Skip to main content

Universal background check for gun buyers
 not dead yet, but it's breathing is ragged.
Three months ago, in the immediate aftermath of the 12/14 Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school slaughter, quite a few Democratic senators were on the fence about an assault weapons ban. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had previously opposed a ban, seemed ambivalent. And he promised it would get a vote on the Senate floor. Not that any close observer thought the ban ever had a chance to avoid a Republican filibuster.

But Reid's remarks Tuesday were striking when he announced he was cutting loose the ban proposed in January by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. He said the ban didn't even have 40 supporting votes in the Senate. That means at least 13 Democrats wouldn't support it, which means that some who indicated they were probably for it back in December and January have bailed.

The question is, have a crucial number also expressed opposition to a universal background check on all gun purchases, both from licensed dealers and private sellers? It sounds as if some may have.

Nothing will happen on gun legislation until after the Easter recess. Reid plans to return in April with a diluted package of gun-control measures. Most likely this will include a bill that would make gun trafficking a felony and mandate tougher penalties for it, and another to extend more federal support for school safety. Those two bills, both voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would be merged into a single piece of legislation. The assault weapons ban and a limit on the capacity of gun magazines would only be considered as amendments, Reid told Feinstein to her consternation on Monday.

It's not yet certain where the universal background checks will appear. Part of the main proposal, or only as an amendment? Can a proposal supported in poll after poll by around 90 percent of the American public, including gun-owners and members of the National Rifle Association, actually be in trouble?

In this regard, Alex Koppelman at The New Yorker raises an interesting point:

In order to trade a ban for background checks, gun-control advocates probably needed to show that there was at least a slim chance a ban could become law. They’ve failed to do that. So now what reason do moderate Republicans—whose votes will be necessary in both the Senate and the House—have to buck their party and vote for background-check legislation that the N.R.A. strongly opposes? What reason do Democrats in battleground states and districts have to put their reëlection on the line? That it’s the right thing to do? That most people in the U.S. support it? These things have never been enough.
A universal background check law isn't dead yet. But it is clearly on life support. And probably any legislation along that line will be weakened by Republican opposition to including any record-keeping as part of it. Record-keeping is seen by gun-rights advocates as a prelude to gun confiscation. That's so even though records have been kept of registered machine-guns for 78 years, and the only such weapons confiscated are those whose owners committed felonies. A background check law for private gun sales without any record-keeping would be ineffective, according to its leading sponsor, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York as well as other gun-control advocates. Indeed, such a measure without any record-keeping isn't worth passing.

Three months ago, it seemed unthinkable to all but a few observers that the only new gun legislation that would emerge from the Newtown slaughter would be lukewarm addendums to what is already being done. Unthinkable that the most sensible legislation imaginable, running background checks on everybody seeking to buy a gun, might not be able to find a majority in the U.S. Senate.

But that was when even people solidly familiar with the political clout of the National Rifle Association figured the organization would be gravely weakened by the tragedy in Newtown together with the clumsy, in-your-face response of its executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. After all, the NRA's millions in campaign contributions in 2012 had produced a pitiful result. But the gun industry's mouthpiece has proved that it remains a thoroughly formidable foe and quite capable of victories even with the blood of 20 dead first-graders still wet in our memories.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:17 PM PDT.

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

  •  Maybe a Surgeon General's Warning on the (23+ / 0-)

    packaging?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:18:58 PM PDT

  •  given some of the pushback I received (34+ / 0-)

    on the diary I put up earlier on gun registration, we have major opposition within the Daily Kos community as well

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:22:02 PM PDT

  •  Records (1+ / 0-)

    Isn't there a compromise where they could be destroyed after a period of time?

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:23:40 PM PDT

    •  Why couldn't we just not mention the gun purchase (2+ / 0-)

      within the context of the background check documentation? Or is that already omitted?

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:30:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (3+ / 0-)

        When conspiracy speaks of background checks, he's more concerned with the audit trail for a firearm rather than dealing with NICS hits or the like.  Basically, it's the problem of determining the last lawful owner of a crime gun.

        We've typically married this issue with background checks because they're natural fits for one another: sellers would like to some assurance that their buyers aren't prohibited persons and law enforcement would like some way to identify people who knowingly leak to the black market. Presumably you could use the same system you use to trace guns to verify the qualifications of buyer and seller.

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

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:40:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes, when you fill out a 4473 (2+ / 0-)

        The ATF only knows you intend to buy a handgun or a long gun (rifle, shotgun) or a serialized part of an incomplete firearm considered 'the' gun legally (for instance, an AR-15 lower, a Kalashnikov receiver 'blank') .

        No further detail about the firearm is recorded, all the rest is about you.

        •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bailey2001

          And provided you pass the check, the background check record is eventually (if the law is followed) discarded with the exception of the transaction number.

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

          by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:27:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Correct (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            There's no way to query an individual to 'trace' how many firearms they have, and which particular ones.

            You can only query a particular firearm's serial number and trace it's chain of custody from the manufacturer to dealer to the first person the dealer sold it to.

            •  Re (0+ / 0-)

              Not exactly true.  The transaction number can be linked to purchaser via the FFL's bound book.  The BATFE has authority to audit these once a year (although Schumer's bill neglects any such requirement for auditing third party transfers).

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

              by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:12:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, they can see how many you bought or sold (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader, LilithGardener

                in one transaction.

                But the ATF cannot easily know how many firearms a person owns aside from the ones listed in any given transaction.

                •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                  Define "easily."  It's no more difficult than examining bank records.

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

                  by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:37:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  defined as (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PsychoSavannah

                    easy:
                    building a data base to collect transaction IDs using a persons unique identifier so one can  (at any time) simply look up a DL#, SSN, etc and say:

                    John Doe
                    Firearms owned:  26

                    Ar15            serial xxxxx date xx/xx/xx
                    Ar-15           serial xxxxx date xx/xx/xx
                    Ar-15 lower serial xxxxx date xx/xx/xx
                    Glock           serial xxxxx  date xx/xx/xx
                    .
                    .
                    .

                    Not-easy:

                    Once a year audit all FFL books and keep track of how many times John Doe has purchaced weapons, and which weapons they were.  document, then repeat for John Doee, Johan Doe, Bob Baker, Mike smith, etc.

                    One is a registry.  One is a way to occasionally keep tabs on a person of interest whos possibly already under investigation.

                    One is a fishing expedition, one is a hunting trip.

                    •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                      Your method is certainly lazier.  And a lot of things are easier when you don't have to worry about the Fourth Amendment.

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

                      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:02:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  one degree in engineering, one in business (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener

                        Lazy is efficient, efficient is profitable.  I had that beat into my head throughout college and it paid off afterwards.

                        Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, you say registry, I say database, tomato/tomato, and all that jazz.

                        •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                          Depends.  You get too lazy and you might end up in court.  In any case, you're not getting your national database.  Time to revise your specs.

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

                          by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:53:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't want them to have a datbase (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            registry, etc.

                            I'm fine with the ATF knowing who I am.  I'm fine with a background check every time I buy a firearm, because while I do own them it's not often that I buy a new one.

                            I'm fine with a super-duper-provide-us-with-references-employment-history-and-your-college-grades background check, like you get from the NSA when you get a security clearance (yup, passed that, at least twice that I know of). I'm fine with a national FOID card.  I'm a proven good guy.

                            Register me all you want, but not my firearms.  If I'm good enough/reliable enough, that all that should matter.  I'm the one responsible/liable for each and every trigger pull, without me the gun is nothing (sounds like the infantry "this is my rifle' creed, huh)?

                          •  What if people could choose? (0+ / 0-)

                            Either choose a low level security clearance of the person at the level you describe, OR simple NICS screen and registry of all firearms (recorded by and records kept at an FFL).

                            Your way certainly costs more money. But I'd be fine with people screened at a higher level having more freedom.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:59:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your compromise is already the law of the land (0+ / 0-)

                            "Low level" security as I describe it, is the staus quo right now.  Every purchase you make, you fill out a 4473, it goes to the NICS, they send back a go/no-go answer on the buyer.

                            "high level" security.  I submit to a higher level of scrutiny, more paperwork, longer waiting period.  I pay a 200 dollar fee.  6 months from now, with a clean history, and if my locality doesn't have a law against it, I can buy a real fully-automatic weapon.  People can do this, right now, if they have the 5,000 to 50,000 laying around to purchase a grandfathered NFA-registered 'machine gun'.  Or a new silencer.  Or a short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, or the catch-all category for not-quite-handguns/not-quite-longguns "Any Other Weapons".  NFA items are all registered with the government (with added scrutiny).

                            Beyond that, what would you offer as a realistic compromise, that gun owners currently don't have?  Maybe a federal law prohibiting states from banning NFA items so anybody, anyplace can own them with a clean record and the right paperwork?  Maybe opening the NFA registry so that a owner, with the right paperwork, can build a new machine gun (currently, no new NFA registered machine guns could be added after 1986)

                            In a compromise, both sides have to give a little to get a little.

                          •  Your compromise is already the law of the land (0+ / 0-)

                            No, I don't think so.

                            Private sales and gifts don't go through any kind of background check or record keeping.

                            There no sanction for failing to report a gun lost or stolen.

                            A large number of "private sellers" at gun shows are actually unlicensed dealers turning over hundreds of firearms without background checks, and openly selling to people who they know could not pass a background check.

                            That loop hole needs to close and NY is one state that is working with gun show operators to close it. Operators now have to implement an inventory control system, in which they tag every gun going into a show, and check every gun coming out to see if it was sold, and if a background check was performed. They also have to hire sufficient security to inhibit unlawful transfers in the parking lot. I'd like to "best practices" like that spread to other states.

                            Nationally?

                            I'd be willing to let go of registration for universal background checks - background checks on private sellers would have to clear through an FFL. I'd even support a new class of FFL that carries no inventory but can perform background checks, and keep a book of records for 20 years. Sort of like a notary for firearms transfers. I'm all for distributed records as long as periodic random inspection is allowed. (suppose 5% of FFLs would be inspected each year, randomly - with first time minor infractions subject to corrections, and subsequent infractions or serious infractions subject to temporary loss of license, etc.)

                            And I'd support more concealed carry permits - if they were dependent on proficiency testing in firearm safety, accurate target shooting (including a moving target test that requires reacting and discriminating between a friendly and threatening target), and basic knowledge of firearm law.

                            I'm fine with what we have in New York. No open carry except the police. I have retired LEO friends and I'm sure I have other friends with CCW permits. They never talk about it; I almost never see their firearms. I like it that way. They don't carry when they go out drinking or to a concert, etc. But the do carry when camping in the Adirondacks or when going out in Long Island Sound on a boat.

                            My main area of interest re new reforms is better enforcement of existing law, through better QC and more timely data at NICS, laws that separate lawful alcohol from lawful RKBA, and laws that separate unsecured firearms from the hands of minor children.

                            There are too many so-called accidental shootings. There needs to be public education and graduated sanctions for people who prove to be a menace with a firearm.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:02:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No firearms owner will argue (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            with better enforcement of the laws already on the books.  We regularly ask for that, apparently to deaf ears.

                            What bothers me, is that in a gun store, with obvious undercover/off duty cops hanging around at the counters, talking shop, when a person fails a NICS check, or obviously lied on their 4473 (where the salesman catches them in a lie, right then and there at the counter, and they walk away from the transaction). A  felony has just been committed.  With law enforecment standing a few feet away.  Down the street from the town police station (less than a minute in traffic) and nobody does a damned thing as the guy walks out (atleast without a new firearm).

