Senate kills gun control background check amendment

  • News
  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Control Gun
In summary: This bill does not do that. In summary, the Senate rejected an amendment to strengthen background checks on gun purchases.
  • #1
19,395
9,913
Senate rejects background check amendment 54-46
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I'm having difficulty finding the actual bill. Does anyone have a link? I'm sick of reading summaries and opinions without reading the actual bill. I tried searching on senate.gov but it's quite frankly a mess.


I welcome your opinions on the bill and what was wrong/right with it.

Please keep discussion on the bill. Any hostility or rudeness will be dealt with.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here it is.

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
 
  • #3
The FEDS need to stop trying to enact one size fits all uniform guns laws, let's keep this a state issue. Alaska and Montana need different gun laws than the over populated NE states. This bill needed to fail because it was pushed for all the wrong reasons and targets law-abiding citizens with useless restrictions that a criminal with an IQ of 35 could get around.

SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;
"(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law;
 
  • #4
What made sick was Senator Rand Paul calling the Newtown parents props. It's like when you're a victim of violent crime you can never speak out because someone will say you're still hurting and you're not thinking rationally. So when should these parents speak out against this atrocity?

President Obama's speech today was direct and to the point and polls have shown that 90% of Americans want this fixed. He said the bill was a compromise and bipartisan. It simply wanted the background check loopholes to be closed that makes it more difficult to circumvent the checks much as locking your car makes it less likely to be broken into. Less guns means less accidents, less violence and less death.

So why didn't the voting reflect the polls even closely?
 
  • #5
nsaspook said:
SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

Yeah, that does look like a rather large loophole.
 
  • #6
nsaspook said:
The FEDS need to stop trying to enact one size fits all uniform guns laws, let's keep this a state issue. Alaska and Montana need different gun laws than the over populated NE states. This bill needed to fail because it was pushed for all the wrong reasons and targets law-abiding citizens with useless restrictions that a criminal with an IQ of 35 could get around.

SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
The only thing that makes sense is a federal law. having different state laws makes no sense. The NRA lobby wins again.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, it appears that the NRA has decided, through its various cowardly sublets in the Congress, that background checks are now a bridge too far in our attempt to pass gun laws that would make sense to bonobos, let alone to human beings. This of course, despite that fact that 91 percent of Americans say they want them, and despite the fact that the NRA itself once was included in that number. The organization apparently wants to keep a database where we can find everyone who's ever bought Paxil in their lives, but not every cannibal murderer who wants to buy a Bushmaster .225 to celebrate the birthday of several of the voices in his head.

Background checks, both advocates and independent researchers say, would have a bigger potential effect on gun violence than any other measure under consideration - including the much-discussed assault-weapons ban, which has little chance of passing in Congress. Proposed federal gun-trafficking laws and changes to mental health databases would have a marginal impact on gun violence, experts say.

Well, that's certainly too much common sense to be passed all at once. We all might get the bends.

Read more: NRA Opposed To Background Checks - The Phony Dance Of Gun Control - Esquire http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Phony_Dance_Of_Gun_Control#ixzz2Qn0Eck6W
 
  • #7
Evo said:
The only thing that makes sense is a federal law. having different state laws makes no sense.

Of course different state laws makes common sense where commerce is involved. This bill is not really about crime, it regulates commerce (the sale of goods) with a massive centralized system of record checking under the thin veneer of public safety.
I think legislation at the federal level is needed for true criminal activity that crosses state lines but creating a nation-wide crime of a friend selling a gun to a friend is wasteful of precious federal dollars on an unenforceable law on private transactions.

"universal background checks" are a sham, an illusion, and a placebo.
 
  • #8
nsaspook said:
"universal background checks" are a sham, an illusion, and a placebo.

It's helpful if you could explain this opinion.
 
  • #9
It would probably be very expensive to set up an "instant check" system, but it would better (IMO) than allowing each state to set their own standards. Someone who might be ineligible to purchase a firearm in their own state could easily travel to a nearby state and buy one there.

BTW, I have processed hundreds of checks over the years, and they are rarely "instant". The existing system is inadequate, resulting in delays of (often) days before a firearm can be legally transferred to the buyer. The delays are a drain on legitimate commerce, since potential buyers often back out, even if they are dealing with you at a gun show. It is easier for them to transact their purchases with private (non-FFL) sellers and take the gun home. If they play by the rules, and they are unable to buy, they often walk away.

Another wrinkle is that "private" sellers could be tracked by the volume of their sales, and be forced to pay for FFL status or face criminal penalties. I haven't thought this facet through well enough to come up with a decent work-around (if there is one), but it's worth considering in light of the proposed universal background-check law. The proposal appears to be DOA, but it will be back, in my opinion.
 
  • #10
Greg Bernhardt said:
It's helpful if you could explain this opinion.

"Universal background checks" controls the transfer of guns between (99%) law abiding citizens, it does almost nothing to stop gun crime in most cases where knowing the current criminal status of the person receiving the gun is important.

Our current system:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4c4fa6e-a2ed-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html

Why increase restrictions on law-abiding people when we’re not prosecuting under current law?”

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Someone who might be ineligible to purchase a firearm in their own state could easily travel to a nearby state and buy one there.

You already can't buy a handgun(legally) outside of your home state...

IMHO we should make it easier for joe average to follow the law, not harder.
Maybe drivers license should indicate whether one is on FBI's "Bad Dude list".

I could digress but won't.
 
  • #12
jim hardy said:
Maybe drivers license should indicate whether one is on FBI's "Bad Dude list".

Actually, mine does...

http://www.tsa.gov/stakeholders/hazmat-endorsement-threat-assessment-program


No, I'm not on the list... :smile:



OCR
 
  • #13
jim hardy said:
You already can't buy a handgun(legally) outside of your home state...

IMHO we should make it easier for joe average to follow the law, not harder.
Maybe drivers license should indicate whether one is on FBI's "Bad Dude list".

I could digress but won't.
This is inaccurate. I ran a firearms division for an auction company, and people from out-of-state routinely attended those auctions and bought handguns. The trick is to have a Federal Firearms License holder willing to accept the shipment of your handgun(s) and transfer them to you in your own state. Happens all the time. Firearms laws are sieves in the US. There are ways around almost every provision. Form 4473 is a joke.
 
  • #14
The trick is to have a Federal Firearms License holder willing to accept the shipment of your handgun(s) and transfer them to you in your own state.

Well then, you have been checked through FBI's NICS system by a FFL holder in your own state and the transfer to you occurred in your home state.
So to call my statement 'inaccurate' pushes at the margins of truth..

I ran a firearms division for an auction company, and people from out-of-state routinely attended those auctions and bought handguns.
I'll wager you didn't turn over handguns to out of state buyers. You shipped them to FFL holders in their home state.

So I amend my statement "You already can't buy a handgun(legally) outside of your home state without a FBI NICS check.

The 4473 form is like a lock on a door - it doesn't stop the bad dudes.
 

1. What is the "Senate kills gun control background check amendment"?

The "Senate kills gun control background check amendment" refers to a proposed legislation that aimed to expand background checks for firearm purchases in the United States. The amendment was introduced in response to the increasing number of mass shootings in the country.

2. Why did the Senate kill the gun control background check amendment?

The Senate voted against the amendment due to political disagreements and pressure from interest groups. Many senators argued that the amendment would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of gun owners and would not effectively address the issue of gun violence.

3. What would the background check amendment have changed?

The amendment would have required background checks for all firearm sales and transfers, including those conducted at gun shows and online. It would have also closed the "gun show loophole", which allows individuals to purchase firearms without a background check from private sellers at gun shows.

4. Was the background check amendment supported by the public?

Yes, the majority of Americans support expanded background checks for firearm purchases. According to a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University in 2019, 94% of Americans, including 93% of gun owners, support background checks for all gun buyers.

5. What are the implications of the Senate's decision to not pass the background check amendment?

The failure to pass the background check amendment means that there will not be any immediate changes to federal gun laws regarding background checks. This could potentially lead to continued gun violence and mass shootings in the country, as individuals who would have failed a background check can still purchase firearms through private sales without a background check.

Suggested for: Senate kills gun control background check amendment

Replies
2
Views
935
Replies
14
Views
968
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
874
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
3K
Back
Top