Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bipartisan deal reached on gun background checks
Washington Post ^ | 04/10/2013 | Ed O'Keefe

Posted on 04/10/2013 7:39:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last
To: SeekAndFind

Bi partisan. It sounds so friendly.


51 posted on 04/10/2013 8:11:32 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Toomey has an “A” rating from the NRA?

Bullsh_t!


52 posted on 04/10/2013 8:14:06 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
who will introduce the proposal as an amendment to the current gun bill under consideration in the Senate

Is there a "bill" (you know, a written document available for public inspection) which is "under consideration" (you know, in the hopper, assigned to a committee, debated, passed to the floor with majority and minority reports) in the Senate?

I don't actually think there is.

53 posted on 04/10/2013 8:16:40 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Just how, and where, can you buy a gun over the internet? You can’t.

Really?

Just one of many.

Gunbroker.com

54 posted on 04/10/2013 8:18:22 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

This thread is dedicated to our lame-stream drive bys. I would play a song but this is okay too. Tell Me Sweet Little Lies is for you suckers in the lame-stream.
55 posted on 04/10/2013 8:19:30 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

No, you can’t buy a gun over the internet. You can LOOK at guns for sale, but it still has to be shipped to an FFL holder.


56 posted on 04/10/2013 8:21:38 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The debate in Congress about guns is always about which rights do I no longer need.
Not how to protect my rights.

Unless I’m a f*g, an illegal alien or I want an abortion.
Then they’ll invent rights for me that don’t exist.


57 posted on 04/10/2013 8:22:01 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

All commercial sales already require a background check so, as presented here, this bill would change nothing. And we know that’s not going to happen.

One thousand D I N G S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Struck me precisely the same. This background check BEE ESS is a ruse for something else. One more example of corralling the law abiding and doing nothing to inhibit criminals, and Ayn had plenty to say on that subject as well.


58 posted on 04/10/2013 8:23:34 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
On a quick glance, it appears that the ‘Rats just wanted to pass ANYTHING as a face-saving measure. Even something rather marginal and meaningless.

Agree.

Anything that allows O'Bozo to claim a win.


59 posted on 04/10/2013 8:23:38 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Welcome to Obama-Land - EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Just how, and where, can you buy a gun over the internet? You can’t.

Sure you can.

At auction sites for one example - places like Gun Broker and Guns America
But you still have to ship to and from an FFL.

Another example is CMP.
And they ship direct to the purchaser - no FFL intermediary required.


60 posted on 04/10/2013 8:29:52 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Welcome to Obama-Land - EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

How bout IGNORE IT. They can make all the phony laws they want. Then try to enforce them!

That may sound like a good idea, but that would be last resort IMHO. Far better to have some distance between bad law and last resort.


61 posted on 04/10/2013 8:30:33 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Toomey’s a TRAITOR. He’s let the snakes in the back door.


62 posted on 04/10/2013 8:31:02 AM PDT by carriage_hill (The most insidious power the news media has, is the power to ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

WASHINGTON, D.C. —

A Senate aide and a lobbyist say two senators have struck a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more firearms purchases. The agreement could build support for President Barack Obama’s drive to curb gun violence.

http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1431006472/Dem-GOP-U-S-senators-reach-gun-background-check-deal


63 posted on 04/10/2013 8:32:18 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Remember Obmma Care? The same was said about that.

All they need to do is roll 16 Repubs. They can do that.


64 posted on 04/10/2013 8:34:03 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

RE: The agreement could build support for President Barack Obama’s drive to curb gun violence.

That’s the argument... the more important question is this -— WILL IT?


65 posted on 04/10/2013 8:34:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Andrew Malcolm
Political News & Commentary
Obama continues his traveling gun show charade

By Andrew Malcolm

Posted 04/09/2013 09:06 AM ET

President Obama was on again Monday about gun laws, not enforcing the existing ones. But getting some new ones, any new ones so he can claim some kind of political victory after all of the promises and vows he made in the emotional days last December.

But Obama wasn’t working on the senators from his own party who will actually determine the fate of these measures. That would be political leadership.

No, Obama was out of town again, up in Hartford for a photo op with Connecticut legislators and some Newtown families. Of course, it wasn’t so much about everyone coming together to agree on new safeguards to protect children anymore, as he talked way back in December. No, as usual, this latest campaign rally was all about him. The usual suspects yelled their love. Obama mentioned himself 40 times.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/040913-651148-obama-senate-background-check-legislation.htm#ixzz2Q4iTMKJp
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook


66 posted on 04/10/2013 8:34:23 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
The agreement could build support for President Barack Obama’s drive to curb gun violence.

