search
top

Coburn Amendment: Breaking the Glass

We suspected from media rumors that there was going to be an, “In the event of gun control, break glass,” strategy from the stronger Republicans. Unfortunately, the Toomey-Manchin deal has given real legs to this issue once again, and given murmurs from the House, including my own Congressman (not surprised), I don’t feel particularly good about the House. Getting a “true conservative” like Toomey on board with the deal, unfortunately, makes a lot of critters think “Well, if Toomey is on board, it must be OK!”

And so Senator Tom Coburn floats an alternative that I think would be far preferable, if I’m going to be required to pick my poison:

Dr. Coburn’s amendment would require a NICS check or validation permit to be presented for non-FFL transfers, exempting family transfers, estate/will transfers, and all temporary transfers.

The requirement can be satisfied in one of four ways:

1) An FFL takes custody ofthe firearm in order to perform a background check on the transferee as mandated in Schumer original and Manchin-Toomey

2) Presentation oftemporary 30 day permit created by running a self-NICS check through a new consumer portal(details below)

3) Usage of a concealed carry permit or any other state issued permit that requires a NICS check to be conducted to obtain

4) Any other alternative that a state comes up with to satisfy the validation requirements for secondary and private market transfers. The amendment also includes a provision that places penalties on ATF agents that abuse records during audits, an IG report on the FBI’s 24 hour destruction rule compliance, a prohibition on records, a prohibition on centralizing records pertaining to gun ownership and a provision that allows states to assume primacy of enforcement of the background check law.

Consumer Portal

  • FBI shall provide a consumer portal through its website, mobile application, or other applicable medium to allow a potential transferee to run a NICS check on his/herself
  • A successful background check will provide potential transferee with a temporary 30 day permit that validates he/she is not prohibited from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm
  • The temporary permit can be used by the transferee for any private transfers in compliance with state or federal law during the 30 day time window
  • The permit will be made available to the transferee as an electronic printable document, via a mobile application or other appropriate means
  • The 30 day permit will provide the name, date of expiration of permit, and a unique pin number that can be used to verify activation by transferor
  • The consumer portal will be designed with privacy protections so that only a prospective transferee can run his/her own NICS check
  • The documentation provided by consumer portal will utilize necessary fraud protections
  • A valid 30 day permit provided by the consumer portal that is verified with a valid governmentissued photo identification would suit the law’s requirements
  • Information provided by prospective transferee to conduct background check through the consumer portal must be destroyed within 24-hours as occurs for FFL conducted background checks

The new law will not go into effect until the consumer portal is up and running, and the law will be nullified if the consumer portal is permanently shut down or defunded.

Screw going through an FFL being an alternative though. The alternative should be that FFLs can issue a validation to a prospective buyer, to facilitate a private sale for someone who doesn’t want to use the portal. Also, this all has to be with the FBI. ATF can’t have anything to do with this portal. In fact, I’d be happier with an independent agency, separate from the DOJ, running NICS.

The concern here is that the requirement that records not be kept by the FBI from the check are worth about as much as Cypriot deposit insurance. There needs to be independent, and regular auditing. While in this scheme, the seller presumably would keep the buyer’s certificate, there can’t be any requirement to do so. The enforcement mechanism for this is that if you sell to someone prohibited, obviously you didn’t run the check, and also the fact that most gun owners, to the utter shock of anti-gun folks everywhere, really don’t want to sell guns to criminals. Also, do we still get some things in return for the Coburn proposal? That would be a necessary component.

Again folks, what our options are depends on how people are communicating with lawmakers. If everyone who was lining up at gun shows at the start of all this were calling lawmakers, we would not be here. We worked a gun show to get people to contact, and the number of people who wouldn’t, because they just didn’t think it mattered, was very discouraging. Don’t be those people. Also, just be emphatic that you expect them to vote against all gun control measures, and that yes, background checks are gun control, no matter what Senator Toomey says. You wouldn’t accept background checks for Internet access (to make sure you’re not, say, a child porn convict). Firearms rights should not be any different.

20 Responses to “Coburn Amendment: Breaking the Glass”

  1. RP says:

    If everyone who was lining up at gun shows at the start of all this were calling lawmakers, we would not be here.

    Not only are those people not actively helping, they’re bringing down the rest of us.
    I’ve been harassing Casey and Toomey since day 1. Fat load of good that’s done, huh? Discouraging.

  2. Jeff says:

    Poison is something you willingly take when you want to die. Save that for later. For now, FIGHT for liberty. And yes, I know, PA isn’t New Hampshire, but we have Friends, right?

  3. Dean Weingarten says:

    The 30 day, self check document is the deal we need to make public. Everyone can see that this satisfies the “universal background check” impulse, and satisfies the requirement not to create a database.

    The anti-freedom fascists will never approve of this, because it does not advance their agenda. In fact, it reverses it, because the next logical step is to allow the self-check to be used for FFL approved transfers.

    It is a poison pill for the fascists.

  4. motomed says:

    If there were no or little cost associated with it, I’d run a check on myself and have a valid certificate with me at all times, even though I have a CCW, just to be a jerk about it.

    My favorite part is where it says data will be destroyed within 24 hours like it is with current background checks. I would be large sums of money this never happens. The laws that are supposed to prevent collection of data aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. You can violate the law, lie to the legislature about it, and just go on with your business…. That’s what is happening in Missouri right now, probably most other places as well…. People hear “against the law” and assume that violating the law means people will get in some sort of trouble, but that part is always missing from the law. Put some language in there about any employee at any level who takes part in violation of the law going to prison for it and maybe I’ll start paying attention. I’m guessing the entire state of Missouri wouldn’t have their data sitting in a federal database right now if the guy at the local DMV knew he could go to prison for running that birth certificate through the new scanner homeland security just gave him….

    • Andy B. says:

      “. . .the guy at the local DMV knew he could go to prison for running that birth certificate. . .”

      Heh. Like that would ever happen.

      Not a good analogy in many ways, I suppose, but I remember a few years ago some school board members in these parts were convicted of violating the state “Sunshine Law,” in the way they conducted a meeting.

      To start with, the penalty involved nothing more than a $100-each fine. But nonetheless — not to have a discomforting precedent set, or a conviction besmirching their future ambitions for higher office — they appealed the conviction. The appeals judge reversed the conviction on some totally absurd grounds, like that that particular local school board and school district wasn’t mentioned in the law. And that ended that.

      Say this to yourself repeatedly: The only thing that is illegal for public officials is to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, without having properly shared the cookies. Forget what is promised on paper. If you see a public official convicted of anything, and it doesn’t fit the “cookie jar” rule, just figure he or she had more politically powerful enemies than friends. It certainly won’t be because of what was reported.

  5. Andy B. says:

    “. . . a “true conservative” like Toomey. . .”

    I guess I get tiresome with this theme, but if so, good, it means people are familiar enough with it to get tired of it, but:

    Since I have followed mostly gun rights positions in the past, I have no idea whether Toomey has been a “true conservative” on other issues or not. But I need to observe again that, convoluted philosophical arguments notwithstanding, there is really no logical connection between someone’s positions on gun rights, and their positions on abortion, homosexuality, immigration, church-and-state, or economics, etc. There may be a correlation based only on what their party’s laundry-list of positions requires them to pander to, but that says nothing about what is in their hearts. Someone who is an advocate of government controlling one thing, seems to me equally likely to be an advocate of it controlling another, and no one in government likes the idea of people having a viable tool for saying “no” to their agenda.

    As I have mentioned several times in several days, a small number of gun rights advocates in Pennsylvania had Toomey pegged over a decade ago, but it seems to me their voices were drowned out by all those who looked at the rest of the conservative laundry-list and proclaimed him a “good conservative” who just had to be an unswerving supporter of gun rights, when in fact gun rights was nothing but a decoy issue to support his election to serve those other agendas.

  6. Patrick H says:

    Yeah, this is much preferable to Toomey-Schumer (Machin is just a pretty face on the deal). We’ve talked about allow private citizens access to NICS, but there was worry about anybody running a check on anybody. By allowing only a person to their own background check, that eliminates it. What’s nice about this is their won’t be any record keeping other than the potential “He MIGHT have bought a firearm”.

    However, there has to be something else in this for us. Out of state purchases of all guns- now that NICS can be run- at a minimum.

  7. mmercier says:

    Never compromise with death, or those who bear its denial as a sign of human progress.

    These leftists fully intend to infiltrate every public organ from the bottom up.

    These people expect human extermination of their counter parties is within reach again.

    This is not a new thing.

    • Whetherman says:

      “These leftists fully intend to infiltrate every public organ from the bottom up.”

      Unlike the rightists?

      It is what every believer in making the power of the state their own power, has been working to do.

      Almost all of them, successfully.

  8. Bubblehead Les says:

    Keep in mind, Coburn is putting up an ALTERNATE Gun Control Bill.

    Which tells me that the Congress Critters are fighting over whether to eat Ice Cream OR Cake, when they should be walking away from the Table.

    I’m Keeping It Simple: NO means NO. And that’s what I’m telling my Congress Critters.

