Reid: Background checks will be in Senate gun bill
Photo
In this March 14, 2013 file photo, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Gun control legislation the Senate debates next month will include an expansion of federal background checks for firearms buyers, Reid said Thursday, March 21, 2013, in a victory for advocates of gun restrictions.
WASHINGTON — Democrats are taking an aggressive stance in their drive to curb firearms, announcing that the gun control legislation the Senate debates next month will include expanded federal background checks for gun purchasers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that the measure will include tougher laws and stiffer sentences for gun trafficking and increased school safety grants.
Closing background check loopholes will be the core of the legislation, just as it was the cornerstone of President Barack Obama's proposals for stemming gun violence following the December slayings of 20 first-graders and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
Including expanded checks in the gun legislation signals that Democrats feel they can win bipartisan support for the measure or are happy to dare Republicans to reject the entire gun-control package and face political consequences in next year's elections.
Reid, D-Nev., said he hoped a trio of senators would craft a bipartisan background check compromise. If not, he said, senators would consider a stricter version that allows fewer exemptions approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote.
"This moves the ball forward on gun safety in the Senate," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the senators hunting a background check deal.
Schumer said he hoped an accord could be ready when the Senate returns from its upcoming two-week spring break. Moderate Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who has an A-rating from the National Rifle Association, and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., are also involved.
The background check system is aimed at preventing criminals and others from acquiring firearms. It currently applies only to sales by federally licensed gun dealers, not private transactions at gun shows or online.
The fate of the overall legislation remains uncertain, with Democrats all but sure to need Republican support for it to survive. Action would then shift to the GOP-run House, where leaders have shown no taste for expanding background checks for private purchases.
Earlier, Reid decided to exclude a proposed assault weapons ban from the bill, fearing it would sink the legislation, but will allow a vote on the plan as an amendment. The ban's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., seems sure to lose due to opposition from Republicans and moderate Democrats.
An Associated Press-GfK poll showed more than 8 in 10 people support broadening the background check requirement to gun shows. Other surveys show similar overwhelming support.
Critics appeared unbowed. The NRA and others say criminals ignore background checks in getting guns illegally, and warn the expansion would lead to a federal registry of gun owners.
"We remain as committed as we have been to opposing gun bans," said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. He declined to comment on a potential compromise but said if the Senate considers Schumer's version of background checks, "we will do whatever we can to defeat it."
The NRA wants Congress to fund more armed guards at schools, step up prosecutions of people who file false gun applications and increase the background check system's access to state records of people with mental and other problems.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Reid's announcement, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."
In a hint of possible movement, one option that Schumer, Manchin and Kirk are considering would require background checks and record-keeping for private sales at gun shows and commercial sales online. It would exclude in-person, noncommercial transactions between people who know each other. The idea was described by two lobbyists and Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.
Other exclusions could include gun transactions between relatives and acquisitions by people with state-issued concealed carry permits, and there would be an online background check system for people in remote areas. Veterans officially determined to have some psychological problems would be given a way to appeal that decision, which would otherwise bar them from getting firearms.
Schumer has insisted on record-keeping for all private gun sales, saying the files are needed to keep the system effective. That led to stalemated talks with conservative leader Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who says the data would lead to federal records on gun owners.
If not included in the overall gun bill, an expansion of background checks could have been offered as an amendment. It likely would have needed support from 60 of the 100 senators to prevail — a difficult hurdle for Democrats.
"In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks," Reid said in a written statement.
Gun control backers lauded the decision. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called it "a tremendous step and we recognize there is still a tough road ahead." He said his group would activate supporters to contact lawmakers.
"The majority leader's been a pretty steady guide throughout, and this a good example," said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg helps lead.
Reid said that besides the assault weapons ban, he will allow votes on amendments including those related to high-capacity ammunition magazines and mental health. Many states poorly report mental health records to the federal background check system.
Mar 25, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
"its not a loophole, the law was deliberately written that way. sale of your private property is your own business."
.
Problem is, we are not talking about second hand clothes and kids toys here. They are weapons meant to kill. When people can't behave, it is time to change the laws.
Mar 25, 2013 at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The first step would be to switch the paper records to computer files."
good luck with that. Since no background check records are kept on file anywhere, you must mean all paper records of any judgement that would render a person inelligible for a firearm.
"That would help law enforcement to track serial numbers."
If you are refering to 4437's, that would only list sales through an 01 FFL and only if a criminal does not know what a file is for.
"Then get rid of the background check loopholes."
its not a loophole, the law was deliberately written that way. sale of your private property is your own business.
"Next, every private sale of certain "ego" guns like ar15's, have to go through a dealer with another background check on the new buyer"
Ego guns....interesting. another version of the "I don't like them so you shouldn't either argument" but then, your last point is rendered moot due to your "loophole" argument. How about I add a proviso: that all over under/ side by side shotguns require a destructive device federal permit as they are easily able to be converted into a devastating short range weapon- besides, I have no use for a trap gun anyway.
Mar 25, 2013 at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
maynard...how should the mental health issue be looked at? Who's "opinion" would you use to restrict someones right to have a firearm? Would it be just one persons view or a panel of doctors? Who would pay for all the doctor visits? What if it is just one of your neighbors that thinks your nuts? It is not like you can do a blood test to PROVE someone is not safe to have a weapon. It would be a huge gray area that could be abused by people in power.
Mar 25, 2013 at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
I do not have a problem with expanding background checks as long as it does not become a back door method of registering people with firearms. I DO have a problem with all the people that were turned away by background checks for being felons AND NOT prosecuted by this or the previous administration for breaking the law. Enforce the laws on the book before creating more feel good laws. AND I do have a problem with the Mental Health issue seeming to have been pretty well left out of the bill now going to the Senate.
