Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tom Coburn: No deal on background checks if Democrats demand record-keeping of gun sales
Hot Air ^ | February 25, 2013 | Allahpundit

Posted on 02/25/2013 2:11:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Here’s the first hard evidence we’ve seen that the big meeting of the minds on guns that the media’s been touting might be overhyped. Plain and simple, says Coburn, if Democrats demand that records of private gun sales be kept, the compromise is dead.

But wait. Kept by who? By the seller, or by the federal government?

A Senate aide familiar with the process said Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace erred in the question he posed to Coburn. The aides said there is no discussion of allowing the federal government to keep any records of background checks or sales, something that is already illegal and would not change. What is being proposed is having the seller retain a record of a private sale, just as a dealer does now for a sale that happens at a licensed gun store, the aide said.

It’s true, Wallace does seem to think that the Democratic plan would involve the feds retaining records of gun sales. If that wasn’t being kicked around in negotiations, you’d expect Coburn to correct him — but he doesn’t. Does that mean Wallace is stating the Democratic position correctly, much to the chagrin of Schumer et al. who’d prefer to keep that quiet while negotiations are ongoing? Or is Coburn saying he opposes expanded record-keeping of any kind, whether by the feds or otherwise?

WaPo makes it sound like the records would be kept by a private entity, not by the government, but it’s uncertain which private entity that might be:

Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records...

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Oklahoma; Issues; Parties; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: awb; banglist; congress; democrats; gunconfiscation; guncontrol; gungrabbers; obama; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/25/2013 2:11:44 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I can imagine the FEDs going for something like title to a vehicle, to show ownership and transfer.

I won't comply.

2 posted on 02/25/2013 2:14:35 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Why is there any deal on 'background checks?' We already have a national system of background checks called NICS that every single FFL holder must use for every firearms transfer.

How stupid, how corrupt, how evil are these politicians? Is Coburn just another Pubbie running cover for these commie usurpers?

3 posted on 02/25/2013 2:18:52 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Even a simple background check is an infringement. If they can’t be trusted to own and carry weapons, what are they doing running around loose?


4 posted on 02/25/2013 2:20:24 PM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

He’s a doctor. And, I think he’s become a member of the elite politicians club too. Time to turn him out.


5 posted on 02/25/2013 2:22:12 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

They just don’t seem to understand the concept of ‘natural rights’ at even the most basic level nor the plain language “Shall not be infringed. “


6 posted on 02/25/2013 2:24:04 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I guess I’m not keeping up but I thought he was one of the good ones. If any of them think their oath of office says “to appease popular sentiment” then they need to go.


7 posted on 02/25/2013 2:28:05 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No deal PERIOD.

If you’re always on the defense, its because you’re always losing.


8 posted on 02/25/2013 2:32:45 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Coburn just another spineless Liberal RINO.....ready to compromise


9 posted on 02/25/2013 2:35:10 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

even if they agree not to keep the records they will keep the records


10 posted on 02/25/2013 2:35:22 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Coburn is full of himself and full of power. I live in Oklahoma and have watched him over the years. If there’s some piece of crap legislation that every Senator is for, he’ll be on of 2 or 3 who vote against it. If there’s some piece of crap legislation that close, he votes with the party. He’s completely useless to cause of liberty, and only falls on the conservative side when there’s no chance the conservative side will win.


11 posted on 02/25/2013 2:38:05 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Tom Coburn - it should be NO DEAL on gun control - period!

Back up and try "criminal control, period!"

Without criminals running amok, totting guns and some modest proposals for, say security officers in schools, with guns AND bullets on colleges and universities, would go a very long way on keeping down idiots who determine to take out their entire class or schools for that matter because.......you make up their reasons.

12 posted on 02/25/2013 2:38:58 PM PST by zerosix (Native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Nope! I don't trust this government (or any other, for that matter) with more access to "records of purchases of guns" so that they know exactly whom to target when they're ready to confiscate any and all guns!

This government will NOT do anything to take criminals off the streets yet claim that we don't "need" guns for protection.

Actually, I trust petty criminals more than I trust the government anymore.

