Joe Manchin: ‘Law-abiding’ Gun Owners Will Like Background Check Bill

Posted by on Apr 14, 2013 at 4:56 pm

Sure they will, Joe. We know this is just to catch the bad guys. You know, the ones who don’t try to legally purchase weapons.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Sunday defended his bipartisan proposal with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to expand background checks, saying that lawful gun owners had nothing to fear.

“If you are a law-abiding gun-owner, you’re gonna like this bill,” said Manchin, appearing with Toomey, on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“Now if you are a criminal, if you’ve been mentally adjudicated and you go to a gun show or try to buy a gun online, you might not like this bill, because you can’t do it. And what we’ve done we did it right, we shut down the gun show loopholes and online sales,” he added.

This Chuckie Schumer puppet almost sounds like he believes what he says. Speaking of the loathsome Schumer, for the first time ever he had no comment on a topic in the news. Truly a historic day.

Tags: , , ,

5 Responses to “Joe Manchin: ‘Law-abiding’ Gun Owners Will Like Background Check Bill”

  1. JoyO on 14/14/13 at 6:18 pm

    Personally, I would not have a problem with a state requiring a background check AS LONG AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS AT ALL TO ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE BACKGROUND CHECK.

  2. pa on 14/14/13 at 7:24 pm

    To add to JoyO’s comment: “… and as long as all politicians (including those running for office and not yet elected), their staff members, and all government employees were also required to pass mandatory background checks before being allowed to earn a even a penny paid by taxpayers.”

    Hey Bambi: I mean you first.

  3. Blue Hen on 15/15/13 at 8:05 am

    “If you are a law-abiding gun-owner, you’re gonna like this bill,”

    Why? because I get to pay for yet another government program? Because I get to fill out more forms? More fees? What possible reason would make me “like” this?

  4. MT Geoff on 15/15/13 at 10:31 am

    I have an additional concern about “background checks”, made all the stronger by NY state’s recent actions.
    The state police in New York got information that a person was using mental-health related medication. The name also matched a person who has registered firerarms. The state police issued an order to seize the firearms. Turned out the person with the prescription was not the registered owner of firearms and a court has gotten the guns returned.
    1. How in the dickens did the state police get prescription information?
    2. How can any state law mandate seizure of personal property without some form of hearing?
    3. This is only possible where there’s registration of firearms and owners, which is one reason many of us view registration with suspicion.
    We do need a way to identify the few people who have mental health problems that create a risk for others. That decision needs to come through a judicial process, though, and the person in question needs an opportunity to challenge the request to limit rights and the benefit of the doubt in the case.
    If we hope to reduce the stigmas that attach to mental health issues and their treatment, we need to respect the rights of people who seek treatment unless there’s a “clear and present danger.” Our ability to identify mental-health patients who are dangerous is very limited, though, and we need to watch out for “false positives.” Almost anyone could be identified as having a mental health disorder, especially the people on long-term disabilities.
    The federal standard on this one is supposed to be basically a court-ordered commitment. There needs to be a way to register such events and also to lift the restriction.

  5. lyle on 15/15/13 at 1:12 pm

    “If you are a law-abiding gun-owner, you’re gonna like this bill,”

    Until “we” decide whether you’re still abiding the law.