Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

[dajoki]

Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill
Measure stiffening background checks would be 1st major reform since '94
By Jonathan Weisman
Updated: 49 minutes ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/


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.

<<snip>>

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.

<<snip>>

By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill.

<<snip>>

Fight has left many lawmakers gun-shy
The NRA reacted furiously to the last major federal gun-control legislation, a 1994 ban on assault weapons, and that reaction helped sweep Democrats from control of Congress later that year. Vice President Al Gore's embrace of gun-control proposals helped secure his defeat in the presidential election of 2000, and Democratic leaders have been leery of touching the issue ever since.

[EST]

1. This is very good news.

A shrewd and powerful operator with a loud, national voice could have fairly easily linked the insanity of the current lack of oversight and effective management of firearm issues with the insanity of the various organizations which seek to demonize any efforts at reasonable regulation.

I do hope te NRA realizes that they, as the principle advocate of "slippery slope" arguments, are in the unenviable position of being stigmatized as the principle enabler of much of the most horrid gun violence that plagues our country.
Is this indicative of a new era? I doubt it but am willing to take a wait and see approach. As much as I have been a willing participant in pointing out the weaknesses in the democratic leadership, I am also more than willing to own my narrow mindedness and to give credit where it's due.

Good job.

[w4rma]

2. Good news all around. (nt)

[derby378]

3. If played right, this can be a win-win situation...

The Democrats in Congress have a chance to show that they're serious about public safety while at the same time developing a new respect for the Constitutional rights of US citizens.

[Totally Committed]

4. Good news or bad news, may I ask....

Why is the Democratic Party meeting with the NRA over a gun deal???? As far as I know, the NRA is not an arm of the law, it is a LOBBY. Why is this LOBBY allowed to dictate legislation to people WE ELECT?

This kind of thing makes me C R A Z Y.

TC

[dajoki]

5. Good question n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Does anyone remember what happened the last time Congress passed gun control

legislation which the NRA did not support?

[dajoki]

17. Yes I do...

See that little spot of blue in PA? That is where I live. Of course redistricting took care of that. But, amazingly, we took it back in 2006.

[benEzra]

18. Thanks to PRO-GUN Dems like Webb and Tester...

But, amazingly, we took it back in 2006.

Thanks to PRO-GUN Dems like Webb and Tester, and to the fact that the DLC finally dropped the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch after the 2004 loss. AFAIK, very, very few '06 wins were anti-gun Dems running against pro-gun repubs.

There is no way Jim Webb would have won in VA had he not been pro-gun-owner; same for Jon Tester in MT.

------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[dajoki]

23. My Dem rep. is pro gun...

lots of hunters where I live.

[Totally Committed]

21. I am against our lawmakers allowing lobbies to dictate legislation. Period.

That means ANY lobby. Ever. The citizens of this country elect them to write legislation that will protect, defend and benefit ALL citizens of this country, not some scummy lobby with vested interests.

That's all I was saying. Why not meet with pro-gun citizens' groups in their own districts and see what they have to say before going to the NRA with their tails between their legs?

TC

[Robbien]

6. From what I understand, all legislation now begin in lobbiests offices

Bill writing anywhere else but K Street is almost unheard of in DC.

[Totally Committed]

22. That is just WRONG.

We need to get back to citizen legislation. The only way we can do this, it seems is by cutting ALL lobbyists out of the equasion. That probably won't be possible as long as we elect por-corporate Democrats and as long as there is no meaningful election reform.

TC

[rockymountaindem]

7. I guess they thought it might be better to quietly negotiate with the opposition

than to slug it out in a costly financial and political battle on the airwaves and the floor of Congress. If they were going to reach the same deal, I'm glad they did it in a way that will minimize the opportunities for the RW to call us "gun-grabbers".

[Cosmocat]

16. YEP...

This is one of those issues where the Ds are on the right side in a lot of ways, but are swimming upstream against a terribly strong tide - MUCH greater emotion and sentiment on the side of "gun owners" vs those who want to try to tamp down gun violence in the country, and an MSM all too willing to carry the sound bites for the RIGHT side ...

In a way, this is how government works ... While the country would likely be a better place with tighter gun control, there just is not enough support in that regard ... Get done what can be done with the support of those who have the most leverage and move on to other things ...

[Major Hogwash]

8. Watch the Republican Pres candidates stand up for crazy people to own guns.

They have to differentiate themselves on this issue or they'll both be on the same side!

OMG!!

We can't have that!
Republicans and Democrats agreeing about guns!!

By the way, back in 1994, that's exactly how the AWB got passed - bipartisan support.

[derby378]

11. Bipartisan support - or bipartisan ignorance?

My God, when Carolyn McCarthy was asked about the barrel shrouds to be banned under HR 1022, she couldn't even describe what a barrel shroud is.

Can you really trust legislators like this with curtailing your Second Amendment rights?

[Major Hogwash]

13. My gawd, you're just as insane as the nuts with guns running around in the woods here.

Get a fucking clue.

[derby378]

14. Care to qualify that with some sort of explanation?

:shrug:

[alarimer]

9. Which, of course, means the bill is essentially meaningless

If those fascists of the NRA are involved.

[slick8790]

10. I don't know...

but it seems like a not bad bill to me. the "concessions" demanded by the NRA really seem fair enough, and we already have the most gun deaths of anywhere in the world, so how could this bill do harm?

[LoZoccolo]

12. Lame. n/t

[slackmaster]

19. Pardon my pedantry, but here is a reading assignment for alarimer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_genetic.htm

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/geneticfallacy.html

[benEzra]

20. The difference is, this law is NOT aimed at restricting lawful ownership

but at restricting access by those who may not legally own a gun under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which the NRA mostly supports. They also supported the armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986 and the NICS point-of-sale background check law in the late '90s.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, on the other hand, was aimed squarely at the law-abiding (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides per the FBI), so it is a no-brainer that the NRA and gun owners would fight bans on popular civilian guns tooth and nail.


-------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)