NRA spoke to Trump Tuesday and warned him against red flag bill, Trump spoke to Manchin about his gun bill

[SaysWho?]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-openness-to-extensive-background-checks-for-gun-buys-draws-warning-from-nra/2019/08/07/a5f82060-b92d-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html?noredirect=on

 

Quote

President Trump has repeatedly told lawmakers and aides in private conversations that he is open to endorsing extensive background checks in the wake of two mass shootings, prompting a warning from the National Rifle Association and concerns among White House aides, according to lawmakers and administration officials. 

 

Quote

NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spoke with Trump on Tuesday after the president expressed support for a background check bill and told him it would not be popular among Trump’s supporters, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss internal talks. LaPierre also argued against the bill’s merits, the officials said.

 

The NRA, which opposes the legislation sponsored by Sens. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), declined to comment.

 

Advisers to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he would not bring any gun-control legislation to the floor without widespread Republican support. Trump has waffled, current and past White House officials say, between wanting to do more and growing concerned that doing so could prompt a revolt from his political base. Even some supporters of the Manchin-Toomey bill, which would expand background checks to nearly all firearm sales, say it is unlikely to pass. 

 

Quote

Trump also asked lawyers about what he could enact through an executive order, officials said. 

 

“He seems determined to do something and believes there is space to get something done this time around,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who said he had spoken to Trump “four or five times” since the shootings. “The president has a pretty ­common-sense point of view. He’s never been a sports or gun enthusiast. But he is more determined than ever to do something on his watch.”

 

Manchin said that Trump called him at 6:30 a.m. Monday and that the two spoke again on Tuesday, when Trump said he wanted legislation before September, when the Senate is scheduled to return.

 

[Commodore D]

If there was a republican president that would do something at least partially meaningful, Trump is probably the best shot. (Kasich would have done something)

[brucoe]

1 hour ago, Commodore D said:

If there was a republican president that would do something at least partially meaningful, Trump is probably the best shot. (Kasich would have done something)

The Turtle won't allow anything to make it to the floor.

[Slug]

"which would expand background checks to nearly all firearm sales" is the only line that bothers me.  It makes it seem like that's not the case already.

[Guest]

Unless they significantly expand what disqualifies a person from a gun purchase, background checks aren’t going to do much. They are the TSA airport screenings of gun control.

[Jwheel86]

20 minutes ago, Slug said:

"which would expand background checks to nearly all firearm sales" is the only line that bothers me.  It makes it seem like that's not the case already.

 

Friend of mine sold a basically never fired Glock online, going price was more than a new Glock in a gun store. He found a buyer and went to the grocery store parking lot to complete the sale. Up pulls a Hell's Angel biker covered in jail house tats. That's why buyer was willing to pay more, he couldn't pass the background check. 

[Slug]

8 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Friend of mine sold a basically never fired Glock online, going price was more than a new Glock in a gun store. He found a buyer and went to the grocery store parking lot to complete the sale. Up pulls a Hell's Angel biker covered in jail house tats. That's why buyer was willing to pay more, he couldn't pass the background check. 

So your friend is part of the problem.

[skillzdadirecta]

29 minutes ago, Slug said:

So your friend is part of the problem.

What his friend did is legal because purchases and sales like that are legal in a lot of states. His friend is lucky he didnt get robbed but then again, why bother to rob the guy. Easier to just pay him.

[mclumber1]

45 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Friend of mine sold a basically never fired Glock online, going price was more than a new Glock in a gun store. He found a buyer and went to the grocery store parking lot to complete the sale. Up pulls a Hell's Angel biker covered in jail house tats. That's why buyer was willing to pay more, he couldn't pass the background check. 

 

If you know or have reason to believe a person is prohibited, you can be prosecuted.  FYI.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

If you know or have reason to believe a person is prohibited, you can be prosecuted.  FYI.

Sounds like profilin

[Slug]

11 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What his friend did is legal because purchases and sales like that are legal in a lot of states. His friend is lucky he didnt get robbed but then again, why bother to rob the guy. Easier to just pay him.

Absolutely.  I didn't say it was illegal, just that he was part of the problem.

[mclumber1]

Just now, Slug said:

Absolutely.  I didn't say it was illegal, just that he was part of the problem.

 

Give people a free and easy method of background checks that don't make you go to a FFL and I'll support that. 

[Slug]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Give people a free and easy method of background checks that don't make you go to a FFL and I'll support that. 

Yeah I'd be on board. Design it so that each search has to be associated with a potential sale. Don't respond with details, just a pass/fail. I'd be all on board with that. Involve the FFLs for the check, but have those non retail checks be fee free rather than just giving everyone access which would lead to abuse. 

