Brady: Gun Control Orgs Won’t ‘Allow’ Firearms Industry Carveouts in Gun Control Legislation

Previous Post
Next Post
Christian Heyne Brady Campaign
Christian Heyne (L), Chris Murphy (R)

Republicans say that requiring a background check for a sale or transfer between people who know each other would be a bridge too far. Toomey says Democrats won’t get 60 votes if they insist upon it.

“Between the sales that already occur at licensed firearms dealers, all of which require a background check, and what we consider commercial sales — advertised sales, gun shows and on the internet — that covers a vast, vast majority of all transactions,” Toomey said. “And it would be progress if we have background checks for those categories.”

Manchin also opposes the House bill requiring the universal background checks. “I come from a gun culture,” Manchin said in March. “And a law-abiding gun owner would do the right thing, you have to assume they will do the right thing.”

Murphy hinted that Democrats might be willing to compromise somewhat on the scope, saying he is committed to universal background checks, but he won’t “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

The House bill would apply background checks to almost all sales, with certain exceptions — including an inheritance or a “loan or bona fide gift” between close family members. Other exemptions include temporary transfers to people who need a firearm to prevent “imminent death” or are hunting.

The Manchin-Toomey compromise in 2013 included additional measures to lure support from Republicans and the National Rifle Association, which eventually opposed the bill. Those included an expansion of some interstate gun sales and a shorter period for background checks that weren’t completed — a deal-breaker for Democrats and gun control groups today.

Christian Heyne, vice president of policy at Brady Campaign, said the advocacy groups “will not allow allow for gun industry carveouts to be part of the next piece of legislation that the Senate votes on.” The bill should be “fundamentally different” than eight years ago, he said, since their movement has “only grown in momentum and strength.”

— Mary Clare Jalonick in Private sales emerge as obstacle to Senate action on guns

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. ” The bill should be “fundamentally different” than eight years ago, he said, since their movement has “only grown in momentum and strength.””

    Not so much…

    More like, opposition to fascist gun control efforts has grown in momentum and strength…

    • Yeah, momentum like now we have TWENTY states that are either fully or almost fully Constitutional Carry states.

      • TFred……… I could support a bill that removes any Senator, Representive or department or agency head that writes or supports and Bill that is against the Bill of Rights.

  2. Tactically, it might be better to let the gun-controllers stand-their-ground. Load their bill to the brim with onerous requirements. Offer suggestions for compromise. But, then in the final analysis, those Congress-critters who are at least somewhat sympathetic to rights can also stand-their-ground in opposition.

    Hopefully, with enough opposition (claiming the bill is loaded with too many bridges-too-far) the bill can’t pass. If it does pass then it will be so onerous that there will be little compliance and will be seen by the public as a failure. Most importantly, it will be vulnerable to being held unConstititional.

    If the gun-controllers want to abandon deaths by thousand cuts and go for the guillotine, perhaps we shouldn’t stand in their way when they are making a mistake.

    • reverse hughes amendment the bill far as I am concerned reappeal the Hughes Amendment and stuff some things from the hpa in there too. national reciprocity as well.Lets see if they are really willing to compromise.

      • Great idea … Hughes Act was the most unconstitutional until the communist AWB and was voted on in the most questionable manner ever. Everyone involved in that which allowed it to pass should’ve tried and convicted for sedition.

        We all know they will never negotiate this and may even shut them up for a while.

        • Everyone involved in that which allowed it to pass should’ve tried and convicted for sedition

          You mean like the CURRENT occupant of the White House? Since he claims to have been the ONE that got the AWB through…

    • I’ll throw out one suggestion; offer to compromise on expanded background checks in exchange for national reciprocity.

      • All comes down to whatever the 27 justices of the Supreme Court decide is constitutional.

        • I’m not sure that 27 is enough, considering that a properly-balanced court must have 12.2% Black Justices, 60.1% White, 18.5% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian, 2.8% ‘Mixed,’ 0.7% AmerInd, and 0.2% Pacific Islander, plus these numbers must be leavened with an admixture of 50.9% female, 49.2% male, and a representative number of LGB, Queer, Non-Binary, Trans, Other, Neither, and FreetoBeYouFreetobeMes. Of course, we must include a couple of undocumented migrants and some ‘handicapables.’ It is also desirable to have some Justices who have never been to law school, and perhaps even one or two with felony convictions. And one from the Hague. And a Chinese military officer. There are SO many more that should be represented, besides just these worthy few, that 27 is almost completely insufficient.

        • 27 is almost completely insufficient.

