Deal reached on background checks in Senate

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Marvin? I not ask about the amendments to the US Constitution, referred to as the Bill of Rights.

I am talking about this Senate Bill, http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

the same one that Evylin (pbuh) has written about, back at post #1.

------

The entire Bill is here:

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

without any of the amendments to it, listed.

My mistake, wasn't clear on the questions.

[Darnell 8,478]

It's something Muslims write next to the Prophets name. Peace be upon him. He is making fun of you. You should report it.

Not making fun of her, at all !

You've listed ONE mention of when to write it.

There are others.

It's perfectly acceptable to wish peace and blessings onto another human, O AraJit.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

So there are states where you can purchase a gun and nobody questions your ability to use it? Weird.

not for any purchases i've made, but then again i've been familiar with firearms for over 40 years.

most firearms dealers are more than happy to show you the important stuff - like safety features and disassembly for cleaning. the ability to use one with accuracy always comes with practice. safety on the other hand should be always paramount - the nra offers a hunter safety course that teaches that should anyone be interested (don't be fooled by the title of the course - it teaches firearm safety and not just for hunting situations).

[GandD 5,966]

not for any purchases i've made, but then again i've been familiar with firearms for over 40 years.

most firearms dealers are more than happy to show you the important stuff - like safety features and disassembly for cleaning. the ability to use one with accuracy always comes with practice. safety on the other hand should be always paramount - the nra offers a hunter safety course that teaches that should anyone be interested (don't be fooled by the title of the course - it teaches firearm safety and not just for hunting situations).

There's a good amount of classes associated with getting a concealed carry license.

Edit, Sorry, in KY

Edited April 16, 2013 by GandD

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

There's a good amount of classes associated with getting a concealed carry license.

Edit, Sorry, in KY

i'm assuming she meant someone just purchasing one and not planning on using it for conceal carry (shotgun, rifle). concealed carry classes here in kansas do not teach one to shoot. the prospective student better know that (along with the functionality of their firearm) before showing up as it's a qualification range, not a practice one. a poor showing can cause failing the course.

[GandD 5,966]

i'm assuming she meant someone just purchasing one and not planning on using it for conceal carry (shotgun, rifle). concealed carry classes here in kansas do not teach one to shoot. the prospective student better know that (along with the functionality of their firearm) before showing up as it's a qualification range, not a practice one. a poor showing can cause failing the course.

I assume that as well. I gues my thinking is this type of mentality could perhaps be expanded. Advanced classes for a concealed carry license, basic classes for a gun permit. No doubt some would disagree, but I feel like training classes is something that has be completely absent in the gun debate.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I assume that as well. I gues my thinking is this type of mentality could perhaps be expanded. Advanced classes for a concealed carry license, basic classes for a gun permit. No doubt some would disagree, but I feel like training classes is something that has be completely absent in the gun debate.

what about states that don't issue a gun permit?

and what would be considered an advanced class for a concealed carry license? for the class i went to, noobs would be wasting their time there. any i know that have taken a class have a pretty good firearms understanding.

[himher 634]

what about states that don't issue a gun permit?

and what would be considered an advanced class for a concealed carry license? for the class i went to, noobs would be wasting their time there. any i know that have taken a class have a pretty good firearms understanding.

Did you have to pass a shooting test? (like the Texas one that Gary HATES?)

The Texas concealed carry licenses limit you to a revolver if that's what you bring to the class and qualify on, otherwise if you want to carry a semiauto you have to qualify on a semiauto by demonstrating that you can shoot it.

[GandD 5,966]

Did you have to pass a shooting test? (like the Texas one that Gary HATES?)

The Texas concealed carry licenses limit you to a revolver if that's what you bring to the class and qualify on, otherwise if you want to carry a semiauto you have to qualify on a semiauto by demonstrating that you can shoot it.

Really it was just a thought. Maybe something as complex as as this for all levels, like a test for different "types" of guns.

But I'd prefer something simple like passing a written test to get a permit. Perhaps a nationwide, standardized written test before you are qualified to own a gun. Nothing too crazy, but maybe something to force gun owners to have a basic idea of the laws associated with their new purchase. Concealed classes wouldn't need to change. I've not been through one so I only have 2nd hand knowledge. The guys I know that went through it have several guns, are what I would call responsible owners, and spoke highly of the classes. I don't think it would fix all issues, but i think education is rarely a bad thing.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

So there are states where you can purchase a gun and nobody questions your ability to use it? Weird.

(Most) men have a #######. A woman has a #######. ####### in ####### can lead to conception and childbirth. No license or proof of ability to use it. Most anyone who has reached puberty can get these results, no background checks or psychological exam required. Weird.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Did you have to pass a shooting test? (like the Texas one that Gary HATES?)

The Texas concealed carry licenses limit you to a revolver if that's what you bring to the class and qualify on, otherwise if you want to carry a semiauto you have to qualify on a semiauto by demonstrating that you can shoot it.

there's what one could loosely term a "qualification fire" but who could miss at 7' in broad daylight and when there's no timer?

i remember the one about texas from my dad - if you take a semi auto, you get a cc license for semi-auto and revolver. if revolver only at the course, you get a limited cc for revolver only. there are applications for either one that some may not realize - a revolver is better if very close in.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Really it was just a thought. Maybe something as complex as as this for all levels, like a test for different "types" of guns.

But I'd prefer something simple like passing a written test to get a permit. Perhaps a nationwide, standardized written test before you are qualified to own a gun. Nothing too crazy, but maybe something to force gun owners to have a basic idea of the laws associated with their new purchase. Concealed classes wouldn't need to change. I've not been through one so I only have 2nd hand knowledge. The guys I know that went through it have several guns, are what I would call responsible owners, and spoke highly of the classes. I don't think it would fix all issues, but i think education is rarely a bad thing.

i'm leery of a national standardized test as there's too many ways that test could be jacked with by someone with an agenda - and by that i'm particularly concerned about someone making it so difficult that one would need to be a true firearms aficionado to pass it. also, it would be challenged and probably struck down constitutionally.

Edited April 17, 2013 by charles!

[SMOKE 1,426]

In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short

Despite an impassioned push by President Barack Obama and an emotional lobbying effort by the families of mass shooting victims, proponents of a compromise measure to expand gun background checks on Wednesday fell six votes short of passage in the Senate.

The vote on the amendment was 54 to 46. Sixty votes were needed for the amendment to be adopted.

The deal was the result of a deal struck between Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

As the bill was defeated, a voice in the Senate gallery could be heard yelling "Shame on you!"

The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have extended existing background check rules to gun sales made online and at gun shows. It was vehemently opposed by the National Rifle Association, who said it infringed on the rights of gun owners.

In a statement, NRA-ILA executive director Chris Cox applauded the proposal's defeat: "This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution," he said. "As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools."

Four Republicans - Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois and amendment author Toomey - broke with the rest of the GOP to support the background check legislation.

Four Democrats - Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mark Pryor of Arkansas - voted against it.

Those Democrats are now the targets of liberal groups vowing to advertise their 'no' votes. In a statement shortly after the defeat, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor slammed the four defectors.

"Today, the Senate voted against the 91% of Americans who support background checks to stop gun violence," she said. "We'll be holding accountable Democrats who voted against their constituents by running ads in their states, featuring some of the 23,000 gun owners who have joined our campaign for common sense gun reform."

Opposition to changing the gun laws in previous weeks was so intense that some questioned whether it would even come to a vote Wednesday. Gun control backers won a surprisingly robust bipartisan victory on a procedural vote last week that allowed debate on the background check deal.

Much of the momentum that fueled that brief victory was credited to the parents and relatives of children killed in the Newtown shootings last year. Newtown families lobbied extensively on the Hill, reportedly bringing several lawmakers to tears with deeply personal stories of the grief caused to their families when a lone gunman mowed down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Some of the Newtown family members were present in the Senate gallery when the background check amendment was defeated.

Vice President Joe Biden, who has led the White House’s effort on the gun legislation after the Newtown shooting, presided over the Senate for the vote.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband and retired astronaut Mark Kelly join Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill April 16, 2013 in Washington.Speaking during a White House-organized Google Hangout earlier Wednesday, Biden appeared to acknowledge that defeat was likely but assured supporters that victory was not lost forever.

“"If we don't get it today, we'll get it eventually,” he assured gun control supporters.

In emotional remarks on the Senate floor before the vote, Manchin implored his colleagues to ignore "myths" -- circulated by some opponents of the background measure -- including the idea that the law could lead to the creation of a federal gun "registry" and the criminalization of private transfers of guns between family members.

"All I've asked for is for everyone to please read the bill," he said. "I don't know what the outcome will be today. I know we're close. I know it's a tough decision."

The Senate is also set to vote on the re-upping of an assault weapons ban long backed by California Democrat Sen. Feinstein, but it is expected to fail, as is a measure to limit high-capacity ammunition magazines.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795377-in-blow-to-gun-control-backers-background-check-compromise-falls-6-votes-short?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

no behind closed doors deal this time. *snickers*

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

(CNN) - Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, plan to announce a bipartisan deal on background checks for gun shows and Internet sales at an 11 a.m. press conference today, CNN's Dana Bash has learned.

A Democratic leadership source says the compromise will likely be the first amendment to gun legislation being considered, after the Senate votes to begin the gun debate Thursday.

The breakthrough background check agreement is a key part of gun legislation. Because it has been struck by two senators with strong support from the NRA, they hope to find the 60 votes that will be needed to overcome opposition to pass their amendment

The senate is expected to debate gun legislation for at least two weeks.

Democrats believe as many as a dozen GOP senators will vote with them, making up for the handful of pro-gun Democrats who might vote against beginning debate on the bill. Fourteen Republicans promise to filibuster taking up the measure.

Several Republican senators told CNN Tuesday they would only vote to begin debate on the bill if they were assured by Democrats they would be allowed to offer amendments to the legislation.

Democratic leaders want to give senators from both parties ample opportunities to amend the bill and are prepared to debate it beyond a scheduled recess the first week in May, if doing so will increase the chances of passage.

"The way you put together a coalition to pass the bill is to allow as many amendment votes as you can. We are willing to take the time to do that and have that process," the aide said.

Those negotiators will now have more time to find common ground on language, since the gun debate is expected to be lengthy. Democratic leaders also argue any bill they put on the floor will represent a substantial improvement in gun safety.

Many of those additional votes could be politically difficult for centrist Democrats, especially those up for re-election in red states, as Republicans are expected to craft amendments designed to put those senators on the spot. Nevertheless, Democratic leaders have determined it's a risk they need to take if they want to pass substantive legislation to respond to the mass shootings that have plagued the nation in recent years.

"Once we're on it we want to have an open process where there are a lot of votes and we really work through that," the aide said.

http://politicaltick...ecks-in-senate/

Not so fast my friends LOL