Quote:

---

In a new poll, Americans indicated that they support universal background checks by a margin of 91% to 8%. Even in households with guns, the margin was an overwhelming 88% to 11%.

"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone." Did President Barack Obama say that? No, that's from an advertisement taken out by the NRA in USA Today in 1999.

But a more powerful NRA today is in no mood to follow the slogan of their "be reasonable" ad campaign of 14 years ago. This relatively small group -- the NRA boasts that it has 4.5 million members, which is peanuts compared to the roughly 40 million AARP members -- might have the political power to pull it off.

Federal law prohibits selling guns to felons or the mentally ill. Background checks are the only way to enforce that law. So, besides criminals and the insane, who could possibly oppose universal background checks?

Gun manufacturers.

They are the ones who call the shots at the NRA, and they are the most important people in the opposition. The manufacturers don't want anything that interferes with total gun sales and profits.

Background checks would impose a minor burden on gun transactions, but more importantly, limit the size of the market (and therefore, profits) in two ways.

The direct loss of profit comes because closing the current gaping loophole in the background check system will shut off sales to criminals and the mentally ill who are effectively free to buy all the guns they want at gun shows and through private transactions.

But there is also an indirect loss of profit: Cutting off sales to the mentally ill and criminals will reduce crime and thereby reduce the public's demand for guns for self-protection.

The gun manufacturers saw gun sales plummet during the dark days of the Clinton administration when crime dropped sharply every year. The 42% drop in the murder rate from 1993 to 2000 was a nightmare for gun sellers. Nothing scares the NRA as much as a sense of calm and safety in the public.

What about gun owners? Do they have concerns about universal background checks? If one believes the recent poll that only 8% of the population and only 11% of those in household with guns oppose these checks, then not really.

But the same poll shows that the NRA has managed to convince a lot of Americans that universal background checks might lead to gun confiscation. This, no doubt, increases some gun owners' fears.

Amazingly, the poll found that in response to the question -- "Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases, the government will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally owned guns?" -- 48% said there will be confiscation. Quite frankly, this is delusional.

If, when only 8% of Americans oppose the policy, you can't get a law that is designed to keep criminals and the insane from buying guns because of the power of the gun lobby, you certainly aren't going to get anything like confiscation when there would be massive opposition.

Moreover, even in some unimaginable world in which you could get gun confiscation, universal background checks would make no difference -- there are about 300 million guns in America with no need to go through any background check. Confiscation would be overturned in court in any event, since it is now prohibited by the Constitution.

Some gun owners presumably just don't want to be bothered by any additional regulation of guns, but background checks would be a minor inconvenience for anyone outside remote rural areas. There are also those who think background checks might expose us to tyrannous attack from our own government or perhaps even a foreign government that the U.S. military can't defeat but armed citizens could fend off. But again, putting that much confidence in arming criminals and the insane seems more than a bit strange.

Despite the fact that many other countries have similar requirements (and yes, much lower rates of murder and mayhem), gun groups in our country have raised alarmist concerns about the "logistical nightmare" of background checks for private sales. One of my favorites was:

What is a licensed retailer to do in the event of a "double denial" (both the private party buyer and seller are denied).

We should be so lucky to get the gun out of the hands of two illegitimate possessors.

In fact, the only argument for opposing gun background checks is that you believe the U.S. is already so gun-saturated and current gun owners are so reckless about allowing access to their guns by prohibited parties, that even if they can't buy them, the criminals and insane will get their hands on guns in any event.

In such a world, there is no benefit from background checks to offset the costs of running the system. I hope we are not there yet, although that would be nirvana for the NRA. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/donohue-background-checks/index.
html?iid=article_sidebar

---

Quote:

---

It's called "plucking the bird," a strategy based on the analogy of pulling one feather at a time so the bird doesn't notice until it realizes it can't fly.

That appears to be how the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress are trying to overcome what would seem to be overwhelming public support for stronger gun legislation in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre.

A sophisticated campaign led by the influential gun lobby shifts the focus of the battle among various provisions, raises new arguments to old issues and proposes solutions that would expand weapons use and training instead of increasing regulation.

The NRA exerts its political clout through a rating system that identifies friends and foes of its positions in Congress, as well as substantial contributions to political campaigns it favors or opponents of candidates it dislikes.
....
Now the push for expanded background checks also could fall under assault from the NRA, which once backed the change. The proposal would add most private firearms sales to the current system in which licensed gun sellers check if a potential buyer has a criminal record or other prohibiting factor.

The NRA contends record-keeping as part of an expanded background check system would serve as the first step toward a national gun registry that it considers a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"This idea of private individuals transferring their weapons and having to go through a background check makes no sense," conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday. Instead, Graham and the NRA advocate adding more information on people who are mentally ill to the existing system to prevent them from obtaining firearms.

Supporters of tougher gun laws deny that expanded background checks would lead to a national gun registry, and they argue that the current law's exemption of private sales amounts to a loophole for straw purchasers obtaining guns for others ineligible to buy them on their own, including the mentally ill.

The NRA and Republicans also are challenging another provision of the Senate legislation intended to crack down on straw purchases, arguing the current language is too broad and could penalize the original seller of a weapon that passes through several hands.

The NRA's influence was on display Tuesday when former GOP Rep. Asa Hutchinson indicated to CNN that he differed with the NRA, then later clarified that he joined the organization in opposing the kind of expansion proposed by the Senate legislation.

"I'm open to expanding background checks," Hutchinson said initially in an interview about a panel he headed that was set up by the NRA to examine school safety following the Newtown attack.

Such expanded checks must be done "in a way that does not infringe upon an individual and make it hard for an individual to transfer to a friend or a neighbor or somebody," he added.

After the remarks, an NRA spokesman told CNN that Hutchinson was "not speaking" for the group.

Hutchinson later affirmed that he was not speaking for the NRA, and put his remarks in line with the group's position of including only more information on people with mental illness in the existing National Instant Check System.

"I have been focused on school safety and the interview surprised me by almost exclusively asking about the ongoing gun control debate," Hutchinson said in an e-mail to CNN. "On background checks, my recollection is that I noted there is insufficient data in the NICS and that needs to be fixed and expanded. I am certainly 'open' to legislation that addresses expansion of data in the NICS."

Hutchinson's task force called Tuesday for training and arming adults in schools to reduce the response time in the event of an attack like the one in Newtown. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/03/politics/pol-gun-laws/index.html?iid=art
icle_sidebar

---

Quote:

---

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_im
migrants-rights/second-amendment

---

Quote:

---

What happened that changed his mind?

---

Quote:

---

Jeff Duncan, a Republican congressman from South Carolina, recently took to his Facebook page to discuss his opposition to background checks. In elaborating on how the measure would lead to a national registry, Duncan warned of the “evil consequences” — likening in to the Rwandan genocide.

Quote:

---

“Ask yourselves about a National gun registry database and how that might be used and why it is so wanted by progressives,” the South Carolina Republican wrote. "Read about the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu and Tutsi tribes. Read that all Tutsi tribe members were required to register their address with the Hutu government and that this database was used to locate Tutsi for slaughter at the hands of the Hutu. (Since the government had the names and addresses of nearly all Tutsis living in Rwanda (remember, each Rwandan had an identity card that labeled them Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa) the killers could go door to door, slaughtering the Tutsis."

“I use this example to warn that national databases can be used with evil consequences,” he added later in the post.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/jeff-duncan-gun-registry-like-rw
anda-89974.html#ixzz2QGw6lUWc

---

---