Democrats, NRA Reach Deal On Gun Bill

[pipoman]

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

break

Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said yesterday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/

So much (once again) for the claims of the grabbers that gun owners and the gun lobby oppose all gun legislation. This is 'reasonable' legislation.

[Captain Hilts]

1. The gun lobby has fought background checks for years.

They've also fought restrictions on access to engine block piercing bullets, hollow-pointed bullets.

I'm a rifle owner and the gun lobby embarasses me.

[guntard]

2. If it wasn't for the gun lobby, you wouldn't be a rifle owner any more

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

wiki

Your concern about bullets confuses me.

[Captain Hilts]

3. The gun lobby has conflated owning rifles with owning pistols. Pistols are used to commit crimes.

Rifles rarely so.

So, the gun lobby is sleeping in a bed it has made for itself.

Fighting the limits on certain kinds of ammunition is an example of the gun lobby opposing all restrictions of firearms use.

[guntard]

6. I guess you didn't read the quote in my post above

Don't fool yourself, they want all your guns.

In case you have been living in a cave, that was the senior Senator from the most populous state in the Union, and she was referring specifically to legislation banning primarily . . . rifles.

[iverglas]

9. ah, good; clarification

It came while I was composing, I see.

Don't fool yourself, they want all your guns.

That's what Feinstein was saying - have I got it straight?

And you'll be offering your proof any minute now, I guess.

[iverglas]

22. well, not enough clarification

If you are asserting that your Feinstein quote supports your claim that they want all your guns -- and I can't think of another reasonable interpretation of your posts -- are you going to substantiate that assertion or are you going to withdraw it?

Binary choice, there.

Oh, of course, saying nothing and letting the false assertion sit there on public display is always an option too.

[iverglas]

26. some clarification is really, really needed

http://www.guntards.net/the-new-newspeak

Now Feinstein (along with Senators Kennedy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Clinton, Durbin, Boxer and Lautenberg, ie, the usual gang of idiots) wants to reduce the legal caliber to – what? – I don’t know, there’s no text of the bill available at thomas.gov, so all we have to go by is her press release. This is an incremental gun ban. Should this bill become law, Feinstein & Company will simply start working their way, bill by bill, down to .22 Long Rifle. How do we know that? Remember what she said on 60 Minutes in 1995:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them, “Mr and Mrs America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.

What ARE you saying???

[iverglas]

31. still waiting for that clarification

[SteveM]

38. I don't know about your "conflation" theory or even if such matters...

The weapon of choice for criminals is a handgun; still the .357/.38 class revolver. But since the vast majority of these (and other weapons) are owned by law-abiding citizens, I don't see the point of your comment. BTW, I keep the above class of revolver by my bed side.

On another matter, have you heard of any blow back from mental health workers on the civil rights of those adjudged mentally incompetent, sufficient to deny them the right to keep and bear arms? What kind of accommodation was made to get their support? Or are they not objecting to this legislation?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. More Questions

You write: 'The weapon of choice for criminals is a handgun; still the .357/.38 class revolver. But since the vast majority of these (and other weapons) are owned by law-abiding citizens......"

How many weapons are in the hands of criminals and how many are in the hands of law abiding citizens and when and how do guns from the law abiding citizens into the hands of the bad guys?

You write: 'On another matter, have you heard of any blow back from mental health workers on the civil rights of those adjudged mentally incompetent, sufficient to deny them the right to keep and bear arms? What kind of accommodation was made to get their support? Or are they not objecting to this legislation?"

Same thing from Veterans groups, but the legislation allows a review and appeal process.

[SteveM]

50. Don't know the specific figures, but a lot of crims get guns from ...

sources than the law-abiding: dummy front companies which buy guns legally, then "smuggle" them to "prohibition" localities, international smuggling, shady transactions between LEO and "unauthorized" purchasers; some are stolen and others sold unknowingly to crims.

I believe that some 99% of gun owners hold their weapons legally.

Here's another question: How many illegally-sold guns (say, in NY, Chicago, D.C.) are to otherwise law-abiding people who can't get a firearm by any other means to protect themselves? A question not often asked.

[iverglas]

7. alrighty now

If it wasn't for the gun lobby, you wouldn't be a rifle owner any more

Do you want to provide the proof that the assertion that Diane Feinstein would have imposed an outright ban on rifles -- that is what you're asserting, right? -- is not a lie?

Or shall I provide the proof that it is a lie?

For the seven hundred and eighty-fourth time.

I know you weren't providing your wiki link as authority for the assertion you made, since it isn't authority for that assertion. Do you have some other authority? I'll be waiting anxiously to see it.

Maybe you meant something else, and it just kinda came out as an assertion that Diane Feinstein would have imposed an outright ban on rifles. If so, I'm sure you'll clarify, and maybe explain why you weren't just clear in the first place.

[iverglas]

40. so are you going to retract your false assertion

If it wasn't for the gun lobby, you wouldn't be a rifle owner any more

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

that Sen. Diane Feinstein stated that she wanted all rifles turned in, or not?

[S_B_Jackson]

4. Correction.....

the gun lobby has fought ill-thought out background check schemes for years. i.e. their insistance upon an instant system and laws which prohibitted law enforcement from retaining records to create a de facto gun registration database.

The gun lobby hasn't fought making mental-health records accessible, that's been the bailiwick of the mental health lobby. In fact it is the gun lobby that's consistently pointed out this rather glaring hole in the current NICS system...

And if you'll look more closely, you'll also see that the negotiated agreement has laid out the path for the resolution of the next "reasonable gun control" issue that many see as needing to be addressed.....the so-called "gun-show loophole". The gun lobby's opposition to closing it, has always been the assessment of fees upon private citizens...under this agreement, the federal government will not be allowed to charge for performing NICS checks. If a similar agreement can be reached with the states, and a reasonable fee restriction - say a max of $20 ? - is placed on FFL's to conduct these checks on behalf of private buyers/sellers everyone should be happy.

Right?

[virginia mountainman]

5. What stupidity....

Engine block piercing??

Most center-fire rifles will bust an engine block, with standard ammo..

Hollow Points??? I take it you do not like expanding bullets then??

Well there go ALL HUNTING AMMO...all of it is designed to expand, matter of FACT, it is illegal in Virginia, to hunt with a NON-expanding bullet...

And if your worried about penetration, witch you evedently are, "Ball" ammo, the kind that does NOT expand, is the KING of penetration.

Normal ARMOR piercing ammunition is already illegal

See, the main problem I have with your post is, You totally expose how LITTLE you know about guns and ammunition in it. You are showing yourself to be another Caroline McCarthy, Who wants to pass laws, but does not even know what she is banning.

And she is not afraid to take her flawed message onto national TV and discrete herself to the point of "JOKE" when she does it.

In Short, don't make stupid statements...

[beevul]

10. Can I ask...

"They've also fought restrictions on access to engine block piercing bullets, hollow-pointed bullets."

Do you have evidence of this or is this just more brady nonsense? A cite please.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. You are Not Alone

I think there are *many* gun owners who are embarassed by the gun lobby.

[AandP]

30. What

Actually the NRA supported the original background check, and what does HP bullets have to do with this? The only gun I know of that is commercially available that will pierce an engine block is a 50 bmg.

The problem with this new solution is that it starts out as written and in a couple of years if someone goes to see a counselor they will wind up on the list.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. Nonsense

Read the bill....anyone can partition the state for redress.

[AandP]

51. I know

but it puts the burden of proof on the individual. It is the same thing as saying you are guilty until proven innocent.

[iverglas]

8. uh ... what?

The Democratic Party is a political party.

The NRA is a private membership association.

What exactly do they engage in "deals" about? And why?

Is the Democratic Party purchasing some sort of goods or services from the NRA? That's the kind of "deal" I can see a political party making with a private membership association. Maybe the association hires its services out to cater parties or something.

