NRA likens universal checks to gun registry

Monday, February 4, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Rifle Association’s executive vice president continued to oppose background checks for all gun purchases despite polls indicating that most NRA members don’t share his position.

The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners. Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation.

Mark Kelly, a gun owner and husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman who survived a 2011 shooting, asked LaPierre to listen to his members. He said the current system prevented 1.7 million gun purchases since 1999. However, those potential buyers had other options because many gun sales don’t require a background check.

“Members of the NRA tend to be very reasonable on this issue,” Kelly said, who also appeared on the Fox show.

As Congress responds to the spate of mass shootings in recent years, most notably the December massacre of 20 children and six adults in a school in Newtown, Conn., some are calling for a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons and on high-capacity ammunition magazines. However, calls for expanding background checks appear to have gained the most bipartisan support.

LaPierre said that requiring checks for all gun purchases would be a bureaucratic nightmare. “It’s going to affect only the law-abiding people,” he said. “Criminals could care less.”

LaPierre was pressed about his contention that gun checks would lead to a national registry, when no one from the Obama administration is calling for that.

“And Obamacare wasn’t a tax until they needed it to be a tax,” LaPierre said.

Kelly and LaPierre agreed on one point: More people seeking to buy guns illegally should be prosecuted.

“They should be prosecuted and there should be stiff penalties,” Kelly said.

A key player in the coming gun debate in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said on ABC’s “This Week” that he’s willing to take a look at legislation that would ban certain semi-automatic weapons, but he also noted that he voted against a ban on such weapons in 1994 because it “didn’t make sense.”

He was more definitive on the issue of background checks, saying “everyone acknowledges we should do something with background checks.”

Reid said his goal is for the Judiciary Committee to report out a gun bill. Senators could subsequently seek amendments on the Senate floor. That way, if the bill didn’t contain certain provisions, such as the ban on certain weapons, then sponsors would at least get a vote on their proposal and lawmakers would have to go on the record about where they stand.

More like this story

MO4LIFE 3 months, 2 weeks ago

NRA endorses a registry of sex offenders, a registry of those convicted of drug dealing and even a registry of mental patients but god forbid we have universal background checks to buy guns. Oh the Humanity of it all it is just so wrong to want to check someones background before letting them purchase a firearm. Lets see background check to get a job! Background check to be a coach background checks to be L.E.O. Hell even a background check to go to college. But it is the biggest crime in the world to do a background check to get a gun in my opinion should have to do background check and drug test every 6 months to own a firearm because you can be the sanest person in the world and then get high and kill somebody and of course the NRA will say it wasn't his fault because he wasn't in his right mind ( temp Insanity BS) NRA stands No Remorse for Actions.

spelchek 3 months, 2 weeks ago

How is the NRA responsible for your actions or mine for that matter? Explain how states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws became the most dangerous. Explain how a career felon will abide any new laws that you deem necessary. Explain why someone wouldn't choose a different modus operandi if a gun isn't available. Crazy is as crazy does.

Sequoia 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The cities that are most dangerous have the most restrictive gun laws. You've got it backwards, chum. You think Chicago would turn into Mayberry if the gun laws were repealled?

Explain why any felons follow any laws. Are you saying we shouldn't have any laws, since criminals don't follow laws? This makes no sense.

A different modus operandi wouldn't be able to gun down dozens of people in a few seconds.

Nothing crazy about more restrictive gun laws.

John 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Note: Sequuia does not answer your question, "Explain how states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws became the most dangerous". Instead he makes a snide comment and questions YOUR thinking ability.

He also advocates MORE laws that won't be obeyed by those whom we are trying to stop for disobeying current laws. (sounds convoluted, huh?)

John 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Automobiles kill far more people (including infants) every year than guns. Yet ANYONE can buy an automobile and pay NO taxes nor register it unless they also buy license plates. Yet, I hear no clamor about background checks for purchasers of automobiles.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes to background checks, no to drug tests, unless that also includes alcohol.

Sequoia 3 months, 2 weeks ago

My car has a license number, so everyone knows exactly which car is mine, out of all cars in the whole U.S.

Why are firearms subject to less?

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Because owning a car is a privileged not a right. The government jumped on that as quick as they could to get tax money. Gin ownership s a right.

billyray111 3 months, 2 weeks ago

sequoia, i think you are missing spelchek's point. i believe his point is that the new laws are only going to affect law abding citizens, the criminals will only be breaking additional laws and based on how the system is working now i dont believe that will not make a bit of difference. as for the felons not following any laws what he means is that they are not going to care what the rammifications are for the crime that they are about to commit so adding more laws will not evan slow them down. than you go to say that using a different modus operandi wont be able to mow down dozens of people in a few seconds buy what if they could get thier hands on a truck load of bomb making material like tim mcvey did in oklahoma city and kill more people in heartbeat than any gun know to mankind. it goes back to the mental state of mind of these people when it comes to these mass killings. i wonder if that isnt where the answer lies.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

And who is going to pay for a registry?

