Sen. Coburn Drafts His Own Gun Bill

wsj.com ^ | 5 April, 2013 | Kristina Peterson

[marktwain]

Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) is quietly circulating his own proposal for expanding gun-sale background checks, a sign that the conservative lawmaker may be trying to build support outside of long-running bipartisan negotiations on the issue.

After struggling for months to reach a deal with Democrats on how to broaden background checks, Mr. Coburn has written a 43-page draft of a bill that wouldn’t require private gun sellers to keep a paper record of the sale, according to a copy of the proposal.

Dropping the record-keeping requirement would make it difficult for Democrats to support the bill, according to individuals familiar with the negotiations. Democrats have argued there is no way to enforce the checks without some form of documentation.

[marktwain]

Lots of ways to enforce background checks without documentation. Do sting buys at gun shows.

Have a system where people do a background check on themselves, good for a month, and they can buy any gun they want by showing the seller a printout proving that they are elegible. No records to any gun, or that a sale ever took place, but a record that the buyer was elegible.

Use the BIDS system instead of the NICS system. People check a database of prohibited persons. If the buyer is not on it, you can make the sale. The data base is refreshed every month and made available on disk or over the internet.

The left wants this for a registration system and routinely lies about it.

[txrefugee]

Sure, the Democrat gun-grabbers want to have a government record of who has guns. What could possibly go wrong with that?

[FlingWingFlyer]

Why do we need background checks? Why can’t we use the same system voters use? Instead of verifying your citizenship and residency at the bottom of the form, you sign at the bottom certifying that you are not a criminal or crazy. If it works for the voters, surely it would work for gun buyers.

[chris37]

Any such legislation infringes upon my God given right to bear arms.

Any knife in the back of the American citizen will have an R carved into its handle, this I have come to learn.

*spits on the ground*

[cripplecreek]

Do away with background checks and restrictions altogether.

Anything else is simply losing slower.

[marktwain]

“Why do we need background checks?”

We don't. They are a failed paradigm. From the beginning, they were designed to morph into a national registration system. We fought that, but it has been inching forward, bit by bit.

We should shuck the whole system and start over. It is expensive and not cost effective. The only thing it accomplishes with regularity, is to deny people their Constitutional rights. Most denials are false positives.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****Do sting buys at gun shows. *****

The instant the feds make the sting word will get out. Yell “FED AGENT!” and see how fast they are surrounded by 10,000 very unfriendly gun show patrons.

[upchuck]

Great ideas in reply #1 Mark.

Unfortunately, none of them will be used because they make too much sense and don’t provide for the hiring of several thousand more government goon union members.

[cripplecreek]

Any man too dangerous to own a gun is a man too dangerous to walk free. If we stop letting violent criminals out of prison, they wouldn’t be able to ignore gun laws that say they can’t have them.

[jrd]

it’s time to take control of the issue and call it what it really is “People Control”!

[SoFloFreeper]

Guns are NOT a major issue in America. Our moral and economic decline need to be addressed.

LET’S DROP THIS CRAP ABOUT GUNS.

[ZOOKER]

Dropping the record-keeping requirement would make it difficult for Democrats to support the bill, according to individuals familiar with the negotiations.
Democrats have argued there is no way to enforce the checks without some form of documentation.

The Democrats tip their hand here. They'll give on any other part of gun legislation except THE LIST. With a current, comprehensive list of ALL gun owners, we're one Sandy Hook - style massacre away from confiscation.

But we all know that, right?

[trubolotta]

You raise a very good point and Sarah Palin proved how effective that could be much to the consternation of the left (Death Panels). I think people control is too broad since that is the entire leftist agenda but I'm sure we can come up with something that hits home and resonates that will also drive the left bonkers.

[TigersEye]

When are we going to have mandatory background checks, with
public disclosure, on people who run for public office?

[marktwain]

“Guns are NOT a major issue in America. Our moral and economic decline need to be addressed.”

I understand what you are saying. However, I disagree with your assessment of the situation.

Guns are a pivot point that represent adherence to the Constitution and limited Government. Nearly everyone can understand the clear guarantee of the Second Amendment, and cut through the MSM propaganda to realize that the Constitution is being attacked.

In 1994 this issue,combined with health care, won the congress for Republicans for the first time in 40 years. They put through some important reforms before they were beaten back by the efforts of the MSM.

People need a standard that they can easily understand. Guns and the Second Amendment are that standard.

[trubolotta]

Unfortunately, this CRAP is about the Constitution and it is being attacked on every front and must be defended with a counterattack on every front. If you surrender the initiative on one front and lose it, it merely encourages more vicious attacks on other fronts.

[sickoflibs]

As a general strategy if the GOP can LOOK like they are compromising while inserting poison pills in the bill so Dems defeat them then they have hurt Obama and the Dems effectively at no cost,

Time will tell if this is what they are up to.

If Dems agree and it passes chances are we were screwed.

[ConservativeInPA]

I do not want any background checks. I should not have to seek and pay for permission of the government for a God given right.

[jdege]

Democrats have argued there is no way to enforce the checks without some form of documentation.

What they mean is that without a required paper trail, simple possession of a firearm will still be presumable legal act.

The moment there is a requirement for a permanent record of every firearms transfer, the possession of any firearm manufactured after that date becomes an illegal act, for which the existence of the proper paperwork becomes an affirmative defense.

We will have changed the presumption of innocence, Instead of possession of a firearm being legal, except in specific circumstances as specified by law, possession of a firearm will be illegal, unless the proper paperwork was created, and hasn't been lost.

This is simply not something we can accept.

[marktwain]

“What they mean is that without a required paper trail, simple possession of a firearm will still be presumable legal act.

The moment there is a requirement for a permanent record of every firearms transfer, the possession of any firearm manufactured after that date becomes an illegal act, for which the existence of the proper paperwork becomes an affirmative defense.

We will have changed the presumption of innocence, Instead of possession of a firearm being legal, except in specific circumstances as specified by law, possession of a firearm will be illegal, unless the proper paperwork was created, and hasn’t been lost.

This is simply not something we can accept.”

Exactly correct. They will have turned a right into a priviledge that they can whittle away at.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html