I'm really curious. What consideration was offered by the two sides for this deal? We do what you want, you give us money? What exactly is the National Rifle Association giving the Democratic Party in exchange for the Democratic Party doing what it wants? And how is such a "deal" consistent with the proper and legitimate activities of a political party?

Anybody else the Democratic Party is making deals with that voters and party members in the US might like to know about? Any other party policies that have been submitted for vetting by private membership associations before being announced/acted on?

I'll bet there are just scads of such organizations that would love to have the kind of audience the NRA has apparently been given with party decision-making bodies, and to have an equal opportunity to offer something in exchange for favourable policies/actions. A party could invite tenders, or hold auctions. Maybe ebay would be the appropriate forum, to reach the largest possible audience and reap the most benefits ... whatever they are ...

[DavidMS]

11. I think the deal goes somthing like this...

We write a law with your input and at the end of the process we come to some agreement that is acceptable to both and then your lobbyist goes to various Republicans in the house and senate and tells them to pass it or else. We get a system to keep the adjudicated incompetent and the formerly involuntarily confined from purchasing a firearm via a FFL and no republican will vote against it.

[iverglas]

13. ah

Ain't the democratic process grand.

I wonder what the "or else" part of the deal with the Republicans is ...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. Time Will Tell

My guess it'll be much like the AARP getting in bed with the GOP for the prescription drug plan.

Perhaps the NRA is starting to face reality that the GOP is getting kicked out of America's bed and it's time to play nice or get kicked literally out of the house altogether.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. Gun Grabbers? Talk about Paranoia

So much for the your claims that we or ANYONE are grabbing your guns !!!!

Talk about missing the irony.

[benEzra]

27. In other threads, you've called for banning half our family's guns. (n/t)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. Half of Your Guns?

..........and you still can't shoot straight with ONE?

Good grief.

[benEzra]

29. "I don't want to grab anybody's guns" and "I want to ban half your guns"

are two mutually exclusive statements. Make up your mind.

BTW, Jerry Falwell never wanted to outlaw all books, either. Just the ones he didn't like.

I (and tens of millions of others) own rifles with handgrips that stick out, and guns with post-1861 magazine capacities. We're keeping them. Get over it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. Get Over It Yourself

Show me *ANY* piece of legislation that permits the taking of a single already licensed gun from you.

No one is taking anything from you despite your fearmongering.

I'll leave you to make the ridciulous comparison of a gun to a book. You just sound silly.

[guntard]

49. 1991, California, SKS "Sporter" confiscation, Google it

Open your mind and free yourself.

[dairydog91]

41. Gee...

Maybe he can shoot them all accurately. What a novel concept!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. What's Funny

You know what's funny are the people on this board who said that *ANY* gun control law would be bad for the Democratic party.

Seems times have changed.

[beevul]

17. Who might they be?

"You know what's funny are the people on this board who said that *ANY* gun control law would be bad for the Democratic party."


Who might they be?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. You Know

;-)

[beevul]

19. I am not the one making the claim.

And I am not a mind reader. Who are YOU talking about?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. Of Course You're Not

:-)

[beevul]

21. So its an unsubstantiated claim then. N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. See What You Find

Do your own homework....as a donor you can search under Guns:

'not good for Democrats'

[beevul]

24. Not my job to back up your claims...

anymore than it is for you to back up mine. And the homework you asked me to do, well, that would be your homework, not mine lol, do it yourself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Like I Said

........my have times have changed.

[beevul]

32. They sure have.

"The NRA reacted furiously to the last major federal gun-control legislation, a 1994 ban on assault weapons, and that reaction helped sweep Democrats from control of Congress later that year. Vice President Al Gore's embrace of gun-control proposals helped secure his defeat in the presidential election of 2000, and Democratic leaders have been leery of touching the issue ever since."

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.

"This time, Democratic leaders dispatched Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a pro-gun Democrat who represents Virginia Tech's home town, Blacksburg, to reach a deal. But talks dragged on over issues of constitutionality and questions over how to institute a means to clear names from the system."

Times have changed indeed.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984

Edited to add the link.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Missing the Point Again

The NRA, which has resisted *ANY* major gun control law since the 1994 ban is now endorsing a gun control law.

