Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check Bill

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080.html?hpid=topnews

[EST]

1. This is a heartening example of negotiative legislating and

judicious compromise at its finest. A breath of sanity in an insane history.

Something very big, or perhaps an alignment of the universal forces brought about a near decade of decreasing violent crime, until 2001, and then a corresponding upswing since then. Although we haven't been able to identify the cause-and there are so damn many self-serving jerks willing to take credit for it-maybe this is the beginning of an equally momentous time. (Sigh-yeah, my middle name must be Pollyanna.)

[guruoo]

2. K&R - An alliance potentially devestating to the GOP

however, I suggest that Dems exercise caution in considering support of this.

[EST]

3. Interesting choice of words.

Any sort of reasoned discourse is a potentially devastating blow to the GOP.
Case in point-
Every republican I've listened to recently describes her/himself as a committed republican, devoted to limited government and fiscal responsibility. How this is supposed to be a uniquely republican point of view is shrouded in mystery.
I don't know of any democrat who is not committed to fiscal responsibility and limited government, yet no one challenges these big talkers when they make such claims.

Being "conservative" is not uniquely republican. In fact, real conservatives, people who are in favor of not wasting resources and lives, are far more often democrats.

Republicans, and some democrats, I'm sure, seem to be interested only in power at any cost and reasoned discourse or pragmatic compromise is anathema to them.

[DavidMS]

6. I agree

on the face of it, it looks like a winner. Clean up some issues with the NICS and prevent the adjudicated insane and involuntarily confined from purchasing weapons from a FFL. However, I would have given the NRA some sweeteners by tweaking federal laws. This is just to make sure that the thing passes and everyone is happy.

Its progress.

[David__77]

4. I hope Democrats come to a pure right to bear arms position.

I know more than a few progressives who've changed position. After Bush, they no longer want all the guns in society to be in the hands of government. Avoiding that situation is the essence of the 2nd amendment.

[Zandor]

8. What is a "pure right to bear arms position"?

Deserting efforts at reasonable gun control measures?

[qdemn7]

12. Stating

That the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL not a Collective Right. It does NOT refer to the National Guard. It's NOT about hunting, since 80% of gun owners DO NOT hunt. (I don't).

BTW, the term "reasonable" is a loaded term, pardon the pun. It's like saying "reasonable restrictions on abortion."

[Zandor]

14. Few if any Dems take the collective right position

That's why I brought it up. It's a false choice created by the repugs - they want folks to believe they support the right to bear arms and the Democrats don't. Democrats do, they are just more inclined to create common sense restrictions, like these, while having to fight the NRA(GOP) along the way.

[S_B_Jackson]

5. Encouraging and potentially larger ramifications that no one is commenting upon.

One of the NRA's main objections to "closing the gunshow loophole" has been the fees that are currently charged to private citizens and their being unregulated - thus like the cost of a FFL's fee for handling a transfer it's entirely arbitrary.

From the article: The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks.

With some rather minor tweeking - getting the states to agree to a similar bar, and regulating the fee that FFL's may or maynot, charge, the impasse between the NRA's position and the desire of many seeking "reasonable" gun controls appear to be near solution. It's a little early to :toast:, but it's is cause for cautious optimism.B-)

[beevul]

7. As a gun owner, this is common sense legislation I can support.

I have no problem with it what so ever.

[drm604]

9. Why are our representatives negotiating with a special interest group?

Am I the only one bothered by this? Forget for a moment the whole gun control issue and your position on it. Why are our representatives negotiating with a special interest group? Why should a lobby group get "significant concessions"? Why is it necessary to reach agreement with them? They can let the government know of their positions and concerns but beyond that, why should they have major involvement in the creation of our laws? We elected the House and the Senate, we did not elect the NRA!

[dogfacedboy]

10. I thought the same thing.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that anyone outside of the Federal government creates and passes Federal legislation?

[beevul]

13. The alternative...

They could have went with a package that unnecessarily restricted gun owners, pissed them off, and got nothing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Because this 'special interest group' has thousands of members in

each congressional district who go apeshit if their represetantive votes for a law they believe to be infringing on the second amendment.

[Zandor]

15. Because the GOP will back the NRA

It isn't right, but the Senior Democrats knew they would have to pass muster with the NRA to win support from Republicans and some moderate Democrats and get a bill done.

[dogfacedboy]

16. Now I understand. n/t