Senator Chris Murphy
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool)

Murphy and Cornyn had engaged in long-shot discussions over narrower proposals to strengthen background check systems for gun buyers. Two House-passed bills to greatly expand background checks have all but stalled out in the Senate.

Despite overwhelming public support for background check proposals, the still-intact legislative filibuster requires Republican support to advance any gun control bill.

Cornyn told CNN it was Murphy who had ended the talks. “Unfortunately, we’ve been unable to find an agreed upon outcome, so basically, he suggested to me that there wasn’t any real reason to continue talking right now,” he said.

Absent any compromise, the current gun control proposals are likely headed for a Republican filibuster, despite Murphy’s best efforts to stave one off. He’d worked the phones over a spring recess, calling what he estimated at the time was half of the 50-member GOP conference.

— Nicholas Wu in Senate’s latest attempt at a gun control deal falls apart

 

51 COMMENTS

    • And none of them are about anything other than how to take away personal liberties so they can dominate and control. RINO(s) lime Cornyn and the Democrat-Communists both.

    • Democrats don’t talk to the public. They talk DOWN to the public who they think NEED their enlightened guidance.

  1. There is a lot of room for “compromise” (not that I want any) if they were even half serious.
    Look no further than the proposed brace rules for inspiration.
    How about some common-sense (they love that term) restrictions on background checks? Like one a year maybe so people don’t have to get one done 5, 10, 20 times a year. Maybe tie it to a carry permit? Let NFA items fall under the same instant check as non-NFA items?

    Options are there but since the end game for the D’s is total banning and confiscation they’ll never entertain such notions.

    • The only compromise politicians believe in is how much our rights should be infringed, not whether they should be infringed at all.

      What lawmakers should be doing is abolishing the NFA, GCA, hughes amendment, and every law that purports to regulate firearms. Regulation is infringement, and the Bill of Rights is clear.

    • Got a better idea; let’s just do away with them totally since they were never really needed until the Democrat-Communists started perpetrating the mass shootings. No matter how hard you “strengthen” them nor how often you do them they still don’t work and have too many flaws.

    • We just got a whole lotta “compromise” (mostly compromised liberties) passing state assembly and senate in NY that will be fun legal challenges for the next decade. To sum it up quickly your state may see a lot of NY plates looking to buy shotguns rifles and any form of ammo if NY vendors can be sued as it looks like may be possible for the actions of criminals.

  2. TEXAS PEEPS!!!! What the hell is wrong with Cornyn? Y’all need to take that dumb ass to the wood shed. There is NO compromise. He is stupid for even trying to talk to the communists about any of the rights. Back in the day the saying was something like “when communists negotiate they say what’s mine is mine. What’s yours is negotiable.” The saddest part right now is that our entire bill of rights depends on Manchin and maybe Sinema.

    • There are no communists left. At least none in positions of authority. They are fascists. In this country the fascists are ‘proud liberal democrats’.

      Antifa are their brown shirts.

        • The joke is the coward that hides behind “Baaaaaaahahahahahaha”.

          Baaaaaaahahahahahaha is a frightened little boy without the the testicular fortitude to show his real face.

          What a joke! 😉 😉 😉

        • Hey, Cackle Boy (yeah, I mean YOU, “Baaaaaaahahahahahaha”, or whatever witless handle you’ve adopted for this particular comment),

          There is only one actual, total, complete skidmark who regularly comments on this blog – and that would be you. Even Minor IQ, enuf, SnakeEyes, as annoyingly wrong and fascist as they usually are, occasionally speak something other than undigested and unexamined Leftist talking points (well, TBH, it’s rare with Minor IQ, but even a blind squirrel . . .). If you “deprived” us of your (half) witty commentary, I think the response here would be a collective and heartfelt sigh of relief. Even just skipping past your drivel requires a greater expenditure of energy than you deserve. Maybe there’s an Antifa blog somewhere you can go troll. Work on that, would ya??

      • They’re not fascists. They’re communists. Antifa and BLM are the redguard. We have got to stop muddying the waters by trying to use left-speak and invoke the “nazi” card. The only side that can play that card successfully is the left. Stop trying to win a rigged game. They’re both totalitarians. Fascists push for (1) complete control via a large government for the good of the state, communists push for complete control via a large government and forced redistribution of wealth and the abolition of the nation state; Antifa/BLM are advocating for redistribution of wealth and abolition of the nation state. Ergo, they are communists, not fascists.