D.C. forgot to add ... No Criminals will be emboldened by this legislation.

67 posted on 04/10/2013 8:35:26 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

April 10, 2013 4:00 A.M.

A Tax on Freedom
Punitive taxes on guns and ammunition will punish only the law-abiding.

By Charles C. W. Cooke

‘I’m not asking to take away people’s guns,” Maryland legislator Jon Cardin nervously told Politico this week. “I’m just saying that for an activity that is relatively dangerous, obviously, people who participate in that activity should pay the full costs of that activity.” America, witness a guileful new tactic of the gun-control movement.

Cardin (a nephew of U.S. Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat), who wishes “to tax bullets at 50 percent,” was outlining an increasingly popular progressive idea: If you can’t regulate something, why not tax it in lieu? Similar proposals — by which states impose specific levies on purchases of firearms and assorted peripheral items — are now being considered in California, Nevada, and New Jersey; and in Chicago,

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345160/tax-freedom-charles-c-w-cooke


68 posted on 04/10/2013 8:38:13 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

F’ing RINOs.


69 posted on 04/10/2013 8:40:06 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Due Process 2013: "Burn the M*****-F***er Down!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wita

Ok, so where do YOU draw the line?


70 posted on 04/10/2013 8:41:49 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Just how, and where, can you buy a gun over the internet? You can’t.


Depends on how you define your terms.

You can see an advertisement for a gun, contact the seller, and come to terms. You then buy it from the seller, legally, without a background check.

This is legal in many states, and legal under federal law as long as the transaction is within the state.


71 posted on 04/10/2013 8:48:37 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: unixfox
From the Gun Broker site:

You do not have to be a licensed dealer to buy a firearm. If you are not a licensed firearm dealer (also called an FFL Holder), you must make arrangements with an FFL Holder in your state to receive the item and transfer it to you. Virtually anyone who is involved in the sale or distribution of firearms is an FFL Holder, including gun shops. You must make arrangements with your FFL Holder before placing a bid on an item. By contacting the FFL Holder before bidding, the buyer can verify that all state and federal laws will be observed. For most firearms, the buyer must be able to pass a background check.

So technically you can buy it, but an FFL is still involved, so the checks and balances are there.

72 posted on 04/10/2013 8:55:47 AM PDT by 5 Second Rule (I'm not talking about my food. I'm talking about my dates...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Something off topic .... am curious about your date attachment. Did something clue you in ... two days before?


73 posted on 04/10/2013 8:56:57 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

America betrayed by bipartisan treasonous senators one act at a time.


74 posted on 04/10/2013 8:59:30 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Yeh I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. All internet sales and also gun show sales already require a background check. I just bought a weapon on the internet and it had to be shipped to my FFL dealer and I had to have the background check. There must be a little paragraph in this bill somewhere that they are not telling us about.


75 posted on 04/10/2013 9:06:34 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

I was in the business of reading the tea leaves...


76 posted on 04/10/2013 9:15:26 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Statement from the National Rifle Association Regarding Toomey-Manchin Background Check Proposal

Posted on April 10, 2013

Fairfax, Va. - Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/statement-from-the-national-rifle-association-regarding-toomey-manchin-background-check-proposal.aspx?s=&st=&ps=


77 posted on 04/10/2013 9:16:30 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If it truly does nothing more than extend background checks to commercial sales (meaning sales by businesses which do advertising), then this is really doing nothing at all.

I’m surprised there are that many commercial sales that aren’t already done by licensed gun dealers.

This would mean private (owner) sales would not be covered, which was the problematic part of the democrat proposal.

Of course, the devil is in the details.


78 posted on 04/10/2013 9:16:58 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

NEW RULE:

When you give your kid your prized Ruger 10-22, drag him down to the local FFL and make sure he’s got a clean record.

The America of my youth is dead.


79 posted on 04/10/2013 9:18:04 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Compliance with Tyranny is Treason...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If Boehner were a Conservative, he wouldn’t allow any bill to be brought before the House.


80 posted on 04/10/2013 9:18:20 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Due Process 2013: "Burn the M*****-F***er Down!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
yep, been in that business myself. Those TEA leaves do have stories to tell.
81 posted on 04/10/2013 9:20:15 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Either they are lying about it, or they are not. If they are not lying, then the words “commercial sale” means that it would not cover you transferring your gun.

