Skip to main content

Even the negotiators of the compromise Manchin-Toomey background-check proposal announced last Wednesday and likely to be voted on this Wednesday aren't sure they've got enough senators to pass it. Sixty-eight senators, including 16 Republicans, voted to break a GOP filibuster on gun legislation last week, but several of them had already made clear they oppose the Manchin-Toomey proposal. It would extend background checks now required of all gun buys handled by federally licensed firearms dealers to private sales at gun shows, over the internet and advertised in any medium.

Four Republicans, Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona, have all publicly committed to vote for it. But even if all the Democrats and both independents in the Senate backed the proposal, that would still be short of the magic total of 60 needed to beat a filibuster. And not all Democrats do back it.

It's uncertain how much impact on senators there will be from support for the proposal announced Sunday by two gun-rights organizations—the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Independent Firearms Owners Association. The splintering of gun rights advocates could make a difference. But, with its huge budget and intimidation-inducing ranking of congressional votes on gun legislation, the gorilla in the room remains the National Rifle Association. And it is adamantly opposed, having made an argument that amounts to a rejection of the existing background check law.

Toomey said on CNN's State of the Union Sunday: “I think it’s an open question as to whether or not we have the votes. I think it’s going to be close.” Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia appeared with Toomey in a joint interview on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday:

“We came here to do something. [...] “We’ve got a chance to make a difference in people’s lives. We have a chance to save lives and not infringe on law-abiding citizens of this country, gun owners like myself and Pat. We have that opportunity, and, God help us, if we don’t do it.”
As it stands, at least seven of the 16 Republicans who voted for cloture last week have made it clear they oppose the background check law: Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Two others, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, are also likely no votes.

Three other Republicans who voted for cloture have yet to offer hints on how they will vote on the proposal: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Dean Heller of Nevada.

Please continue reading below the fold for more analysis of the background-check compromise's chances of passage.

Republicans aren't the only foes. Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who both voted against cloture, will also oppose the bill. Max Baucus of Montana is still considering his decision but has given strong indications that he will be opposed, as have freshman Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Kay Hagan of North Carolina, on the other hand, long considered an uncertain vote, said Monday that she backs Manchin-Toomey. The 89-year-old Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who could be counted on as a "aye" vote, has been in ill health and absent from the Senate for months, which was the reason only 99 senators voted on cloture last week.

And as if these question marks were not enough, there is a possibility it won't just be red-state Democrats who oppose the background-check proposal but some in the party's left wing, especially if Republican amendments are approved that loosen gun regulations.

That left-leaning opposition centers on gun-rights provisions that were added to the proposal to lure Republicans. Not so coincidentally, those objections are the very reasons that the 41-year-old, 650,000-member Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms likes the proposal:

“If you read the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment, you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, and most important of all, the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry,” said the chairman of the group, Allan Gottlieb, in a statement.

“These advances for gun rights cannot be made unless we win the Senate vote on Tuesday to substitute Sens. Manchin and Toomey’s balanced approach for the current draconian background check bill that is pending before the Senate at this time,” he added.

The "draconian" proposal is the one Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York placed in the current three-part gun bill. It would mandate that almost all private gun sales be covered by background checks—not just those at gun shows, over the internet and advertised in some public medium—and require record-keeping that gun-rights advocates oppose, claiming it is a prelude to firearms confiscation despite the fact that the existing background-check law and the 79-year-old machine-gun registry has led to no such gun seizures.

Making predictions on the outcome on background checks is a fool's game. But something you can just about be sure of: If it does pass the Senate it will be even weaker than the watered-down version that Sens. Manchin and Toomey have drafted.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:10 AM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and Daily Kos.

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

  •  Would you like a cyanide pill with your bill? (20+ / 0-)

    Yes, even if the bill passes... well, they'll throw in enough pro-gun crap to make it worse than useless...

    And then once again, the NRA can scream about how gun control legislation doesn't work!

    I've seen this one.  Know how it ends.  Wish they'd stop doing remakes because I think it sucked the first time.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:14:39 AM PDT

  •  Gun Nut back groung check . (0+ / 0-)

    Anything down range ?
    Fire at will .
    But no shooting skip !

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:14:43 AM PDT

  •  I say THIS is cause enough for nuclear option (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RadGal70, FogCityJohn, Eric Nelson

    Of course, it won't happen, but IMO it'd be worth it.