                            The FBI knows when a NICS failure occurs.  on the from 4473 it clearly states that certain violations of the Gun Control Act can lead to a 10 year imprisonment or quarter-million dollar fine.  When people blow the check, they walk out.  Walk out!

                            What good are the laws if nobody seems to want to enforce them!

                          •  It's infuriating! (0+ / 0-)
                            What bothers me, is that in a gun store, with obvious undercover/off duty cops hanging around at the counters, talking shop, when a person fails a NICS check, or obviously lied on their 4473 (where the salesman catches them in a lie, right then and there at the counter, and they walk away from the transaction). A  felony has just been committed.  With law enforecment standing a few feet away.  Down the street from the town police station (less than a minute in traffic) and nobody does a damned thing as the guy walks out (atleast without a new firearm).
                            And I'll cynically assert that those who could enforce, 1) know that there is no property to seize and 2) it will be bad for business for that FFL. It's a corrupt circle.  But I have no idea how FFLs compete with private sellers at gun shows.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:51:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've only been to one gun show. (0+ / 0-)

                            Wasn't too impressed.  No bargains.  Mostly FFLs, mostly overpriced. A few folks were walking around, trying to sell (more overpriced then the ffls) personal weapons.

                            Personally, I'm a bit leery about buying somebody else's firearm.  I spent 10 years in the military.  I've seen the difference between what happens when one solder takes immaculate care of his firearm, and the other merely goes though the motions.  
                            It's like buying a used boat, except that this particular used boat is channeling an explosion down a barrel, inches from your face.  A lot of parts ought to be replaced regularly.  Did the previous owner do so?  A quick function check (if you're familiar with the weapon) will demonstrate it's immediate safety. A close examination of critical (or stress prone) areas will let you know it's general condition.  Checking those tough-to-get-at spots will tell you how clean they tended to keep it.  

                            There's a lot of risk that you'll end up with a lemon in a personal sale.  Atleast a FFL with a solid reputation will work with you to replace a lemon via the manufacturer with little/no cost, or know (or be) a reputable gunsmith.

                  •  Yea, but Pat 60% of run sales have record (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero, LilithGardener

                    and a paper trial that is accessible by the Federal gov't without a warrant, so why are you so concerned about the remaining 40%?

                    •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Bailey2001

                      I'm concerned about 100 percent of the sales.  You already knew this.

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

                      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:07:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, yeah, after I had to drag it out of you. (4+ / 0-)

                        You wouldn't admit to me that you were afraid of confiscation for about an hour, strange.

                        So, what is it about the 40% of gun sales that is going to lead to confiscation whereas the 60% won't?

                        We haven't seen confiscation with 60% that are subject to a registry and background check.

                        Why the paranoia?

                        •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                          Not having this discussion with you again.  Go look it up.

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

                          by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:18:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, I know, I know ... (5+ / 0-)

                            it could happen, you never know, so you must be vigilant and never let your guard down. Of course, most sane people are more concerened with the here an now - 70+ shot at the movies, 26 killed at a school, etc. And of course the daily 30 gun deaths.

                            You know, real things, happening in the real world.

                            They are not so concerned with imaginary dictators and black helicopters.

                          •  Gee Pat, you get awfully quiet after you're (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, FogCityJohn

                            called on your bullshit.

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            Still waiting.  But you better hurry.  Your credibility is on life support and is not expected to make it.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:46:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Pat, all you got to do is read it - it's all there (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            just take 2 mins and you can see that I said: "Earlier you said you weren't concerned with confiscation. Now you say you are."

                            Your reply was that you weren't making plans on rosiest scenarios. In other words you accepted that what I said about your concerns over confiscation were correct and then you validated that by saying you weren't making plans on rosiest scenario - ie, no confiscation - and instead you were making plans on your fear of confiscation.

                            If that's too hard for you to follow, just go back to my post and read through it.

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Never said any such thing.  Now you should admit you lied.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:54:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Pat, you're like the kid that puts his fingers (0+ / 0-)

                            in his ears and says "nah, nah, nah ... I can't hear you. I can't hear you."

                            You're awesome!

                            Please keep posting here, you're ... wait, is that an imaginary black helicopter I hear outside your window?

                          •  I'll make it real easy for you, here you go ... (0+ / 0-)
                            * [new] I'll take Mark Kelly's word on the by We Shall Overcome, Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:26:56 PM PDT (1+ / 0-)

                            * [new] Re: by Patrick Costighan, Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 04:18:33 AM PDT (0+ / 0-)

                              Unfortunately for you, your position is the same (0+ / 0-)
                            as the NRA's and the NRA has lost all credibility. I haven't seen anything that shows the Schumer plan will lead to confiscation, and I am sure most voters wont either. If you can clearly layout your "facts" in an easy to understand way (think, you've got to convince the average voter) that plainly shows why the Schumer plan leads to confiscation, then I'll revisit. Otherwise, everything I've heard from the NRA/gun lobby is just fear and paranoia designed to confuse, and your case is too hard to follow - spell it out in an easy to understand way and I'm open to listening.

                            Here you're saying you didn't say the Schumer plan would lead to confiscation but instead registration. Then later you fessed up and said, yeah, it would lead to confiscation and you were worried about that.

                            Try to wriggle out of that one Mr. Costighan.

                            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:57:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent | Reply to this ]

                              Re: (0+ / 0-)
                            Never said confiscation.  Said registration.  Records are accessible by the government without a warrant.  That constitutes a registry.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 10:37:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent | Reply to this ]

                            * [new] Is that true? Can you show me sources that by We Shall Overcome, Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 11:02:20 AM PDT (0+ / 0-)

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            Lying and spamming.  Good move.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:10:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hey Pat, nice defense - just call the guy a liar, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dopetron, WakeUpNeo

                            typical NRA-style bullshit. Everyone calls Wayne LaPierre crazy because he's crazy and what does he do? Goes to CPAC and calls all his opponents crazy.

                            You get a gold star and you've graduated to Lil' Wayne status. Congrats!

                            Of course the guy who takes the subject line out of each post looks much more like the liar because he doesn't want people to be able to sort through comments and find all the bullshit they're spewing.

                          •  Rec'd for (0+ / 0-)

                            "Lil' Wayne status". That's funny. 'Round here, we call that Weezy status.

                        •  I'm concerned too and I'll be happy to tell you (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Kentucky Kid, noway2

                          why.

                            I know there are some who want to take all guns, even some here.  Repeal of the 2nd amendment is a goal of some, even politicians.....again, even some here.  As long as there is that goal in the minds of some...then there is always the possibility of that goal becoming a reality if those with that goal, and in the power to do so, become able to do so at some time in the future.  In any country in which guns were once legal and then taken away....registration was always the first step.

                           Taking away my rights as a law abiding gun owner is extremely important to me.  The possibility may be small and it may even be almost nil today....but never the less the possibility is there and I consider my 2A rights to be important enough to oppose anything that could lead to that...even if it is the smallest of possibilities.

                          •  You summed up my concerns perfectly Bailey ....... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bailey2001, Kentucky Kid, noway2

                            as well as many others I am sure.  It seems unfair to me that a constitutional right of many law abiding citizens will be infringed upon due to the actions of a criminal minority.

                            There have always been and will always be a criminal element in our society but our liberties can not be curtailed due to their actions.

                            I also wonder what will the criteria be in the UBC, what will the government be allowed to use as an excuse to deny a permit?  Will the guidelines be more comprehensive then are already in place?  Why do they not enforce the existing background checks more strictly?  

                            “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of the tyrant” Albert Camus

                            by MsLillian on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:23:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  A purchase permit could serve as a bg check (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ancblu

        And wouldn't have to be tied to a record of purchase.

    •  rec'd because this is how it already works (4+ / 0-)

      When you want to buy a gun, you fill out form 4473.  They (the ATF) do keep it for a period of time, long enough to run your background check.  The FFL dealer keeps it for 20 years.

      How much longer would you want them to hold it for?

      •  It's trying to get the private people to keep (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SoCalSal, LilithGardener

        any records at all.  I wouldn't know where records from 20 years ago are in my stash of stuff, but if I knew it might make a difference between whether I'd be charged with a crime committed with that gun (if I couldn't prove I sold it to someone), I'd figure out a way to keep it.  Or I'd be advocating for the records to be kept by a police station or the ATF so I wouldn't have to keep that record for 20 years.

        But then I'm on the side of regulation, so I don't have a visceral problem against this government regulation.

        •  I keep my records. (5+ / 0-)

          Same as I keep my other important papers.

          Granted, I have two things going for me:

          1). I've never sold a firearm that I've purchased.

          2). I live in Illinois, we have FOID cards.  FOID cards are serialized, so if I ever sold a firearm to a third party, and that third party is from Illinois, I have both a way to identify whom I sold it to (their foid number) and a way to do a background check (I ask so see their FOID card, and record their number).

          Any FFL worth their salt instructs a buyer to keep their paperwork for 20 years, any buyer with common sense does so.

          Here's a solution for background checks most (if not all) gun owners would agree to, a national foid card.  Good for 10 years, revoked on conviction of a felony (or domestic violence misdemeanor) you need it to buy a firearm. Closes the 'gun show loophole' for private sellers, and if implemented right, cannot be used as a registry any more then the current 4473  system is.

          •  That seems like a good plan (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim

            What are you seeing in terms of enforcement - problems? successes?

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:05:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Overall, it's pretty good. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim

              The biggest problem is getting the state police to revoke FOID cards from felons.  Its not like they have them conveniently in jail for a period of time to make it easier for them or anything...

              Enforcement, every gun shop in Illinois won't let you touch a firearm unless they see your foid.  I've watched folks in front of me (while waiting my turn at the counter) who have conveniently 'forgotten' theirs be turned away.  It seems to work well.

              Success, thats harder to measure.  Chicago has a lot of gun violence, but the news reports tend to call out a perps criminal record once the cops found the perp.  Anyone with a felony can't have a foid legally, so the perp is usually not a legal gun owner.  Its almost never (I'd say never but I hate using absolutes that I can't prove) the case that the suspect in a homicide investigation held a foid card.

        •  Which would be solved if all transfers were (0+ / 0-)

          processed through a FFL, and the FFL kept the records.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:16:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

    It's not dead if we actually be smart about it.  Unfortunately, there may be too much pride on the line to do anything about it at this late date.

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

    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:27:35 PM PDT

  •  And all this is facilitated (21+ / 0-)

    by Reid's failure to reform the filibuster. Like so many more recent failures in the Senate, this is on him. And I'll still be impressed if they vote anything out of the Senate.

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

    by tytalus on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:31:26 PM PDT

  •  given that it has wide support (24+ / 0-)

    including among many of this site's rkba crew, punting on the ubc is inexcusable. make them vote on it. get them on the record, up or down. let the voters decide.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:32:48 PM PDT

  •  Those gun folks are pretty powerful. (9+ / 0-)

    With hindsight, I think the gun control advocates probably should have targeted the gun makers themselves -- and not just the companies but the executives as well.

    As I understand it, many of them live in Connecticut.

    Punching LaPierre around is pretty meaningless, since it's his job to be a punching bag.

    Live and learn.

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

    by Bush Bites on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:40:11 PM PDT

    •  I'd hate for old Wayne (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      exterris, KVoimakas, Smoh

      to be right about the waning effect of Connecticut, as evidenced by other tragedies that failed to produce meaningful change.  He's learned from experience to just wait it out and the NRA wins the PR campaign again.

      Poverty is an anomaly to rich people. It is very difficult to make out why people who want dinner do not ring the bell.--W. Bagehot

      by sow hat on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:49:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he's wrong (10+ / 0-)

        the CT laws that are about to pass will define a new normal.

        It may be state level, it may be slow, it may even be after 2014 elections, but the CT effect is not going away.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:13:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's imperative that states move forward (6+ / 0-)

          even if federal initiatives fail.

          It may be state level, it may be slow, it may even be after 2014 elections, but the CT effect is not going away.
          New Yorks recent law includes a severability clause. We are going to have to cope with a range of 2A legal theories until state laws have moved all the way up through SCOTUS.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:41:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And a lot of other states are enacting laws (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          are effectively the opposite.  The effect is further polarization of the country, mostly based upon region and party dominance.

        •  In a country that has 310 firearms in the hands of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2

          45% to 50% of households, and the same country has a long standing tradition of gun ownership and a constitutional guarantee to own them....any change will be slow at best.

           If those in power attempt to speed that up, and make huge chances quickly, you will find a great deal of unhappy voters, on both sides of the aisle.

        •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Greg Dworkin

          There will be a massive push back against state-level Democrats in 2014, of that I am convinced. Most likely going to lose the Senate in New York over this, and it could be even worse in Colorado. The momentum in Oregon and Washington has also shifted dramatically, and it looks like any ban in those states is now DOA, with lash back to follow simply for the attempt.

          Afterwards the Supreme Court will inevitably weigh in on the issue, and if the standard is truly "Common lawful use," then the AWB's are likely to fall. The SAFE act in NY is certain to fall due to it's forbidding the sale of any modern firearm magazine. Cuomo knows this and is trying to backtrack as I type.

          This will eventually enshrine in case law the extent to which the 2nd Amendment protects our rights, and in the process will confirm in the minds of the Democratic leadership that this issue is a lost cause. And it probably won't cost use the Senate this time to learn it.

          I think a new normal is indeed coming, but the one I envision is much different than yours.

          •  here's where things stand (0+ / 0-)

            which is why we both said what we said ;-)

            Most of the movement on gun legislation has been at the state level. Since Jan. 1, a raft of new bills has been introduced, with 574 proposed bills to strengthen gun controls, and 512 to bolster gun rights, according to a new analysis by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks state gun laws. Connecticut alone has introduced more than 100 gun-control measures and as well as a handful of gun-rights bills since the shooting.

            And 54 additional measures — about half pro-gun, half gun-control — were already pending when the Newtown shooting happened on Dec. 14 and are still in front of state legislatures.

            http://www.pbs.org/...

            what's lost in this is that a 50-50 picture is a great advance forward for gun responsibility legislation.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:47:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  well, here's why we disagree ;-) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neo Control

            it's 50-50.

            Most of the movement on gun legislation has been at the state level. Since Jan. 1, a raft of new bills has been introduced, with 574 proposed bills to strengthen gun controls, and 512 to bolster gun rights, according to a new analysis by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks state gun laws. Connecticut alone has introduced more than 100 gun-control measures and as well as a handful of gun-rights bills since the shooting.

            And 54 additional measures — about half pro-gun, half gun-control — were already pending when the Newtown shooting happened on Dec. 14 and are still in front of state legislatures.

            of course it's 50-50 in the direction of "I'm right".

            Just kidding about that last part.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:55:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Wayne is wrong about the Connecticut Effect (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sow hat, Eric Nelson

        Rep Elizabeth Esty (CT-04) made a very cogent argument last week, when she appeared on Rachel Maddow.

        She articulated very clearly why the massacre at Newtown has changed our national conversation on gun safety.
        h/t petersolson, see this absolutely amazing segment from Rachel Maddow.

        For those who can't watch video, kos mail me and I'll tell you what Elizabeth says.

        Go Elizabeth!  

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:12:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are gun manufacturers in many states (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah

      including good old liberal New York.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:38:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That comes next ... congressional hearings, like (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      the tobacco execs.

      •  The public really does need to see how the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        We Shall Overcome

        gun manufacturers have been acting as an illegal monopoly - and internally agreeing to punishing any company that dares to actually make a safer product.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:16:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not too mention supporting legislation that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, poco

          makes it easier for domestic abusers, criminals and the mentally ill to get guns.

          That's not going to go over very well with suburban moms worried about gun violence and crime. Should make for some interesting 2014 election conversations between pols and constituents.

  •  I'm sure there will be moving statements (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crankypatriot, sow hat

    of resignation and regret. "Our" side is very good at them.

    The law, in its majestic equality, gives the rich as well as the poor the right to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to eat dumpster donuts. - With apologies to Anatole France

    by chuckvw on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:42:41 PM PDT

  •  We never learn. (6+ / 0-)

    We never freaking learn.

    Sequestration? GOP=Family Values, my ass.

    by blueoregon on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:48:19 PM PDT

  •  Predictable. (8+ / 0-)

    I was saying in some comment somewhere that shoveling things off for 30 days of Biden was only going to give the NRA time to get organized and kill the whole thing. Total waste of time. We already had a bill sitting the shelf before Newtown. All we had to do was run with it. Even if it killed reform in its tracks, we could now begin to beat them over the head with votes they've actually cast rather than votes that will never occur.

    Face it. It's done.

    •  The NRA fucks (5+ / 0-)

      have been calling our reps every goddamned day.  Have you made a call?  Or are you just ready to roll over?

      202-224-3121

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:04:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL...they don't give a shit about the phonecalls. (7+ / 0-)

        Know what they care about? Reactions at town hall meetings during trips home. What they hear at grocery stores. And most importantly, what their donors say. The could care less about phonecalls, emails, or letters. And guess what? By the time Biden finished networking the NRA already had the town halls locked up. So when these guys when home, they didn't hear about gun control. At all.

        You gotta understand the current Congress spends a huge amount of time at home in the district and states. That's what they care about. Most of these folks could care less about what happens in Washington except as much as it affects their voters and donors.

        So if you want to win this battle, win it where it counts: at the ballot box. This is the ONLY way to defeat Republicans. The ONLY way.

        •  No one around here is showing up at (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, LilithGardener, Eric Nelson

          any town halls.  You Lie Wilson doesn't even let anyone talk on his fewer-and-father-between tele-townhalls.....all scripted.

          So get on the phone and make them hear you.  Or, go to the fucking grocery stores and make them hear you.

          I am sick and fucking tired of hearing "you think they care? LOL!"

          FUCK
          THAT
          NOISE

          This website is supposed to be making a difference.  Throw up a diary on the front page please with the phone numbers and activate the people on dkos.  Please.

          David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:53:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Do you want the ballot box or the AWB? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neo Control

          You don't get both.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:26:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Face the fact that these Dems (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, FogCityJohn

      are committed to doing as little as humanely possible while still being able to keep up the pretense of being liberal. Hey, they're not gunning for ALL of Social Security this time around, so why are we so unhappy?

      Plus...Long Game!

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:04:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats are generally afraid. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CoExistNow, FogCityJohn, renbear

        Generally, that is the curse of the Democrat. Being perpetually afraid.

        •  So why aren't we using that against them? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          If they're afraid of the GOP, far right, big money, corporations, the media, and puppies, why can't the left do some frightening of its own, the way the tea party's doing to the GOP? Oh, right, it might jeopardize our chances in 2014...

          This is why we're not getting anything done. They don't fear us, and only us.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:23:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cuz the left doesn't have the numbers. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, FG, renbear

            Very rare you'll find enough lefty votes to unseat a Democratic incumbent. It happens, but its rare. However that is changing slowly but surely. It will take a lot of time and effort over a great many years to grow and expand the political left to the point where it is as heavy a political force as similar organizations on the right.

            And then when we do mobilize, we do it over issues rather than power. You can just look at the Tea Party and Occupy movements as a case study in how the left and right gain and apply power.

            The trend is in the left's favor however. Cuz the left is persuading minds and that almost always leads to power in the end.

            •  On issues, we have the numbers (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              In terms of being organized, I agree that we don't. And much of the left is, IMO, wasting its time and energy on 3rd parties or action outside the political process. Nothing gets done here outside that process, like it or not. The far right gets that, perhaps the only thing it gets. The left doesn't.

              A political system such as ours only works for people who understand that only by organizing to effectively influence members of the appropriate party (and sometimes both) can you get anything done. Electing more AND better Dems is nice, but not enough. How we influence them AFTER they win is just as if not more important. What we don't get is that politicians vote out of self-interest or in response to effective pressure as often as they do out of conviction, and probably even more often the longer they're in office. Which makes being able to effectively pressure pols the most important skill we need to learn--and use.

              Which we're not doing now.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:20:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No, no, No!!! (0+ / 0-)

            We must win Presidential elections!!

            that is all. after that "it's all good".

            errrrrrrr....

            "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

            by Superpole on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:04:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  They weren't afraid in 1994. (0+ / 0-)

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:27:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This not coming to a vote is the best thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control

      for Democrats.

      The whole nation isn't NYC.
      Gun Control won't gain nearly as many votes as it will lose, particularly in the swing states.
      Gun Control is a loser for the Dems.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:25:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even the licensed firearm dealers favor checks (18+ / 0-)

    A recently published survey of licensed dealers and pawnbrokers (Injury Prevention, 2013 Mar 11) showed that 2/3 of them experienced attempted straw buyer purchases and almost half experienced undocumented purchase attempts. The respondents overwhelmingly (nearly 90% of them) favored heavy prison sentences in the (hypothetical example) case of someone who sold 50 illegal weapons.

    Attempted illegal purchases are very common, and licensed dealers apparently take this seriously. These folks, whose expertise should be high and whose livelihood depends on sales, would like to see deterrents to illegal purchases. So would more than 90% of the American public. What is wrong with Congress? (OK, I know, I know.)

    •  I'd like to rec this a thousand times (3+ / 0-)

      thank you.

    •  The reason is almost certainly that (4+ / 0-)

      Such checks would likely have to be performed at licensed gun shops, and the FFLs would get to charge a fee. It's a win/win/win for them... they get to close off market that isn't them, have an opportunity for accessory up sales, and charge fees that are pure profit, since accessing NICS is free.

      --Shannon

      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

      by Leftie Gunner on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:47:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (0+ / 0-)

        Could be.  Margins are thin throughout the gun industry, and a $700 retail sale might net only $20.  But to be generous, consider the question asked.  Does anyone really disagree with the notion that the universally agreed upon prohibited persons should not be able to purchase firearms through intermediaries?  Does anyone really disagree with levying heavy penalties against those who do so knowingly and egregiously?

        I'm not against FFL maintained records because I want to deny retailers the extra income; the gun business is a tough one especially if you're not one of the big four manufacturers or a box store chain.  I'm against it because it dramatically expands the transfer records available to the state without a warrant.  I want all of those records locked down under the Fourth Amendment, and I want physical control of those records as well.  If my preferred FFL wants to open a record keeping trust business, so be it.  But I want to be able to walk in, take my records for myself or transfer for them to another institution of my choice.  Now that's a service my dollars would gladly support.

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

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:03:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  that and FFL stings by ATF agents (0+ / 0-)

        I can't get within 10 feet of an FFL dealer without hearing that complaint.
          That FFL license is their livlihood, most don't risk losing it..on the other hand, having the ability to question the status of FFL dealers based on non sales and non reporting seems pretty stupid. eg: The gun repairman needing one who has few sales but needs the license to ship suggests there may need to be another FFL license category to help both the 'little guy; and the ATF.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:20:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

      The proposed solution to said problem, which involved warrantless auditing of transfer records.