    • TS says:

      Yes, but even without something thrown in for us, there are some distinct advantages for us. For one, it will be great to watch the antis recoil in horror when we offer them exactly what the *say* they want (universal background checks). If a system like this goes into place, they lose all hope for their dream of government control and monitoring of all gun transactions, and squashing the gun culture through cost, burden, and legal liability. They have been milking this background check angle for decades, and if we take that away from them they have to go back to the drawing board with a whole new plan (and bans haven’t been working for them either). With a system like that in place we could later make a push to replace the current 4473 NICS system at FFLs, which would be a big improvement. The best part is putting the Dems in a take it or leave it position. Are they really going to turn it
      down after spending all thus time talking about how we need more checks? I think it is a geat counter strike.

      Though I do still have big concerns, namely when does the crime take place? For our protection, I would never support making a transaction between two lawful people a crime. The crime language had to start with a prohibited person getting the gun with a non-check or failed check.

  9. Adam Z says:

    Although I do agree that this Coburn version is much more acceptable to us…but what kind of true momentum does it have?
    I fear this might be o late…and timing seems to be everything with these bills, amendments, etc.

    Let’s go over the sequence of events.

    1.)On Friday, 4/5/13 rumors started about Toomey working with Schumer/Manchin on background checks.

    2.) On Wed, 4/10/13, Toomey/Manchin hold press conference to announce their version of background checks.

    3.) On Thurs, 4/11/13, Senate votes 68-31 to bust Cloture and start debate. 16 Repubs join with almost all Dems (Begich & Pryor are the only ones voting correctly).

    4.) On Thurs and Friday, the bullypulpit of Obama & Side-Clown Biden get on board and the lamestream media glorifies and pushes the Toomey-Manchin crap, as well as Nanny-godfather Bloomberg praises it and pulls his anti-Toomey ads.

    5.) Sunday, 4/14/13, Both Toomey and Manchin go on Face the Nation to promote their bi-partisan baloney. RINO McCain on the same day goes on CNN State of the Union and more/less sounds like he will vote for it. If he does, of course his girlfriend Graham will and no doubtedly Kirk will too.

    Will all of these events happening, I don’t see any kind of groundswell of support unforutnately for the Coburn Amendment, even if it does get introduced next week.

    I hope I am wrong and it replaces the BS Toomey-Manchin put together…but I’m not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling about it. Sorry to be a Debbie-Downer but that’s just my feeling at this moment…

    I guess we’ll see what happens in the coming weeks…

    • Sebastian says:

      Although I do agree that this Coburn version is much more acceptable to us…but what kind of true momentum does it have?

      I think the Toomey-Manchin deal has some terrible momentum among the critters. Especially now that it has the cover of Alan Gottlieb.

      • Adam Z says:

        I hope you are right with the momentum being terrible…as I respect your opinion and diligent research that you both do on pro-2A issues.

        However, now that Alan Gottlieb is providing “cover” to Toomey-Manchin all the Anti’s need to say/narrative is:

        “Well look, one of your guideposts (SAF/Gottlieb) believes in Toomey-Manchin so Senator please support it too!”

        I think it will come down to the Baucus, Begich, Hagan (I think she will support Toomey-Manchin), Heitkamp, Johnson (SD), Landrieu, Pryor, Tester’s of the world and their votes on Toomey-Manchin.

        It seems there is enough of the Stupid Party that support Toomey-Manchin (Collins/Graham/Kirk/McCain/Toomey) that will give “cover” to some of the Dems listed above letting them vote “no” on Toomey-Manchin…

  10. ThomasD says:

    Any new law needs to include specified penalties – money and/or prison time for violating any of the timely destruction/prohibition on records keeping laws.

    Ideally they should also include qui tam provisions, where private parties can bring suit against any identified violations.

  11. TigerStripe says:

    Voting “Yea” for gun control doesn’t win a lot of votes. It does votes for your opponent or voters sitting home. TS

  12. Jake says:

    IF we get backed into a corner, I could just about swallow this, especially if the seller can verify the permit anonymously and no information on the actual firearm(s) – or even confirmation that the sale actually went through – goes into the system. I’d like to see at least direct interstate sales, national CCW reciprocity, or repeal of the GFSZA added in if it happens, though. But, at the least, it gives us something concrete to point to and say “so you really don’t care about background checks, you just want backdoor registration,” when they try to shoot it down.

    I’d much rather keep it from coming to that at all, though.

  13. Stacy says:

    Interesting. In the best case, the self-NICS check could force Toomey-Manchin supporters to actually say that what they want is to excessively burden legitimate gun purchasers, which ought to be a problem for them with low-info voters (“oh, what you really want is a fuck-you bill for people you don’t like? My history teacher told me about poll taxes in the 50s and this sounds like that. I don’t think I support it.”)

  14. Cormac says:

    Am I the only one wondering how long it would be before you could download a NICS app on your phone…?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Live Coverage: The Senate Vote (Hopefully) | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] He notes that most gun owners don’t really want to sell guns to felons. He’s basically hawking his proposal …
top