Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

April 10, 2013 - 9:14 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) told reporters on a conference call moments ago that his compromise bill with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on gun background checks “doesn’t change in any way” his “conservative record or views.”

The former Club for Growth president acknowledged he was out of his usual legislative area on the issue, but “it became clear to me a bill of some sort was very likely to reach the floor” that would be “badly flawed,” so he reached out to his friend and neighboring state senator Manchin to sit down and talk.

“You’re probably used to hearing me talk about economic and fiscal and monetary policy,” Toomey said. “This is a somewhat unusual area for me to be working with.”

Toomey and Manchin unveiled their proposal at a press conference this morning, which extends background checks to gun shows and Internet sales but does not require record-keeping on private sales and does not extend to gifts, family or friend sales, etc.

“I thought there was an opportunity to try to find some common ground with some of my colleagues,” said Toomey on the conference call afterward. “Background checks are not a perfect solution… but they do help.”

“I think it strikes a very sensible balance,” he added.

The senators received assurance from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that theirs would be the first amendment should the Democrats’ package of gun bills move past the 60-vote threshold to consideration tomorrow.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment would strike the background check language in Reid’s bill — sweeping, universal checks — and insert the compromise language.

Toomey, who’s been under fire from conservatives for inking out a compromise, said he hasn’t “counted noses” to see what chance the language has of passing. He vowed to vote against any amendments to add language about high-capacity clips or the assault weapons ban to the bill, calling that a violation of Second Amendment rights.

“People are going to have a wide range of opinions,” he said. “I don’t think trying to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals is gun control… I don’t expect everyone to agree with me.”

The National Rifle Association, in a statement issued after the press conference, did not.

“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows,” the NRA said.

“President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Leave it to a Republican to flinch first. This compromise, from what I can see, empowers doctors with authority they should never have. If anyhting, it will encourage people never to visit a therapist or shrinnk when in fact they might need help. The GOP should take this crap sandwich and throw it in the dumpster.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Any give on this issue is capitulation. The words "Shall not be infringed" are the rule. If Dems want to change it, let them call for a repeal of the 2A.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (70)
All Comments   (70)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If the intent is to check the background of the purchaser,why is specific information about the firearm,including the serial number,required?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If the intent is to check the purchasers background,why must information about the specific firearm including the serial number, be furnished?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Anyone with the dimmest knowledge knows that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing! But Toomey has screwed the pooch in (at least) 2 ways here. First, by the very nature and intent of the action (and that it TAKES an action at all) IS gun control since your goal is to control the presence of guns in criminal hands. Second, Please Mr. Toomey, sir, explain to me how messing with the rights of legal, honest, eligable gun owners will keep guns out of criminals hands. Every single gun grabber has said the exact same phrase, verbatim, but they have all failed to explain how this will meet the goal you claim. Making things harder, as has been the case for God knows HOW long now, for honest legally eligable gun owners has failed to do anything to make the slightest dent in crime. It makes no dofference how you cherry pick and morph your information, it has only made life harder for honest people. That must come as quite a suprise to you since you have joined the ranks of those who, as stated by Diane Feinstein, want them all taken from every American, so they can safely and forcefully enact their ignorant, unworkable socialist programs on us all. The INFRINGEMENT of laws duplicating many already in existance, making it more difficult for good people to GET a gun, all over the laws already NOT enforced, is a crime in and of itself. You HAVE chosen to align yourself with the anti gun crowd and no matter how you phrase it, those of us who oppose you and your anti gun friends (around 60 to 80 million people) see it as infringement. That is the fact of it as WE see it. I have quite a number of friends in your state and they are extreemely angry and, if the tone is to be believed, not likely to forgive. Of course, we will be sure they remember come election time. To Be Clear, ANY further laws that effect the rights of honest, law abiding, gun owners even the slightest bit more are wholly and completely unacceptable. You and your anti gun friends have created a culture of disrespect and violence and want the rest of us to pay for your blunders! Even if this atrocity passes, it will fail like all the ones before it. What then, Toomey? Read John R. Lotts "More Guns, Less Crime." a study using information from the sheriffs of every county in America over a 29 year span. Then get Gary Klecks "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America." It is several years of informational study from the 75 largest cities in America. Both are peer reviewed positively and answer the questions you and your anti gun crew ask but don't want to hear the answer too. Check with the states with "shall issue permits or constitutional open carry and see what their histories say relative to your plans. You have made a mistake of enormus proportions. It hurts the people who hurt no one. It does NOTHING to anyone who wishes to do harm. Anyone wishing to use this, PLEASE feel free to copy it and send it to your elected people, Toomey, anyone you think would benifit. Post it send it to papers, what ever! You have my unquestioned permission to do so if YOU find it useful and good enough! Thank you!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Background checks are already an infringement. I will never purchase a firearm from other than a private seller. That, to me, is the line in the sand should they try to limit private sales. I would support charging any seller that knowingly sells to felons or straw buyers as accessories to the crime. Sell a gun to a felon and he uses it to rob or kill someone? You can share the cell with him. Leave law abiding citizens alone.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Manchin lied to West Virginians about how he'd serve as a conservative. Now he and Toomey have climbed into bed with one of America's most ardent liberals. What's that smell around you two now? Schumer, sight unseen.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Not one thing in this bill to address criminals or address the government not enforcing the laws on the books. How about addressing personal responsibility and increasing consequences of criminal gun crimes? This is how you get less of something, increasing penalties on the crime, longer prison time with no early release allowed, not again attacking the rights of the law abiding who never are the problem and never committed any crime!