        Look to the history of Africa and the success of international socialists with mixing racial grievances with communism. It worked there, it’s what they’re trying to do here. That’s why the founders of BLM were trained marxists. That’s why BLM had an entire screed about how they were anti-nuclear family. It’s all part of the same communist plot. Destruction of the nation state. Mass purges of undesirables. Concentration of power and eternal rule by the party. Exactly what happened in China and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) is what they’re pushing for here.

        • You are forgetting about the influence of the multinational corporations, who pay little or no taxes to any country, but do pay lobbyists and bribes to politicians in power to keep it that way. They have to money, they set policy. It just looks like communism, it is the desire of these powers in the boardrooms of the corporations to make us all equal(poor, with a basic standard of living). If they take away our ability to turn over the government, they can control things.

        • Good point on their Rhodesian/Zimbabwe strategy. Only shows their ignorance though as I understand the dysfunctional communist Mugabe wound up begging the white farmers to return as he couldn’t maintain their agriculture and feed their population.

        • Weren’t both the nazis and commies both heavily funded by wall street and various international banks?

      • Whether they are fascists or communists depends on which they you’re referring to.

        The corporate, establishment democrats (e.g. Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Harris), and establishment republicans (e.g. the Bushes, Romney, Graham) like our current system which is light fascism. Fascism as an economic philosophy is just the corrupt marriage of the public and private sectors (e.g. Goldman Sachs execs going to the Treasury department to make policy and enforce laws regulating Goldman Sachs). We generally associate fascism with the severe authoritarianism of Mussolini or Hitler, but the authoritarianism can vary. Our fascists are still somewhat authoritarian, pushing gun control, speech codes, a surveillance state, and laws (and corporate policies) restricting their political opponents.

        BLM/Antifa and their sympathizers (e.g. Sandy Cortez, Rashida Talib, Ilhan Omar) are communists. They want an authoritarian system where the government (staffed by their people) exercises significant control over people’s lives. They want the government to run all enterprise, either directly (e.g. their push to ban private schools and homeschooling), by making the government the biggest player, so everybody has to play the game their way (e.g. medicare for all), or by setting rules so elaborate and strict that nobody can make a free choice (e.g. regulating tech companies). And eventually, they might push to nationalize these private entities.

        There’s currently a tenuous relationship between these two groups, because the fascists think they can use the communists to get what they want and then abandon them. And the communists think the same about the fascists. But the idealistic communists tend to turn fascist in DC, as the power and wealth corrupts them, just look at Sandy Cortez and her lessening conflict with Pelosi.

        • Good analysis. I would submit that the tenuous alliance between the current technocrat fascistic ruling elites and the Antifa/BLM/Redguard exists because the ruling elites do not think they can remain in power indefinitely and have no desire to do so; they just want to enrich themselves as much as possible until America goes under.. at which point they leave and the Antifa/BLM/Red Guard take over. We’re on track for Wiemar Republic or Zimbabwe tier economics, and the existing crop of redguard soldiers will happily find and install a dear leader when the house of cards falls in. The end game is a communistic dictatorship.

        • The elites think if they control the revolution they won’t be among the victims.

          Stalin’s purges should prove the folly of that idea.

    • Cornyn had to back up a long way the last time just to get re-elected after some of his anti-gun crap. He needs to go but I don’t know about his competition.

      • You just hit the nail on the head. To add to this; he was re-elected because the skank that ran against was a nightmare akin to Rosemary’s Baby. Hard to believe Texas can’t get better candidates.

      • I’ll be happy to vote against Cornyn, just as soon as a Republican with reasonable credentials comes along. I’ll stay home before I vote for a Democrat, for the simple reason that they lie like breathing, completely automatically.

      • They figure they have enough purple states with corrupt Democrat controlled cities (Philadelphia, Detroit, etc.) to steal enough elections to give them permanent control of both houses and the presidency. The only thing standing in their way is the filibuster. There’s just too many red states to overcome. Take away the filibuster and there’s nothing that can stop their communist agenda. As Stalin said, it’s not who votes that matters, it’s who counts the votes.