[Reputator]

The blind squirrel is sniffing out an acorn. For the love of all things good, please let him!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

That system is pointless if you don't have to register guns.

 

Titling, licensing, insuring. The title information would be held by FFL dealers, the government can only get title information with a judicial warrant. When you sell, buy, or otherwise transfer a gun it must be to and from someone who is licensed, and verified by a third party (e.g. a FFL dealer who would be required to do this for a maximum of a legally defined small fee) who also can pass a background check. The title is transferred once there is a proof of insurance from the buyer. Stolen and lost guns must be reported to police and your insurance. Failure to report can make you liable for crimes committed with that gun. Similar to a fishing license, if someone you are associating yourself with doesn't have a license (for reasons other than age), you basically can't have your gun on you (if you're fishing with a license and your buddy doesn't have one, the game warden will have an issue). If you have more than two incidences of lost or stolen guns, you lose your license for a couple of years, and your gun insurance rates get jacked. People with continued infractions get more and more time losing their license. Licensees need annual firearms training and vision checks. Maybe even an occasional required psych eval (which would be covered under a good universal healthcare system since I'm writing fiction anyway)

 

All of this I find reasonable, and has analogs to cars and other similar existing restrictions. If we insist on having guns in our society, it needs to be regulated, because what we have doesn't need a moderate tweak for things to be fine. We have tens of thousands of people who die every year, and this doesn't happen anywhere else that has close to our level of wealth. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

What’s so funny is Trump could look at the NRA and say “or what?” They won’t primary Trump and if they do he’ll just run third party. The result, Democrats win and the NRA loses even worse. 

[ThreePi]

Trump will figure out some way to pass legislation that effectively does absolutely nothing while touting it to be some sort of major reform.

[TheGreatGamble]

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

That system is pointless if you don't have to register guns.

 

Titling, licensing, insuring. The title information would be held by FFL dealers, the government can only get title information with a judicial warrant. When you sell, buy, or otherwise transfer a gun it must be to and from someone who is licensed, and verified by a third party (e.g. a FFL dealer who would be required to do this for a maximum of a legally defined small fee) who also can pass a background check. The title is transferred once there is a proof of insurance from the buyer. Stolen and lost guns must be reported to police and your insurance. Failure to report can make you liable for crimes committed with that gun. Similar to a fishing license, if someone you are associating yourself with doesn't have a license (for reasons other than age), you basically can't have your gun on you (if you're fishing with a license and your buddy doesn't have one, the game warden will have an issue). If you have more than two incidences of lost or stolen guns, you lose your license for a couple of years, and your gun insurance rates get jacked. People with continued infractions get more and more time losing their license. Licensees need annual firearms training and vision checks. Maybe even an occasional required psych eval (which would be covered under a good universal healthcare system since I'm writing fiction anyway)

 

All of this I find reasonable, and has analogs to cars and other similar existing restrictions. If we insist on having guns in our society, it needs to be regulated, because what we have doesn't need a moderate tweak for things to be fine. We have tens of thousands of people who die every year, and this doesn't happen anywhere else that has close to our level of wealth. 

Gun registration didn’t work in Canada with only 35m guns. No way it’ll get anywhere with 400m. There’s a reason Canada shut it down, the cost was ridiculous and it had no effect on crime.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

More and more I am becoming in favor of legally requiring a person to carry full and comprehensive liability insurance for each and every gun owned. 

 

Then we’d get a full registry. Any gun not ensured could lead to loss of all licensing making your owning the gun(s) illegal. 

 

Insurance companies not not wanting to pay out for damages and loss of life would end up taking care of so much of the regulation we want to see. Premiums would cost more as the lethality of a weapon increases, just as car insurance becomes more expensive the more costly the car is and the hire powered it is. 

 

Then have ave in the law that the registry list is made available to law enforcement. 

[CitizenVectron]

17 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Gun registration didn’t work in Canada with only 35m guns. No way it’ll get anywhere with 400m. There’s a reason Canada shut it down, the cost was ridiculous and it had no effect on crime.

 

I had a long response to this but D1P dropped my post...but basically, while I am not disagreeing with the end-result of the registry in Canada, there was more to it than it just failing. The cost overruns were ridiculous, and it never fully went into effect because of the delays and political opposition. Imagine hiring the military to build homes, and then finding out that each nail costs $200 due to contractors milking/gouging. That's what happened with the LGR in Canada. In general, Canada has fewer gun crimes because there are fewer guns. Full stop. There are gun crimes of course, mostly from gang violence as a result of guns smuggled from the US. But there are far fewer guns in homes (with the exception of many long guns in the homes of farmers) and as a result there are fewer crimes of passion. Fewer guns = fewer gun crimes, basically. A registry is a good idea if it is executed properly, but in Canada it was not (much like many public projects that go through RFPs and are awarded to bad companies). Another good recent example is the Phoenix Pay System in Canada, which was supposed to be the new payment system for all government employees, but was awarded to a company that could not handle it, resulting in thousands of public workers having missed paycheques, etc. But that issue (public tender) is entirely different from the arguments around the efficacy of a properly-set-up system.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

More and more I am becoming in favor of legally requiring a person to carry full and comprehensive liability insurance for each and every gun owned. 

