"Republican support is anticipated in part because the four senators involved in the talks have agreed that any new background check program would exempt private transactions between family members or people who completed a background check in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit, according to aides.
But the four senators are grappling with how to make the process of obtaining a background check as seamless as possible for private dealers while also ensuring that someone keeps a record of the transaction. " Washpost
------------------------------------------------
IMO a federal background check law has a good chance of passage if it follows the guide lines outlined above.
The one "sticking point would be the "keeps a record of the transaction" mentioned in the WaPo articel. If such a record is kept then this is nothing more than the creation of a national firearms register and the bill will fail in the House if not in the Senate.
The police in Connecticutt appear to be intent on hiding the facts with regard to how Adam Lanza secured the use of his mother's guns on that fatal morning. Were the guns and ammunition merely placed in a closet as some sources seem to report? If that is true, then Lanza's mother caused her own death and contributed to the deaths and wounding of so many more. A gun safe like the one pictured above with a combination lock would likely have prevented this terrible loss.
These guns belonged to Lanza's mother, not to him. She passed a state and federal gun check. Stricter gun sale checks would not have prevented his access to these firearms. He was not the owner.
His mother knew or should have known that her son was dangerous and she did nothing to deny him access to these guns. pl
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/23/Friend-Nancy-Lanza-did-not-secure-guns/UPI-96501358921210/
http://www.gunsafes.com/Winchester-S49-Silverado-2-Hour-Fire-Safe-54-Gun-Safe.html
That's all it is. A back door implementing of registration.
I sure hope you're right about it not going anywhere.
Posted by: John Minnerath | 24 February 2013 at 05:25 PM
It never fails to amuse me that legislators keep proposing laws that will work just fine assuming that criminals will obey the laws, and will obtain their guns through legal means. Most criminals don't really care about obeying laws, and they pretty much never obtain guns through sources that can be traced, so the discussion seems entirely futile to me.
Posted by: Bill H | 25 February 2013 at 11:14 AM
I am not surprised at all that the media is not covering the lack of a gun safe at the Lanza home. Even more deafening is the zero coverage of psychiatric drugs, their dosages and side effects or what impact they had on Adam Lanza's behavior. I wonder how long it will be before someone posits that those prescriptions only started getting filled after Obamacare got passed? Surely there can't be any downside to prescription drug coverage. It would sure fit the never ending politicization of the story.
Posted by: Fred | 26 February 2013 at 03:50 PM
The Newton police said they will not release any information on the shooting until their investigation is complete and that could take a few months. I find that odd since Obama is using Sandy Hook as a raison d'etre for gun regulation. There should be video of Lanza inside the school.
Posted by: optimax | 26 February 2013 at 07:53 PM
"These guns belonged to Lanza's mother, not to him. She passed a state and federal gun check. Stricter gun sale checks would not have prevented his access to these firearms. He was not the owner."
The point isn't to create legislation that prevents this attack, it's to adopt measures that reduce the possibility of such attacks occurring in the future. Both sides of the debate are using arguments like this. The anti-gun group, for example, likes to point out that there were armed guards at Columbine. Merely because those two individuals on that specific day did not stop that particular attack does not mean that armed guards in general couldn't have a deterrent effect. Merely because Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used does not mean that a registry would not have some preventive effect on mass shootings in general. Not that I'm saying it would.
Posted by: shepherd | 27 February 2013 at 11:08 AM
shepherd
You did not answer my gun safe point. "does not mean that a registry would not have some preventive effect" you are a gun registry advocate. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 February 2013 at 11:50 AM
The second point of a regestry is to be able to hold owners financially accountable for usage after weapons are stolen. Unlike with automobiles, where we hold the driver responsible killing people in accidents. Good luck with that one.
Posted by: Fred | 27 February 2013 at 12:48 PM
I'm nothing of the sort. I was talking about your line of reasoning, not the underlying point. That line of reasoning is used all the time by both sides in this debate, and it's a sure path to getting nothing done.
For what it's worth, of all of the ideas that have come out, I think school guards and a national gun registry are among the most foolish. The former seems to me the equivalent of stationing amateur paramedics at dangerous intersections. The latter is, as you point out, politically impossible, and for good cultural reasons. I don't see the point in wasting time on things that obviously won't pass.
I didn't "answer" your gun safe point, because I think it's an excellent one. One of the best measures in my opinion would be to attach civil liability to those whose guns are used in violent crimes, and make it even worse if the owner doesn't have a gun safe. You'd obviously have to think that through so people wouldn't be penalized for things beyond their control, etc.
Posted by: shepherd | 27 February 2013 at 01:37 PM
What specifically are your objections to a firearms registry? Have problems like the ones you foresee arisen in connection with other databases or registries? I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I would just like to know what the problem is
Posted by: Rider | 27 February 2013 at 02:26 PM
rider
IMO I have made myself clear on this. Posession of firearms is a constitutionally protected part of the balance of governmental power in the U.S. The federal government/state governments/a free press/and the citizenry all have roles in the balance of forces in the US. These potential forces need never be actualized but the potential should be there. The police in the US are already very full of themselves. It is not an accident that so many policemen want the citizenry disarmed. they want a monopoly of armed porential. It was the intention of the framers that such a balance should exist. See Federalist Paper number #46. IMO a national firearms registry makes citizen possession of arms a joke. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 February 2013 at 02:41 PM
Firearms registration is the holy grail of the anti gun establishment.
Without it their goal of totally disarming the public would not be possible.
Holding an owner liable for a criminal act committed by something that was stolen is absurd.
Forcing people to store their firearms in some sort of Federally approved safe is also extreme.