  3. And where’s the truthful proof there’s “overwhelming public support” for background check proposals? 95% of the folks I’ve heard discuss it say these checks are nothing but another way to blow our tax money and I totally agree with them.

    • Agree. “… overwhelming public support for background check proposals ..” is a crock of bovine excrement.

    • Cannot agree. It’s true they will do absolutely nothing to stem any manner of crime, but they will do what they are actually intended to do. Which is get a REGISTRY!!!

      • You don’t need background checks for a registry. Just send an Inspector out to copy the 4473(s) and bring them back to the office and input the data in yo a database.

        I’m not going argue the truthful point I made; 95% of the folks I’ve heard discuss it say these checks are nothing but another way to blow our tax money and I totally agree with them.

  4. Been more than a little Concerned about Mr.Cornyn’s politics, and his adventures under the radar, For a while now…. Does he not remember that he works for Texan’s ?…. We do NOT want gun control …. we want criminals controlled …. Including Elected ones …. we want Our CONSTITUTION ENFORCED …. And we want it NOW !

    • I posted this for a similar article the other day after I sent it earlier. I’ll go ahead and post it here again. I’m sure it didn’t even get read but I had to sound off.

      CORNYN

      (NOTE: I do not need nor want a response to this communication.)

      As an honorably discharged veteran, retired career Federal law enforcement officer and a native Texan, current and lifetime resident, I am communicating to you to vote, lobby, and campaign against any form of gun control to include the following;

      Universal background checks, assault weapon bans/limitations, extended waiting periods, any form of gun ban, ammo restrictions and/or rationing of any type, gun-free zones, any other form of restrictive gun control and/registration. This includes home-built firearms such as the 80% pieces that are popular and NO these don’t need to be serialized.

      Vote against the current push by the overzealous ATF to redefine what a gun receiver is. This is lunacy and is not necessary although they’re lying about the alleged need to make both the upper and lower parts of an AR15 as the receiver requiring serial numbers. This is NOT necessary, never has been, and never will be.

      DO NOT VOTE TO CONFIRM CHIPMAN (or anyone like him) to any position in the ATF at all. Please vote AGAINST him.

      STOP any efforts whatsoever to negotiate and/or compromise my 2nd. Amendment and other constitutional rights. This IS NOT necessary and you were never voted in to office to do this. Contrary to the lies put forth by the lunatic organizations such as Everytown For Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, Gabby Giffords, et al, the statistics DO NOT show WE THE PEOPLE support universal background checks and their attempts to lie to the contrary are seditious.

      WE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PUT YOU IN OFFICE TO VOTE YOUR DAMN CONSCIENCE. WE THE PEOPLE PUT YOU IN OFFICE TO VOTE WHAT WE WANT YOU TO VOTE FOR BUT NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR US – JOHN … DON’T EVEN TRY IT.

      Please vote to repeal the entire National Firearms Act and it’s derivatives. Please vote for national reciprocity for the wearing of handguns/long guns, and to correct deficiencies in our voting systems.

      Thank You,

      Glenn Arnold
      Pasadena, Texas

      ***********************************

      Looks like I need to send something regarding braces. Any suggestions?

      • Braces are stupid. Once you get the NFA repealed we will never again hear about braces other than tiny quantities for handicapped. just get a collapsible stock, since there is no longer anything such as an SBR. And select-fire is much better than 3-round burst, which screws up the trigger.

        • “ And select-fire is much better than 3-round burst, which screws up the trigger.”

          Best select fire option is the rare Colt 4-way. What one setting does to the trigger is irrelevant. Burst, other than being limiting, never screwed up our M-4(s).

  5. 7 RINO republicans in Oregone gave the green light to a gun control bill , they could have walked out before the vote so the Democrats couldn’t have a quorum (like they’ve done on every vote this year ) but NO, they stuck around so they got to pass some garbage bills on guns,
    Their excuse,,,; well, we all voted no. Pretty lame don’t you think? Typical Oregone republicans though. Another thing, Oregone hasn’t had a Republican governor since they started MAIL IN BALLOTS , over 30 years ago… sound familiar ?