Mar 25, 2013 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
"time to impeach this man and charge him with treason"
.
Yes, if only all the facts came out when bush was still in office...
Mar 25, 2013 at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
"left people over seas and did nothing to help them when they were under fire and then tried to cover up the story and hide the suviors to keep them quiet"
.
Just like the Iraq war that was based on Bush's WMD lie that cost 2.2 trillion, 4500 troup lives, and countless injuries?
Mar 25, 2013 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
"gives the very same gun he wanted banned to drug dealers from mexico"
.
You mean the program that was started when Bush was in office?
Mar 25, 2013 at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
"he gives more money to other countries then he spends on our own country"
.
Like when bush contracted the building of the HUGE Iraq embassy with a Kuwait company instead of a american company?
Mar 25, 2013 at 10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
axolot...keep drinking the koolaid.....
Mar 24, 2013 at 10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Not all gun owners are gun nuts. The first step would be to switch the paper records to computer files. That would help law enforcement to track serial numbers. Then get rid of the background check loopholes. Next, every private sale of certain "ego" guns like ar15's, have to go through a dealer with another background check on the new buyer.
.
This would be a good start point in the right direction and wouldn't bother this hunter one bit.
Mar 24, 2013 at 10:40 p.m.
Mar 23, 2013 at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
how about a back ground check on obama, why hasnt any goverment official started the process of impeaching obama? perfectly clear he is out to bring down this country. he gives more money to other countries then he spends on our own country, releases illegal aliens from prison but doesnt deport them. gives the very same gun he wanted banned to drug dealers from mexico. left people over seas and did nothing to help them when they were under fire and then tried to cover up the story and hide the suviors to keep them quiet, clinton is guilty of this also. time to impeach this man and charge him with treason.
Mar 23, 2013 at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
usaret: I'm not one that believes background checks will solve the problem. I'm not even aware there are those people. But even you acknowledge it will help, so why not??
Donna: Go back to some old peace and glove posts and you will see there's no love lost between NV and I. I stopped caring when he tattled on me as if I should be held to a higher standard because of my blog.
Mar 23, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
tt:: There are those that believe background checks will solve the problem completely. Are you one of those? No one ever said it wouldn't help somewhat but it will never solve the problem. Glad you find my comment hilarious and even make a point without being too insulting as some are.
Mar 23, 2013 at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
tthomson...don't use the word hilarious in the same post as gun control issues because NV gets all bent out of shape.
Mar 23, 2013 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ha. Thanx for the reply usaret. I almost copy/pasted from your first post but I'm glad I didn't because that makes your second post hilarious:)
1st post:'Background checks will help but they are not the answer'
Soooo....you acknowledge they WILL help, but because they won't solve the problem in its entirety, why bother?? THAT makes less sense than not wanting background checks in place to start with.
Mar 23, 2013 at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
If I buy a weapon today, pass the background check and then 5 years down the road go off and shoot up someone, please tell that the background check worked. Are they going to do background checks on the whole family? Father and mother pass, son or daughter doesn't, therefore does the father have the right to purchase a gun if a member of the family might not be mentally stable?
Mar 23, 2013 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good thing I didn't offend nvgrf, not sure I could sleep at night if that happened.
Mar 23, 2013 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not sure how a person wouldn't support back ground checks. If you're a responsible gun owner why would you object??
Mar 23, 2013 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
One thing that I find "funny" is that NVGrf actually tried to allude to the idea that he/she was a "thinking" American!:)
Mar 23, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
NV...you gotta be kidding! It's a term of speech, not a literal meaning. Even a second grader would understand that!
Mar 23, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
You find this "funny" Retired Air Force? The fact that you find any humor remotely related to this issue at all is offensive to thinking Americans.
Mar 23, 2013 at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Once again politics overrules reality..
All the "alleged" concerns over the useless killing and tragedy so dramatically pushed by these elected officials now is dropped because they "Don't have the votes to pass it"....
And we all know the real reason why...they don't want their name on a failed gun bill when it comes time back home for THEIR re election......
I call this HYPOCRISY at the highest level, and find it sickening.
And two days ago on the news, one of these morons stated that "90% of the American public is against criminals having guns"...Yes, that is what he said...I saw it....Ya think ??? DUH....What a dope that guy is ...
Mar 23, 2013 at 3:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Funny how nothing in these new bill(s) would have done anything to stop the shootings at the school out east...that same incident used as the reason to create more laws.
Mar 22, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
We will, of course vote out any Democrat that comes up for election. The lines have been drawn in the sand. Unfortunately the Republicans will now totally run the State and Country. But this is the price the Dems will pay for this.
Mar 22, 2013 at 3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Noteaforme, background checks on ammunition sales would be absolutely no help whatsoever. Prohibition has always resulted in a black market demand for the prohibited goods.
Also, think of the volume of sales the sports shooting industry generates. The logistics to place a background check on every transaction is mind boggling.
Mar 22, 2013 at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
The mental health of individuals when you go out in public is most evident when you drive. We all encounter people who drive in a reckless manner because they don't know how to plan their day or set an alarm clock correctly.
Mar 22, 2013 at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Background checks for all ammo sales would help tremendously too!
Mar 22, 2013 at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Either do it or don't do it but do something instead of talk, talk and more talk. Background checks will help but they are not the answer. Criminals will still get the weapons regardless. As for mental health of the individual, today no problem, tomorrow it could be a problem. Who knows what may change a person and cause him to do harm. But please, stop using this for the usual political games.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.