Read and watch this, from someone who knows, a Cuban who fled Cuba and communism and knows what freedom is.

Martinez Cuban born American Citizen:
“Gun control do not protect anybody. Don’t protect the citizens; don’t protect the people. The only reason for gun control is for the government to be protected from the citizens,” he said. “In that way the government can…manipulate the people and subjugate them.”

A well organized militia was meant to counter balance a government's standing army to protect the people from the government. A government that opposes this knows by taking away the 2nd amendment rights it takes away the Constitutional Power of the people to rise against it. Some will consider this treason it is not treason is part of the checks and balances installed by the founding fathers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ABw6IMKn0&feature=share
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Food for thought:

We don't tell "violent offenders" or people with "mental health issues" that they can't go online, buy a book, go to church, or otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights, at least not preemptively. We don't tell the same groups that they don't have the right not to incriminate themselves that the Fifth Amendment grants.

Why is the Second Amendment, which is considered just as basic as the other nine in the Bill of Rights, considered an exception?

If someone is truly dangerous or showing signs of becoming so, then exercise the common-law rules allowing incarceration for public safety. That is the best way to handle such a situation.

I also have a hard time telling someone convicted of a felony many years ago that they can NEVER exercise a Second Amendment right. We don't tell such a person he can't exercise free speech or other First Amendment rights, either. Again, why is the basic right in the Second Amendment only valid for some?

This line of thought comes to mind easily when pondering Toomey's blathering. And just what is his definition of "dangerous criminal" anyway? Could it have similarities to those of many Democrats and leftists, meaning the majority of us...?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And yet, when the Newtown shooting went down, I heard a lot of conservatives demanding that violent mental patients be institutionalized without their consent.

That's a much bigger violation of their rights than just denying them the right to own guns.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Mr. Toomey: Please tell me what your definition of "shall not be infringed" is.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Between this and immigration...I don't think the GOP wants to win another election-EVER!
They are driving the base away in droves!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
". . .The former Club for Growth president acknowledged he was out of his usual legislative area on the issue, but . . ."

I don't really have any expertise on this issue, but the Democrats asked me to reach across the aisle and help them to undermine my fellow Republicans who really know something about it. After all, it sounds like a good idea, and a lot of voters in the Northeast want something to be done!

Sounds like Toomey is singing from the McCain hymnal!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All