Senators seek deal on gun-sale background checks

WASHINGTON (AP) - A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F'' ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.
A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Barack Obama's gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun show, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.
The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.
The private discussions involve liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader; West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, an NRA member and one of the chamber's more moderate Democrats; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another NRA member and one of the more conservative lawmakers in Congress; and moderate GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.
"It will not limit your ability to borrow your Uncle Willie's hunting rifle or share a gun with your friend at a shooting range," Schumer said last week in one of the senators' few public remarks about the package the group is seeking. He said he believed a bipartisan deal could be reached.
Polls show that requiring background checks for nearly all gun purchases has more public support than Obama's proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and it is among those given the best chance of enactment. Even so, it is opposed by the NRA and many congressional Republicans, who consider it intrusive and unworkable for a system they say already has flaws.
"My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through background checks," Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at its gun control hearing last week.
An agreement among the four senators could help overcome that opposition by opening the door to support from other conservative Republicans besides Coburn. It also could make it easier to win backing from Democratic senators from GOP-leaning states, many of whom face re-election next year and who have been leery of embracing Obama's proposals.
Schumer and Kirk each have "F'' scores from the NRA, while Coburn and Manchin have "A'' ratings.
Prompted by the December massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults in Newtown, Conn., the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee plans to write gun control legislation in the next few weeks. The committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has expressed strong support for universal background checks and it is expected to be a cornerstone of his bill, but a version of that language with bipartisan support could give the entire package a boost.
"If the language is meaningful, it would be obviously a huge step," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which represents child welfare, religious and other groups favoring gun curbs. "To have someone like Coburn, who's voted consistently with the gun lobby, to come out and endorse a meaningful background check would be very helpful."
It is likely that any gun-control bill will need 60 votes to pass the 100-member Senate. Democrats have 55 votes, including two Democratic-leaning independents.
Leaders of the GOP-run House are planning to see what, if anything, the Senate passes before moving on gun legislation. Strategists believe that a measure that passes the Senate with clear bipartisan support could pressure the House to act.
Federal data on gun purchases is gathered by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is run by the FBI.
According to Justice Department estimates, the federal and state governments ran 108 million background checks of firearms sales between 1994 when the requirement became law and 2009. Of those, 1.9 million - almost 2 percent - were denied, usually because would-be purchasers had criminal records.
People legally judged to be "mentally defective" are among those blocked by federal law from firearms purchases. States are supposed to make mental health records available to the federal background check system and receive more generous Justice Department grants if they do, but many provide little or no such data because of privacy concerns or antiquated record-keeping systems.
Coburn got involved in the background check talks about two weeks ago and says a compromise could make it harder for dangerous people to acquire firearms.
"The whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals," he said in a brief interview.
Manchin could be particularly influential with Democrats like Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who face re-election next year in deeply Republican states. Besides being an NRA member, Manchin ran a campaign ad in 2010 in which he promised to defend West Virginian's Second Amendment rights to bear arms and "take on" the Obama administration - all while shooting a hole in a copy of a Democratic bill that would have clamped limits on greenhouse gases - another sore spot for a coal-mining state like West Virginia.
In an interview, Manchin said that besides hoping for a background check compromise, he wanted inclusion of a commission that would study "how our culture has gotten so desensitized toward violence."
Participating senators declined to provide details of the talks. But people following the discussions say the talks have touched on:
-The types of family relatives who would be allowed to give guns to each other without a background check.
-Possibly exempting sales in remote areas.
-Whether to help some veterans who sought treatment for traumatic stress disorder - now often barred from getting firearms - become eligible to do so.
An NRA spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, declined to comment on the senators' discussions.
A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Barack Obama's gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun show, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.
The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.
The private discussions involve liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader; West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, an NRA member and one of the chamber's more moderate Democrats; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another NRA member and one of the more conservative lawmakers in Congress; and moderate GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.
"It will not limit your ability to borrow your Uncle Willie's hunting rifle or share a gun with your friend at a shooting range," Schumer said last week in one of the senators' few public remarks about the package the group is seeking. He said he believed a bipartisan deal could be reached.
Polls show that requiring background checks for nearly all gun purchases has more public support than Obama's proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and it is among those given the best chance of enactment. Even so, it is opposed by the NRA and many congressional Republicans, who consider it intrusive and unworkable for a system they say already has flaws.
"My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through background checks," Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at its gun control hearing last week.
