Posted on 01/26/2013 4:16:02 PM PST by Red Steel
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday that he was working on a bill with Senate colleagues and the National Rifle Association (NRA) that would implement universal background checks, a major component of President Obama's proposed gun-control reforms.
Manchin, a member of the NRA, had not previously endorsed any specific measures to address gun violence.
"I’m working on a bill right now with other senators — Democrats and Republicans — we’re trying to get it, and looking at a background check that basically says that if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check, to be able to get [universal background checks]," Manchin told Metro News radio's "Talkline," in an interview reported by The Washington Post.
The West Virginia lawmaker went on to say his bill would carve out exceptions for certain transactions.
"With exceptions. The exceptions are: Families, immediate family members, some sporting events that you’re going to — that if you’re just going to be using them at the sporting events. So we’re looking and talking to people with expertise. I’m working with the NRA, to be honest with you, and talking to them," he said.
The NRA has been vocal in opposing the president's call for new gun controls, arguing that Obama has attempted to exploit the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school to limit Second Amendment rights. In remarks earlier this week, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre accused the president of wanting to put "every private personal firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government."
Later Thursday, a spokesman for the NRA said that while the group was working with members of Congress to "address the problems with the background check system," the group would not support expanding background checks to include private transfers.
"If Sen. Manchin supports putting private transfers between law-abiding citizens under the thumb of the Obama-Holder justice department, we will vigorously oppose those efforts," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.
Arulanandam said the gun rights group believed "what Congress needs to do is improve and not expand the system" to better prevent those suffering from mental illness from obtaining weapons.
In the radio interview, Manchin called background checks for private dealers — who are exempted by the so-called gun-show loophole — "common sense."
"Why would a legitimate gun retail shop have to go through that, but then the unfair advantage for someone at a gun show doesn’t?" Manchin asked.
Earlier Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced an updated assault-weapons ban in the Senate that would ban the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features. The bill would also ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Manchin has previously said that he does not think hunters need assault rifles, but has not explicitly said whether he would support Feinstein's bill.
--This report was updated at 1:55 p.m.
Exemption for sporting events? Does this mean we would need to call in for a background check when the bad guys are crawling through the kitchen window?
Anyone running for president should be able to pass a background check.
After the shooting in Shady Brook the game has changed. Most folks love their kids and grand kids more that their guns...
The vast majority of Americans don't want the crazies to have guns but they wont give up their constitutional right to own theirs.
IMHO the NRA or any other group advocating for the 2nd Amendment can not be seen as advocating letting the crazies have guns. One way to reduce the number of crazies from acquiring guns may be through the background check procedure...
I really think we need to reiterate the ‘no more laws’ concept far and wide. The politicians will pass something just to get past this and we’ll be one step closer to serfdom.
You sound like the perfect dEMOcrat.
Any pathetic piece of trash who trades down on the constitution is unworthy of being called an American.
Manchin talks out every side of his mouth.
............................................................
That’s his mouth that noise is coming from?? I would have bet it was coming from the other end.
Yes you will get flamed because you have failed in a spectacular way.
NOBODY wants the crazies to get guns. Lanza apparently tried to buy a gun and failed the back ground check. Regardless he got the firearms from his mother. So a background check for him would have been useless because he didn't buy them, he stole them.
The marxists are pushing for universal background checks for one reason, to provide a paper trail for all gun ownership. The only firearms bought or sold without a background check are those transferred between private individuals such as family members. Thats a very small percentage of legal firearms.
Criminals don't get background checks and they never will. Forcing law abiding people into yet another hurdle will not save any lives.
Amen Brother, but that would take balls, and Manchin is lacking those.
One more worthless law at a time is how they are playing it.
Then they claim they just need one more.
NO MORE. Put the crazy people in hospitals and leave the guns alone.
Wow. This guy is a real P.O.S.
Why does Manchin remind me of that brother-in-law who borrows money and can’t keep a job?
Okay, so how would that have stopped Lanza from getting the guns? THey were his mom’s.
How crazy do you have to be? Who decides who’s crazy? What if a person is determined “crazy” but lives with a non-crazy? Can the non-crazies have guns? Do they have to be locked up? Who checks on that?
How do you get on a crazy list?
As far as I’m concerned any man too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to walk free.
We used to lock dangerous criminals up and keep them locked up. If an inmate was released he got his weapons back without question because the constitution demands it.
Today we’ve got an ever expanding range of reasons we can’t let people have guns and those who aren’t supposed to have them are getting them anyway. Lets not forget the guy who ambushed firemen on Christmas did time for beating his own grandmother to death with a hammer. If he had spent the rest of his life in prison he wouldn’t have been able ignore the law that said he couldn’t have a weapon.
Wow, somebody must have figured out that Joe Bob is NOT going to go get a background check done every time he trades a gun to one of his buddies. (Not that the law would have been enforcable anyway, all Joe Bob would need to do is backdate a receipt before the law was changed in case any questions were ever asked.)
What they’ll do is set up stings to do private sales in order to catch people who don’t do a background check.
It will expand those convicted of a crime and who cannot legally own a firearm.
Fodase everyone one of these traitors
Lightpost time beckons
All that wacky militia agitprop from the 80s and 90s aint so farfetched now is it
NRA is getting ready to sell us down the river again.
Constitution does not prohibit the congress from passing laws which would promote safety of law abiding citizens.
I am totally against any restrictions on any US Citizen from buying or inheriting any firearms of their choice with no prohibitions, provided they have not been convicted of any violent crime, and are not mentally sick. Reported Spousal physical abuse should also forfeit your firearms 2nd Amendment rights.
There should be no annual fees to own firearms, because in practical terms it restricts law abiding people with insufficient resources to own firearms.
I’ve seen “Not one more inch” being used extensively by 2A supporters.
Looks like I'm the only friend you got here tonight.....LOL@!
The background check works and I have no problem with it, but that's the extent of gun control that I support and I'm sure it's yours too.
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.