  6. We ought to play this UBC issue SMART; and that’s NOT going to be “betting the farm”.

    Given the right moment when the right sentiment is hot-enough, a legislature will vote to pass just about any proposal. No matter how ill-thought-out. And then we are stuck with the result. (See the NFA`34 with silencers, SBS/SBRs).

    Under such circumstances, I think there is a SMART strategy. Strive to segment the objectionable bill into its component parts. Make the best arguments applicable to EACH segment. Urge that the bill be watered-down in diverse ways, each of which is pretty reasonable in light of one’s arguments.

    Under such an approach, a legislator can justify to his constituents that he voted against the proposal because of legitimate objections to segment A or B or C. It gives him the political cover he needs to tip toward voting “Nay” instead of “Aye”.

    This puts the proponents of the bill into a dilemma: Some will advocate for some amendments that might win over opposition votes to tip them toward voting Aye rather than Nay. Proponents will argue among themselves to go-for-broke ignoring the objections vs. getting as much as they can in this round and coming back for more in the future. This controversy stalls progress; it may stop progress. Or, at least dilutes the bill to a less problematic result; a partial loss rather than a complete loss.

    In the UBC case, we need to distinguish between TEMPORARY vs permanent transfers. Between acquaintance transfers and stranger transfers. Between “gun-show” venues and wilderness venues. Handguns and long-guns. Background checks and 4473 paperwork trails maintained for 20 years to forever. Don’t we know how to do this?

    Our MOST POWERFUL argument is the TEMPORARY holding of a friend’s guns by a fellow gun-owner. A guy tells his friend that he’s depressed, having trouble with his wife, or a son on drugs. The gun-owner with the problem ought to be able to leave his guns with the friend with no obstacles whatsoever. If it saves just one life it’s worth it. The friend is ALREADY known to be a gun-owner; what difference does it make if he now has custody of several more guns without a background check at that particular moment of transfer? Can the gun-controllers explain the burning public safety issue here?

    You can think of similar examples such as loaning a neighbor a gun when she is being stalked. As many as possible; however, these aren’t as compelling as the friend who has a problem and needs to move his guns out-of-his-own custody temporarily.

    We shouldn’t have any objection to gun-show operators getting access to NICS. We could even live with the 4473 form; but it would be better to avoid it.

    What do proponents really want? 4473 forms or background checks? We need clarity on this point.

    If they want background checks then they ought to be pursuing access to NICS, not 4473 forms. If they want 4473 forms then let them say that.

    If they say they want 4473 forms (and background checks) then we can offer a counter-proposal. In certain circumstances – to be specified – a permanent transfer (sale, gift, estate) is consummated with the buyer filling out a 4473 form. That form is mailed to the ATF which runs a background check. If the buyer passes, there is nothing more to be done but file the form. If the check fails then ATF can run-down the buyer – if they deem it worthwhile – just as they do when a 3-day wait times-out and the FFL transfers the gun.

    Forcing private transfers – even permanent transfers – at an FFL is something that states have the “police power” to decide. It’s NOT INTERstate commerce, it is public safety. Thus, it falls on the “state” side (not the Federal side) of the 10A division of powers. Alaska’s legislature should decide what it’s wilderness population needs when there isn’t an FFL for hundreds of miles of the buyer/seller who have known one another for a lifetime. Wyoming’s legislature should decide what it’s widowed ranchers need when they sense they are in a mental health disturbance.

    Suppose we propose all the amendments we can think of. Arguments for some of these amendments will be powerful enough to be accepted by a majority. Then, the proponents of the UBC bill will have to decide whether to go-for-broke or take half-a-loaf THIS time knowing it will be MORE difficult to take the other half in the future. (In the case of UBC, the slippery-slope runs UP-hill. After conceding NICS checks at a gun-show venue it is HARDER to make the case for a background check in successively more remote precincts. When FFLs are 10 miles apart, 100 miles, 500 miles. And so forth.)

    The zealot gun-controllers are apt to lose enthusiasm for a substantially watered-down bill. They know it will be hard to get a more comprehensive UBC bill to the floor in the future when they will have to meet the same objections that achieved the amendments this time.