An agreement among the four senators could help overcome that opposition by opening the door to support from other conservative Republicans besides Coburn. It also could make it easier to win backing from Democratic senators from GOP-leaning states, many of whom face re-election next year and who have been leery of embracing Obama's proposals.
Schumer and Kirk each have "F'' scores from the NRA, while Coburn and Manchin have "A'' ratings.
Prompted by the December massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults in Newtown, Conn., the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee plans to write gun control legislation in the next few weeks. The committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has expressed strong support for universal background checks and it is expected to be a cornerstone of his bill, but a version of that language with bipartisan support could give the entire package a boost.
"If the language is meaningful, it would be obviously a huge step," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which represents child welfare, religious and other groups favoring gun curbs. "To have someone like Coburn, who's voted consistently with the gun lobby, to come out and endorse a meaningful background check would be very helpful."
It is likely that any gun-control bill will need 60 votes to pass the 100-member Senate. Democrats have 55 votes, including two Democratic-leaning independents.
Leaders of the GOP-run House are planning to see what, if anything, the Senate passes before moving on gun legislation. Strategists believe that a measure that passes the Senate with clear bipartisan support could pressure the House to act.
Federal data on gun purchases is gathered by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is run by the FBI.
According to Justice Department estimates, the federal and state governments ran 108 million background checks of firearms sales between 1994 when the requirement became law and 2009. Of those, 1.9 million - almost 2 percent - were denied, usually because would-be purchasers had criminal records.
People legally judged to be "mentally defective" are among those blocked by federal law from firearms purchases. States are supposed to make mental health records available to the federal background check system and receive more generous Justice Department grants if they do, but many provide little or no such data because of privacy concerns or antiquated record-keeping systems.
Coburn got involved in the background check talks about two weeks ago and says a compromise could make it harder for dangerous people to acquire firearms.
"The whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals," he said in a brief interview.
Manchin could be particularly influential with Democrats like Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who face re-election next year in deeply Republican states. Besides being an NRA member, Manchin ran a campaign ad in 2010 in which he promised to defend West Virginian's Second Amendment rights to bear arms and "take on" the Obama administration - all while shooting a hole in a copy of a Democratic bill that would have clamped limits on greenhouse gases - another sore spot for a coal-mining state like West Virginia.
In an interview, Manchin said that besides hoping for a background check compromise, he wanted inclusion of a commission that would study "how our culture has gotten so desensitized toward violence."
Participating senators declined to provide details of the talks. But people following the discussions say the talks have touched on:
-The types of family relatives who would be allowed to give guns to each other without a background check.
-Possibly exempting sales in remote areas.
-Whether to help some veterans who sought treatment for traumatic stress disorder - now often barred from getting firearms - become eligible to do so.
An NRA spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, declined to comment on the senators' discussions.
OK, have background checks for all sales. It won't stop any criminals but what the heck, it'll make the Dems feel better. However, I want the make, model, serial number, type, and caliber of the firearm removed from ATF Form 4473. There is no reason to have that on the background check form other than knowing what specific guns a person has (i.e. registration). That information has no impact on whether a person passes the background check or not.
 @HuskyKMA I agree.  This is nothing but cataloging. For what purpose?  Why do they need to know what I am buying?  If it is legal, then WHY does it matter?......No need for this.
"Coburn got involved in the background check talks about two weeks ago and says a compromise could make it harder for dangerous people to acquire firearms."
Â
Yes, and I COULD be elected President next week, but both are equally unlikely I fear.
It seems to me that the nation needs something like a 'driver's license' for gun ownership. Â This license would require that gun owners not only know how to safely USE a gun, they would be required to know how to be a responsible responsible gun owner. Â They could then be held accountable if a gun they own gets into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it; children, felons, people with a history of irresponsible behavior. Â This license would require attending classes and/or studying and being tested on responsible gun ownership and the liability of not being responsible. Â Is this being discussed at all?
This comment has been deleted
 @HuskyKMA  @aknitter So you don't vote because of voter registration?
Because of the stupidity of the government and anti-gun crowd, most everyone will already have their guns and no background check will happen. Â The criminals will continue to do business as usual, since they are exempt from background checks unlike honest citizens. Â Go to a gun show, talk to a gun dealer. Â Meet him after the show, buy the gun and no background check. Â This is just one of several ways to get around the checks and this will just encourage more honest people to use them. Â People, they want all your guns, period. Â Once they have them, we are at the mercy of our own government and any foreign power who wants to own us.
