Senate gun bill would expand background checks
WASHINGTON (AP) — Gun control legislation the Senate debates next month will include an expansion of federal background checks for firearms buyers, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday in a victory for advocates of gun restrictions.
The announcement underscores that Democrats intend to take an aggressive approach in the effort to broaden the checks, currently required for transactions involving federally licensed firearms dealers but not private sales at gun shows or online.
President Barack Obama and many supporters of curbing guns consider an expansion of the system to private gun sales to be the most effective response lawmakers could take in the wake of December's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The system is designed to keep guns from criminals, people with serious mental problems and others considered potentially dangerous.
The overall gun measure will also include legislation boosting penalties for illegal gun trafficking and modestly expanding a grant program for school security, said Reid, D-Nev. Its fate remains uncertain, and it will all but certainly need Republican support to survive.
Reid said that during Congress' upcoming two-week break, he hopes senators will strike a bipartisan compromise on broadening background checks. Without a deal, he indicated the gun bill would include a stricter version approved this month by the Senate Judiciary Committee and authored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expanding the system to virtually all private gun transactions with few exceptions.
"I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks," Reid said in a written statement.
Opponents including the National Rifle Association say background checks are easily sidestepped by criminals and threaten creation of a government file on gun owners — which is illegal under federal law.
"We remain as committed as we have been to opposing gun bans. History shows us that gun bans don't work to reduce crimes," said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. He declined to comment on a potential compromise but said if the Senate considers Schumer's version of background checks, "We will do whatever we can to defeat it."
The NRA wants Congress to fund more armed guards at schools, step up prosecutions of people who file false gun applications and increase the background check system's access to state records of people with serious mental illness and other problems.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Reid's announcement, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."
If not included in the overall gun bill, an expansion of background checks could have been offered as an amendment. But that would have likely meant it would have needed support from 60 of the 100 senators to prevail — a difficult hurdle for Democrats.
Including expanded checks in the gun legislation signals either of two courses by Democrats: A feeling that they can win bipartisan support for the measure, or a willingness to essentially challenge Republicans to reject the entire gun-control package and face the political consequences in next year's elections.
It also pleases gun control backers who have said that in response to the Newtown killings, they expect Congress to do more than toughen gun trafficking penalties and boost school safety aid.
"Senator Reid's announcement is a tremendous step and we recognize there is still a tough road ahead," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, adding that his group would activate supporters to contact lawmakers.
"The majority leader's been a pretty steady guide throughout, and this a good example," said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg helps lead.
Reid said during next months' debate, he will allow votes on amendments including an assault weapons ban, curbs on high-capacity ammunition magazines and mental health. There is wide-ranging agreement that many states poorly report mental health records to the federal background check system.
Days ago, supporters of gun restrictions suffered a blow when Reid decided to exclude a proposed assault weapons ban from the gun bill the Senate will debate.
Reid said the ban lacked the 60 votes it would need and including it would risk defeat of the entire package. The ban's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to offer the provision as an amendment that seems certain to lose.
In a hint of possible movement, Schumer and two other senators who have spent weeks searching for a bipartisan deal are considering several options, including requiring background checks and record keeping for private sales at gun shows and commercial sales online. It would exclude in-person, non-commercial transactions between people who know each other. The idea was described by a lobbyist and Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.
Other exclusions could include gun transactions between relatives and acquisitions by people with state-issued concealed carry permits, and there would be an online background check system for people in remote areas. Veterans officially determined to have some psychological problems would be given a way to appeal that decision, which would otherwise bar them from getting firearms.
Besides Schumer, the Senate's No. 2 Democratic leader, other senators involved are moderate Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has an NRA A-rating for his votes, and moderate Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois.
Schumer has been insisting on record keeping for all private gun sales, saying the files are needed to keep the system effective. That led to stalemated talks with conservative leader Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who says the data would lead to federal records on gun owners.
On Thursday, Bloomberg stepped up pressure on Congress to expand background checks, saying it would save lives and win broad public support.
"The only question is whether Congress will have the courage to do the right thing, or whether they will allow more innocent people, including innocent children, to be gunned down," he said at a New York news conference.
"It's time for the political establishment to show the courage your daughter showed," said Vice President Joe Biden, standing beside Bloomberg and motioning to the nearby family of a substitute teacher among 26 first-graders and educators killed at Newtown.
Biden later sent a Tweet thanking Reid for his decision.
___
Associated Press writer Jennifer Peltz in New York contributed to this report.
The announcement underscores that Democrats intend to take an aggressive approach in the effort to broaden the checks, currently required for transactions involving federally licensed firearms dealers but not private sales at gun shows or online.
President Barack Obama and many supporters of curbing guns consider an expansion of the system to private gun sales to be the most effective response lawmakers could take in the wake of December's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The system is designed to keep guns from criminals, people with serious mental problems and others considered potentially dangerous.
The overall gun measure will also include legislation boosting penalties for illegal gun trafficking and modestly expanding a grant program for school security, said Reid, D-Nev. Its fate remains uncertain, and it will all but certainly need Republican support to survive.
Reid said that during Congress' upcoming two-week break, he hopes senators will strike a bipartisan compromise on broadening background checks. Without a deal, he indicated the gun bill would include a stricter version approved this month by the Senate Judiciary Committee and authored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expanding the system to virtually all private gun transactions with few exceptions.
"I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks," Reid said in a written statement.
Opponents including the National Rifle Association say background checks are easily sidestepped by criminals and threaten creation of a government file on gun owners — which is illegal under federal law.
"We remain as committed as we have been to opposing gun bans. History shows us that gun bans don't work to reduce crimes," said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. He declined to comment on a potential compromise but said if the Senate considers Schumer's version of background checks, "We will do whatever we can to defeat it."
The NRA wants Congress to fund more armed guards at schools, step up prosecutions of people who file false gun applications and increase the background check system's access to state records of people with serious mental illness and other problems.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Reid's announcement, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."
If not included in the overall gun bill, an expansion of background checks could have been offered as an amendment. But that would have likely meant it would have needed support from 60 of the 100 senators to prevail — a difficult hurdle for Democrats.
Including expanded checks in the gun legislation signals either of two courses by Democrats: A feeling that they can win bipartisan support for the measure, or a willingness to essentially challenge Republicans to reject the entire gun-control package and face the political consequences in next year's elections.
It also pleases gun control backers who have said that in response to the Newtown killings, they expect Congress to do more than toughen gun trafficking penalties and boost school safety aid.
"Senator Reid's announcement is a tremendous step and we recognize there is still a tough road ahead," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, adding that his group would activate supporters to contact lawmakers.
"The majority leader's been a pretty steady guide throughout, and this a good example," said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg helps lead.
Reid said during next months' debate, he will allow votes on amendments including an assault weapons ban, curbs on high-capacity ammunition magazines and mental health. There is wide-ranging agreement that many states poorly report mental health records to the federal background check system.
Days ago, supporters of gun restrictions suffered a blow when Reid decided to exclude a proposed assault weapons ban from the gun bill the Senate will debate.
Reid said the ban lacked the 60 votes it would need and including it would risk defeat of the entire package. The ban's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to offer the provision as an amendment that seems certain to lose.
In a hint of possible movement, Schumer and two other senators who have spent weeks searching for a bipartisan deal are considering several options, including requiring background checks and record keeping for private sales at gun shows and commercial sales online. It would exclude in-person, non-commercial transactions between people who know each other. The idea was described by a lobbyist and Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.
Other exclusions could include gun transactions between relatives and acquisitions by people with state-issued concealed carry permits, and there would be an online background check system for people in remote areas. Veterans officially determined to have some psychological problems would be given a way to appeal that decision, which would otherwise bar them from getting firearms.