    The zealots should reason that they have a better shot of getting everything they want in a single bill characterized with a single message such as “closing the gun-show loop-hole”. This is a FALSE characterization when – in fact – gun-shows are the least of our objections while everything else (loans, sales in wilderness areas, etc.) are vastly more troublesome and least in need of legislation.

    • It just occurs to me. Suppose we agree to a gun-show solution as follows.

      The show operator gets access to NICS. The operator takes a filled-out 4473 form and runs the NICS check. If the check passes, the form is shredded. If the check fails, or is delayed, the operator has an opportunity to summon an ATF agent who is apt to be conducting surveillance at the show.

      Now, does a reasonable person contemplating such a system really believe a convicted felon will shop for guns offered by private sellers at a gun show? Knowing that he will be subject to a NICS check? Knowing that if he is denied or delayed he stands a good chance of being detained by an ATF agent – or possibly the local constabulary?

      Wouldn’t such an eminently reasonable system effectively close the “gun show” loophole? Prohibited persons or 2A-able traffickers will pursue supply from other sources eschewing the heightened risk at gun-shows.

      We really don’t have much of an argument of inconvenience in the gun-show venue. In fact, we ought to want to avail scrupulous sellers with a means of vetting their buyers where-ever this can be accomplished easily.

      We can concede that there must be one, or a few, scoff-law sellers who don’t care if they unknowingly sell to a prohibited person. But these will sell regardless of any UBC law; these will simply continue to do do so until they get caught and plead to a slap-on-the-wrist. No UBC law will have any impact unless-and-until law-enforcement makes pursuing violations a priority; and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a priority.

    • “Our MOST POWERFUL argument is the TEMPORARY holding of a friend’s guns by a fellow gun-owner.”

      and –

      “What do proponents really want? 4473 forms or background checks? We need clarity on this point.”

      You’re making the serious mistake of assuming that who we are negotiating with are honorable people. They’re not, and you know it. If we give them “A friend can hold the guns”, the next step from them is to “Close that dangerous loophole by making sure the police take custody”.

      Realistically, our best hope at this point is that Saint Clarence Thomas and friends are getting alarmed enough that they start making carefully-chosen rulings that may not look like big wins on the surface, but lay a foundation to cement our rights.

      But if I’m wrong, we’re living in Chinese “Interesting times”, and need to prepare for worst-case scenarios… 🙁

      • Generally assume and plan for worst case with provisions for not as horrible outcomes to be able to move on unexpected opportunities. With that said NY is still a containment zone 😛 There are bits of humor and going to wait until signature or tabling of one of the gun control initiatives for this year as I do not want to call attention to it while it can still be easily amended.

    • TL:DR

      Shorter MarkPA: “You’re GOING to get screwed ANYWAY, so just lie back and enjoy it!”

      Thanks, but no thanks. That cake is already too damn small. They don’t get ANOTHER CRUMB! And if they jam it down our throats (and SCOTUS continues to be the useless, d***less windsocks they have been), well . . . the ballot box and the jury box having failed, we only have one box left.

    • All that complexity can be so easily avoided, if we could just get a Constitutional Amendment passed which ordered that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. See how quick and easy that was? How simple to understand? Your missives are very long, complex, and confusing, and still do not have the standing of an Amendment, so obviously if the Amendment is not good enough then no law passed by Congress will do jack shit to protect our rights.

  7. We live in a republic. And, I’m thankful that we do. A democracy is a pck of wolves, and a sheep, voting on what’s for dinner. A democracy is mob rule, with the mob cleaned up for dinner. It takes a supermajority to make meaningful changes to the rule of law, and we should all be grateful for that. And, the most important changes require that supermajority in both houses, and the states have to ratify those changes as well. It’s difficult to make really big changes. Let us all thank whatever deity we might worship for that.

    Otherwise, the Dems would have deleted the Second Amendment soon after the slaves were freed, to ensure that no blacks would walk the streets armed. Gun control has always been about race control.

  8. I guess that the “talks” ended when Cornyn was unable to utter a word and realized that he was being used as a prop. democrats don’t negotiate, they lie.

  9. Ah, I see you labor under the pathetic delusion that anyone in D.C. gives a s*** – that’s so cute!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here