As sure as a ban on 20 or 30 rounds has lead to an attempt to go further and ban 10 and then to 7 a registry will lead to a fee for every legal weapon they can find. Let's not forget they will then start adding fees for pistol grips, flash shrouds, detachable magazines etc. ad naseum.

We cannot even pay for the bureaucracy we already have and now they want to add more for a non-Constitutional registry at that?

Of course this will also entail the same Liberal Pied pipers screaming we aren;t going to take your guns. Just the ones we can get.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You answered your own question. Fees on registration. Nothing in the constitution proscribes registration . . . in fact a well regulated militia might be considered one with a good inventory of arms. And, still nobody taking your arms.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Except any fee is a form of "Infringement"

Oh that darned Constitution again.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You're the historian, so you should know that reasonable fees are NOT considered, by any court in nearly 200 years, to be an infringement.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Most of the relevant ones have not made their way up past the Liberal Activist district courts yet. The one to watch will be the New York one which can clearly be seen as overly burdensome to lower income citizens. Same for the DC ones.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

If the NY fee is too high, and seen as a means to reduce availability, it may well fail the reasonability test. I have no issue with that.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Sorry, my post is in the wrong indent. To TickledPink's questions below: Connor's point is that those activities aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and that the proscription against "infringing" the right to bear arms is violated by any fee on gun registration. Courts have held otherwise.

MO4LIFE 3 months, 2 weeks ago

So the fee for C.C.W. is infringement. The registration fee for licensing a gun is infringement really!! Because you can get 2 - 5 yrs just for possessing an unlicensed or unregistered weapon.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Only if it is concealed which is specifically mentioned against in the Missouri State Constitution.

The fee to be able to carry concealed is in no way violating the right to keep and bear arms. Open carry, which is Constitutional, is not taxed nor require a fee.

TickledPink 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Did I miss something? When was a registry deemed unconstitutional? Who pays for the National Sex Offender registry? The National Registry for EMTs? It's paid for by the registration fees. So you people think it's ok for people to have to pay a fee for a special ID to vote but you scream and cry at the thought of having to pay a fee to register your gun?

Yes, register every weapon out there, that way it's on file when a crime is committed, can be tied to the owner and expensive resources aren't used chasing things that should be kept track of anyway. If someone side swipes a car and drives away, you can turn in that license plate number and they'll know exactly who owns the car. Give me a rational reason why guns shouldn't be regulated the same way.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Proof of citizenship does not require a fee to get unless you wish to combine it with something that also counts as proof but doubles for something else. Just like you have to present when purchasing a firearm.

A registration is a tax on a right not a privilege like owning a car.

Why not a national database on ALL prescription drugs while you are at it that way we will know when one turns up sold when it shouldn't be? Comparing an automobile to a gun for registration is no different.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The analogy between cars and gun works sometimes, but not here as you correctly point out. Registration still isn't 2nd Amendment infringement. As as for the national DB on drugs? it would substantially reduce drug sales, and there's a skilled lobby that would be vocal against it, sort of like the NRA, but not.

billyray111 3 months, 2 weeks ago

the one thing that worries me about this whole thing is that obama got his tax increase right after he started his second term, now he said over the weekend that he wants more revenue in the form of closing loopholes and tax deductions. if any of you do not understand that this is another tax increase you might want to call your accountant and have him explaine it to you. my fear is that once he get his background checks he will just keep going after more( give them a inch and they will take a mile). he just proved that this weekend when it came to our taxes. i am sorry but i believe that this is now his economy and he can not blame anyone but himself. i voted for him the first time but within a short period of time i realized that i might have made a mistake. i am 53 years old and i have never heard another president place more blame on other people than obama. i just do not trust him with our guns.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

He doesn't have, and doesnt want, your guns. John McCain just call the president of Iran a monkey, maybe your first vote was a reasonable choice.

JCLifer 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I am angry that McCain would dis a monkey like that. What did the monkey ever do to him?

billyray111 3 months, 2 weeks ago

asb, i do not believe he could ever get our guns but his track record says that if we give him registration he will keep going until he gets what everything he wants.he knows that he will never get the guns but he will keep on trying because of sosialistic beliefs. as for my first choice being reasonable i have to tell you that i still cant believe i fell for his line of bs the first time.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune