Surprise: Democrats Look To Kill Their Own Background Checks Bill

This is a fine pickle, I tell you

Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own

Here’s how politically tricky the gun-control debate has become: A Republican-controlled Congress might soon vote on a bill to strengthen gun-control laws in the wake of the Florida shooting, and it’s the Democrats who aren’t happy about it.

Even though one of their own is co-sponsoring the Fix NICS Act, which would punish federal agencies that don’t submit criminal records to the national criminal background check system for firearms, Senate Democrats have spent their first few days back in Congress this week dissing the bill.

“What will prevent future tragedy? Comprehensive background checks will. The Fix NICS bill will not,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Let’s not set our sights too narrow or squander this moment.

It’s not that Democrats don’t want to patch up what both sides say are obvious holes in the background-check system; it’s that they think this is a small step to reinforce an existing law rather than expand it. And if they support it, that might be the end of gun control reforms in this Congress, since Republicans will be reluctant to act on much else.

As Ed Morrissey writes on why they’re doing this

Because it might pass – and this tells you everything you need to know about Washington DC. When Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) first proposed the Fix-NICS act last November, he had four members of each party as sponsors, calling it “the most important piece of bipartisan guns legislation since Manchin-Toomey.” The bill would plug the gaps in reporting by federal agencies to the background-check system, failings that contributed to the fatal church shooting that month in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

This is a bill that would easily pass the House and the Senate, if the Democrats actually wanted to solve one of the main issues on guns, namely that people who should be on the list of “nope, do not allow” never get put on the list. As we saw with the Parkland school shooting, there were tons of warning signs which should have seen Cruz put on the deny list. Also, with several other mass shootings.

This leaves Democrats toying with opposing the one gun-control bill that has a realistic shot of passing Congress right now, one championed by their most vocal gun-control advocate, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). It’s a weird look, for sure.

Murphy doesn’t want his own bill brought up for a vote without a guarantee from Republicans to allow votes on other Democratic priorities, like universal background checks. “If we were only to debate the Fix NICS Act,” Murphy told reporters Tuesday, “we would be slamming the door in the face of all these kids who are demanding change.”

Good grief. What Republicans should do is bring the bill to the floor of the House, vote on it, see the majority, if not all of Republicans vote for it, and if Democrats do not want to vote for it, that’s on them. Then bring it to the Senate, and see if Democrats filibuster it.

What Democrats are saying is that they really do not want to actually fix problems, they want to dink and dunk their way to making it harder and harder for the law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, all the way up to bans.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

32 Responses to “Surprise: Democrats Look To Kill Their Own Background Checks Bill”

  1. Jeffery says:

    there were tons of warning signs which should have seen Cruz put on the deny list

    Good point. What are the warning signs that should allow the police to confiscate the guns of an American?

    Family or neighbor complaints?

    Any arrest for violence? Or would it take a conviction for violence?

    An accusation of domestic abuse? Or a conviction for domestic abuse?

    Threatening internet typings?

    N.B. – The devil is always in the details. It’s easy to “say” the authorities should have confiscated the FL killer’s guns. But what are the criteria for doing so? Can you think of any warning signs that should have stopped the Las Vegas murderer?

    • formwiz says:

      When some jerk says his ambition is to be a Professional School Shooter.

      • Jeffery says:

        If someone threatens to “shoot up a school” online or in person, what is the mechanism for confiscating their weapons? Do the police have to get a warrant to search the house? Can they just lock the guy up based on a facebook post? What if he has pictures of AR-15 style rifles on his school books and locker? Is that OK?

        And couldn’t someone prevented from purchasing an AR-15 style rifle from a FFL dealer still buy one from a private seller in most states, including FL?

  2. Jeffery says:

    The GOP and 2A Fetishists think the current laws are already TOO restrictive. They wish to pass something, anything, just to get the voters off their backs. Period.

    • Dana says:

      In the meantime, Geoffrey’s Jeffery’s idea is to further restrict the rights of people who have not broken any laws, instead of wondering “What are the warning signs that should allow the police to confiscate the guns of an American?”

      Señor Cruz had dozens of police/sheriff’s notifications against him. He wasn’t eligible to be put on any ‘do not allow’ lists because the police/sheriff’s department was too f(ornicating) lazy/wimpy/progressive to actually charge him with anything.

      Remember Devin Kelly, the whacko who shot up the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas? He should have been on that list, because he had a domestic abuse conviction on his record, but the Air Force never reported that information. While the various Broward County officials were all too lazy to do the right things that would have made Nikolas Cruz ineligible, Mr Kelly already had that conviction; nothing more needed to have been done other than to report it to the NICS, which would have prevented his legal purchase of an AR-15.

      Of course, the Air Force could have done more in another way: they gave him a bad conduct discharge instead of a dishonorable; dishonorable would also have landed him on the list, while bad conduct would not, but a dishonorable discharge requires more administrative paperwork!

      When Rudolph Giuliani was sworn in as Mayor of New York City, he took the place from a combat zone into a nice, walkable, (mostly) safe city. How? Well, one way was that he got the police to charge petty criminals for the little stuff, giving them records and something more than a slap on the wrist. That was a big part of cleaning up NYC. Had Señor Cruz been so treated, he’d never have been able to purchase a firearm (legally).

      That’s the solution: enforce the f(ornicating) law!

      • Jeffery says:


        We agree with you concerning strict enforcement of gun laws. Unfortunately, many police forces do not.

        How do we force police forces, local governments, prosecutors, the feds to enforce the gun laws we have, to report those who should be prevented from having 2nd Amendment rights?

        • Dana says:

          That’s one of the things this bill is about, requiring that reports of convictions be reported to NICS. President Trump has the authority, on his own, as Commander-in-Chief, to make changes in the way the armed services report military convictions, such as the way Mr Kelley slipped through the cracks.

          However, it’s also a problem of attitude among police and prosecutors, who too often let the petty crimes go; that’s what hey did with Nikolas Cruz. The Broward County Schools had a deliberate policy of making fewer referrals for prosecution because too many Hispanic and black students were getting criminal records.

          Eventually, we must find some way to make public officials accountable for their actions and inactions. The school board, the county sheriff and the FBI agents who dropped the ball all need to be disciplined in some fashion, up to and including termination. Judges and parole officials who release violent criminals too early, by giving minimum sentences or granting early parole, need to become personally liable for the crimes that thugs who should still be in prison commit, up to and including both civil liability and loss of their jobs.

    • formwiz says:

      Actually, that’s the Demos.

      They’re already backing away from it.

      Strange, huh?

  3. Jl says:

    Why yes, to curb drunk driving the solution should be to take cars away from sober drivers…..

    • Jeffery says:

      Cars have a genuine function in modern society. As do trucks. Banning cars would cripple America.

      Assault weapons are used mainly to shoot innocent people in large numbers. Otherwise, they are used mostly by “men” like you, stroking them, while fantasizing about big Black men, Mexicans and scimitar wielding Muslims.

      If assault weapons were banned today the primary harm would be on the psyches of weak-minded “men”.

      Just sayin’.

      • formwiz says:

        No, firearms protect people from predators.

        And guess what?

        Knives, blunt instruments and body parts kill lots more people.

        • Jeffery says:

          No doubt some firearms have stopped assaults. But assault weapons? Please don’t conflate opposition to assault weapons as opposition to all firearms.

          You typed:

          Knives, blunt instruments and body parts kill lots more people.

          Certainly not in the US.

          Homicide stats:

          In 2016: Handguns – 7105; Firearms,type not stated – 3077; Rifle – 374; Shotgun – 262; Other firearm – 186. Knives/ other cutting – 1604; Other, type not stated – 903; Hands, fists, feet – 604.

          Actually, about 2/3rds of the typical 15,000 US homicides/yr result from firearms use. Our homicide rate is by far the highest among the advanced nations of the world. Easy access to guns is only part of the problem though.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Actually, about 2/3rds of the typical 15,000 US homicides/yr result from firearms use.

            And about 1/2 of those are committed by angry young black fellas.

          • Jeffery says:


            No need to thank us for correcting your misinformation.

            We suspect it was just some bit of disinformation you read on another right-wing blog.

            Why do you imagine that most mass murderers are angry young white guys? Sometimes angry old white guys.

      • Some Hillbilly in Saint Louis says:

        “Assault weapons are used mainly to shoot innocent people in large numbers.”

        Apparently they are piss poor at that, I guess about 30 million of them don’t work for their intended purpose.

  4. Jl says:

    I think Jeffery’s getting turned on thinking about men and guns….just saying

    • Jeffery says:

      We think jl has lost another argument. That happens when all you’re armed with are bon mots.

  5. Jl says:

    Jeffery’s reading comprehension lacks again. No one said that cars should be banned, professor. It’s all up there in black and white for you to re-read. “Why do you imagine that most mass-murderes are angry white guys?” Don’t know. But as DP alludes to above, why do you think about 52% of all homicides are committed by young black males, usually shooting other black males. Don’t black lives matter? Blacks are about 13% of the population, so excluding black females you have 6-7% committing over half of all homicides. Breaking it down further, if one just looks at “young black males”, like between the ages of 16-24, we have in the US about at the most 3% of the population committing over half the homicides.

    • Jeffery says:

      Another semantician! It must be contagious with you guys. Taking cars away is different than banning them?

      And then you change the subject. One of your compatriots told a blatant lie, I corrected it, and you change the subject. We would prefer that you just say thank you.

      More Americans are murdered with firearms than by any other method.

      • Some Hillbilly in Saint Louis says:

        “More Americans are murdered with firearms than by any other method.”

        Wait, are you now advocating for universal gun banning? Because if one looks at the FBI’s crime stats, rifles are less deadly than fists. The big bad seems to be handguns, you coming for handguns?

        • Jeffery says:


          One of your brethren made the false statement that knives, clubs, hands and fists were used more often than guns for homicide. I corrected his falsehood.

          The rest is your fantasy.

          • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

            Pray expound, what is it that I said that constitutes a “fantasy”?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Pray expound, what is it that I said that constitutes a “fantasy”?

    Wait, are you now advocating for universal gun banning? … you coming for handguns?

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      So are evil “assault rifles” to be banned -or- are all semi-auto/modern/handguns to be banned… for the children (except those that haven’t been born yet)? What is your opinion (talking points spoonfed to you by smarter marxists)? Which is it?

      • Jeffery says:

        I would limit magazine size. Do you favor forcing everyone to own a firearm, even fetuses? What is your opinion (talking points spoonfed to you by smarter ammosexuals)?

        • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

          Cruz used 10 round mags. Smaller mags are more reliable than larger ones as there is less stress on the feed lips and springs and less drag when the magazine body is unlubed or contains debris.

          I am unaware of anyone that advocates forcing citizens to be armed, who are you saying is doing this?

          I believe that all gun laws are unlawful and amoral, and historically have been used to disarm blacks. Anyone too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon due to violent offenses should be put to death or never be released from prison.

  7. Jl says:

    Poor Jeffery. Again, show me where I said we should ban cars, as you asserted. Good luck

  8. Jeffery says:

    Poor j,

    Gets caught in a lie and now wants “backsies”. Downright tRumpian. “I didn’t say that!”

    Get some sleep.

    • david7134 says:

      Everyone here knows that you are the only person that has difficulty with the truth.

      • Jeffery says:

        Right, dave. That’s why we spend so much time correcting the falsehoods, disinformation and exaggerations spread by TEACH and others.

  9. Jl says:

    So J, show me where I said cars should be banned. It should be easy if that’s what I really said, right? Again, good luck-you’ll need it. But desperate attempt at deflection duely noted.

  10. […] will not do more gun grabbing. Seriously, the WPEB should read their own newspaper, which reported just a few days ago that Democrats, including Murphy, have been downplaying Murphy’s bill (direct link to WaPo […]

Pirate's Cove