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

      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:52:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hate to admit it but I thought it would come (11+ / 0-)

    down to a watered down, toothless bill that would be useless for prevention of mass shootings.  Either that, or none at all.

    Until we defang the NRA, we will not have any kind of meaningful gun regulation.

    Were I the parent of one of the children killed, I would be livid.  

  •  The de facto registration posing as record keeping (6+ / 0-)

    is going to kill this proposal. Even if it isn't the intent, the function of keeping permanent records relating specific firearms to individuals is the creation of a registry by another name.

    That is deal breaker for me, and for many, many others.

    •  So what? (15+ / 0-)

      We can register cars and car owners and drivers but not gun owners? That literally makes no sense. NONE. What are you people afraid of? If you really think that this leads to confiscation of all guns then you're NUTS.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It makes sense when you consider that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros, MGross, FrankRose

        You are not given the right to own a car in the Bill of Rights.

        Also, how am I "nuts" for thinking that what has already occurred in Australia and the UK could repeat it's self here?

        •  How does the 2nd prohibit registration? (8+ / 0-)

          What does the right to own and carry guns have to do with registration? How does registration impinge those rights? Please explain. I'm waiting.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:33:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As long as it's completely free and people shootin (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            at anyone who is trying to confiscate arms that are then banned unilaterally, I can support it.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  people shootin without legal problems* nt (0+ / 0-)

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I have no idea what you mean on the shooting thing (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, SoCalSal, poco, FogCityJohn

              but as for free, that's not a reasonable condition. I have to pay to get a license and registration. Why not with guns? And don't give me the 2nd argument. Something being a right doesn't mean it has to be free in all ways. You have to pay to register as a lobbyist, a right guaranteed by the 1st. If you can afford a gun, you can afford a license, less than the cost of a box of rounds.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:07:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what about gift and inherited (0+ / 0-)

                Guns?

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:14:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What about gift and inherited cars? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco, LilithGardener

                  What's the difference? No one's saying they have to be registered within 3 days or they get confiscated. I'd be ok with fairly long grace periods, and leniency for those "oops" situations when you forgot about your great-grandad's old WWI pistol (which no one's going to know about anyway). It's newer and more lethal guns that I'm interested in, especially upon purchase, transfer or inheritance.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:26:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I'm curious--how do Class 3 registrations handle (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  inherited/gifts?  If my departed uncle leaves me a Tommy gun and I don't have (or can't even qualify for) a Class 3, what happens?

                  No snark--I really do want to know.

                  •  Then you can't legally own it (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    Either you register it, if it's operational or can be made so (and if not, you have to show that), or you possess it illegally. Why is that a problem?

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:46:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no problem (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      Just curious about it.

                      So what happens to the gun then?

                      As an aside--instead of an assault rifle ban, I'd prefer to see all semi-auto rifles with a detachable box magazine be regulated under the same terms as Class 3 full-autos are.  Everyone can buy as many as your little prepper heart desires, as long as you get your license and pay the taxes. And document every transfer so we always know where the gun is and who owns it (so if it turns up in a bank robbery we know who to go talk to).

                      •  Obviously, enforcing this (0+ / 0-)

                        with guns not purchased and made recently will be a problem, and there's going to be a large percentage of guns that will never be registered, and I am absolutely opposed to going into peoples' homes to find out if they have unregistered guns unless upon probable cause and armed with a warrant.

                        On the other hand, if you're found (through lawful means) to have an unregistered gun, you have to register it, with maybe a fine if it's clear that you knew you had it and it wasn't just legitimate oversight, e.g. you inherited in a will and thus knew you received it.

                        Just because this introduces logistical problems and costs and inconveniences and won't be 100% effective doesn't mean it's not worth it if it can be shown to be effective. I just want to save lives. If that inconveniences some gun owners, I'm ok with that.

                        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                        by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:09:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  absolutely (0+ / 0-)

                          Couldn't agree more.

                          Over time, the guns that are registered will stay registered (and not disappear into the illegal gun market), and the guns that are not registered will, as they are found, either be registered, or be destroyed.

                          Will it register 100% of all guns?  Nope.  But I'll take 80% or 90% or whatever.  (shrug)

                          •  Haven't most if not all of the mass shootings (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            been done with legally purchased and owned guns, which if registration happens would mean that they'd have been registered? Add to that universal background checks (which include all members of one's household), and quite a few of those shootings likely wouldn't have happened.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:25:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  as far as mass shootings, I think the regulation (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PsychoSavannah, LilithGardener

                            of ammo clips would be more helpful there.

                            But as I noted elsewhere, I'm fully in favor of treating all semi-auto rifles with detachable box magazines as Class 3 weapons.

                            Hunting rifles would be entirely unaffected, and licensed gun ranges could still allow people to shoot AR-15's all the livelong day, just as they currently do with full-auto machine guns. And since we already HAVE had regulation on Class 3 weapons since the thirties, there's no Constitutional issue to raise either.

                            The posse will still weep and whine and stamp their feet and yell "you can't tell us what to do !!!!" anyway, though. (shrug)

                          •  Plenty of murder suicides and so-called (0+ / 0-)

                            "accidental" shootings happen with legally purchased guns.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:35:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's where background checks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            for mental illness, training and registration come in, to at least try to decrease these tragedies, even if they obviously can't stop them completely.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:13:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Restricted Items can be held in trust. (0+ / 0-)

                        Each member of the trust has equal access to the items, so if one member of the trust passes away, the access of the remaining members is not affected.

                        If all members of the trust pass away, the trust maintains control of the items until a person willed them can complete the requirements to become a member of the trust.

                        I have three friends who own restricted items, and they all hold them in trust for this reason. Must easier to transfer, sell or gift them if they are controlled by a law firm rather than an individual.

          •  "shall not be infringed" would be one way, kovie (3+ / 0-)

            because if you got on the "no fly list" you could get on the "no gun list" too -- and be just as unable to get off even if you're not the Jon Smythe they're looking for. Savvy?

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:48:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Get back to me when that actually happens (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SoCalSal

              Until then, I will not entertain RW conspiracy theories with no basis in fact.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:08:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1, FrankRose, Kentucky Kid

                Not your call.  That will be made in the courts and the legislature.  Call it whatever you want, you're not getting your way on this issue.  You best learn to compromise if you want to get things done.  Assuming you want to get things done.

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

                by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:13:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What do you mean not my call? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco, LilithGardener

                  I can't weigh in on this? The 2nd's cool but the 1st isn't? Huh? I have as much of a right as you do to try to push things the way I want them to go as you do. Are you not aware of how this democracy thing works? And as for compromise, that's what we've been doing all these years, with bupkes in return.

                  Touchy touchy.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:22:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

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

                    You can say whatever you want, but you'll entertain the law and that's that.  I mean what are you going to do?  Break and enter into people's homes and catalog their firearms?

                    I wouldn't say you've been compromising so much as getting your butts kicked on every front.  I hand it to you, you've had one or two real successes in recent months--it remains to be seen if they're lasting--but overall the security of gun rights has grown in the past ten years.  I expect that trend to continue.  You should plan accordingly.

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

                    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:25:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You sound awfully defensive for someone (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      trying to seem cock-sure of yourself. And what are you going to do when these laws are passed--and you know it's just a matter of time? Take to the woods with Ted Nugent?

                      And no, no one's calling for the ATF to presumptively break into anyone's home unless they're suspected of having illegal guns. I'd absolutely be against that, being a staunch 4th supporter. But if registration was the law and you were found through lawful means to have an unregistered gun, you'd have to register it, or it would be confiscated.

                      I don't want anyone's lawfully owned guns taken away.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:30:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                        But you do want to narrow the options for people to lawfully acquire new guns.  After all, that's what the AWB is for.  You want to "dry up the supply," is Senator Feinstein put it.  And I imagine you want some flexibility in defining "illegal guns" (and "illegally held," for that matter).

                        I know BATFE isn't going to confiscate any firearms because gun rights activists have fought long and hard to ensure that such a thing could never happen.  It's ongoing fight.  And if you want universal background checks, you're going to have to offer physical as well as legal guarantees that confiscation will never happen.  So what is it you truly want?

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

                        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:37:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The guarantee would be in the law (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FogCityJohn

                          Register the gun, provided that it's one you can legally own (if registered), and it won't be confiscated, period. Don't register it, or possess an illegal gun, and if the law knows you have it, you lose it. What's so complicated about that?

                          It's no different with a car you intend to drive. It has to be registered or you lose it. And you can't own certain kinds of vehicles at all, such as a tank, unless you get a special permit because you have a museum or fantasy camp where you could drive it unarmed. What's the problem? Are we back to the black helicopters and things we're supposed to fear even though they don't exist?

                          As for AWB, I can see exceptions, such as museums, gun ranges and rural dwellings, but for people who live close to others, it makes no sense to let people own them. But if we can't ban them, and I agree it's not likely to happen, I'd prefer they at least be registered and background checks be made, with it made clear that lawful owners get to keep their guns.

                          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                          by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:53:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Physical control of the records.  That's our price.  Take it or leave it.  We will accept no lesser guarantee.

                            Sorry, but there's no need to even discuss a national AWB.  Simply not going to happen.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:08:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Physical control by whom? (0+ / 0-)

                            If you mean by non-government entities, except perhaps by a highly regulated contractor, then obviously that'll never happen, nor should you want it to. If instead you mean a tightly controlled database with all sorts of checks to prevent leakage or abuse, then I'm 100% with you on that. Gun owners have as much right to the sanctity of their records as does anyone else.

                            You would, though, have a decent argument if you argued that even the tightest of legal restrictions and guarantees, history has shown that these are regularly abused by people in power, e.g. library records and warrantless wiretaps. I myself am worried about that, even in this instance.

                            Although, I have to say that your negotiating attitude leaves a little to be desired. It's not up to you to decide this, but the political process. If it happens, it happens, whether you like it or not. And if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, whether I like it or not.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:21:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            I mean by individuals or institutions of their choosing.  You can specify the form recordkeeping will take and the manner in which they may be lawfully transmitted, but I'll require said records to remain under physical control of parties to the transfer or the physical control of entities selected to hold records in trust.

                            If that's unacceptable to you, explain why.  I say this method is just as effective as yours in cutting down the flow of firearms into the wrong hands.  You should explain why it is not.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:36:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because that's not how regulation works (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            Show me an example where this takes place.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:46:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            Finance.  Health.  Take your pick.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:54:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When done by private companies, sure (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            Who's calling for private companies to regulate guns? Certainly not me.

                            Next.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:06:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

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

                            When done by anyone, including the state.  But the key is physical control.  You have to send someone to me or someone with a fiduciary duty to me to see certain financial and health records, present me or them with a valid cause of action--such as a warrant--or you can go kick rocks.

                            That's the deal.  It's not going to get any better than that.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:10:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who is "you"? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            Using the car example, everyone who owns and drives a car is required by law to have and carry car registration. But the records are also kept by the state, not the dealer or Iron Mountain. Why should it be any different with guns?

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:16:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

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

                            The government.