If this story is to be believed, there is apparently a way for a commercial enterprise to NOT be a “licensed gun dealer” and to do the sale of a weapon. Maybe pawn shops? I don’t know, because I would have thought all commercial sales were already covered.

The one thing it says that could be problematic — if they define “commercial sale” as “advertising”, then they might argue that listing your gun on a craigslist-type site would be “advertising”. I guess they could argue that posting on a bulletin board at a gun range was “advertising”, so I hope the actual language makes it clear THAT is not what they mean.

I know everybody here will be hopping mad. And if the argument was “we should not have background checks at all”, I’d understand that. But it could just be that we are winning. The democrats are desperate to not look like they are incompetent. They might well agree to something that does absolutely NOTHING real, just to say they “did something”.

And the leftist activists are not totally clueless. They will see they were sold out, and will respond accordingly.

So, I will reserve screaming rants until we see exactly what this bill will do. If it does something bad, I expect the house won’t pass it.


82 posted on 04/10/2013 9:22:24 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Toomey, as much as I supported you to get you in office, I will work that hard to see you thrown out on your ass, you back-stabbing bastard.
We should never, EVER compromise with tyranny. And we should never support those who do.


83 posted on 04/10/2013 9:35:05 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

ping


84 posted on 04/10/2013 9:40:37 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I wish I had your confidence regarding that. I recall something called obamacare.


85 posted on 04/10/2013 10:11:03 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Never trust a politician to do what is right, My FRiend. REly on them to save you is like the Jews in the concentration camps hoping they would not be executed. It is obvioue that the politicians, even those that are supposed to be on our side, no longer respect us. After loss of respect comes hate. After hate extermination.


86 posted on 04/10/2013 10:16:00 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 5 Second Rule; pabianice

I stand corrected. Thanks fellas.


87 posted on 04/10/2013 10:21:13 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: sport

I trust a politician to do what is in his own best interest, like getting re-elected.........


88 posted on 04/10/2013 10:22:51 AM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Saw some of the details on another site, TTAG. The bill will only add NICS checks for every seller (dealers and private) at a gun show and internet sales. Outside of gun shows and the internet no background checks required for private sales. Wording a little sketchy, but it might eliminate the need for FFLs in internet sales, seller does the background check and ships to your door. For licensed concealed carriers, no background checks will be necessary from anybody, dealers or private. Strengthens FOPA, in that you can stop to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom in states like NY and NJ when travelling thru.
89 posted on 04/10/2013 10:40:06 AM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I cringe whenever I hear the words bi-partisan.......

BOHICA


90 posted on 04/10/2013 10:47:56 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

91 posted on 04/10/2013 11:01:56 AM PDT by Perseverando (Gun control? It's really not about gun control is it? It's really about PEOPLE CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

To me, background checks are dangerous because if the government ever says that all gun owners have to turn in their guns, and gun owners don’t comply, then the govt. will know who owns what and just come to your home and confiscate them. And you will be arrested.


92 posted on 04/10/2013 11:17:30 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The answer to this deal is: no! no! No!

We do not meet the enemy halfway, between right and wrong, over and over and over. Every time the issue comes up we must compromise? Eventually, you have nothing left.

There _is_ a line in the main street. Hold the line or be part of the problem.


93 posted on 04/10/2013 11:20:42 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Bingo. Bipartisan is what that free speech hating jerk McCain does.


94 posted on 04/10/2013 1:42:59 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Damn RiNOs!


95 posted on 04/10/2013 2:16:50 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( ==> sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

The Constitution of the United States of America, which has a supremecy clause that says basically if it isn’t constitutional, it need not be obeyed. Easily said and far more difficult to get 50 states and 300,000,000 million people to join in the nullification. The left is going to continue their efforts to rid the land of a Constitution, and any that place stock in it. Our duty is to oppose vehemenly and physically any and all such efforts by sworn sacred oath at the risk of our very lives. This would be for all those previously sworn to support and defend the Constitution. The others side has no such mandate.


96 posted on 04/10/2013 2:45:44 PM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Kill it with fire!!


97 posted on 04/10/2013 4:36:34 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Kill it with fire!!


98 posted on 04/10/2013 4:37:36 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mylife

There’s an idea...


99 posted on 04/10/2013 4:41:37 PM PDT by carriage_hill (The most insidious power the news media has, is the power to ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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