Background Check Compromise: What’s in the Fine Print?

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=pile+of+guns&search_group=#id=125428757&src=BjIUavXrqxG4oUtog70D9A-1-3">Kellis</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The compromise amendment on expanded background checks that Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) announced Wednesday morning has yet to be released to the public. But the senators released a fact sheet on Wednesday afternoon that begins to clear up some answers sought by gun control groups and uncommitted senators. (Read it in full below, via the Huffington Post.)

Titled “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act,” the amendment expands the existing background check system to cover sales at gun shows and on the internet, “encourages” states to put all their available records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence “to study in-depth all the causes of mass violence in our country.”

Here’s a rundown of additional key components of the Manchin-Toomey amendment as spelled out in the fact sheet:

  • People who buy guns from non-licensed sellers or gun owners in the parking lot at gun shows would have to undergo background checks from licensed dealers.
  • Online gun sales within one state would require the same background checks from licensed dealers that are currently required for interstate online gun sales.
  • Licensed dealers would keep records of background checks they conduct, as they have been doing since 1968, for commercial sales that require checks under existing law. It would not allow the federal government to keep records.
  • The federal government would be banned from establishing a registry of gun owners, even though that has already been the law since 1986. People who might misuse records for the purpose of creating a registry would face felony charges and up to 15 years in prison.
  • Temporary transfers and transfers between family, friends, and neighbors wouldn’t require background checks.
  • Licensed dealers would be able to sell handguns across state lines, instead of only rifles and shotguns.
  • Active military members would be able to purchase guns not only at duty stations but also from in-state dealers.
  • Licensed dealers at gun shows would be able to sell guns to dealers attending the show from other states.
  • Concealed carry permits issued within the past five years could be used in lieu of background checks since the permits themselves require checks.
  • States would be encouraged to submit records of prohibited buyers to the NICS background check database, providing grants to help states that comply and reducing funding for those that don’t.
  • If an NICS background check was inconclusive after 48 hours, a pending sale at a gun show would be allowed to take place. (In four years, the time would be reduced to 24 hours—the idea being that the database would have improved significatly by then.)

And, the fact sheet adds, the amendment would “not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.”

On Wednesday afternoon, several Republican senators said they had yet to digest the amendment’s details. One of them was Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), whom Manchin and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had aimed to work with prior to working with Toomey—until gun-rights activists apparently got to Coburn.

Late Wednesday, Coburn released a statement calling the compromise the “wrong approach” that would “impose new taxes and unreasonable burdens on law-abiding citizens” and prioritize “collecting records over protecting citizens.” Still, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has supported expanded background checks in the past but remains on the fence now, said he believed the legislation would survive filibuster threats and get a vote.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate