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

Skip to comments.

NRA Fires Back: Gun rights group to oppose Manchin, Toomey background check bill
Washington Free Beacon ^ | April 10, 2013 | CJ Ciaramella

Posted on 04/10/2013 10:36:37 AM PDT by xzins

The National Rifle Association will oppose the background check bill introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) Wednesday, the pro-Second Amendment group told the Free Beacon.

Manchin and Toomey held a press conference Wednesday morning announcing a bipartisan bill that would expand background checks for all commercial firearm sales, including gun shows and Internet sales.

The bill is the latest effort by the Senate to introduce background check legislation, after negotiations between Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) and Democrats broke down earlier this year.

Manchin’s office told BuzzFeed Wednesday that the senators had been talking with the NRA, but the Second Amendment group had thus far remained “neutral.”

“The NRA has not said either way,” Katie Longo, Manchin’s press secretary, told BuzzFeed. “The senators have been talking to the NRA, but they’re still neutral.”

A spokesman for the NRA said the report was “wrong.”

The NRA reiterated its opposition to expanded background checks in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon.

“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,” the NRA said. “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 tragedy in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson,” the NRA’s statement continued. “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.”


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: 113th; banglist; braking; congress; donttreadonme; govtabuse; guncontrol; gunregistration; joemanchin; manchin; nocompromise; nra; pattoomey; pennsylvania; secondamendment; senate; shallnotbeinfringed; toomey; tyranny; waronliberty; westvirginia; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-112 last
To: Jim Robinson



- What's that thing you are pointing at me Devolve?

A .44-40 Colt - your time is up now Opansy.....



101 posted on 04/11/2013 6:14:32 AM PDT by devolve ( -- -- liberals secret fuel economy trick -- simply fill up your tires with propane --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
If a felon is no danger, hence being let out of prison, he/she should be allowed to own a fire arm.

The dems want to allow felons to vote. I say if you are going to let them vote then you shouldn't have a problem with reinstating their 2nd Amendment rights as well. As for the crazies, maybe we should be going after their voting rights too. If people are too criminally insane to have the right to own a gun then we shouldn't let them vote either.

102 posted on 04/11/2013 9:30:49 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PotatoChop; All
I'm concerned about some of the NRA board members...one in paricular who sells out conservatism every chance he gets. Time will tell how much influence one has.

Grover Norquist, that's what a traitor looks like. He's busy these days pushing amnesty, calling anyone who opposes it "bitter enders', lobbying for Bill Gates, counseling Rubio and the 'gang of 8'.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

And that other fellow in the photo...that's Suhail Khan of the ACU, CPAC big whig, who is presently a Microsoft lobbyist and friend of radical Islam.

Bitter Enders, Unite!!! Guess who's behind the latest amnesty push???

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2013/04/bitter-enders-unite-guess-whos-behind.html

103 posted on 04/11/2013 9:37:20 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Agree. But you can forget about that happening in Obamanation.


104 posted on 04/11/2013 10:16:06 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
But how would the government be able to know that a background check was done if it doesn’t know where the guns are in the first place? The gummint loves its metrics!

One could pass a rule requiring that an individuals who sells a firearm to another individual should keep a copy of the credential used to verify the sale against a list of people who had been convicted of felonies, and if within the next ten years they are presented with the physical firearm itself they must tender a copy of such credential to the government. If the government has physical possession of the weapon, such a request would not facilitate its confiscation (since the government already has it!). A variety of means could be used to ensure that maintenance of a reliable and unalterable archive of the version of the list that existed on any date. If the buyer wasn't on the forbidden list, then the government shouldn't care whether the background check was done. If the buyer was on the forbidden list, that would suggest it wasn't done.

105 posted on 04/11/2013 4:15:49 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: supercat

>>One could pass a rule requiring that

One could. But the government will not. This is not about preventing “tragedies” or keeping people safe. This government knows that the economy is just about done and the entitlement checks are going to stop soon unless it “fundamentally changes” the way we do business in America. When that happens and the overwhelming majority of people find that their new standard of living based on what some government bureaucrat/commissar decides you “need” is not very good, the people will rise up. It will just be shouting and brick throwing at first, but eventually the shooting will begin.

This government (not Obama’s government, but the government of the Two Party System as it is currently formed) needs to defang the 330 Million angry Americans before that day arrives. Universal background checks are the only means that they have at this time. They will not use your non-intrusive plan. They can’t afford to let this crisis go to waste.


106 posted on 04/11/2013 4:27:44 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper; xzins
You would think Manchin and Toomey would have ASKED for the NRA’s input...

They probably did and the NRA told them to go for it. The NRA loves gun control, it just means they get more money. They don't care about gun rights actually existing.

107 posted on 04/12/2013 11:44:12 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
If a felon is no danger, hence being let out of prison, he/she should be allowed to own a fire arm. If they are a danger, they should be in jail. No law will stop them from having a firearm. I know you know all this. I just wanted to add it.

Agreed. I'd trust someone who did a non-violent crime over one who is violent of course. As you put it, if they are violent, they do not belong in society until they are rehabilitated if possible. Other cases, if someone serves time, then maybe after a probationary period, six months, perhaps a year, if there are no problems, they then cam buy a firearm.
108 posted on 04/12/2013 2:15:24 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Whitey, I miss you so much. Take care, pretty girl. (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
But the government will not.

I know that. My point, though, was that even if the rules were written in such a way that they would not allow the government to locate firearms but only determine the chain of custody for a firearm it physically possessed (such ability being sufficient to satisfy the claimed purpose of background checks), background checks should still be considered unacceptable unless there were also a means of ensuring that they would and could never be used to deny anyone's RKBA without due process of law.

I think my point is that arguments that background checks allow the government to build registration lists which they could use in bad faith aren't apt to sway people who perceive the government as generally acting in good faith. It's much more effective to make the point that the people pushing for background checks have openly complained that such checks presently fail to block sales to people who have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent, have never been convicted of any felony or other crime which, when committed, was punishable by loss of RKBA, and are not presently under indictment for any such crime. Some people may dismiss the notion that registration lists could facilitate confiscation as "tinfoil hat nonsense", but it's harder to dismiss the notion that Lutenberg et al. want to deny people's RKBA without due process when they have written legislation to do precisely that.

109 posted on 04/12/2013 3:36:03 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I think you forgot your ‘/sarcasm’ tag.


110 posted on 04/12/2013 3:40:09 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Nope.

It WAS the NRA that stood up after Sandy Hook and delivered the news that School Security was the issue and not guns owned by law abiding citizens.

Do I think that their political endorsements have been mistaken over the last few terms? Yes.

At the same time, they are standing solid opposing the Reid Bill and the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

So, the system they used to compile gun records on candidates was broken, but their support for the 2d amendment is not broken.


111 posted on 04/12/2013 3:51:42 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Fortunately I have everything I need, food, clothing, and anything else I may or may not have is none of their business!


112 posted on 04/16/2013 5:44:56 PM PDT by Vernon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-112 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