Besides Schumer, the Senate's No. 2 Democratic leader, other senators involved are moderate Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has an NRA A-rating for his votes, and moderate Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois.
Schumer has been insisting on record keeping for all private gun sales, saying the files are needed to keep the system effective. That led to stalemated talks with conservative leader Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who says the data would lead to federal records on gun owners.
On Thursday, Bloomberg stepped up pressure on Congress to expand background checks, saying it would save lives and win broad public support.
"The only question is whether Congress will have the courage to do the right thing, or whether they will allow more innocent people, including innocent children, to be gunned down," he said at a New York news conference.
"It's time for the political establishment to show the courage your daughter showed," said Vice President Joe Biden, standing beside Bloomberg and motioning to the nearby family of a substitute teacher among 26 first-graders and educators killed at Newtown.
Biden later sent a Tweet thanking Reid for his decision.
___
Associated Press writer Jennifer Peltz in New York contributed to this report.
I really like how no one mentions this little tidbit. Biden gave a speech after Sandy Hook admitting that the one survey that said "up to 40% of gun purchases are done without background checks" might not be accurate because it only polled 251 people, it was done nearly 2 decades ago and the US government can't keep records to prove it. He is the only politician to actually admit the stat might not be true. The other democrats that have used it, don't seem to care if it's accurate, including our beloved fearless liar... i mean leader.
http://factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/
So where is the real statistics showing that background checks need expanded? I want to know. If they're shown to prove they should be expanded, then they should be. This isn't enough evidence though. It's fear mongering and avoiding truth. It seems to me the gun control advocates don't actually want to know the real statistic.
I have friends with basic rules about firearms. One of those rules is never sell one. Every gun owner i know personally follows this rule and it seems to be a universal truth. Again, show me the stats that prove me wrong.
Every gun show proves you wrong.
@factchekr More ignorance. Unreal.
Folks, this is what politics is supposed to be about - compromise.
You want something out of the Congress, you give something to the other guys they want.
You get your armed thugs in schools, we get to check up on the thugs you pick...
@OrcasThunderÂ
Owning a weapon makes me a thug?Â
@burton @OrcasThunder Only if you act like one.Â
But hey, change "thugs" to "persons"...we still get to check them out.
@burton@OrcasThunder"No, you don't."
Did you bother to actually READ the article?
IF the bill passes, and includes both the armed persons at schools AND the requirement to do background checks, than we DO get to do the background checks.Â
Fairly straight forward logic at work there.
What other valid reasons are there to test a persons mental competence? Becoming a public servant like a police officer or fireman? School teacher? Postal worker or congressman? How about people who handle money: bank tellers or cashiers at grocery stores?What about people with access to communications infrastructure, or public works?Â
Might as well just have everyone's privacy raped and do a mental health check on all subjects at least every other year, and create a federal agency to handle the whole process. Hire 200,000 people and exempt them from mental health screenings.@OrcasThunder @burton Â
No, you don't. Â
Why Using The âCriminals Donât Follow Laws Anyway!â Argument Makes You An Idiot
http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/why-using-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-anyway-argument-makes-you-an-idiot/
(some NSFW language)Â
@T H I S @ Orcas... Your buddy here missed the boat, as all idiots who argue this line of reasoning do, it is already illegal for criminals to own guns! In order for your logic to work one would have to say add something on the line that we need to check every person to make sure they are not raping people, stealing, or commiting crimes just in case they might. That is how illogically stupid that the argument is that we have to force all law abiding people into the lowest common denominator and treat them all as criminals until they prove otherwise. In every other crime we treat society as if they are innocent FIRST, not as if they are criminals first as this legislation does.
We pass laws that say that it is illegal to rape, steal, etc, on the notion that law abiding citizens won't do it. Here you are trying to pass a law against law abiding citizens that criminals are already ignoring. To say that not passing a law that only targets non-criminals is somehow anarchistic is plain backwards!
