Senator Manchin Concedes Background Checks Bill Will Fail Today

April 17, 2013

Comments

Senator Joe Manchin is conceding this morning that the bill he is co-sponsoring with Senator Pat Toomey will fail to achieve cloture today:

Amid growing Republican opposition to a bipartisan proposal that would expand background checks for gun purchases, one of the measure’s chief sponsors acknowledged Wednesday that it will fail in the Senate — at least for now.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) conceded to NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell that the proposal “will not get the votes today.”

As I noted last night, this isn’t entirely surprising.

Failure to invoke cloture won’t be the end of the bill, Majority Leader Reid could theoretically bring the bill back up at a later date, but this is going to be a substantial defeat for the gun control crowd.

18 responses to “Senator Manchin Concedes Background Checks Bill Will Fail Today”

JKB

April 17, 2013 at 7:39 am

Remember, remember, 1994’s November
C. Clavin

April 17, 2013 at 7:52 am

“…but this is going to be a substantial defeat for the gun control crowd…”

Yeah…the gun control crowd…the last poll showed that was 92% of the Country.
I might add rewrite that a bit…a substantial loss for those who feel like they should be able to go to a movie theater in safety, or the mall, or send their kids to kindergarten without wondering if they will return home without 11 rounds in their small chests.
Once again the NRA has pulled the strings of Congress…gun manufacturers will be allowed to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want…my right to safety and liberty be damned.
Tony W

April 17, 2013 at 7:55 am

If we cannot pass even the most milquetoast of gun legislation, there is literally no hope. This is the NRAs dream, but I refuse to be fearful and purchase a gun myself.
superdestroyer

April 17, 2013 at 7:55 am

@C. Clavin:

Background checks currently occur for the majority of gun sales. How does forcing everyone to act as if they have a federal firearms license really help the situation.

Instead of calling background checking, why not just say that the government has to approve all sales of guns. Of course, then the left would have to admit that if the government has to say yes, then it can always say no.
stonetools

April 17, 2013 at 8:18 am

@Tony W:

This is the NRAs dream, but I refuse to be fearful and purchase a gun myself

Bingo. The NRA’s dream is to turn us into a paranoid society where EVERYONE goes around carrying concealed ready to shoot any brown person who looks at them sideways. Well, f**k them. That’s not my view of America. Call your senator at (202) 224-3121. I’m off to do that ASAP.
JKB

April 17, 2013 at 8:24 am

@C. Clavin: gun manufacturers will be allowed to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want

You’d be taken more seriously if you had facts or didn’t try to distort them.

gun manufactures – Federal Firearms license holders who either must sell to FFL dealers or conduct background checks before effecting a transfer under current law

military style – what does this mean? A few bits of plastic?

high caliber – the .223 (5.56mm) is not a “high caliber”. You could claim the .30-06 or the 7.62mm could be considered a “high caliber”

semi-automatic – hey, you got something right

combat assault rifle – by definition a machine gun since it was introduce by Germany in WWII.

But if we string it all together, I suppose you are talking about the Lee-Enfiled .303, or perhaps the M1 Garand (.30-06), etc. which were both semi-automatic rifles used in military service during combat, to conduct assaults and have relative “high calibers. Oh and the M1 uses clips to load it’s fixed magazine.

Keep in mind that the theater in Aurora was a “gun-free zone” a fact that lead to it being chosen as the site of killings rather than closer theaters showing the same movie. And Sandy Hook Elementary was also a “gun-free zone”.
JKB

April 17, 2013 at 8:41 am

@stonetools: ready to shoot any brown person who looks at them sideways.

Interesting….you have these racist fantasies that you project on to others.

In the America, I live in and hope to keep, the brown people would also have guns if they felt the need to defend themselves from racists who dream of shooting brown people if they look sideways at them.

Come on, get with the program, the Democrats are all about subliminal racism these days, not the overt kind they practiced 100 years ago. I don’t even think Obama could pull a Woodrow Wilson and mandate segregation in the federal workforce . Odd we haven’t seen any condemnation of this Democrat policy on this centennial of its implementation.
Franklin

April 17, 2013 at 8:54 am

Twenty children shot, some beyond recognition, in just one of many shooting sprees, yet many appear to be perfectly happy with the status quo.