 

Then we’d get a full registry. Any gun not ensured could lead to loss of all licensing making your owning the gun(s) illegal. 

 

Insurance companies not not wanting to pay out for damages and loss of life would end up taking care of so much of the regulation we want to see. Premiums would cost more as the lethality of a weapon increases, just as car insurance becomes more expensive the more costly the car is and the hire powered it is. 

 

Then have ave in the law that the registry list is made available to law enforcement. 

[TheGreatGamble]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I had a long response to this but D1P dropped my post...but basically, while I am not disagreeing with the end-result of the registry in Canada, there was more to it than it just failing. The cost overruns were ridiculous, and it never fully went into effect because of the delays and political opposition. Imagine hiring the military to build homes, and then finding out that each nail costs $200 due to contractors milking/gouging. That's what happened with the LGR in Canada. In general, Canada has fewer gun crimes because there are fewer guns. Full stop. There are gun crimes of course, mostly from gang violence as a result of guns smuggled from the US. But there are far fewer guns in homes (with the exception of many long guns in the homes of farmers) and as a result there are fewer crimes of passion. Fewer guns = fewer gun crimes, basically. A registry is a good idea if it is executed properly, but in Canada it was not (much like many public projects that go through RFPs and are awarded to bad companies). Another good recent example is the Phoenix Pay System in Canada, which was supposed to be the new payment system for all government employees, but was awarded to a company that could not handle it, resulting in thousands of public workers having missed paycheques, etc. But that issue (public tender) is entirely different from the arguments around the efficacy of a properly-set-up system.

Canada has about a 1:1 gun ratio, just like the USA, so fewer guns isn’t much of an argument. I truly believe it’s a difference in culture. The ISA is breeding hate right now.

[CitizenVectron]

32 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Canada has about a 1:1 gun ratio, just like the USA, so fewer guns isn’t much of an argument. I truly believe it’s a difference in culture. The ISA is breeding hate right now.

 

That's not true, where are you getting that statistic? Best numbers put it at over 1:1 in the US, and just over 1:3 in Canada. The US has 3x more guns per capita than Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

Also what is ISA?

 

[Chris-]

All semi-automatic weapons should be categorized as Title II weapons under the National Firearms Act.

[Kal-El814]

2 minutes ago, Chris- said:

All semi-automatic weapons should be classified under the National Firearms Act.

Also gathered up and fired into the sun.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Too many guns? Buyback program it is!

[SilentWorld]

Canada doesn’t really work all that great as an anti-registry example. The long gun registry was poorly administered and ultimately eliminated but there has been mandatory registration for “restricted firearms” (handguns and most semiauto rifles) for almost 100 years. That registry still exists and is in force. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Funny enough a 30 day waiting period and registering all privately guns with local police is extremely popular

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

That's not true, where are you getting that statistic? Best numbers put it at over 1:1 in the US, and just over 1:3 in Canada. The US has 3x more guns per capita than Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

Also what is ISA?

 

Somehow instead of "uSA", I hit "ISA" in predictive text on my phone. Don't ask me what it means, just a typo. 

 

I had read that Canada was estimated at 35m, but then just now read its estimated to be 21m. But they don't even know, just like here in the USA. There are millions of unrecorded guns all over NA> 

[TheGreatGamble]

13 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Too many guns? Buyback program it is!

Yeah, cuz Americans are gonna sell their guns to the government

 

[Anathema-]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

Also gathered up and fired into the sun.

 

But what will happen to the gun that has to stay behind?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

Yeah, cuz Americans are gonna sell their guns to the government

 

People do, though. In previous efforts, they sell to their local police department. But a fat lot of good it does when you can just turn around and buy more.

[TheGreatGamble]

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

People do, though. In previous efforts, they sell to their local police department. But a fat lot of good it does when you can just turn around and buy more.

Very few people, and usually the elderly who are no danger to anyone and need some extra cash. Those aren’t the people who are going to kill anyone.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Very few people, and usually the elderly who are no danger to anyone and need some extra cash. Those aren’t the people who are going to kill anyone.

But dead old people’s guns then go to not dead not old people. Who knows where they go?

[mclumber1]

53 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Too many guns? Buyback program it is!

 

It's not a buy-back, it's confiscation.  You can call it that if you want to be honest.