No way, letting the camel get more of its nose under the tent and we'll have the entire gun control camel in our living rooms soon.

13 posted on 02/25/2013 2:44:27 PM PST by zerosix (Native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Lie. Defy. Do not comply.


14 posted on 02/25/2013 2:44:40 PM PST by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
We already have a national system of background checks called NICS that every single FFL holder must use for every firearms transfer.

The trouble "they" have with that is that if that gun is sold or given away after that initial sale, they lose track of it. That form 4473 you fill out when you buy a gun is only useful a a tool to track that firearm while you own it. Universal background checks would have to require some type of registry in order to work.

15 posted on 02/25/2013 2:51:19 PM PST by Malone LaVeigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
if Democrats demand that records of private gun sales be kept, the compromise is dead.

SCREW THIS!
NO "COMPROMISE"!
NO NEW GUN LAWS!

Now where's muh phone... this Coburn a$$wipe is going to get a piece of my mind.

16 posted on 02/25/2013 2:56:35 PM PST by grobdriver (Vivere liberi aut mori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malone LaVeigh
Apparently the "they" you speak of includes Republican pols too.

"Universal background checks" means that Mexico can start smuggling guns back into the U.S. /s

17 posted on 02/25/2013 2:59:02 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

Thanks for the explanation on Coburn. He needs to go then.


18 posted on 02/25/2013 3:01:44 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

How is not a tax/stamp (ala Poll tax) Constitutional? What other Right(s) require gov’t approval (aka, those aren’t Rights) to utilize?

Hey media! Can you, or the dipshits writing these ‘laws’, tell me how this will reduce gun crime??


19 posted on 02/25/2013 3:17:38 PM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

All of my future private transactions will have happened in the past.


20 posted on 02/25/2013 3:32:24 PM PST by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; All

If there is no recordkeeping, then the universal background check just becomes an easily accessable database of forbidden possessors. WE could live with that, and might even turn it into a way of doing away with 4473 records and the NICS (National Instant Check System). My guess is that is what Coburn is willing to do. This sounds like a smart ploy on his part to kill the universal background check, because the Obama administration will never go for it.


21 posted on 02/25/2013 3:44:52 PM PST by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

“If they can’t be trusted to own and carry weapons, what are they doing running around loose?”

What are you doing with that old 18th and 19th and early 20th century thinking? The “progressive” knows that NO ONE excpt highly trained government agents are to be trusted with firearms.


22 posted on 02/25/2013 3:50:58 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (There is no requirement to show need in order to exercise your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Isn't NICS basically a database of forbidden possessors?
That is all it's supposed to do.
23 posted on 02/25/2013 3:57:44 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Canada put much effort into a system they finally abandoned.

A little study of North of the Border would be beneficial if they don'y really want to confiscate the guns.

24 posted on 02/25/2013 4:21:41 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"NO ONE execpt highly trained government agents are to be trusted with firearms."

Like the LAPD's (fortunately brief) War on Pickup Trucks.

25 posted on 02/25/2013 4:58:25 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The “gun show loophole” - isn’t. (Ever notice that “loopholes” only appear in laws that block the liberal agenda?) It was specifically added to the 1968 Gun Control Act as an escape value to prevent a national gun registration/confiscation list. That’s why the Democrats have, ever since, been trying to expand the check.

If all they are concerned with is your criminal/mental history, why do they want the serial number, caliber and type of firearm? (Schumer wants a 4473 for EVERY transaction.)

The elephant in the living room is that if every law-abiding citizen has to get government clearance before buying a firearm, what’s to prevent obama, et al from declaring a “National Emergency” (real or bogus) and shut down the background checks for “public safety”? Ergo, a total ban on gun transfers. Those naive people who believed the police would protect them and didn’t arm themselves will find out the penalty the hard way.


26 posted on 02/25/2013 4:58:40 PM PST by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

value = valve
(sigh)


27 posted on 02/25/2013 5:01:45 PM PST by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I ran into him flying into Tulsa last Friday. Couldn’t even look at him and didn’t want to engage him as I’ve.done in the.past. The system us btoke


28 posted on 02/25/2013 5:16:48 PM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson