  •  Totally fucking nuts! (0+ / 0-)

    No records kept?  Federal law?  What is this the the middle ages of responsible citizenship?  Holy fuck!!!  I'm gob-smacked.  What fucking kinda of country are we running here?

  •  Please someone be kind and explain to me (0+ / 0-)

    why any background check for any gun must be destroyed in 24 hours?  Wouldn't keeping them on file not only set up a history for each gun owner for future reference, and save time and effort to do some of the research for another purchase by same buyer or even for forensics if said gun ends up as criminal evidence in the future sale or use of said gun by anyone else besides the owner of the gun?

    I confess I'm kind of ignorant about all of this, but I don't get it.

    President Obama suggested and is now trying to implement national records for health care purposes.  Why not for gun purchases?

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:04:31 PM PST

    •  Paranoia. (0+ / 0-)

      The big bad GUBMINT is gonna come take all yer guns iffn they know you got any.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:15:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because registration leads to confiscation. (0+ / 0-)

      So there is no national registration.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 06:18:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

      How about we just open up files on all Americans?

      •  Well, if they purchase a gun, (0+ / 0-)

        yes, files on all gun owners on a Federally run national system.

        All guns purchased should have background checks and, any transference should be run through the background system at time of selling a gun or giving a gun to someone else and then re-registered under the new owner's name, etc. etc...

        How about a real 21st c. central Federal agency that does all background checks to be filtered through the FBI and every police department.  Of course, I have absolutely no confidence police will use the damn thing... they can't even accurately complete any forms they use in their departments about arrests, crime scenes, etc.... so much is shoddy work and so for me it's even more reason a central Federal agency is necessary and not left up to the people who sell guns, the city and state police.  Regulate the whole system with rules.

        I'm with Biden... irked all to hell over all of this.

        I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

        by KayCeSF on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 01:15:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

          Why not on anyone else?  After all, if your 21st century data warehouse of Americans private information is good enough for those purchasing firearms, just imagine the benefit to society as a whole!  Why bother with a warrant at all?

          I can understand that you're irked, but you're not going to accomplish anything by taking out your frustration on lawful gun owners.  Work with us; it's not like we don't want the same end game.  And it's not as if a centralized public database of gun owners and weapons is the only way to stem the flow of weapons into prohibited hands.

          •  We are talking background checks, right? (0+ / 0-)

            I want background checks on all gun owners, any transactions by gun owners. period.

            I'm not taking out my "frustration" on anyone.  I'm saying to you, this is a long time coming, and we need to identify the guns and their owners.  Anyone arguing against a thoroughly done background check IMHO is irksome.  

            I'm not going to argue about this issue.  I've said my piece.  Peace-out...

            I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

            by KayCeSF on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 02:07:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Fuck'em (0+ / 0-)

    Any Dem in the way? Il showed us the way..

    Any Gopper in the way? IL showed us the way...

    Courage matters...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site