          Probably take somewhere around 251 to work it all in, and that doesn’t include the Furbys and other weird little fetish groups that have not started demanding their rights… YET… Tis a slippery slope indeed and you know there’s a problem if it scares Harry Reid, the guy who brought us a Conservative SCOTUS when he removed the 60 vote requirement for Federal judges and justices… Thanks Harry…

  3. There is no reason for any compromise nor negotiation. We don’t have to give the controlling and paranoid gun controllers anything at all and we never have. I never authorized any of these clowns in office to negotiate/compromise my rights.

    What I hope eventually happens is we either significantly change and/or replace this representative form of govt. as it has failed as much as it ever has been successful. Too much corruption and no fast cure for it. Either that or just split the country and have patriots in one part and the communists in the other.

    • He doesn’t plan to change it, he plans to ignore it. I shouldn’t complain too much, I have already begun ignoring him.

      That was supposed to answer Possum, not sure how that happened.

  4. Washington State’s UBC doesn’t exclude sales or loans between family members, only gifts. When my father moved into an assisted living facility, he gave me his shotgun. No crime. Had I purchased it for 1 cent, we would have committed a crime.
    UBCs are bullshit.

  5. How did a FEW advocacy groups become the voice of the country? THEY won’t ALLOW? How about WE won’t allow THEM to dictate laws in OUR country (and we’re not funded by foreign interests)… Who writes and votes on Legislation (supposedly)? THEM or the elected members of the House and Senate?… Next vote in Congress should be to BAN ALL lobbyist from the Capitol building… Too many LITTLE squeaky wheels clogging up the gears…

    • Writing legislation really is as messy as making sausage. Legislators need lobbyists and other “experts” to help write bills because all those legislators know how to do is get elected and make deals with power brokers. They usually don’t know beans about the technical aspects of the issues that their bills affect. Then, our system relies on the agencies to write implementing regulations, again with industry and political input.

      It really is messy, and allows for all manner of manipulation, but as big and complex as this country has become, I don’t know of a better way that would have more safeguards and still operate effectively. Can’t we pass a law that adds more safeguards? Well, yes, but that would add another layer of complexity and opportunity for manipulation. No easy answer here.

  6. How about every state background checks everyone who gets a drivers license or ID. Put a red gun in a red circle on the licenses/IDs of prohibited people, and green gun on the licenses of people who pass. If someone becomes prohibited then take their ID/license and issue a new one. Repeal all gun laws for the non prohibited so that if you passed the background check you can own anything you can afford and carry it anywhere you like in any manner you like. Buying a gun? Just show your license, no paperwork, no wait, no NICS check. There’s your universal background checks.

      • It’s only racist or unlawful if you have to pay for it. Having to pay one cent to exercise a right is unconstitutional. It’s my understanding that in Georgia state IDs are free so the red/green thing would be constitution.

        Most states charge for a DL so it would be unconstitutional. Some charge for a state issued ID so the same. There is a big difference between a right (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) and a privilege (driving a car).
        A simple answer would be for all states to offer free state IDs.
        Then you could whip that out, buy a gun and be on your way.

        • It’s only racist or unlawful if you have to pay for it

          Apparently not in GA where the left says even FREE voter ID is racist…

  7. Here is the right thing to do for gun owners: obey the constitution. They can’t arrest us all. Then sue for trillions on multiple levels of civil rights violations. Bankrupt the ones who carry out their illegal null and void, repugnant-to-the-constitution, not pursing the constitution “laws”.

  8. I’ll do what I want with my stuff…
    I don’t give a 💩 who’s in office, all I can say is if you play with fire , you’ll get burned.

    • You notice the current BS with CA, where the SCOTUS ruled that they cannot prohibit religious gatherings in homes? Boy, that got my hackles up! While the ruling did not mention it, who told these asshats they had any authority whatsoever to tell me what I can do *in my own home*?

      • Yeah that pisses me off too.
        First the arms, then the religion.
        History is full of that.
        Bad, bad.

  9. It is like that here in Ca. It is not really possible to collect guns(I like old pocket guns) because you need a C&R as well as licensing from the state. You could have 100 guns and you still have to go to an FFL to transfer any guns you buy or sell in state. How much should an FFL charge you to be the agent that holds the records and handles the DROS? This adds at least $50 to any gun you buy or sell. The only way to get around this is to buy out of state with your C&R – but you still have to register any firearms when you bring them back – and the must comply with Ca law.

  10. 1. Sad to hear things are that way in CA. I hope it changes. CA only has themselves to blame.

    2. That’s why California is referred to as KOMMIEFORNIA.

  11. Manchin folds. He’s beholden to the unions. WV is weird (I’m not a resident but live right across the river). The people tend to vote Conservative but the lawmakers vote blue because…unions.

    Manchin is unreliable. IF he holds his ground, I’d be surprised. He is a Fudd.

Comments are closed.