Seems like a reasonable idea to me. Afterall, everyone seems to agree that we need to keep guns out of the hands of whackos. What's the problem? If you have nothing to hide, you can buy a gun.Â
 @peckishpete Yes, that is the premise that they are basing this on, it SOUNDS reasonable.  The FACT is this WILL NOT do ANYTHING to limit criminals access to guns.  Nothing will, for they do NOT obey laws to begin with. Thus the mean of the word CRIMINAL.  People, you need to see through this crud for the crud that it is.  There is not action being taken here that will reduce or limit ANYTHING except honest people purchasing firearms.  The only thing this stuff does is make it more of a pain for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm. PERIOD. There is simply no arguing that logically or reasonably.  The best you can say about any of this stuff is that it MAY slightly reduce the availability of weapons to criminals because there simply will be a few less people that have them to begin with?.....ABSURD logic.
@Reeldeal101 So I guess there is absolutely nothing we can do in this country to prevent a lot of innocent people getting killed by whack jobs with guns so why try! I guess its just acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of a larger goal and we just have to live with this fact or move to another country.
@Reeldeal101 Okay, what would a "real solution" look like in your opinion.
 @peckishpete  I did not say that.  I simply said that this is NOT the answer they are making it out to be. PERIOD.  I want an answer if I am going to give up anything, NOT empty promises.  There is NO such thing as acceptable collateral damage.  Damage is NEVER acceptable.  But we need to start looking for an answer, not some knee-jerk solution that costs us all RIGHTS and money but does nothing to actually solve the problem.  Would you seriously just throw in the towel and give up?  Every problem has a solution.  This is NOT the solution, and if you think about it, you will have to admit to yourself that it is unlikely to be the solution. VERY unlikely.  I am saying lets actually look for a real solution. That is all. Â
Â
Analogy:
2 Groups; Â Group A, 25 people, Group B, 25 people
A group of people (group A) is sitting around a campfire. Â Another group of people (group B) raids their camp and steals all their food and murders 6 of their people with semi-automatic rifles. Â 6 of the bandits (Group A) are killed in the fight, also with semi-automatic rifles. Â Group B is outraged. Â They make a plan to make semi-automatic rifles illegal. Â They are now illegal. Â Everyone is forced to give up these rifles in group A. Â Group B however, decides to go out and purchase more lethal illegal weapons that are fully automatic. Â Group B raids the camp again and murders 10 of Group A. Group B sustains 1 casualty. Â Group A now has 9 inhabitants left. Group B however still has 18. I'm sure you get the picture......
How about this:
Sure, require background checks for private sales.
However, holding a current CHL, which requires a background check to have, obtain or maintain, counts as the check, so as not to overburden the NICBCS.
And 50-state reciprocity.
 @Baxter Seems like a reasonable proposal.
 @Baxter I would read the fine print, but I'd certainly consider it.
 @Baxter Sorry, but the guy who shot up the Seattle coffee shop last year had a current CHL.
 @Max Quinn  @Baxter Don't get me going on punishing the masses for a stupid person.  That logic is faulty.
 @Max Quinn  @Baxter And the guy the liberals let out of prison who went on to murder a bunch of fire-fighters killed his grandmother with a blunt object.
 @Max QuinnÂ
Okay, so then he could pass a background check if it were posed to him. Â No difference.
Â
As a gun carrier I'm happy with the three bullet points but if they try to ask you for a model and serial number of the weapon you're purchasing, then all this is is a front for a gun owner registry.Marijuana types should check this out:Â When I applied for my CHL it asked if I used MJ and if you check "Yes" you have to fill out an extra section telling them what type of guns you have.Of COURSE it's for a good cause, right?
"People legally judged to be "mentally defective" are among those blocked by federal law from firearms purchases"I LOVE THIS IDEA. It automatically excludes the whackjobs and Pharma-liberals. (The Occupy Portland types who were howling about the big pharmaceutical lobby who have all suddenly become very conspicuously silent.)
The deal needs to include no more gun laws. Otherwise this is just making a deal with the devil and one more step in eroding our rights under the 2nd amendment.
If it is a background check to verify the potential buyer's background, why is the make, model and serial number of the firearm required?
This is not about the buyer's background! It is a gun registration and nothing more!
Why, Why, Why is there NO discussion about making a crime with a gun a federal offense? Any crime commited with any gun should be a federal offense and punishable with a minium 10yr sentence. Why is this being overlooked. I don't understand it.
 @myopinion240Â
It already is. They just don't enforce them.
Let's see what they bring to the table.