Senators privately pursue compromise on expanded background checks for gun buyers
WASHINGTON — A cornerstone of President Obama's drive to check gun violence is gathering bipartisan steam as four senators, including two of the National Rifle Association's congressional champions, privately seek compromise on requiring far more firearms purchasers to undergo background checks.
The talks are being held even as Obama's call to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, the two other major pillars of his plan, are hitting rough waters on Capitol Hill. An agreement among the four senators to expand background checks would add significant impetus to that high-profile proposal by getting the endorsement of a group that ranges from one of the Senate's most liberal Democrats to one of its most conservative Republicans.
“We'll get something, I hope. I'm praying for it,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., one of the participants.
Manchin, a moderate Democrat, is an NRA member who aired a 2010 campaign ad in which he shot a hole through Democratic environmental legislation that he pledged to oppose. Also involved is Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another NRA member with a conservative record but maverick impulses; No. 3 Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer of New York, a liberal; and moderate GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.
Background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for private purchases like those at gun shows. There are few indisputable statistics on how many guns change hands without background checks, but a respected study using 1990s data estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of gun transactions fit into that category.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Astronauts to hitch U.S. ride to space station
- FBI, federal marshals join manhunt for survivalist accused of ambushing troopers
- Tweaks to health care sign-up tallies raise questions
- ‘Ambitious’ emissions cuts to be sought
- Islamic State fighters in U.S., feds say