[beevul]

36. Actually I was making one of my own.

The Democratic Party which opposed the nra since before 1995 is now working with with the nra. They sought out the nra to work a deal.

Like it says in this from the OP:

"This time, Democratic leaders dispatched Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a pro-gun Democrat who represents Virginia Tech's home town, Blacksburg, to reach a deal. But talks dragged on over issues of constitutionality and questions over how to institute a means to clear names from the system."

Is there something wrong with me making that point or Democrats doing this?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Not at All

It was smart of the Dems to reach out to the NRA (which they have traditionally not done) and it was smart for the NRA to get on board (which they have not done so in the past). My point is that I don't think the NRA would have even listened if it were not for two factors: 1) The Dems are in power. 2) Virginia Tech (regardless of whether or not the linkage is fair). The Dems had the upper hand (this time).

We'll see if it survives amendments which the NRA has said it will oppose. The NRA actually has a strong position, because they can appear to be accommodating in the PR after Va Tech (whether rightfully or wrongfully linked to it) while easily walking away from the bill when the first amendment is added. My guess there will be amendments, but we'll see.

[beevul]

39. A fair assessment...

Though I would add that pro-gun Democrats are in power.

Indeed, what gets tacked on could be interesting, but I doubt that anything that could jeopardize it will be. For one its too important to jeopardize. Also there just aren't people in a position to do the adding, with the intent to add anything that might jeopardize it. Noone in a position with intent to tack the provisions of hr1022 to it for example. It is possible, but I believe very unlikely. Too many people in the position to kill it with poison pills agree on the importance of passing it. Thats my read anyway. As you say though, we'll see.

Nice to actually have a discussion BTW.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Amendments

We'll see. I hope you are right, not because I oppose 1022, but because I think the proposed law would benefit the nation and reduce gun violence. It's a long road from brokering a public 'deal' to getting the legislation passed. If there are amendments, I don't think it will be just gun control advocates, but gun control opponents who may look at the legislation as too accomodating and offer amendments.

You write: 'Nice to actually have a discussion BTW.' Agree.

[dairydog91]

42. No, they said that stupid gun laws would hurt the Dem party...

It's not our fault that many of the laws that have been proposed were pretty dumb in concept.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Bad Laws?

Like which ones?

[benEzra]

47. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch comes to mind...

and Brady II (introduced early 1994 through most of the '90s) would have been far worse, if you've been following the issue long enough to remember it.

Banning protruding rifle handgrips, bayonet lugs, etc. is positively asinine when (1) stock shape is irrelevant to lethality and (2) all rifles COMBINED account for http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html">less than 3% of homicides, despite their popularity.

Bans on small-caliber civilian rifles are aimed squarely at the law-abiding, not at criminal misuse.

Another case in point is the hysteria about the FN FiveSeven, a .22 centerfire pistol that won't penetrate any vest rated to stop a .357. Kevlar-piercing ammunition for 5.7x28mm (and .357) is already restricted to military/police only by Federal law, but that hasn't put the brakes on the hysteria. Considering that the gun is considerably less lethal than a .40 or .357 (or even a 9mm), banning it is just silly.

BTW, if you want to see how silly the "assault weapon" rhetoric is, apply that exact rhetoric to something more familiar. Those arguments are asinine in that context, but for those familiar with guns, they're just as asinine in the context of small-caliber rifles.

[pipoman]

46. IMO this bill will kill 1022

When it comes to it the anti-2nd Congress and Senate members from mostly urban areas will be satisfied to be able to state that they were able to get any gun legislation through. The fact that a lot of pro 2nd constituents agree (or at least don't oppose) with this legislation will barely be mentioned in their districts. It will be all about how they strengthened background checks. After all relatively few voters will know the exact content of the legislation, only what they are told in one sentence or less.

I am a little surprised that there isn't language to effect private sales in this bill.

[slackmaster]

48. There's a good reason the bill doesn't say anything about private sales

The federal government has no authority to regulate occasional intrastate transfers of used guns (or most other things).