Background Checks Bill

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's the compromise bill in the Senate, though this is light on details:

 

Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) unveiled a deal on expanding background checks to nearly every gun purchase in a press conference Wednesday morning.

 

Manchin called the agreement a "first step" to passing broader legislation to cut down on gun violence.

 

"The events of Newtown changed us all," Manchin said, referencing the Dec. 14 mass shooting that left 20 children and six adults in a Connecticut elementary school dead. "Nobody here … with a good conscience could sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again."

 

Currently, only people who buy guns through federally licensed dealers have to undergo a criminal background check. The new bill would expand checks to nearly every gun transaction except for those between relatives. The background checks bar people who have committed felonies or have been declared mentally ill by a judge from purchasing a firearm.

Toomey said he did not think expanding background checks to cover current loopholes amounts to "gun control." "It's just common sense," he said. Both Toomey and Manchin are gun owners, and both have an A rating from the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun lobby group. Toomey said he added some provisions to strengthen gun rights in the bill, including allowing a legal gun owner to take his or her concealed weapon over state lines, even if that state does not allow concealed carry.

 

The full bill also provides more money for school safety and strengthens laws against illegal firearm sales. Proposals to ban certain semi automatic weapons and limit magazine sizes--pushed by President Barack Obama and other Democrats--have been dropped from the main bill, but could be added later in an amendment process.

 

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah have threatened to fillibuster the legislation, which could face a test vote as early as Thursday.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's the NRA response:

 

 

Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg's "universal" background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

[The Cysko Kid]

Ok so let's get the republicans to vote to find money to overhaul the mental health system. Oh wait, Rand Paul just filibustered it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, that's a hysterical joke. Which it shouldn't be, but it is.

 

If I had to guess, this bill isn't going to get larded up with pro-gun measures in the amendment process and isn't going anywhere, or it won't do much of anything because there will be no way to enforce the background checks, but we'll see.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay, some details coming out, and the original story doesn't have it all straight: the record of the checks will be kept by licensed gun dealers, but "The new bill would expand checks to nearly every gun transaction except for those between relatives" does not seem to be true. It seems like there are lots of private gun sales that won't need checks, creating a loophole big enough to drive a truck through: "The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved."

 

So, a step forward, but a very small one.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Is there anyone in here who wouldn't pass a background check for whatever reason?

[The Cysko Kid]

Background checks, which the republicans oppose,(and they should feel ashamed of that) is a pretty worthless measure that, unfortunately, the NRA is sort of right about. What good is it to background check James Holmes and Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza and Seung-hui cho? They're not criminals...yet.

 

A mandatory psych eval with the mandatory background check might be somewhat effective. Then the NRA could have their mental health question addressed.

[nunboy]

Is there anyone in here who wouldn't pass a background check for whatever reason?

Nope the extent of of my illegal activities was a speeding ticket I got for 6 over the limit back in 2000.

 

That cop was a dick by the way. Speed limit change from 45 to 35 and I was slowing down. he was running radar at the place of the change and I had not slowed down enough for his liking.

 

Which is part of the reason why I find all of this so frustrating. By no action of my own I am to continue accepting more and more red tape BS for the actions of some nut. I do everything by the book all of the time no matter how frustrating it may be for me. and yet I am to be further burdened, and if I somehow fall foul of the law through some unintentional mishap I get hammered. And when you fall foul of the law with a gun the results are much worse than a fine. Legislation like this just give .gov more room to nail you with some ticky-tacky BS that will forever remove your rights.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't think it's worthless at all. You'd just have to do it right.

 

Sure, it's not going to stop everything. But to take the VT shooter for a second, he had been diagnosed. He should have been in a system. He passed all of his checks (he lied on a form) and a better system could have prevented him from getting those guns. Could he then get guns in other ways? Sure. But a real system of background checks, run through the FBI, should make some difference and is worth doing. We're not just talking about mass murders. We're also talking about every day felons, thugs, rapists, domestic abusers, etc.

[The Cysko Kid]

Nope the extent of of my illegal activities was a speeding ticket I got for 6 over the limit back in 2000.

 

That cop was a dick by the way. Speed limit change from 45 to 35 and I was slowing down. he was running radar at the place of the change and I had not slowed down enough for his liking.

 

Which is part of the reason why I find all of this so frustrating. By no action of my own I am to continue accepting more and more red tape BS for the actions of some nut. I do everything by the book all of the time no matter how frustrating it may be for me. and yet I am to be further burdened, and if I somehow fall foul of the law through some unintentional mishap I get hammered. And when you fall foul of the law with a gun the results are much worse than a fine. Legislation like this just give .gov more room to nail you with some ticky-tacky BS that will forever remove your rights.

 

 

Wake up, its not just you. Everyone is burdened by red tape on everything always because of things othets have done.

[nunboy]

I don't think it's worthless at all. You'd just have to do it right.

 

Sure, it's not going to stop everything. But to take the VT shooter for a second, he had been diagnosed. He should have been in a system. He passed all of his checks (he lied on a form) and a better system could have prevented him from getting those guns. Could he then get guns in other ways? Sure. But a real system of background checks, run through the FBI, should make some difference and is worth doing. We're not just talking about mass murders. We're also talking about every day felons, thugs, rapists, domestic abusers, etc.

This is where my problem lies. What if say you go through a messy divorce or have a tragic family death and you get treatment for mental health reasons. Twenty years later you want to buy a gun because you are getting older and less physically able to defend yourself. You go in and fail a background check because of some note in your file that twenty years ago you were having a rough patch. You served in the military, you come back with PTSD you get treatment you rehab, but you still are considered a mental risk. Felony drug charges for nonviolent criminals. Laws based in morality that carry felony weights. I just don't like it.

[nunboy]

Wake up, its not just you. Everyone is burdened by red tape on everything always because of things othets have done.

And I protest them as well. And that certainly is not an argument to accept more.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Dear Friend,

Thank you for joining me in defending our right to bear arms. Right now, President Obama's allies in the anti-gun lobby are doing everything in their power to take away our Second Amendment rights.

 

The right to protect our family and ourselves from whatever threats we may encounter is precious, and we must defend it from Washington liberals.

 

They want to prevent law-abiding Americans from possessing a firearm while making it easier for criminals to use one against us.

As the Republican Leader in the Senate, I am working with fellow conservatives to fight back on the left’s attacks but I need your help to do so. If you believe that our Second Amendment rights are worth fighting for, will you please donate $5 to our cause?

The Second Amendment ended the “gun debate,” and it’s time for Democrats to understand that. Make no mistake about it; the far-left are using their allies in the Senate, the media, and White House to work to limit your ability to own a firearm.

 

Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters have been called “stupid” by Piers Morgan, and “heartless mother*****” by Jim Carrey.

 

This vitriol from the left must be combated.

 

For Freedom,

 

Mitch McConnell

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is where my problem lies. What if say you go through a messy divorce or have a tragic family death and you get treatment for mental health reasons. Twenty years later you want to buy a gun because you are getting older and less physically able to defend yourself. You go in and fail a background check because of some note in your file that twenty years ago you were having a rough patch. You served in the military, you come back with PTSD you get treatment you rehab, but you still are considered a mental risk. Felony drug charges for nonviolent criminals. Laws based in morality that carry felony weights. I just don't like it.

 

Those are real concerns. It's going to be tough to decide which categories of mental illness can't have guns, and which felonies.

 

I wouldn't think depression and the like would count. Something like schizophrenia should.

 

As for felonies, I'd think you'd restrict it to violent felonies.

[nunboy]

Those are real concerns. It's going to be tough to decide which categories of mental illness can't have guns, and which felonies.

 

I wouldn't think depression and the like would count. Something like schizophrenia should.

 

As for felonies, I'd think you'd restrict it to violent felonies.

But then we are asking politicians which are almost universally uninformed to make sensible legislation, and I just don't have faith in a single one of these circus clowns running the show. I would rather they do nothing at all than suffer through some ill thought out monster.

 

As a side note. The cynic in me sees this as nothing more than a backdoor at registry for all guns. Keeping files on every gun purchaser and every detail about them.

[runyon27]

I am leary of all of this because the government cant even deliver the mail without screwing up. I have no issue with background checks in theory. I have an issue on how they may or may not be implemented. Also, part of the issue with the mental side is on having states report that info properly so they are part of a background check. But as runboy said, how do you handle issues where you had a rough patch years ago and are no fine, how does that information get scrubbed or removed etc. So I think in theory lots of people support the idea of the checks, they question is how they are implemented.

[The Cysko Kid]

I am leary of all of this because the government cant even deliver the mail without screwing up. I have no issue with background checks in theory. I have an issue on how they may or may not be implemented. Also, part of the issue with the mental side is on having states report that info properly so they are part of a background check. But as runboy said, how do you handle issues where you had a rough patch years ago and are no fine, how does that information get scrubbed or removed etc. So I think in theory lots of people support the idea of the checks, they question is how they are implemented.

 

 

If something like that turns up maybe they send you to a trained psychiatrist to clear you. Does it inconveniance you? Probably. But you shooting somebody is a bit inconvenient for them.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The standard in some states is involuntary commitment, but that's a pretty low bar. The VT shooter was seriously ill, and was thought to be a danger to himself or others, but not involuntarily committed.

[The Cysko Kid]

Id love to hear the NRAs plan for overhauling the mental health system and exactly how they plan to define and identify the mentally ill, and their proposal for what to do with those people.

 

They've pointed a lot of fingers at mental health but haven't offered any sort of solution.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Background checks, which the republicans oppose,(and they should feel ashamed of that) is a pretty worthless measure that, unfortunately, the NRA is sort of right about. What good is it to background check James Holmes and Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza and Seung-hui cho? They're not criminals...yet.

 

A mandatory psych eval with the mandatory background check might be somewhat effective. Then the NRA could have their mental health question addressed.

 

Sieg Heil.

[The Cysko Kid]

Sieg Heil.

 

And you say woody doesn't contribute. The funny Thing is I agreed with both you and the NRA and you called me a Nazi. Awkward.

[calfoxwc]

As I understand it, this bill, Pat Toomey and the other guy, are working on, is just background checks by anybody who sells at a

gun show.

 

There was something else, but I didn't catch what it was, got a phone call...

 

It -won't- interfere with families' heirlooms being passed to sons and daughters, etc.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

BTW, it is a mistake to say the NRA does not support background checks. They don't support universal background checks- because

that is only possible with a gun registration database, etc etc.

 

The safeguard against abuse of that information, is to require that information to not be tracked or kept after whatever months. That prevents

it from becoming a gigantic personal information database of gun owners, etc etc etc. With safeguards in place, go ahead and expand

background checks to all sellers at gun shows. But eventually, the extremist anti gunners push it way, way past that. Even Biden and Feinstein

have openly admitted it's a toe in the door. Too bad.

[FairHooker11]

As I understand it, this bill, Pat Toomey and the other guy, are working on, is just background checks by anybody who sells at a

gun show.

 

There was something else, but I didn't catch what it was, got a phone call...

 

It -won't- interfere with families' heirlooms being passed to sons and daughters, etc.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

BTW, it is a mistake to say the NRA does not support background checks. They don't support universal background checks- because

that is only possible with a gun registration database, etc etc.

 

The safeguard against abuse of that information, is to require that information to not be tracked or kept after whatever months. That prevents

it from becoming a gigantic personal information database of gun owners, etc etc etc. With safeguards in place, go ahead and expand

background checks to all sellers at gun shows. But eventually, the extremist anti gunners push it way, way past that. Even Biden and Feinstein

have openly admitted it's a toe in the door. Too bad.

 

 

you do know that authorities can find credit scores and histories from your drivers license...

 

doesnt seem like much of a stretch for the same authorities to enter gun purchaser data to it as well..

 

thereby making it a permanent record?

[Legacy Fan]

Okay, some details coming out, and the original story doesn't have it all straight: the record of the checks will be kept by licensed gun dealers, but "The new bill would expand checks to nearly every gun transaction except for those between relatives" does not seem to be true. It seems like there are lots of private gun sales that won't need checks, creating a loophole big enough to drive a truck through: "The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved."

 

So, a step forward, but a very small one.

This was one of my suggestions several months ago when Cysko & I were going back & forth. Except I wanted online transactions/advertisements included in the BGC's. the online thing keeps people in remote areas from falling victim to price gouging. So I think it should still be a viable means of commerce, but should be included in the BgC's.

[Legacy Fan]

Id love to hear the NRAs plan for overhauling the mental health system and exactly how they plan to define and identify the mentally ill, and their proposal for what to do with those people.

 

They've pointed a lot of fingers at mental health but haven't offered any sort of solution.

Is the NRA the organization you want overhauling mental health?

No thanks.

 

They can keep defending my right to own and use a firearm though.

[The Cysko Kid]

Is the NRA the organization you want overhauling mental health?

No thanks.

 

They can keep defending my right to own and use a firearm though.

 

 

It's just a deflection by them. They're a right wing organization and when and if mental health reform ever comes up you can bet your bottom dollar the right will fight it with all their might.

[nunboy]

It's just a deflection by them. They're a right wing organization and when and if mental health reform ever comes up you can bet your bottom dollar the right will fight it with all their might.

One hell of a leap you just took there.

[Legacy Fan]

It's just a deflection by them. They're a right wing organization and when and if mental health reform ever comes up you can bet your bottom dollar the right will fight it with all their might.

Agreed.

 

I'd prefer to let the medical community lead that charge.

[Legacy Fan]

One hell of a leap you just took there.

If I may-

 

I think what he meant is that the NRA would see any type of mental health reform as a means to keep guns out of people's hands so they would fight that. I'm inclined to agree. (Jump in Cysko if I mis-spoke on your behalf)

[The Cysko Kid]

If I may-

 

I think what he meant is that the NRA would see any type of mental health reform as a means to keep guns out of people's hands so they would fight that. I'm inclined to agree. (Jump in Cysko if I mis-spoke on your behalf)

 

 

You were pretty close actually.

 

Nun, do you think the right in general or the NRA is going to really support any sort of plan to reform mental health? This is a serious question now. They say they want mental health reform but the type of sweeping mental health reforms it would take to make any sort of dent in the homicide rate (no matter how the homicides were committed) would

 

A: be expensive as hell. The right has shown a reluctance to support spending money on social welfare projects.

 

And

 

B: is highly likely to be a catalyst for keeping guns away from a lot more people than right now.

 

In short the NRA is using mental health reform to take the heat off of guns. Whether that's appropriate or not is up to your interpretation, but really its nearly impossible and would end up costing the good ol American taxpayer a mint.