Even my NRA card carrying Republican pre-dead uncle wants to keep them out of the hands of crazies with more background checks. So what *exactly* is the hold up? This seems pretty simple.
C. Clavin

April 17, 2013 at 9:00 am

“…Background checks currently occur for the majority of gun sales…”

Yeah…sure…60%/40%…BFD.
That means over 6 million sales still go unscreened. 6 f’ing million guns. Does the 2nd Amendment say “not-so-well-regulated militia”?
I’m sure you and JKB are right….as you always are (snark)…background checks are a total waste of time… and that is why 94% of police chiefs, 87% of Americans, and 74% of NRA members all support requiring a criminal background check of anyone purchasing a gun.
C. Clavin

April 17, 2013 at 9:10 am

@ JKB…
We understand you live and breathe the cult. Everyone needs an obsession. If yours helps you compensate for other short-comings…bully for you.
At any rate…you questioning anyone’s veracity is f’ing comical.
C. Clavin

April 17, 2013 at 9:15 am

I just checked the 2nd Amendment…it does in fact say a 60/40 regulated militia.
Who’da thunk it?
Caj

April 17, 2013 at 9:19 am

Shame on those who vote this bill down! Gutless is the only word I have for all of them. Scared to death of the NRA, how pathetic! The NRA would prefer we all be armed and dangerous, a simplistic answer from a simple minded group of people! So obsessed with guns they are afraid of their own shadows and see the government circling the helicpoters to come and take away all those precious guns! If this bill goes down the NRA and some of the mindless followers will not have won the war. The war is only beginning. The decent people of this country will not let this issue die. It’s far too important and we must keep up the fight for not only Sandy Hook but for all of those lives lost to senseless gun violence over the years.
Caj

April 17, 2013 at 9:24 am

Correction to my above statement. Not all NRA members are against any form of gun law that was a mistake to say that. Just some of them who are obsessed to the point of madness to own as many guns as possible just because right now they can!
James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb)

April 17, 2013 at 9:59 am

Last I checked, even if the US congress isn’t doing anything on this, a whole bunch of states and municipal areas have already passed new regs. We may find ourselves in that old familiar spot where federal inaction leads to individual states having to do the heavy lifting themselves.

(Insert complaints about California and New York state here.)
C. Clavin

April 17, 2013 at 10:44 am

@ James Pearce…
The problem with the local approach is that while Chicago has strict gun laws…that work better than not…illegal guns still flood in from surrounding areas without the same regs.
Same with Connecticut.
There needs to be blanket laws…federal laws.
As long as the NRA and the rest of the Gun Lobby controls Congress we will continue to have a patch-work system that is ineffective…which the Gun Lobby will continue to point to and say “See, gun laws are ineffective”.
Stormy Dragon

April 17, 2013 at 10:50 am

Will be interesting to see what impacts this has on Toomey’s reelection in 2016. He kinda stuck his neck out here for nothing. Since no good deed goes unpunished, I suspect this is going to cost him a lot of votes with his previous supporters but get him absolutely no credit from the opposition.

The left will go all out to defeat him, and if successful they’ll sit around wondering why no Republican wants to compromise on anything, and blame it on a boogeyman like the NRA rather than acknowledge that voters on both sides have helped created a system that punishes compromise.
James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb)

April 17, 2013 at 12:51 pm

@C. Clavin:

“As long as the NRA and the rest of the Gun Lobby controls Congress we will continue to have a patch-work system that is ineffective…which the Gun Lobby will continue to point to and say “See, gun laws are ineffective”.”

That does seem to be the scam that they are running…..

But seeing as that creates more problems than it solves, I do not think the scam can continue indefinitely.
jsteele

April 17, 2013 at 3:31 pm

@JKB: JKB, you’d be taken more seriously if you made sense. When 40% of sales are outside those background checks, saying “anyone” can buy “anything” they want is pretty much accurate. And I get the obfuscation thing with the “no one knows what they’re talking about” because there are a million different combinations of guns and ammo that might be objectionable. By taking a no measures, no way approach, though, you’re just making it more likely that people will simply say, “You’re right: it makes no sense to quibble about the size of the barrel, the magazine or the speed with which they can be fired. Let’s get rid of them all… see, the number of households that have guns is going down and has been for decades. The crazier you and the gun crowd sounds, the more likely you are to provoke exactly the kind of reaction you lie about in saying it’s happening now.

In fact, if no one else will take the first step down that slippery slope, I will: you have finally convinced me there is noting wrong with a national registry of guns. If you want to come up with reasons to exclude hunting rifles or self-defense hand guns, fine: make your case. But the default argument for me, from now on, is anyone who says they need a gun to protect themselves from the government is a criminal, crazy or both. No sane, law-abiding citizen ahs anything to fear.