In many parts of the country gun collections are displayed in fine furniture cabinets.
Anyone who suffers a robbery immediately notifies the police of such thefts in an attempt to recover them.
They nearly all represent a considerable investment.
Posted by: John Minnerath | 27 February 2013 at 03:30 PM
Thank you. I am closer to understanding, and I do respect your position. I can think of some ways in which a registry might benefit gun owners and buyers, and might not be all bad.
Posted by: Rider | 27 February 2013 at 03:33 PM
Some ways it 'might' benefit owners and buyers. Perhaps they are secret benefits since you didn't bother to say what they were?
Posted by: Fred | 27 February 2013 at 03:45 PM
Can we start attaching civil liabilities to parents who let their children "buckwild" like what happened in Chicago last weekend at the mall?
Your idea is ridiculous, and only punishes law abiding gun owners. The gun problem is not, as Michael Moore claims, rednecks going into the cities and blasting 'coloreds', though that's a popular viewpoint in the fantasy islands.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 February 2013 at 07:24 PM
Latest anti=gun propaganda using ex-military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zXVCQqvicV0
Posted by: optimax | 27 February 2013 at 09:09 PM
Since you didn't bother asking, I'll let you.figure it out. Use your imagination. Hint: there are reasons we keep "registries" of cars and many other consumer products, whether they are kept by government or private interests.
Posted by: Rider | 27 February 2013 at 10:58 PM
Hint: There's no amendment that gives you a right to a car.
Posted by: Tyler | 28 February 2013 at 07:09 AM
Not sure if this is worst that the left climbing on a mountaint of dead children to push its agenda, but still disgusting.
Posted by: Tyler | 28 February 2013 at 07:10 AM
Colonel,
Thought this might be of interest....
http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
Posted by: Jake | 28 February 2013 at 09:14 AM
Why don't you fill me in? I don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile. If this is one of 'return stolen property' idea then don't bother. The local police would already have a report of the theft.
Posted by: Fred | 28 February 2013 at 09:53 AM
You want to attach liability to ownership? If you are going to chnage the legal principle of responsibility regrading property it sure won't stop are guns. All those red light cameras, it's the car owner's fault! Tell that the Hertz, Avis....
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-hit-pause-button-on-red-light-cameras/1276674
The state can't even get due process correct with regard to traffic tickets. Other than bankrupting people who did not commimt a crime what do you intend?
Posted by: Fred | 28 February 2013 at 09:58 AM
It doesn't punish law abiding gun owners. It punishes law abiding gun owners who don't safeguard their guns. This is hardly a ridiculous idea. We can and do punish people whose dangerous dogs get free and kill people. Criminally, for what it's worth, not civilly.
The activities of the kids running wild are covered by criminal statutes, and they themselves pay the price if they're caught. There is a deterrent in place, here there is none.
The point, not that you seem open to it, is not that you'd have a lot of lawsuits over this. It would be a very hard case to prove. But a lot (but not all) of the mass school shootings happen due to children getting a hold of their law abiding but careless parents' guns. Such a law would encourage those people to be more responsible about how they store their weapons.
Last point. You seem overly inclined to lump anyone who disagrees with you into Michael Moore's camp. Nothing I have written here indicates that I'm in favor of widespread gun control. I grew up in a small rural town where it was common to carry heavy firearms whenever you were outside town to protect yourself against wildlife and meth dealers. I've owned guns my whole life and know their utility.
Posted by: shepherd | 28 February 2013 at 10:17 AM
Shepherd,
Can you supply some citations to back up your claim that a lot of school shootings are done by children using their parents guns?
There are a few, but I think we'll find most have been done by young adults using their own.
And it was common where you lived to carry heavy firearms whenever outside for protection wild life and meth dealers.
When ever I'm fishing the creeks around here it's common to come across the tracks of grizzlies in the mud. And the usual rag tag assortment of wolves, mountain lions and even dangerous looking cottontails. I very rarely ever pack a gun around, no one does.
If meth dealers were as common here as they seem to be where you live, I think I'd move!
Posted by: John Minnerath | 28 February 2013 at 11:05 AM
To put this another way, I'd guess the NRA has guidelines for gun handling and storage around children. In my experience, they do an excellent job of gun safety education, and their guidelines, if they were laws, would make gun control advocates salivate. So let's make those guidelines--not a gun safe necessarily--the standard for the law.
Personally, I don't think this is an infringement on our right to bear arms. It's an non-criminal enforcement of proper gun handling and storage, which we all agree is a good idea. Whenever we go to a gun range, we have to follow a strict set of rules for safety, or we get kicked out. Is that unconstitutional? Of course not. The one I used to go to all the time, for example, did not permit you to have loaded guns except on the range, even if you had a concealed carry permit.
In my opinion, Tyler, you should be able to own as many guns as you please. But you should also follow the rules necessary for their safe handling and storage, especially around children. So why not attach some teeth to what most of us law-abiding gun owners are doing anyway? I think this is what Pat Lang is getting at, I'm just suggesting a mechanism.
Posted by: shepherd | 28 February 2013 at 11:16 AM
I don't see how a state's rotten implementation of a poorly thought out policy has anything to do with what I'm talking about. If we are able to dismiss any argument by pointing to a single instance of government incompetence, we'll never get anywhere.
I want to attach liability not to ownership, but to negligent ownership of something that has the potential to be dangerous. My intention? To get people to handle and store their guns the way most of us already do.
I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an appeals judge, so I don't know if this is workable. It's just an idea.
Posted by: shepherd | 28 February 2013 at 11:24 AM