Schumer Predicts Wide Agreement On Universal Background Checks

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM



PEMA LEVY 11:00 AM EST, SUNDAY JANUARY 20, 2013

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Sunday that universal background checks for gun purchases are the "sweet spot" that he believes lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can come together and agree on.

"I'd say this is the sweet spot in term of actually making us safer and having a good chance of passing, this is it," Schumer said of background check question, during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Schumer said he is the author of a bill on universal background checks and is talking with both pro-gun Democrats as well as Republicans about the issue. He predicted "in the next week or two, a proposal that has broad support for universal background checks."

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/schumer-predicts-wide-agreement-on-universal-background-checks

[slackmaster]

1. Yes. Many of us RKBA advocates have been saying so for years.

Make the National Instant Check System available for unlicensed individuals who have used guns that they wish to sell, and enforce the existing prohibition against knowingly selling a gun to a person who is prohibited from owning it.

[sir pball]

2. That doesn't provide proof, though

"Yeah, I called NICS" doesn't work for me. I'd be fine with making *all* transfers go through an FFL. With the sole exception of my best friend whom I've personally known for over 25 years, every gun I've ever sold has gone through an FFL so I don't have to answer any questions if a weapon I once owned turns up at a crime scene.

Hell, create a Type 4 license solely for mediating transfers - not allowed to maintain any physical inventory or perform direct sales, just call in the check and keep a bound book. It creates a full chain of custody record and would make a perfect cottage industry or bit of extra income for retirees and such.

[slackmaster]

3. A record that a check was done is created when a NICS check is done

It would not be possible for someone to get away with falsely claiming that he or she did a background check on selling a firearm to a prohibited person.

The idea of an FFL type specifically for doing private-party transfers is a pretty good one IMO. 01 FFLs don't like doing them because it's a hassle that doesn't make them a lot of money compared to selling new firearms. A specialist might be able to do it efficiently.

Of course there is always the problem that making it too much of a hassle will result in people just blowing off the background check. I've never sold a firearm, but if I ever do it will probably be to someone I know personally.

[awoke_in_2003]

5. Hell, make it a government function...

I cannot buy a used car without visiting the sub courthouse.

[harmonicon]

6. Why should anyone be prohibited form owning a gun if gun ownership is a right? (nt)

[slackmaster]

7. The same reason people can be prohibited from walking around in public even though that is a right

Almost everyone agrees that some people should not be allowed to have firearms. Please don't make it hard to agree on that.

[harmonicon]

8. Who is prohibited from walking around in public?

I don't think anyone should own a gun, unless they're going to use it for hunting, and even then I'm suspicious of the need.

Seriously, if we're going to treat gun ownership as a right, shouldn't it be a right for everyone? Isn't that what a right is? I don't understand simultaneously arguing that gun ownership is a right, but that some shouldn't be allowed to own guns - it seems to be a contradiction.

[slackmaster]

9. More than two million people in this country are prohibited from walking around in public

I don't think anyone should own a gun, unless they're going to use it for hunting, and even then I'm suspicious of the need.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but under the law nobody has to justify the decision to acquire a firearm. People do so for many reasons unrelated to hunting.

Seriously, if we're going to treat gun ownership as a right, shouldn't it be a right for everyone? Isn't that what a right is? I don't understand simultaneously arguing that gun ownership is a right, but that some shouldn't be allowed to own guns - it seems to be a contradiction.

We live under rule of law. All rights, including the right to live, can be taken away from an individual through due process.

Why should the right to keep and bear arms be treated differently than ALL other rights?

[harmonicon]

10. Huh? I'm the one arguing that it should be treated exactly like all other rights.

I'm not saying that the people IN PRISON should have guns IN PRISON, but once they leave prison and have the right to walk around, shouldn't they also have the right to own guns, bombs, etc.? If something is a right, it should not be taken away at a whim. Then it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege.

Also, no, life is not hard for me because of how people have guns, but you're wrong that there's nothing I can do about it. I'm a person with a voice, and I am a part of society and various communities. With my voice and my actions I can change opinions and perceptions. I think this is far more powerful and valuable than any possible change in law. I never said that I thought guns should be illegal to posses - I don't think that. I just think that people shouldn't own them.

[slackmaster]

11. A lot of former prison inmates are denied the right to vote, and are prohibited from some jobs

For example, they can't become police officers or (at least in some states) public school teachers.

If something is a right, it should not be taken away at a whim. Then it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege.

Due process of law is not the same thing as a whim, and someone who decides to commit a felony presumably knows that a conviction will result in the loss of certain rights. But I do agree with you in a sense - I think anyone who can't be trusted with a gun because of a violent criminal record shouldn't be let out of prison.

People who have been adjudicated by a court of law as mentally incompetent - for any reason - are also prohibited from possessing firearms. Would you want someone so afflicted by Alzheimer's disease that he or she is unable to manage his or her own affairs having a gun? I wouldn't. Of course you don't believe anyone "should" own guns, whatever that really means.

[harmonicon]

13. Being a police officer or a school teacher is not a right.

I understand that in some places felons ostensibly lose their right to vote, though I would simply say they are denied their right to vote. This is not only unjust, but also I imagine will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. There is no reason any citizen should ever lose their right to vote. If we can't trust people to be citizens outside of prison, perhaps they shouldn't be let out of prison or given house arrest or something. However, creating second class citizens who are somehow nominally citizens without actually having the rights of citizenship is absolutely depraved.

You know, when my grandfather had Alzheimer's, I don't think anyone removed the guns from his house. By the time it got bad, he needed around-the-clock care anyway. No one was going to let him have a gun. If we all would work more at living in a caring society, we wouldn't have to argue so much about this or that law.

Who is to judge whether or not one is able to manage their own affairs? Should the stupid not be able to have guns? Should those with credit card debt not be able to own guns? What is a judgement of what constitutes managing one's own affairs? No one is denied the right to vote or their freedom of speech because of an illness or other impairment. Why then should they be denied the right to bear arms?

You don't know what it means that I don't think anyone should own guns? Do you understand what it is to have an opinion?

[slackmaster]

15. Your opinion is very unusual. I can't recall anyone who opposes gun ownership also opposing...

...the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the enhancements that have been added to it.

[harmonicon]

16. I just don't think we can have it both ways.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Supreme Court were to rule that the second amendment only applied to the US armed forces, but as it stands, what does it mean for the word "rights" if we are to toy with them?

What I would be 100% in favour of - and no one has ever given me a serious reason why it would be opposed - is a national registry of every single firearm and round of ammunition from manufacturer to end user. I really think that everyone in the chain from manufacturer to a guy who shoots a clerk to rob a cash register should be held accountable for the crime committed with a gun. We may have the right to possess these killing devices, but there is no clause that demands that they must be sold if someone wants to buy one. Just as I don't think someone asked to manufacture or sell a suitcase bomb used in a terrorist attack could argue they were innocent of a crime, I don't think someone should be for a more personal killing device.

I don't see how registration could possibly be an impingement of one's rights. We all register to vote and I don't know of anyone having a problem with that.

If gun sellers want to set up a system to privately determine who they'll sell to at this point, that's fine, but I think it's basically a waste of the government's time to be involved with it over actual effective steps that could be taken.

[kestrel91316]

4. Gun nutters don't want it because they have a dirty little secret.

They are a bunch of criminals.

[slackmaster]

12. I'm sorry your thread isn't very lively, DonViejo. There is too much agreement for much of a fuss.

[DonViejo]

14. That's fine with me, slackmaster...

I haven't posted too many articles about guns anyway and have avoided participating in the ongoing discussions(?). I won't be posting any more articles about guns after today either.