To no one’s surprise, the NRA isn’t buying into the Great Background Check Compromise as announced by Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey this morning. Here’s the NRA-ILA‘s letter to the Senate from Chris Cox:
Dear Senator,
I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate . . .
S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.
In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.
Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.
We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.
Should you have any questions on these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 651-2560.
Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox
I get so tired of reading about “compromises” with the gun grabbers. Giving up rights is not a compromise. #@$%@#$^%@@#$%
Drafted by fill-in-the-blank, fill-in-the-blank and “Chuck Schumer”. Really doesn’t matter who else is in on it, Chuck is a gun grabber’s gun grabber.
Leopards don’t change their spots.
Shit leopards can’t change their spots.
trouble Anmut the ones that compromise don’t want you armed either. It rally about like watching WWE Wrestling After you compromise a few times the right is just as gone as if you ended it right away
NRA please change Toomey’s & Manchin’s rating to”F”. Immediately. Thank you.
Seconded!
Am I the only one here with any reason? This new bill for background checks is perfectly fine! It excludes all sales between private individuals and has a provision that forbids a registry. Come on people!
Statistically, if you’re saying “is it me or the rest of the world,” it isn’t the rest of the world.
Yes if one person says you’re crazy there’s room for debate. But if everyone tells you you’re batshit, it’s a good bet you’re batshit.
I was going to comment as well, but no way could I top the batshit post. You get two attaboys!! (That means you buy the first round at happy hour).
Thanks………I think.
Text of the bill from govtracks.us:
“SEC. 121. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.”
The title states: “A BILL To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.”
One problematic part would be how a person is declared mentally ill, so as to have their guns confiscated. To extremists like Schumer and Feinstein, everyone who disagrees with them is mentally ill. I wouldn’t mind a provision giving 15-year prison sentences to any government official, state or federal, caught keeping a firearms registry, though.
And not in one of those comfy white collar prisons where they have tivo, a california king size bed and lobster dinners. It needs to be in some dark whole of a prison with other deranged criminals so they can be the ones closing their eyes and counting while playing hide the trouser snake.
They could always try vomiting, claiming to be pregnant, saying it’s that time of the month or shitting themselves. I suppose they could also try thowing a book at the guy trying to make them his bitch also.
On the first read, I kind of agree with Michael. I haven’t seen the final law yet, of course, but what part makes life worse? Not really disagreeing with everyone, but I don’t see the down side, and there seems to be some good parts as well.
No it doesn’t. As reported it excludes transactions between private individuals unless the gun is advertised. (put a not up on your local gun board, have to do a transfer through an FFL, newpaper ad? FFL, etc) the exceptions are very narrow.
No steps backward, Michael.
We law abiding citizens who have honored our responsibilities and followed the law in the course of exercising our 2A freedoms deserve to be left unmolested by the gun grabbing illogical extremists.
Their proposals are only designed to impede and ultimately extinguish our 2A protections with no benefit to the “children” or other yet unknown victims of sociopathic violent offenders.
The Federal and State laws already on the books are more than satisfactory in sanctioning unlawful firearms transfers and possession by criminals. Focus energy on enforcement, not creating new laws that will only lead to additional incrementally restrictive follow along laws constantly pursued by the grabbers.
Just as they have done and are continuing to do in CA, the grabbers will never stop efforts to create more restrictions and prohibitions re: firearm ownership. The NRA-ILA position is exactly correct. If you want to preserve 2A protections for yourself and your family, we must put a stop to this unreasonable, unnecessary and unhelpful nonsense NOW.
+1
I am going to steal the “No steps backward” from you.
I can’t believe this made it to the ABC news website, but its pretty good explanation of how expanding a flawed process isn’t going to help:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/the-case-against-gun-background-checks/
The present law excludes sales ‘tween private individuals and forbids a registery. What I don’t get, is where is the proactive protection of rights? If the opposing side seems to need to show they are getting something done, why not some give and take? Why not some funding for states to conduct background checks without having to charge applicants? This so called compromise plays into the ‘gun owners bad’ line of thinking, yet it could be at least balanced with some assist to the ‘good gun owners’ too.
If it is not about registration, then why is the make, model, caliber, manufacturer and serial number of the gun must be given? Why would the senate not remove that requirement? If they would have, the vote may have been different.
I guess an ankle bracelet for rapeists & long prison terms for one too many bullets in a mag just doesn’t do it for the NRA. The fight is on, Randy
I’m really looking forward to the 2014 primaries and general elections.
This letter will have zero effect.
Then write your own and add to the pile.
Telephone messages to your Senator’s office will make a greater impact than letters or emails- I think it’s actually faster to call. All you have to do is say something like “I demand that they oppose the Manchin-Toomey deal. Congress needs to focus on policies that don’t encroach on the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
The Senate switchboard number is (202) 224- 3121.
All you have to do to know this bill is CRAP is observing the actions of Bloomberg’s MAIG – they pull their anti-Toomy ads in PA & are now running a Toomy’s on our side ad. Follow the $$$. Call your senators, shut this infringement DOWN.
Universal Health Care
Universal Background Checks
Universal Food Allowances
Universal Living Quarter Allowances
Universal Education Allowances
Universal Employment Screening
Universal Mental Health Certification
Unirversal Death With Dignity
Soilent Green!
I predict that the bill will have some provision in it somewhere that allows the Justice Department write the final regulations to perform some innocuous sounding function. So it will basically be an empty container for the AG to populate with whatever his boss tells him to put in it.
It’ll be 100 pages of “That doesn’t sound so bad”, with 10 words buried in it somewhere that mean the same thing as “Carte Blanche” for ATF or DHS or Justice.
Nobody will get to see the actual regs until after it’s passed, and they won’t need new legislation to change the regs and tighten the screws.
It won’t look too bad on the surface, all the idiots who vote for it can say they “did something” while secretly believing they did nothing, and we’re still hosed.
As far as I’m concerned, a “Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act’ only needs one sentence. “Congress shall pass no law regulating the private ownership of firearms”, would do it for me.
This
That is how all the federal laws work these days.
“Congress shall pass no law regulating the private ownership of firearms”, would do it for me.
I might add to that statement, “and all prior firearms laws are hereby repealed.”
This “wonderful bipartisan compromise”, how is it different from what the current law is? All the descriptions I’ve heard about made me say, “that’s already the law.” Are they redefining commercial sales? If this is a reiteration of existing law, perhaps this is a ploy to convince the uneducated voter that they’ve done something to close the “loophole” while actually accomplishing nothing. Even if this is the case, my worry is that during the sausage making process someone will attach a nugget of pure C R A P that will strip away a little more…
+1
Again, Senator Toomey sells out his constituency as his payment for his entry to the establishment good ole boys group in the Senate. Shame on him. I won’t vote for him again!
Unfortunately, a lot of repubs are selling out. Chamblis and Isakson from GA are siding with the grabbers too…:(
Bit of a tip for writing your senator. Keep it short. <140 words is said to be more effective.
Apparently, Bloomberg’s PAC is responsible for this, he’s targeting vulnerable Senators and threatening campaigning against them. I wish that man would magically become poor overnight.
Just sent this:
Dear Senator,
I supported your run for Senator and even made campaign contributions.
I’m not pleased that you are recommending additional gun legislation; in light of the fact that we aren’t enforcing existing laws.
I will not support your re-election unless your legislation gains us gun owners additional rights like universal carry permits.
If both sides don’t get something it is not a negotiation.
Kind Regards,
PA voter and gun supporter
NRA is standing very firm on NO Compromise. They deserve every dollar I send them to fight for my rights.
I also can not wait to vote against Toomey. Pennsylvania will not forget this.
Anyone who opposes this bill is a FOOL. A damned fool. You’re going to give up the ability to bypass background checks with a CCW card, purchase handguns in any state, expanding peaceable passage laws, and allowing FFLs from out of state to sell out of state, all for the what, 13 shady dudes at the local gun show with the beat up Yugo SKS’s with tapco stocks? Utter fools.
Seven months ago we were going to get all of the above plus the various gun rights organizations were gearing up for a push against SBR and Suppressor regulation. Newtown did not radically realign reality, it provided a temporary environment who’s effects are rapidly dwindling.
Fight for your rights, not what you think you can glom onto in the midst of a down-moment.
+1
I could have only have said this worse. Thank you for your eloquence.
The POINT is they are amending the 2nd Amendment without going through the proper amendment procedures.
This is and endrun around the Constitution, and is nuanced enough to convince pro and antis alike that they are “doing something.”
Yes, they are affirming we are in a soft tyranny post Constitutional USA.
Do you realize how many rights the proposition currently expands? It constrains the 3 or 4 shady weirdos walking around gun shows with Yugo SKS’s. It ONLY impacts private sales AT gun shows. Small price to pay for all we get.
Gun Owners of America has an extremely dim view of the Toomey-Manchin sellout. They say the sellout is “worse than the Feinstein gun ban.” I’ve tried to cut and paste their article, but this site keeps kicking my comment off as spam. Go and look it up for yourself. If the antis are able to get the motion to proceed and get this pile of crap on the floor, then we’ve lost. Please call your Senators and demand that they not vote for the motion to proceed, and to back the Rand Paul filibuster.
I need to get this straight. If the law passes you will only be able to loan firearms to relatives? Every year we have family and friends come over from other states for an annual quail hunt, with some sporting clays thrown in, and of course the subsequent quail dinner feast. It’s a great family gathering with kids and spouses, and one of the few times that we all get together during they year.
It’s a pain in the ass to travel with long guns these days so I lend my shotguns to all the participants, including non-relatives. They do go to Walmart and buy their own shells.
Does this now mean that my friends (non-relatives) cannot hunt with us after the law passes???? What about the quail ranches that rent guns to their customers. They can’t do that anymore?
This is all very confusing.
Now it is time for the NRA “F” Rating for these two anti-constitutional dumb _ss! I will now upgrade my NRA membership to “Life”. I will also vote out any politition in my area… so Jeff Flake and John McCain you better pay attention to myself and many other Arizonian’s and vote NO! DO NOT SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION! YOUR TENURE AT YOUR POLITICAL CAREERS WILL DEPENDED ON IT!
Comments are closed.