@T H I S That author is an idiot. There are laws against rape. How else can you say it? It's illegal to rape, it violently takes away another person's rights. No one is proposing removing laws against rape. People are proposing finding ways to make criminals follow them, forcibly or otherwise. Sick people exist. Women raped on college campus's have been told they're putting in a call box for them when they feel threatened. Oh wow, a call box, that's going to help a lot when they're pinned to the ground being violently raped. Instead of that, women should be given pepper spray for free, or be allowed to concealed carry on college campus's. But no, a call box is all they get right, because that's the best way to handle it.
There's laws against guns being used in crimes, just like there are laws against crimes. No one is suggesting we remove those. No one.Â
Gun deaths are not acceptable to 2nd amendment supporters, and we do care. We do however, have this little thing called logical reasoning. See, we have indeed had an assault weapons ban in the past. It did exactly nothing. It didn't prevent gun deaths. In fact, gun deaths per capita, have gone down dramatically with the rise of gun ownership. These are stats that gun control advocates don't acknowledge.
As for magazine capacity limits. It takes 2 seconds to drop and load a magazine if you've practiced it for 1 minute. It actually takes less time with a semi auto pistol. I carry a Ruger LC9. It only has 7 rounds in a magazine. It's designed for concealment in situations when you're wearing less clothing, like in summer. I can fire 21 rounds in 15 seconds out of it. How exactly does magazine capacity come into play here? Police officers have testified in court that the time it takes for a criminal to change mags is not enough time to take him down. Again, these are things that gun control advocates do not acknowledge. So instead of coming at us with the same crap, just like we come at you with the same crap, why don't we actually compromise, like this article is talking about. Â
I see some great exceptions in this bill for state concealed carry holders (the guys who follow the laws). Also good transfer exceptions for family or friends. Gun registration is universally bad though, and if anything in the bill would lead to it, you will never pass a single thing. Just stating facts.
@T H I S Garbage chute.....says it all right in the name of the site. Handy of them to label the quality of the content within for us like that. The author sure looks like a professor of criminal science as well. Â
I'm amazed at you finding such a compelling and rational article to change our minds with. Or it could just be trash as it says.
@T H I SWhy Using The âCriminals Donât Follow Laws Anyway!â argument is actually true. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts.Â
(no NSFW language)
@T H I S Great article - to the point and makes a sound argument.
Thanks!
I just cant figure out how this will help.... I really cant, the people who do these things do NOT go through regular channels to do this. Seriously, this is a waste of taxpayer money...
@Susabelle Then they need to add in the bill that criminals must follow the laws, problem solved...
@Gadsden @Susabelle But THAT would violate their "rights." Following LAWS offends some people, and the sheeple are all about civil rights! The way our justice system works, and keeps kicking criminals out to offend over and over, I have a slogan. "Screw em and shoot em........fight the courts when your perimeter is secure"
"The system is designed to keep guns from criminals, people with serious mental problems and others considered potentially dangerous."
So if I did not agree with the liberal agenda, would I be considered "potentially dangerous"?
Only if you stopped wearing tinfoil.
@T H I SLiberals have made it clear that they think guns and the people that own them are dangerous. The level of irrational fear is staggering.
@acepaul http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQV5cOOargxsdnO-mB7J2K57bvcWgAqTQeU8isS8p_9euVnkn_acU4u5kBW
@T H I S Guns have many other uses than protection. Ask any hunter. And if using guns for protection is a product of irrational fear then cops and military personnel must be real nut jobs. But not really, its the liberal fear mongers that lay claim to that title.
I believe it is the conservatives who are saying they need weapons to protect themselves. Â
Tell us again which side demonstrates the irrational fear?Â
@T H I S, Typical passive response. Be insulting. Grow up.
@T H I S We CAN'T wear tinfoil THIS..........YOU bought it all.