Free Markets, Free People

GOP Senators prepare to cave on unnecessary gun control legislation

Let me preface this by saying there is absolutely no need for new gun control legislation.  None.  Nada. Zip. Zero.

The claims by the left that gun control legislation will solve problems of violence are nonsense. Period.

But that likely won’t stop the usual suspects among GOP Senators from helping the left in their incremental but determined efforts to limit your 2nd Amendment rights. Apparently “Congress shall make no law” has a different meaning to some people:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has emerged as a key player if Senate Democrats are to have any chance of passing legislation to expand background checks for private sales of firearms.

McCain and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) are at the top of a list of Republicans considered most likely to sign on to legislation expanding background checks after talks with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) stalled earlier this month.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has signaled he will likely support the yet-to-be-finalized proposal he negotiated with Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks to cover private gun sales, according to Senate sources.

Of course we’ve been assured by some that this is really of no big consequence and we should relax and let it happen.

Uh, no.

Like I said in the beginning – there is absolutely no need for new gun control legislation – none. The fact that some in the GOP seem poised to make that happen anyway should tell you all you need to know about certain members of that party and their professed claim to believe in your Constitutional rights all while negotiating parts of them away.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

30 Responses to GOP Senators prepare to cave on unnecessary gun control legislation

  • John McCain.
    term limits, mandatory retirement age, mandatory sanity checks, litmus test to claim he’s not a Democrat,

  • Like I said in the beginning – there is absolutely no need for new gun control legislation – none.

    Really, McQ?  That’s not what the NRA is saying.
    Is it…???
    Would you support or oppose making information about mental health problems part of the process, and under what conditions?
    Do you know a person who bought a firearm in the last 10 years that was NOT subject to a background check?  I don’t.

    • you sorta do – I picked one up in December sans background check.

      • Dude!!!   Shhhhh….!!!!  Da Federales, man…
        But seriously, while purely private transactions DO occur, they are very rare.

        • Yeah, I bought 3 others – 2 over the counter at sporting goods stores, 1 at a gun show – all were duly noted by whatever government entity checks for stains in my skivvies.
          All done before the world went insane after Newtown.
          As far as Da Federales….they can use their extra sensory goat mind readers to figure out what I bought without their blessing.   An examination of my online purchases (to make it truly evil and frightening) would allow even a half witted analyst to identify the make and model precisely.

        • They’re actually pretty common, just not the majority of volume.
          They’re also not a big problem, since the law-abiding sorts involved already won’t transfer to someone they think is sketchy, let alone know is prohibited.
          (After all, ever traded a gun with someone? Transfer! Sold off one to a friend? Transfer! Gun enthusiasts do this with fair frequency, where it’s legal … and of course, also not to criminals or prohibited persons.)
          The black market is also “private transactions”, but of course they’re already committing felonies and a new law won’t change that…
          Which is why I look askance at such requirements; what problem are they notionally fixing? Making the black market Double Illegal?

          • …since the law-abiding sorts involved already won’t transfer to someone they think is sketchy, let alone know is prohibited.

            Where, as you note, the transfer is to a friend or acquaintance you know well, sure.
            But, again, HOW do you know if the sale or trade is to someone you DO NOT know well?
            I read of an instance where a guy went to buy a gun (new), and was reminded of a criminal conviction years before he truly had forgotten.
            I candidly do not know, since it is not my business, what the mental history is of my friends.  Do you always?

    • I do – me for one, plus a few people I’ve sold guns to… along with any of the other hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens who’ve sold privately-owned guns to other law abiding citizens.
      Background checks are only required if you’re buying a gun from a FFL, but not during private-party transactions.  Except in places like CA where all private sales are required to go through a FFL and background check.  And it’s a huge waste of time and money because it almost exclusively affects gun owners selling to other gun owners.
      Would the proposed legislation require background checks in the case where a child wants to take possession of his/her parent’s firearms after killing them?  If not, the new law will be as useless as all other gun control legislation.

      • 1. where did you get your numbers?
        2. “And it’s a huge waste of time and money because it almost exclusively affects gun owners selling to other gun owners.”
        2a. How the hell would anybody know that the gun owners have no criminal background, are not under a peace order, or are not nuts?
        2b. We might agree the whole CURRENT background law is useless, but it DOES seem to have passed Constitutional muster.  How is expanding it to include a very small population (by percentage) of gun transfers (by sale) an onerous burden?

        • 2. Lawful gun owners, specifically. Who already pass NICS checks when buying from dealers, which they tend to do.

          2a. Nobody knows they’re not nuts; at <I>best</i> all we can know is that they haven’t been committed.
          This is coming after a little rash of recent crazy-person shootings… problem being that as far as I know, the last few crazies weren’t Adjudicated Crazies, so would not have been stopped by a background check.
          Well, and they also have this annoying tendency to just steal the guns.

          2b. As long as it includes “failure of the system means go ahead”, it doesn’t bother me TOO much. It’s mostly just irksome if it doesn’t except family, and possibly “people you know and have reason to believe are NOT prohibited”. You shouldn’t have to get the Feds’ OK to give your spouse (who is not a felon/crazy) a gun, or trade one with Jim who you’ve known for a decade and know isn’t a felon.

          On the other hand, if it’s such a small percentage of transfers, why extend it? There’s <I>no evidence</I>, to my knowledge, that private sales <I>outside of the black market</i> are a significant source of problems. And the black market won’t be affected by this at all, will it?

          • Why extend it?  Why not extend it?  I mean, conceptually, if we do not militate for the basic system to be killed, what is the principle by which we object to extending it to private SALES…not transfers to our spouse or near family (who we do tend to know well).

          • As to your last point, yes there is evidence that background checks have worked in some instances to keep guns out of the hands of people I think we agree should not have them.
            You could hardly expect so massive a program to return NO positive results.  It is rational to expect some private sales do put guns in the hands of people who could not get them in the checked channels, just as some people try and fail to get them via the latter mode.
            Is the existing system well run, and is the law well enforced?  Hell no!  And much less so, from what I read, under Obama and Holder.

    • I’m sorry, I must have missed the memo that said I had to parrot or agree with what the NRA supported.

      And yes.  Me.  Bought one from a friend.  Other than money changing hands, nothing else was done.

        I’ll try again…
        Would you support or oppose making information about mental health problems part of the process, and under what conditions?

        • No, I don’t support a new law, since the mechanism (and law) already exists but, as usual, isn’t being followed:

          A federal database with the names of mentally ill people barred from buying guns still lacks millions of records it needs to be effective. A new report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns points to gaps in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

          The problem is that 14 years after NICS was put in place, states still aren’t submitting all the required mental health records.

          Gee … what a surprise.  Governments not complying with the law.  Solution?  Pass a new law.

          • Yeah, gee.  SOMETIMES laws…as drafted…don’t do what was intended.  So, is your solution to ignore the flawed law?  Do you want to leave it to the courts or regulators to fix?
            But, again, you are hyperventilating.
            If you advocate ENDING all background checks, say that.

          • I’m still trying to figure out why the caliber, maker & serial number of the weapon or weapons is/are necessary for a background check on a person.
            Don’t that seem just a little bit…..convenient?

          • We agree.  What if this smoke-out maneuver…which I say this is…resulted in taking that information off limits?

          • I’m hyperventilating.  Answer your question, show you the law is already on the books (i.e you don’t get the answer you want) and I’m hyperventilating.  LOL

            You and Erb … bookends.


          • Now you’re just going ad hominem bullshit, McQ.  Nasty, and cowardly.
            You can’t answer questions straight up, can you?

      • The question was answered.  You just don’t like the answer.

        • Would you support or oppose making information about mental health problems part of the process, and under what conditions?

          That was the question.  Not, “What is the state of the law now?”  You didn’t answer the question.  Your answer was not responsive.  OK.  You can go that way.
          I then asked, since you assert the law NOW includes information on mental health, but is ineffective, SHOULD WE MAKE THE LAW EFFECTIVE via legislative action, or would you rather leave it to courts and regulators to fix (assuming they could fix it)?
          This is where you just got nasty.  You don’t take criticism well.

          • And that was answered – there’s no need for a new law.  The law exists.  What is required is compliance.  Compliance doesn’t require a new law.  I said, if you’ll read the post, that no NEW law was needed and especially in light of your question, that’s true.

          • “SHOULD WE MAKE THE LAW EFFECTIVE via legislative action”
            I always thought it was the executive branch that enforced the laws. If the states aren’t following the law now, how is passing a new one going to help? It’s not just criminals that ignore laws.

          • “There is no need for a new law”.
            Really.  Have you ever heard of “conflict of laws”?  Do you ANY idea what you are talking about here?
            Are you aware that “compliance” is sometimes impossible without violating other laws?
            If you have a law that is NOT working due to some flaw, you DO need to replace it with a new law.  That is simply the responsible thing to do for legislators.
            SOME laws are precatory, in that they have no means of compelling compliance, such as the law mandating the President submit a budget the first week of February.

  • What if they proposed the mental health rule, and then to make it strong, they propose any of us buying a gun must go through a mental health checkup and a (some period) re-certification.
    Re-certify if you have a trying incident in your life – job loss, death of a family member, bad health diagnosis, long term relationship termination.
    Once they start linking your state of mind to weapons there are an infinite number of reasons to prevent you from buying or even owning a fire arm (on account of their evil and dangerous influence on you).
    That’s not far fetched, it will be a logical extension for gun banners like, Bloomberg, for example, and they’ll drag out all kinds of stats to demonstrate it’s necessary to ‘save even 1 life”.
    Just following where the door will lead once it’s opened.

  • Stifle private sales, then go after retail sales.  Alternate.
    Chip, chip, chip…
    That sound is the Democrat strategy.  Don’t take away rights outright.  Chip away at them.  Make the encumbered or more expensive.  Take advantage of the burden to chase away a few gun owners here, a few there.  Soon enough gun owners will be a minority or small enough majority you can take them away completely.  That’s the Democrat strategy.  That’s why the republicans lose.  They are simply not equipped for the long haul.
    Especially when they are idiotic media pleasers willing to throw any pretense of principles under the bus because they are desperate for personal relevance (for personal gain).  And the irony is that’s the reason people don’t like them.