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:16:17 AM PDT

  •  Does this mean (0+ / 0-)
    Making predictions on the outcome on background checks is a fool's game.
    I can't play ? Or that I should ?

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:19:22 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps it's best (6+ / 0-)

    If it goes down in flames, rather than be watered down to uselessness.
    If this goes down, something that around 90% of all citizens believe should happen, then perhaps more people will wake up to the fact that their government doesn't work for them.

    •  Reality Check (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If legislators were really worried about nationwide poll numbers showing support for or against a particular issue, they'd cast their votes accordingly. Clearly they're not intimidated.  Remember that 90% of House incumbents were re-elected in 2012, including many of those GOP obstructionists we read so much about. Saying no to what were popular or sensible policies had no adverse impact.

      Think of that when you talk about the president proposing raising the cap on SS contributions to help deal with its future solvency.  GOP and conservadems will all say no, and they'll all still win re-election.

      The only issues the majority of Americans consistenly care about for which they'd punish their legislator if he/she voted the wrong way are taxation and jobs.  All the rest are niche markets of passionate but not all that effective supporters.

  •  If the gun lobby is going to try to draft off (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the blowback from Newtown - Dems/gun safety supporters should walk away. Say the gun lobby used this tragedy as an opportunity to make gun laws more liberal and not less restrictive. Let them suffer the consequences in 2014 and then come back to the table with a less favorable Congress.

  •  Tell ya' what... (5+ / 0-)

    I'm packin' so much heat, I can barely walk. I got more metal bangin' into my package than some crazy ass 15th Century re-enactor clankin' around in a suit of armor and chainmail.

    But goddamn do I feel safe!

    Fuck New York!

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:27:10 AM PDT

  •  Another pathetic reminder of the insane... (5+ / 0-)

    ...fuckers that control our government, lock, stock and barrel. In this instance, it's miles beyond just being "pathetic!"

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:34:18 AM PDT

    •  I knew this result when I heard about Newtown (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobswern, flitedocnm, mikejay611

      This congress, the Republicans, the Democratic leaders we have, what's not to know.  At the end of the day, little children don't matter to them, the middle class doesn't matter to them, only $$$ matters to them.

      It was a nice try, and I continue to to participate in the fight by signing petitions, calling my congressmen, and doing all the right things.

      But I have no $$$.  I can't start up a PAC or a think-tank and promise $$$ to congressmen if they'll vote my way.  Yes, there are good guys in congress, but they are far outweighed by the Republicans and the money crowd.

      So I knew how this story would end.  As long as the DLC/Third Way have a say in how Democrats act, so long as the gun manufacturers spread $$$ around like it was rain from the sky, so long as Republicans gerrymander congressional districts, there will be no change.

      I deeply desire change for the better.  We've only ever had change for the worse.

      Tell me what to write. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

      by rbird on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:11:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why do republicans want you to get shot (10+ / 0-)

    but don't want you to smoke marijuana?

    Why is shooting people OK but smoking pot is call for a $20-billion-a-year prohibition effort replete with cops killing innocent people, 800000 arrests, clogged courts and feeding a for-profit prison industry, but they are OK with you hurting other people?

    WTF is wrong with these jack-legged sociopathic assholes?

    Since they want us to get shot...... [can't logically finish this sentence at Daily Kos.]

  •  Eventually... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hollowdweller, mikejay611, WakeUpNeo

    ...there will be enough aye votes. Just a question of how many more domestic massacres will have to occur to make it happen. Sad and pathetic.

  •  If it includes (9+ / 0-)

    The concealed carry interstate despite state regulations I rather prefer it fails. It's a trojan horse of the worst kind

  •  Not just massacres: (4+ / 0-)

    over the weekend in Clackamas County, Oregon:

    19 year old killed in a hunting accident,

    9 year old killed in her back yard when Mommy's boyfriend's gun 'went off' as he was 'practicing' inside the house.  

    •  and this bill would prevent this how? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No proposals currently out there would prevent either of those two incidents - assuming the guns were legally purchased.

      •  Because if people didn't worship guns (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, WakeUpNeo

        if there wasn't a culture of thinking it's 'manly' to swing a gun like a dick, or fast draw like John Wayne, if this country had sane policies regarding machines only purpose is to put big holes in something, neither of them would have happened.