                            Why? Because I don't trust the gun control lobby and I want a physical guarantee.  That's why.  Back to you; why do you oppose a decentralized system?  Give me specific reasons.  To date, I've shown that this system is just as effective in stamping out illegal transfers as a national registry.  It has all of its strengths, but none of the divisive registration bullshit.  So show me where it's lacking.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:25:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  State, federal, mixed-model (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            I don't really care so long as it works and isn't and can't easily be abused.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:27:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

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

                            Then explain how mine can be easily abused.  Or do you not have an objection anymore?  If so, we have an alternative that seems to test well among gun rights activists.  Miller time.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:31:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This isn't something I've thought much about (0+ / 0-)

                            So I can't really object to or approve of it at this point. If you're looking to play gotcha, look elsewhere.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:41:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1, Neo Control

                            That's fair enough.  So long as you actually think about it.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:44:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Well-Regulated Militia (0+ / 0-)

                          Nothing in the 2A about your gun rights having to be wrapped up in a pretty bow.

                          You want to exercise the right, you take the responsibility. If that means proving you're of sound mind and body, and not otherwise limited by your inability to abide by the law, then sorry if that causes you a little inconvenience. Nothing in the Constitution grants you the right not to be inconvenienced.

                          And if that means the "supply" is dried up...then suck less at the guns you already own.

                          How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                          by athenap on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:27:14 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You shouldn't have to prove that you're sane (0+ / 0-)

                            The burden should be on the state to prove that you're not sane, through legitimate and non-intrusive means, e.g. you've been committed to a mental hospital or have been prescribed anti-psychotics which are already recorded. But if you're determined to not be sane, you don't get the gun.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:34:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Why not?  We haven't even gotten to training requirements and you think it's crossing a line to include certification of sanity?  Guess what, that can be as simple as providing a state certification that you haven't been adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or others.  Even simpler than that.  It can be a simple binary yes or no that includes no underlying health record; just state certification.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:42:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's usually the burden of the state (0+ / 0-)

                            to prove a negative, not for a citizen to disprove it. It's one thing to pass an eye test, another to prove you're not crazy. There are probably enough ways to determine if someone's crazy that we don't have to invent new ones.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:45:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            So no training requirements?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually opposed to leaving these things out (after all, if all you require is adjudication records I'm perfectly fine with that).  But it sounds like you're advocating straight up constitutional carry provided you pass a background check, in which case let's go the distance and give control of the record to the public.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:53:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Calling for X does not exclude calling for Y (0+ / 0-)

                            We're talking mental competence requirements, which I believe the state should have to prove aren't met for gun ownership. If all you're asking for is for someone to affirm on a form that they have not within the past X years been found to be insane or such, under pain of perjury, then I'm fine with that. But being subject to a test seems excessive to me, and quite arbitrary. Usually (if not always, except when applying for certain jobs) when you're found to be mentally incompetent, it's because you were presenting as such and thus indicating the need for testing, and not due to some test without cause.

                            As for training requirements, I'm all for it, with regular refreshers. If I can't give CPR without taking a course once or twice a year, I certainly shouldn't be able to own a gun.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:12:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            That's not what I'm asking.  I'm asking that someone present certification from competent authority (the state, if you will) of their mental fitness.  Basically a note saying "yeah, Joe Schmoe has not been adjudicated to be a danger to himself or others."  You don't even have to worry about perjury, because you can't forge this certification if done properly (and digitally).

                            I wouldn't mind people seeking out mental health counsel if managed discreetly and voluntarily, and I wouldn't mind denying certain activities to those who do not, but I'm not married to the idea.  A simple certification from the state that a purchaser has no prohibiting adjudication is enough.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:17:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No one should be required to prove that they're (0+ / 0-)

                            sane. That is presumed to be true unless proven otherwise, via the same process currently used to prove that someone's insane, upon presenting with indicators and determined to be insane. Otherwise, you've created a whole new process by which sane people could be determined to be insane by corrupt officials trying to shake them down. Do I have to prove that I'm not a felon? No, I just have to affirm that I'm not, and it's your job to prove that I'm lying.

                            This is not like an eye test, which uses a very objective standard.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:21:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            Proving I'm not a felon is a subjective standard?  Proving I haven't been adjudicated dangerous is a subjective standard?  And mind you, I only have to do this when I attempt to purchase a gun, which you plan to do anyway by performing a background check.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:27:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Affirming, yes, proving, by subjecting oneself (0+ / 0-)

                            to an intrusive, subjective and potentially misused test, no.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:42:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Why subject yourself to a test?  You can just get a letter saying you have no such record.  Done and done.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:45:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who would you get this letter from? (0+ / 0-)

                            Who could be in a position to issue it?

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:47:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            The courts.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:48:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And on what basis would they be able to issue them (0+ / 0-)

                            absent either a test you had to take showing you weren't crazy, or the ability to check your records, revealing no indication that you were found to be crazy?

                            And why is the latter not sufficient?

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:00:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            This is very simple, kovie.  You want to buy a gun.  You request a letter (or some form of certification) from the courts stating you have no been adjudicated to be a danger yourself or others.  The courts check their records.  They find no such adjudication.  They give it to you.  You do this in every jurisdiction in which you have ever lived; that, too, can be certified.  You then go to a retailer or a unlicensed seller and present said certification, along with your most up to date criminal history (or certified lack thereof, probably obtained through a similar process).  You present to the buyer.  You both record your transfer.  You go about your business.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:09:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why can't the gun dealer simply (0+ / 0-)

                            request a background check that would, among other things, check the very same records that the courts would check to issue you this letter, processed in a way and via a system that would protect your privacy and not be abusable, any more than the system the courts accessed could be? This would safe you time, money and effort. I don't understand the problem here.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:12:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Could be, if you have that data.  No reason two systems couldn't coexist, or be implemented as one.  Remember, the principle reason is technical; we've had a decade of problems with centralizing criminal history and mental adjudication records.  And to be honest, large data warehouses to store a mix of public (criminal record) and confidential (medical information) is not an elegant design.  I don't see a reason to send the federal government down that path when you can get the same results by shifting a small burden on parties to the transfer at an almost negligible cost.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:19:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Like I said, whatever works (0+ / 0-)

                            as far as the back end design is concerned, so long as this doesn't unfairly or unnecessarily burden or prejudice the prospective gun purchaser, and makes it hard for authorities to abuse a la FISA.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:11:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Possibly, but you're not going to get universal background checks any other way.  Of course, cutting off the flow of weapons to criminals and mentally ill isn't your primary goal, is it?  In which case, if you think you've got the political muscle to grab guns than go for it.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:39:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My primary goal? (0+ / 0-)

                            Is making sure another classroom full of kids doesn't get mown down. It's making sure another DVI doesn't turn into a murder-suicide. It's making sure people don't have to watch movies from concrete bunkers. It's making sure it's just a little harder for a momentary feeling of desperation to turn into a permanent tragedy.

                            My primary goal is to quit letting the yahoos drive this conversation so the sane grownups can make some decisions about responsibility. Every time someone suggests "background check" the shrieking begins and everybody starts seeing the ghost of zombie Hitler coming for yer gunz. The rush starts and the National Rifle(makers) Association hears the sweet cha-ching of just how profitable fear can be.

                            My primary goal is to stop otherwise rational people from getting all butthurt that someone else has the gall to ask them to demonstrate that they possess the sanity, training, and responsibility one would expect with any other dangerous piece of equipment. Most of those same people who take off their shoes to catch an airplane, freely and cheerfully pass through x-ray scanners, and will, 9 times out of ten, get out of the car if a traffic cop asks them nicely.

                            Quite frankly, if you can demonstrate that you are sane enough to own one without indiscriminately killing, smart enough not to blow your own damn foot off when playing with it, and skilled enough (not to mention...not-blind) to hit what you're aiming at, then have at it.

                            If you don't feel safe without a dangerous weapon at your side, that's your problem. If you don't have the responsibility or capability not to harm yourself or others, then it becomes everybody else's problem. And we have a right to do something about that.

                            How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                            by athenap on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:48:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, andalusi

                            Then prove it.  I've given you an alternative that goes just as far as yours in preventing mass murders.  Farther in fact.  Declare your support here and now, or explain why my alternative is unacceptable or flawed, or admit that preventing another 12/14 is not your objective.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:56:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The burden of proof is on you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            If you really think the majority of people advocating for gun control and a little personal responsibility are ZOMG COMING FER YER GUNZ!!! then it's your conspiracy theory.

                            Prove there's real reason for concern that trumps the real fact that a shit-ton of people die every day from gun-fail that could have been prevented through some simple common-sense regulations like "oh, take a class so you know which end to point at other people" and "take a test so you know how many fingers I'm holding up in front of your face" and "oh, maybe let somebody know your serial numbers so if you ever lose the thing or it gets taken from you, you can report it as a law-abiding citizen and have law enforcement track it down and rule you out of being a suspect in a crime."

                            These are not unreasonable requests. Not for driving, operating heavy machinery, being around dangerous chemicals. All of which have primary purposes besides "point at someone else's face" I might add. Yet put them in the context of a weapon, and otherwise reasonable people flip their shit.

                            Almost as if they want the gubmint to come fer their gunz so's they can start the revolution they've been bucking for. Like they're so unhappy with the society in which they live that they might be happier living outside of it.

                            How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                            by athenap on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:10:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            No, the burden is on you.  I've outlined a system that achieves the same ends as national registration.  You've raised no objections to said system.  I can only conclude you oppose it because registration rather than reducing gun violence is your objective.

                            If you can't keep to the topic, then we have nothing further to discuss.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:42:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I just have to mention (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      athenap, LilithGardener

                      that those "real successes" you so rapidly discount were bought with a whole lot of children's innocent blood- kids who wanted no part of any debate, and who just wanted to get home from school alive. Instead, unregulated, nightmarish insanity which in no way contributed to the security of a free State prevailed.

                      •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        noway2, Neo Control

                        No, they weren't.  I know that's your refrain; it's been the same tired, old line for decades now even as gun rights activists have worked with local law enforcement to reduce gun violence nation wide.  

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

                        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:38:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Once again (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FogCityJohn, athenap, LilithGardener, poco

                          The proportion of homicides committed by gun enthusiasts using their weapons has been climbing over time in the U.S., not dropping.

                          When compared to decreasing homicide rates in other wealthy, industrialized nations (such as UK, France, and Germany), it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to reach that the vigorous efforts of gun enthusiasts to block additional gun tracking and safety laws in the U.S. is propping up our homicide rate.  

                          In other words, one outcome of actions taken by gun enthusiasts with respect to gun safety legislation is more dead people.  

                          And I suspect that doesn't bother you one bit.

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

                            In other words, homicide by other methods is falling faster than homicide by firearm.  What's your point, other than to hang murder on tens of millions of "gun enthusiasts?"

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:14:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My point was made (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco
                            it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to reach that the vigorous efforts of gun enthusiasts to block additional gun tracking and safety laws in the U.S. is propping up our homicide rate.  
                            Homicide by firearm is dropping v-e-r-y slowly - much slower than other modes of causation.  

                            You were patting yourself on the back so hard there I thought I might point out that inconvenient fact.

                          •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kentucky Kid, Neo Control

                            If that's your conclusion, how do you explain the falling firearms homicide rate?

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:32:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just to keep the record straight... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...it's barely falling.

                            I suspect that relatively modest decrease is due to a slow decline in the number of households with guns. Studies have indicated for some time that fewer and fewer households contain firearms, while at the same time gun enthusiasts are themselves collecting more and more and (senselessly) more firearms; some of which are stolen and used in crime and homicides or used by the owner to shoot people or by family members to shoot themselves.

                          •  Good grief (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

                            I just realized I was exchanging comments with the "Re" guy.  

                            Crap.  I feel...so...dirty.

                          •  For your next trip down the rabbit hole here's (0+ / 0-)

                            a useful tool to mark the spot for the next reader.

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:44:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1, FrankRose

                            Is that so?

                            http://bjs.gov/...

                            No study has shown that "gun enthusiasts" are collecting more firearms.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:00:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Against my better judgment (0+ / 0-)

                            I'll respond.  

                            I sincerely doubt you have read and understood every study out there, so I am quite confident you're either pulling that statement out of your ass or parroting some NRA (or similar) propaganda.

                            Having pointed out that (likely) truth, I would merely note that that, yes, there have been many studies over the years that indicate gun enthusiasts are collecting increasing numbers of firearms.

                            As noted in the article to which I linked in a previous comment, there have been several surveys by multiple entities over many years that show fewer and fewer households contain firearms. Now, you may have convinced yourself that so many gun enthusiasts are paranoid freaks that they lie and lie and lie in such grand numbers to consistently skew such surveys in a significant manner -- and, frankly, by the comments from the RKBA supporters and their drooling sycophants around here, you would have my sympathy with that -- but I find such a belief untenable. Instead, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that these multiple surveys over multiple years are accurately indicating a trend.

                            And, at the same time, there has been a long term trend of fewer and fewer heads per household, save for a recent reversal in the past couple of years in certain geographies due to the bad economy.  

                            So...let's see.  Fewer households have guns and fewer people per household (save, again, for a few locales where that has very recently, and likely temporarily, changed), and yet gun sales have increased.

                            Unless you think leprechauns or pixies or brownies, or perhaps bears who are confused about this whole "right to bear arms" thing have been buying up guns in vast quantities, the only reasonable conclusion is that those fewer remaining gun enthusiasts, who have convinced themselves (against clear statistical evidence to the contrary) that having more and more firearms lying around is something other than a risk to them and their families (and any other unfortunate visitor who happens to find their way into a gun enthusiast's house at the wrong time), are owning an increasing number of firearms per person.

                            It's called inference, Mr. "Re" and it's a powerful and commonly-used tool.

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Didn't have to read every study in existence to conclude that no such study exists.  However, I suspect the source of your error lies in you took the fifty-year household gun prevalence trend reported in either by Gallup or GSS and naively divided it by 310 million.  It never occurred to you to find out where the 310 million estimate came from, whether it estimated the current number of firearms in household circulation today or whether it came from raw production numbers.  You never once considered the figure included stocks purchased by domestic law enforcement, or stock disposed over time.  Yes?  No?

                            If no, then show us a single study that bears out your claim.  You won't, of course, because you're lying.  You have no such study. Everything else you say is bullshit aimed at distracting from that fact.  I'll assume you have nothing to add until you answer one way or another with fucking evidence in hand.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:31:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: 310 million (0+ / 0-)

                            The link came out bad.  Here you go, kid.

                            http://nap.edu/...

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:34:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Funny stuff (0+ / 0-)

                            You do know the math behind that, don't you?

                            You do know what per capita in a population estimate is, don't you?

                            No.  You evidently don't.

                            I'm through with you. I should never have bothered.  Have a good day.  Stay safe, pal.  You're going to need it more than I.

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            No, you shouldn't have bothered, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.  Good riddance.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:29:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Source? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BlackSheep1
                          even as gun rights activists have worked with local law enforcement to reduce gun violence nation wide.

                          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:31:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes they were. It's the same song (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Berkeley Fred, PsychoSavannah

                          because it's true. Put quite simply, the level of ease with which firearms move about the country is paid with the coin of mass shootings, and when you get right down to brass casings, it's plain fact that this country, collectively, finds that "acceptable collateral damage" because if it were not, things would have been changed.

                          Own up to it. In order for the guns to move freely about the country, we as a country have to pay the price of shot-up kids in schools, shot-up kids in movie theaters, shot-up kids who went to see their congressperson speak, and shot-up kids in neighborhoods everywhere who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                          Keeping things as they are, no matter what else you color it with, says that those are acceptable losses. Period. Own it.

                          How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                          by athenap on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:36:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1

                            Yes, I suppose the fact that a simple machine evented a millenia and a half ago exists enables mass shooters.  Thank you for your insight.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:50:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well, technically, if there are no guns, there are (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan, noway2

                            no gun-violence-caused massacres.
                            Of course your true lunatic will find a way ... see Timothy McVeigh or Andrew Kehoe for examples.

                            Please note: I am not an advocate of "feel-good" laws or an AWB or a "lookit, we did something!" repeat of the 1990s ineffective laws restricting firearms.

                            Nor am I a fan of the laws that took guns primarily away from poor people (and minorities and women, btw) under Jim Crow and its heirs.

                            I think it's a good idea to run universal background checks.

                            I think passing one ought to be worth having proof -- a photo ID good for at least as long as your driver's license and useful for voter ID too, and having something like a thumbprint included so that if you're NOT the Jon Smythe the authorities are looking for, the spelling of your name isn't reason enough to deny you a firearm.

                            I think we ought to register users -- and qualify them for each class of firearm they use, and train them and re-qualify them at least every year. We should do that at no expense to the user -- i.e. the government (state or county or municipal or federal) in charge of keeping the user records up to date (and this is not onerous - the PD and SO already keep these and send letters to CCL users; it's one more server hard drive on a UPS in an attic someplace) furnishes the targets, instructors, and ammunition for qualification. User brings own firearm, or uses one of the type for which the qualification is sought, that is available at the range (i.e. if you're working on a permit for a shotgun borrow a shotgun, if you're working toward a renewal on a revolver, borrow a revolver, etc.).

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:00:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1

                            We could also pass universal background checks with no record keeping and it would have impact.  So much for incrementalism.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:29:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Interesting how any time the discussion tries to (0+ / 0-)

                            go in this direction it falls on deaf ears.  Oh the cries about 100,000,000 gun deaths and wounds per day, blah blah, and how putting a stop to that is the objective and how they don't want to take anyone’s guns, at least until they post that they do, yet there is zero interest in discussing real solutions.  Obviously, it isn't solutions most of them want.  Just the feeling of power and compensation that comes from expressing false outrage and silly insults on a internet forum.

                          •  I'm waiting for the real solutions (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a plain and simple fact--fewer guns will enable fewer shooters. Remove an element from an equation and the equation changes. It's math.

                            It's also a pretty plain and simple fact that there won't be jack-booted thugs coming to steal allz yer gunz because in spite of the Fear that Opens Wallets at firearms stores, we are not one-less-yahoo-with-a-gun away from the next Third Reich. If you think we are, then what the hell are you still doing in this country?

                            And yes, there are a few people whose guns I would like to take away. The violent, the insane, the drunk asshole who likes to whip them out at parties to show them off. I'll go for two out of three, since we don't have a national asshole registry.

                            How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                            by athenap on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:56:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  A registry isn't a no-gun list. Even if a (3+ / 0-)

              permanent registry of all gun owners, guns owned, transactions, etc were to exist, it in no way would infringe on the 2nd amendment.  On its face, a registry is just a registry, and its existence is in no way an infringement.

              And just for comparison, the 26th Amendment allows people 18 and older to vote.  How is a permanent registry or list (which certainly exists now) of voters infringing on the 26th Amendment?

            •  There does need to be a mechanism to correct (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlackSheep1

              mistakes in the NICS too.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:36:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It doesn't, but that's not the objection. (8+ / 0-)

            The objection is that, without a registry, confiscation is practically impossible. Since many gun control organizations and politicians have been saying for years that elimination of private firearms ownership is their long term goal, and since it's already happened, both in countries that advocates point to as models and here in the USA, we simply don't trust them enough to give them the tool in the first place.

            It's much easier to deny power in the first place than it is to take it away when it's misused.

            --shannon

            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

            by Leftie Gunner on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:53:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  People calling for the elimination of all guns (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miggles, PsychoSavannah, Code Monkey

              are on the fringe and will never get their way, or anything close to it. The 2nd, plus the gazillions of very well organized gun owners in the US, assure that. To be afraid of this is to reveal oneself as not serious about this issue. There are environmental radicals calling for the elimination of cars, yet despite all cars being registered and drivers license, somehow that hasn't happened, despite there not being an amendment about cars or driving.

              To fear that licensing will lead to confiscation is simply silly. Now, if you want to make a civil liberties argument against licensing, on 4th amendment grounds, then I might be more amenable to persuasion.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:12:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                because we have our share of what you call "fringe" here on kos who wholeheartedly believe that ALL guns should only be in the hands of police and the military.

                I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                by wretchedhive on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:05:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And I'm not one of them (0+ / 0-)

                  Nor have I come across many. And I spend a lot of time here. I'm not anti-gun, or anti-gun owner. I'm anti-guns no civilian should own and anti-illegitimate gun owner (e.g. mentally ill, felon) of any gun.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:31:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  which guns are those that no civilian should own, (0+ / 0-)

                    And why?

                    Before you answer, remember that cops are civilians.

                    I actually have a clear,  concise answer to this question, one that will pass a strict scrutiny analysis... do you?

                    --Shannon

                    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                    by Leftie Gunner on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:46:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  The Bill of Rights gives you freedom of speech (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miggles, FogCityJohn, bevenro

          And freedom of association.

          Does that make forcing registration of lobbyists a violation of those rights?

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        We don't register all cars.  We register cars that are going to be driven on public roads.  And you don't need a license, insurance, or anything to purchase one.  The title need not be announced to any government body at all so long as you keep it on private property or tow it.  We regulate the use of an automobile, and only in very specific settings.

        Bottom line, you're not going to get a registry.  Time you put some thought into alternative methods of auditing transfers.  Assuming, of course, that your goal is actually to do something about the flow of firearms into unlawful hands.

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

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:17:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We may not register all cars (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          but we keep a database of all VINs of cars made over the past X years, and states keep title records, and if anyone tries to drive an unregistered car outside their property, they're in trouble if caught.

          Now how many people keep AR-15s at home that they keep unloaded and disabled and do not intend to use under any circumstances?

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:35:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

            You have access to all serial numbers from gun manufacturers as it is.  If anyone tries to use a firearm off private property without a serial, well, they're in trouble if caught.

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

            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:39:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Problem is that all these shootings (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              were done with guns that had SNs, and I believe were legally purchased and owned. Obviously SOMETHING is broken there.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:55:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                Yes.  Got a solution to address that to some degree.  Periodically updated, affirmative, certified declaration of medical and mental health.  Can be provided through the same system in which we secure the firearms audit trail.  Can be expanded to a wide range of other commercial activities involving dangerous substances, machinery, etc.

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

                by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:10:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The original RKBA mission statement (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FogCityJohn
                  Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  
                  Emphasis mine.

                  Perhaps you could explain how the first part in bold can exist in the same universe as universal background checks?

                  The second bolding just makes me laugh my arse off - as if you care more about who wins an election than your precious gunz.

                  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                    So you still can't find any evidence of even a single RKBA member categorically objecting to universal background checks.  Got it.

                    More gun control likely does hurt Democrats.  Fortunately, universal background checks need not be "more gun control."

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

                    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:45:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Not sure if you're snarking here (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm for prohibiting the mentally ill or otherwise not fit to own and use a gun from owning guns. I'm not for otherwise lawful gun owners to prove their sanity on a regular basis. How would that even be done, aside from its being an obvious civil liberties violation? However, if you're found to be mentally unfit to own a gun through some other process, you lose the right to own one.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:29:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

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

                    You are asking for just that.  We're just debating over who holds the record.  

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

                    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:46:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We agree on a sanity requirement (0+ / 0-)

                      We disagree on how it's determined and the records kept.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:14:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                        No, not really on how it's determined.  I'm all for limiting it to adjudicated findings.  We disagree on whether the federal government need hold all the records.  Your state will hold the record regardless; it's a state court adjudication.  I'm simply proposing that the method of delivering notification be transferred from the federal government to the individual.  I do so for a very specific technical reason; it's a hell of a lot easier to implement than trying to ETL data from fifty states and all their counties onto a single system.

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

                        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:22:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not religious on the specific method (0+ / 0-)

                          by which records are kept and accessed, and by whom. But any entity that has a legitimate right to inspect such records, should be able to do so, quickly, and of course lawfully, with audit trails and gag orders, etc.

                          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                          by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:24:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            That's not an objection.  Under my system, if you present proof of a legitimate right, a warrant, to the appropriate persons, they have to present you with what's required,  explain why they cannot, or--if said explanation is inadequate--pay the appropriate penalty.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:29:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  I legally own a car (0+ / 0-)

            it is roadworthy, and I drive in a safe manner.

            how is registration useful?  How would authorities know in the first place if it is utilized in an appropriate manner?

            Do you support checkpoints to assure registration?

            I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

            by wretchedhive on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:02:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Registration is displayed on the outside of your (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kovie

              car, is it not?

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:33:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's useful because if your car is registered (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, BradyB, FogCityJohn

              then it means that it's passed your state's safety and emissions standards, if any, and can be tracked back to you if involved in an accident or crime.

              Or stolen, for that matter.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:36:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  would you concede that an unregistered car (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                noway2

                could be safe and pass emissions?   and that the ownership is not indicative of who was operating it if involved in an accident or crime.

                This country has gone punishment crazy.  They want to prosecute to the 6th sigma of everything involved instead of focusing on the person who chose to commit a crime.

                I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                by wretchedhive on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:58:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Could be, but not found to be (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BradyB

                  Huge and important difference, legally, and in terms of the public good. Registration, if done right, assures us of this, to the extent possible.

                  As for ownership, it might not prove proximate fault, but it would help in determining it. Presumably, unless your car was stolen, you'd know who was driving it at the time. Plus, you could still be held legally liable even if you weren't driving it, if you lent it out.

                  Cars aren't registered just for the hell of it.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:04:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  however, for cars to be normally utilized (0+ / 0-)

                    they access public roads, wherein they are by their fulfilled purpose of usage, has a public interest for liability and strict safety standards.

                    I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                    by wretchedhive on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:05:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Most states register the PEOPLE who (0+ / 0-)

            lawfully take guns out into public.

          •  Stop with the Car Analogies, already! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kentucky Kid

            About a car registration--you are PARTLY correct, and some states may have different regulations, just that I'm not aware.  If you never drive your vehicle  off your property, you are not subject to any government regulation whatsoever, and that includes state registration.  You may modify it in any way, remove seatbelts, remove smog-control equipment, etc.  You may haul it by trailer to another place, over a public road, and drive it at that other place if it is not on a public road (drag strip, off-road CLOSED private race course, etc.).. You are correct that somewhere, in a database, is the VIN of that vehicle.  

            In the drag racing/stock car racing community, cars without titles change hands all the time.  All that is needed is a bill of sale (and check CarFax to be certain that the car is not stolen--if the original owner should show up with the title, and the car was stolen, the buyer is out-of-luck and the "owner" can reclaim the car).  The state doesn't enter into the picture, at all, although law enforcement could check the VIN to ascertain if the car is on the stolen list, I don't know any instance of that happening.

            •  And what percentage of cars in working condition (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              does this "never driven and thus not registered" situation apply to? No one cares about junkers with weeds growing out their sides sitting on blocks on some guy's spread, just as no one cares about that non-working 1901 Luger your great-grandpa owned. But I'd bet that there aren't that many late model cars in good condition that aren't registered.

              As for closed circuit race cars, I don't know much about that world but I'd bet a lot of money that there are all sorts of regulations that apply to them that are probably a lot tougher than ones that apply to street cars, given how fast they go so close to spectators. The analogy there is to assault weapons that can only be used on gun ranges, but still have to be registered.

              What it boils down to is that most of the objections that gun people make to most proposed regulations just don't make any real-world sense, depending more on paranoid fears than legitimate ones.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:42:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, PARTLY correct (0+ / 0-)

                The rules and regulations are set by the racing association and by the promoter, not by the government.  Just like the PGA sets the rules for golf tournaments, the NHRA sets the rules for racing, and entries are governed by those rules and accepted by the promoters.  So, by your analogy, the NRA can set the rules as to how AK47's are used at their ranges, how they can be modified and how those modifications determine their competitive class.  None of the rule makers (PGA, NHRA, NRA, care where the equipment comes from, but they do determine the rules which allows what equipment is used in competition).  

                Car analogies are just BAD because they just don't fit when discussing firearms.  And here, I let myself get sucked into the trap!

              •  Quite a lot most likely.... (0+ / 0-)
                And what percentage of cars in working condition does this "never driven and thus not registered" situation apply to?
                I own 2 personally, and there's at least 8 total on our family farm that aren't registered or licensed that are used all the time. Just because you may happen to live where  
                No one cares about junkers with weeds growing out their sides sitting on blocks on some guy's spread
                does not mean that your environment is like everyone elses.
            •  A car that's never driven? (0+ / 0-)

              How did the car get to your property in the first place?  When it was originally sold, I'm pretty sure it had to be registered.

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

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:25:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not if there's no database entries for the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patrick Costighan

      firearm.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:35:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't support banning firearms (5+ / 0-)

    but I would support adopting New York City's firearms laws nationwide. They work. The laws have been in place for quite some time, and nobody's guns are being confiscated -- except for people who shouldn't be having guns.

    http://www.nyc.gov/...

    •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi, Kentucky Kid

      In other words, so long as you're rich or have connections, you can get a firearm.  No deal.

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

      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:11:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The urban/rural divide continues (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ancblu

      New York is not immune to the opposition to gun control from its red/purple counties.  This is a really divisive issue, and it is shaping up as a battle between the cities and the less-populated rural areas.

       Buffalo News

      " Buffalo News 2013-02-22: ALBANY – The push-back continues. More than two dozen county legislatures across New York, including Erie County’s, have formally condemned New York’s new gun-control law, describing it as everything from an infringement on Second Amendment rights to legislation stacked with costly state-imposed mandates to an affront to doctor-patient rights. Opposition to the law, which pollsters say has contributed to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s recent noticeable drop in poll ratings, appears only to be intensifying the emotional debate over gun control even though five weeks have passed........"
       I have no idea how it is going to eventually play out, but 60 people showed up at a town hall in my area and no one was in favor of more gun control laws, according to my local paper.  I have no indication that this is a minority opinion in my own, rural area, and it does not bode well for Democrats in rural districts if they vote in support of gun control.  I believe that the Democratic Party is well aware that they have a problem in legislative districts outside of the cities if they support gun control bills, and that is the very reason why the current proposals appear to not be going anywhere on a national level.  The electoral results of the state laws won't be known until the next election.
      •  Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s recent noticeable drop (0+ / 0-)

        Regardless of gun legislation, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s recent noticeable drop in poll ratings is at least partially due to other Cuomo bullshit, (of which there is much but that's off topic)

        New York's law is severable. That means which ever provisions are struck down, the others will remain.

        Multiple states need to move forward so that regulations get tested in the courts and eventually vetted by SCOTUS.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I Am Embarrassed By Democrats Who Show (8+ / 0-)

    no willingness to vote for universal background checks.  There will be another tragedy with assault guns, and what will democrats and republicans tell families about their support for the NRA instead of for the American people?

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:53:06 PM PDT

  •  goddamned cowardly bastards. god damn them. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, psnyder
    •  Reid is a terrible leader, (0+ / 0-)

      and the Senate is mostly a collection useless shitbag millionaires who don't deserve an ounce of respect.

      The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

      by psnyder on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:22:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun control as a movement is over. (6+ / 0-)

    Culturally, it's got about as much hope as opposition to gay marriage. Attitudes have shifted, and they're unlikely to shift back.

    A combination of falling crime rates and expansion of carry laws, coupled with the Heller and MacDonald cases, have guaranteed that not only do many Americans see possessing a gun as a right, they're increasingly comfortable with ordinary citizens carrying guns.

    Like opposition to marriage equality and marijuana legalization, laws will take some time to align with popular opinion, but it's just that... a matter of time.

    So basically, it's turned into a the kind of albatross the other two issues I've mentioned are for Republicans... except this one is hung around Democrat's necks.  It's something a large, vocal segment of the party faithful demands, which alienates an even bigger block of voters from the party.

  •  Insecure, afraid people love their guns (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1, stevej, FogCityJohn

    And Democrats are afraid, too.

    What else is new.

    •  I own multiple guns, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2

      and I'm not insecure, nor afraid in any way at all. However, you're very right that Democrats, as an party, should be afraid. Afraid of pushing useless legislation that doesn't address the issues (mainly not targeting the causes, rather than the tool sometimes used) of violence, that even if by some chance could pass the Senate (very unilkely), would die in the House, and would very likely cause us to lose Senate seats, as well as House seats if it actually came to an vote there.

      •  Would you support universal registration? (0+ / 0-)

        Or are you "afraid" that would lead to confiscation?

        If you're afraid of confiscation, then yes, you are indeed insecure and afraid.

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

        by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:27:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or just a student of recent history. (0+ / 0-)

          Registration is what enabled the gun seizures in the UK and Australia. Not to mention the SKS debacle in California.

          ... but Antis like to pretend that never happened.

          •  We register births, cars, pets, and voters. (0+ / 0-)

            Do you live in fear that your baby, automobile, dog, or you (in your capacity as a voter) will be confiscated?  

            I really don't understand the paranoia among gun owners.  Look, I have HIV.  Because of that, my name (and lots of other information) are on state and national registries of HIV+ people.  Not so long ago, there were a lot of prominent national politicians arguing that HIV+ people should be interned.  And quarantining people with diseases is unquestionably one of the powers of government, so I wouldn't have any constitutional protection should that decision be made.  Nor could I count on the government being restrained by any kind of political pressure, since HIV+ people are a tiny minority (about 1.2 million in the U.S.), and almost half of us live at or below the poverty line.  We're neither numerous nor are we big-bucks campaign contributors.  On top of that, most of us are gay, black, Latino, or IV drug users (or some combination thereof), so we're already part of oppressed communities.

            Somehow, though, I manage to sleep at night.  I don't tremble in fear that someone is going to cart me away in the middle of the night and dump me in some internment camp.  In contrast, the far more numerous and far more politically powerful gun owner crowd, with its flashy new Second Amendment rights, acts like registration would be the equivalent of the apocalypse.  

            I can't imagine what it would be like to live with such irrational fears.  But then, maybe irrational fear is what makes you folks buys deadly weapons in the first place.

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

            by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:30:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  wow, the tinfoil sure is heavy tonight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    (snicker)

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    That's so even though records have been kept of registered machine-guns for 78 years, and the only such weapons confiscated are those whose owners committed felonies.
    Or, you know, died.

    Your end of the Constitution is sinking.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:43:15 PM PDT

  •  Prediction: a whole lot of nothing happens (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madmojo, stevej, LilithGardener

    Republicans have no problem taking unpopular positions while Democrats immediately fold.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:48:59 PM PDT

  •  Errr, "Could Be as Dead"????? (0+ / 0-)

    Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo?

    another example of INability to face reality.

    "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

    by Superpole on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:53:36 PM PDT

  •  Why not tell it like it is? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1, FogCityJohn, PsychoSavannah

    "But the gun industry's mouthpiece has proved that it remains a thoroughly formidable foe and quite capable of victories even with the blood of 20 dead first-graders still on its hands."

  •  I don't think we'll get anything. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1, FG, AZphilosopher, looty

    I started losing hope for any real gun control legislation about 2 months ago.  Even the ones backing new laws stopped talking about it.  Once I stopped hearing anything from my two senators, Kaine and Warner, I knew it was up the creek.  

    •  Me too (0+ / 0-)

      I've pretty much given up hope that anything will be done by this Congress.  Or the next. Or the next.

      If 20 dead children shot down by someone with a legally-purchased assault rifle and legally-purchased high capacity magazine can't move these zombie congresspeople to do something nothing can.

      Barack Obama for President

      by looty on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:14:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Something does not add up when most Americans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, poco, Eric Nelson

    want gun-control but the NRA lobby for the gun industry gets to call the shots. Why are they even included in the conversation? It's not as if they have one iota of concern about gun violence.

    The NRA's control of the debate and their wide-spread corruption are to blame for what's happening not the gun-control advocates. Those advocates are outmatched financially and there is not enough political will to make regulations happen.

    •  It makes sense if you look at the Cong districts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Agathena

      See all that red?  Those red areas may have less residents than the blue CITIES, even if they have more area, but they are a significant force when it comes to electing the Congress.  That's how gerrymandering works, and we're stuck with it.  

  •  Bought and paid for Congress... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1

    What a bunch of gutless wonders.

    What do we want? Universal health care! When do we want it? Now!

    by cagernant on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:02:14 PM PDT

  •  TPTB here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1

    have no right to complain about what happens in Washington when they provide server space for the RKBA - the softer gentler NRA.

  •  WARNING - IRONY!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1

    Oh, goody, more splattered brains of little kids, moms, sisters, brothers, dads, grandparents and even puppy dogs.

    What the heck, that's only collateral damage, the collateral damage that occurs when you protect a right that very dedicated people want to maintain to protect their bunkers, compounds, 4X4 trucks and gun manufacturing businesses.

    {/irony}

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

    by unclebucky on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:10:50 PM PDT

  •  The sooner Congress caves the better since... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco

    ...this issue seems to have enough interregional cross-cultural support to become a unifying movement to force change. The gov't is dysfunctional and unable to do its most elementary responsibilities like budgeting, declaring war, paying bills. There will be no federal resolution.

    People for reducing the threat of gun violence are far more likely to get results that the US gov't. A multifaceted drive for individual, state, financial, corporate, and, yes, federal action is has a reasonable chance of success in say 5 (?)years. Changing culture is very hard but we've done it and can on this issue long before the gov't starts functioning.

  •  BTW. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    What's driving all this is not the public opinion, but rather the dollars of a relatively small number of meat-brained people and their corporate person "pets".

    Millions, possibly billions of dollars that can be directed to unseating both DemocratIC and Republican representatives and senators who would go "against" the gun lobby.

    Wayne LaPierre is going to retire a RICH MAN in the NRA Paradise of East Somalia. He'll have to hide behind a burqua in the streets or behind a compound, but he'll be RICH.

    Meh. NRA/TPers.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

    by unclebucky on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:14:21 PM PDT

  •  Total utter disgrace (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1

    This country has really become a fucking sewer.

    I don't know why I even bother with politics anymore.

    If this couldn't move people to action then what the fuck will?

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:14:35 PM PDT

    •  Time - don't give up. nt (0+ / 0-)

      Rep Elizabeth Esty (CT-04) made a very cogent argument last week, when she appeared on Rachel Maddow.

      She articulated very clearly why the massacre at Newtown has changed our national conversation on gun safety. And Rachel Maddow set up the argument with a historical review of gun reform legislation starting when JFK was a senator.  Even after he was shot it took another 2 high profile assassinations and 5 years before gun reforms were passed.

      h/t petersolson, see this absolutely amazing segment from Rachel Maddow.

      If you haven't seen it, please check it out. It will give you perspective.

      There is no turning back.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:54:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Call Reid's office - tell him to lead (6+ / 0-)

    Even a Poli Sci 101 student knows that sometimes the job of a leader is to put unpopular measures on the floor to force a count, not just count votes behind the scenes.  Call Sen. Reid's office and remind him of that fact!

    If senators in swing states are afraid of the NRA, let's make them see what it feels like for them to be afraid of gun control advocates.  There are more of us than there are NRA nuts.

  •  Keep pulling the rubber band (0+ / 0-)

    and the more its going to hurt when it snaps.

    GOP- Fact Free since 1981!

    by KingGeorgetheTurd on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:19:59 PM PDT

  •  These gun issues highlight exactly who our (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FogCityJohn

    elected representatives actually work for, as if we had any doubts.

    "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

    by AnnieR on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:24:40 PM PDT

  •  I will go ballistic with my 2 PA senators if .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, LilithGardener

    There is any legislation with no universal background checks!

  •  Democrats? betrayal (0+ / 0-)

    what does it mean to be a "democrat"? with the sell off of social security, medicare and medicaid, and voting like the nra on gun violence .... wtf?
    Hey Kos, is it still best to work the game from within the democratic party?
    just wondering

  •  Asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1

    The NRA told us precisely what would happen. And they were correct.

    Apparently they understand Democrats better than we do.

    When it comes to being spineless wimps, no party does it better.

  •  Ban all hand-guns or shut the fuck up. (0+ / 0-)

    But can't reasonable people agree to disagree?

    No.

    Ban all hand-guns or shut the fuck up.

    But shouldn't we spend another 50 years taking baby steps while tens of thousands of children are slaughtered on the streets and in schools?

    No.

    Ban all hand-guns or shut the fuck up.

    Klein, William (1928- ) - 1955 Gun 1, New York

  •  I supported several senators who don't support (0+ / 0-)

    background checks right now.  I won't give and I hope DailyKos holds their feet to the fire.  They don't deserve support.  In fact, they may lose their elections for not supporting background checks.  We have a lot of work to do.

    •  A Republican wet dream (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, noway2

      Gun control is the perfect wedge issue and they want Democrats to be primaried.  I don't expect my Senators (Baucus and Tester) to vote for any meaningful gun control, and in a purple state a primary fight would weaken their chances of election, and so would a vote for gun control.  They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.  MT was the first state to pass a law stating that a firearm manufactured in MT for use in MT is exempt from Federal gun laws, and the bill was signed into law by Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.  I've seen Schweitzer touted here on kos as a possible Dem presidential candidate.  

       I used to live in Oregon, and Merkley is vulnerable if he votes for gun control, too.  OR has a history of voting for R-asshats (Gordon Smith was the last one), and gun control is a hot issue in that state.  Republicans are slobbering all over themselves in anticipation of an electoral feast.

    •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2

      I'll support those Democrats who held the line.

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

      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:51:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Have you called and let them know? (0+ / 0-)

      We all need to support those willing to go forward and keep building a deep bench to replace those who won't move forward.

      There is no going back.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:56:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  do not underestimate the power of the NRA. They (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, FogCityJohn

    are supported by the gun manufacturers.

  •  Avoiding a filibuster is a mistake that could've.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

    ..been a winning move:

    Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters he won't keep the proposed ban in gun legislation heading to the full Senate for consideration because including it would guarantee the measure would be blocked by a Republican filibuster.
    The Reid cave on filibuster reform notwithstanding; forcing republicans legislators to vote NO on universal background checks and even other more controversial measures taken separately one right after the other is the way to go imo.

    This single bill idea (much like grand bargian - unwieldy), lumping all the various proposals together and then trying to make it filibuster proof  is exactly what the GOP expects - a watered down bill that loses its effectiveness that the GOP is sure to point out

    And why protect the republicans? is my question, when this could be an opportunity to force republicans to do what they do - filibuster - a measure that 90% of Americans favor strongly -  universal background checks for all gun sales

  •  Unthinkable? Hardly... (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone with friends, family or coworkers living the Red State-of-mind dream knows that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is every God-fearing conservative's divine ace in the hole for that day when the commie socialist librul gubmint comes to take away their jesus and freedoms!  Cold, dead hands indeed.

    Combine that with the corporate lobbying power of the gun manufacturers (USA = #1 arms exporter - go team!), our "which way is the money blowing?" congress, and the small amount of responsible gun enthusiasts with reasonable objections, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell we're getting anything better than the weakest tea available.

    It wouldn't matter if we lost 50 kids a month to school massacres, and we might yet.  In America, guns = freedom.  'Nuff said.  And that root runs so deep in our culture you're never going to be able to pull it out through the current political process.  If there's any hope at all, it will have to come from outside politics.

  •  FOr gods sake (0+ / 0-)

    can we stop these cowardly Senators from dodging votes? MAKE THEM GO ON THE RECORD! I don't care if Reid thinks he don't have the votes, let's see who is on our side and who could give a shit.

    •  He won't ever do that (0+ / 0-)

      Reid doesn't want Democrats to have to go on record. He doesn't care how GOPers vote, that's a foregone conclusion. He's trying to protect Democrats (including himself) who don't have the moral fibre to oppose the NRA in the cold light of day.

      Barack Obama for President

      by looty on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:20:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are we going to have to do this state by state? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    Is this how we are going to win back the statehouses?

    •  I think so. (0+ / 0-)

      States like New York, Connecticut and Illinois, are moving forward. Eventually enough bills will pass and be challenged all the way to SCOTUS, and then we will start to have clarity on which regulations will pass constitutional muster.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:59:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how is a background check unenforcible? (0+ / 0-)

    buying likker for minors is enforced all the dam time, at great expense..several police unis and not, volunteers, and the DA support and courts as well..that is not something I want to frack with when I go to sell a couple of $200 pistols..the thought that the guy who 'would be right there with the money' might be a ATF sting is enough for me. Why would anyone risk selling without the buyer's BK ground check? And as a seller, the buyer has the legwork and 10-25 expense, not me. In fact, the commission I would pay for a sale thru the FFL dealer, paid to the FFL dealer saves me even more headache as well giving me a paper trail.

    Making a timeline for when anyone in possession would need to have a background check for the possession of a currently owned gun should be doable..5 years, ten years, first time offense escalating over time? kind of thing that is done all the time.

    This technical argument
    'that won't work' is bullshit to cover for the politics.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:37:14 PM PDT

  •  Can anyone tell me why I should give a fuck (0+ / 0-)

    about the Democratic Party any more?

    We supposedly won an election in November and the Republicans are kicking our asses from here to fucking China and back.

    ON EVERYTHING, ON EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ISSUE THE REPUBLICANS ARE WINNING. WHY? WHY IS THIS?

    "There's no ideology [t]here [on the right]. It's just about being a dick." Bill Maher, June 22, 2012.

    by caseynm on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:26:50 PM PDT

  •  NRA knows it can depend on Congressional inertia (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    Hence the well-proven delay tactics.

    Sadly, very sadly, another mass-shooting may come and go before anything gets done.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:08:55 AM PDT

  •  Love the drive-by one-liners n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site