If you haven't at least skimmed the Machin-Toomey gun bill, here's the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There's probably nothing in the bill that hasn't been reported on but reading it at least familiarizes you with the language and the general outline of what next week's debate will cover.
Also read this previous Daily Kos diary by topdog08:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
It covers a video of Alan Gottlieb (head of Citizens Committee for the Right to Bear Arms) explaining why he and his group are supporting the Manchin-Toomey bill. He basically says he likes the bill because it gives the pro gun side a lot of what it wants and that the other side doesn't realize this yet. Which raises my eyebrows - more below.
Gottlieb's statements in the video are somewhat at odds with an official statement by his group:
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which calls itself the second largest gun-rights group in the US, said Sunday that it now supports the Manchin-Toomey agreement.
"We decided to back it because we believe it is the right thing to do," said Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the 650,000 member organization.
http://www.boiseweekly.com/...
But which one is it? Did CCRKBA support the bill because it is the right thing to do? Or because it gets a lot of what it wants? Or, because doing the "right" thing, is getting a lot of goodies for the pro gun supporters?
To my untrained and relatively inexperienced - but reasonable well read - eye, it seems as though the things the gun lobby is getting are not blockbuster items:
1. The right to/fewer restrictions against transporting firearms across state lines
2. Armed Services personnel have an easier time getting firearms - as it stands some (many?) of those with combat related stress/mental illness are restricted. To my mind, this is the most worrisome, considering the high rate of suicide among this population.
3. The background check does not extend to private sales between family, friends in certain situations (hunting trips, etc., it seems).
4. It is a felony for a Federal agency to collect background check data in a centralized "registry" - this seems to be one to placate (de-program) the people the gun lobby has convinced that the real reason for background checks is to tax and confiscate. In other words, this one probably will help them sell the bill to their most ardent supporters.
In addition, the bill includes a commission on mass violence - 12 members who will study why mass violence of all kinds, not only firearms related, occurs and what can be done to prevent it. I would prefer that this be extended not only to MASS violence but all violence done with firearms/explosives/poisoning. Most of the firearm violence is handgun, one assailant and one victim.
All in all, it seems to be what has been reported, and with Bloomberg and President Obama on board - at least for now - it seems like a decent compromise all things considered.Of course, is is far, far short of what needs to happen - 100% universal/comprehensive background check. We'll see what happens as the legislative process gets rolling.
In particular, Marco Rubio on Meet the Press suggested the concealed carry permitting process be the system used to background check buyers, and that those permits should be valid in all 50 states. Concealed carry in all 50 states is something called "national reciprocity" and in my opinion should be a deal breaker:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...