        And by the way, at my school today we are mourning both the boy shot and the boy who shot him, both of whom we graduated last year.

  •  Apparently (7+ / 0-)

    You could kill a classroom full of six year olds and it wouldn't make a difference to some people.

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:43:56 AM PDT

  •  Seriously--Is Anybody Surprised? N/T (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, rbird
    •  Not me (0+ / 0-)

      You can see my post above to understand why.  It's too depressing to re-post it down here.

      Tell me what to write. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

      by rbird on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:14:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sen. Burr's "Veterans Second Amendment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    Protection Act" that he has been trying to get passed for years is included in the compromise.

  •  Probably a clueless question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, Eric Nelson

    But if the Senate already voted to break the filibuster, why is the 60-vote margin still required?

  •  Utterly predictable (5+ / 0-)

    we have reached the point where the bill is so watered down that it will do more harm than good in the long term.

    Wish I could say that I never saw it coming.

    •  Exactly--you could write this same (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RadGal70, rbird, mikejay611

      diary about every single item on the Democratic agenda from any time in the last 50 years and it wouldn't be any different.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:55:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Smoke and mirrors (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm pretty sure we all called this from the onset. There was no way Republicans Senators were going to get behind gun laws unless:

       a) there was something in it for them or

      b) they made it appear as if they were acting on behalf of constituents only later to be able to throw up their hands and sigh in bewilderment over what could have ever happened to overturn that daRned bill.

      Strange but not a stranger.

      by jnww on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 11:01:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Back in December I predicted that we'd do nothing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, rbird, mikejay611

    Here we are, about to do nothing.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:54:21 AM PDT

    •  For the Left, this worse than "nothing" (0+ / 0-)

      From what I'm reading, this amounts to a WIN for the Right.  I should have suspected as much.  Toomey is a pure-blood conservative in all things, and Manchin would have been a republican just ten years ago.  When they got on board, I should have suspected that this was a trojan horse.

      It's best for the Left that this just die and go away.  This is lose-lose, either way.  Pass it, and it will be ineffective, and actually make things worse.  The GOP will be snickering behind closed doors.  And, the GOP will go all "Gun Control!" crazy on Dems in the next election.  

      Let it die, and it will depress the hard-Left Dem base for a while, and "squander" the momentum of the Newtown shootings.  Come to think of it, Dems are pretty good at squandering momentum (see 2008, 2012 elections).  Oh, and the GOP will still go all "Gun Control!" crazy on Dems in rural and red districts in 2014.

      I said in December that "gun control" was  a loser issue, even in 2013.  I said that Dems should resist the temptation, as they did in the 1990's and 2000's, to get sucked into a gun debate.  Guns are to the Dems somewhat like the sex/contraception/rape talk is to the GOP.  No matter what you think about it, just don't talk about it, because no good can come from it, and potentially there is a lot of bad.  

      Seems I was right....

  •  Matter of several election cycles? (7+ / 0-)

    I still think so. It is a matter of persistence. Republicans know how to persist, you know. Do supporters of gun safety?
    I worked on abolishing the ban on gays in the military. I got beat down in 1993, finally won in 2011. Newborn babies of 1993 reached voting age.

    Censorship is rogue government.

    by scott5js on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 09:57:25 AM PDT

  •  Ignore the gun nut lobby (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, Eric Nelson, mikejay611

    Only in the bizarro dual reality of the right wing mob does the National Rifle Association and the various collection of gun nuts that have been drawn out by this debate speak for any large percentage of Americans. The country has made it abundantly clear in poll after election after public demonstration that they want common sense gun regulations that will save lives. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did not bestow upon us a divine right to own machine guns and ammo clips with ore than 100 armor-piercing bullets. The media and our lawmakers must stop giving attention to the idiots at the NRA. Ignore them and listen to real Americans.   - progressive

  •  GOP will coalesce behind Manchin Toomey Amdt (0+ / 0-)

    since the second amendment foundation is claiming it helped write the amendment.  Alan Gottlieb claims the amendment is a Christmas tree and that we'll win gun rights back like crazy.  I think we snookered the other side and they haven't figured it out yet.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:05:06 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, Harry. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas, mikejay611

    You suck.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:06:05 AM PDT

  •  House will vote only on Toomey-Manchin Amdt (0+ / 0-)

    and will then run ads against any Dems that oppose it.  They'll be labelled by the GOP as opposing background checks, even though bill actually expands gun rights, rather than curtailing them.  The media, as always will blindly regurgitate whatever the GOP says, since they are incapable of independent analysis.

    Our modern GOP on display.  Cynical and self-serving to the core.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:13:16 AM PDT

  •  Pure Smokescreen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Just like the affordable care act, whatever comes out will be pretty useless.
    I get the feeling Obama is only out to score points for his legacy, in whatever he does.
    While all the noise and angst surrounds 'gun control', a vastly more important budget drama is unfolding where O is getting ready to sell out the underclass in the name of 'legacy'.

  •  Idea? - Have Fed Bkgnd U.S. all and tag each (0+ / 0-)

    and every citizen with a rating.

    We're headed there sooner or later;

    I'm just sayin,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:21:00 AM PDT

  •  After talking to my conservative friends.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I can see that even if this bill passes, it will be next to useless.

    Now, first off.. the bill would not stop most mass murders.. the ones in recent years have all used legally bought firearms by people who passed background checks.

    You cannot prevent, with legislation at least, an unauthorized person in a house (like Adam Lanza) from stealing legals guns and going on a rampage.

    Second - private sales will go on off the books by sellers who knowingly sell to criminals.

    What I had hoped for, however, was that universal background checks would halt some of the unintentional private sales to persons who should not own firearms... i.e. people with criminal backgrounds or mentally ill.

    After talking to some friends and reading conservative blogs, however, I see that the hard core 2nd Amendment folks will simply ignore this law and continue to buy and sell without background checks.

    Sad.. but even these otherwise law-abiding gun owners do not see this as the responsible thing to do.  Nuts.

    •  If high capacity drums were banned.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bon Temps, a2nite well as the assault rifle, he wouldn't have had them to steal. Bans are the only long term solution.

      What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

      by Cpqemp on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 12:20:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Take the Win on Background Checks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikejay611, CoExistNow, KenBee

    For years Democrats have complained against the Gun Show loophole.  the T-M version closes it.

    If Democrats fail to get a win on Gun safety, the NRA will have a major victory that will discourage Democrats from non-solid Blue areas from ever supporting future reforms.

    Gun safety advocates may way to strengthen the Background check by having the Federal government prosecute those who submit fraudulent info for their background check.  As Republicans have raised this as a failing of current checks, put this in because it will be difficult for them to oppose.

    The NRA will never support any reform, as if they agreed to any reform, they expect reformers to advocate something much stronger.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:42:27 AM PDT

  •  GOP is eye-balling national reciprocity amendment (4+ / 0-)

    WaPo - 2 days ago

    But two new key players in the gun debate, Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), both with long records of backing expanded gun rights, said this week that their bipartisan proposal to expand the gun background check system amounted to the first step towards national reciprocity. And the presence of a number of pro-gun Democrats could mean the votes are there to make it happen.

    The bill filed Thursday by Manchin and Toomey includes some new provisions that gun rights advocates like — including one that allows gun sellers to more easily transport their merchandise between states. However, the bill does not require concealed-carry reciprocity among states, a provision requested by Toomey that was flatly rejected by Democrats this week during closed-door negotiations,
    There was, however, an informal agreement to vote on the measure as an amendment, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

    John Thune offered this amendment last go round.
    It would grant individuals who have a concealed-carry permit in one state the right to transfer that privilege to another state. The proposal earned 58 votes in the Senate — two short of the magic 60 needed to advance the bill to final passage — but enough to worry gun control groups.
    If that is the final teaser needed for passage Then it looks like a move backward at that point.

    Remove Christopher Cox - NRA lobbyist - from the negotiating table and things could be a lot different imo.

  •  Lets hope this fails. (0+ / 0-)

    It's a farce. It's watered down bullshit. The toughest part of the bill punishes anyone who creates a registry. WTF! What is the GOP's fear of information?

    This is exactly what the NRA wants. A tired populace believing that we've taken real steps. While the REAL solutions (bans of high capacity drums, assault rifles, and gun shows) get swept back under the rug.

    The slaughter continues.

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 12:15:11 PM PDT

  •  So moldy crumbs or nothing nt (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site