A Letter from Senator Coburn

[okiewita40]

I got an e-mail reply from Sen. Coburn today. It would seem as though he has caught some flack over voting for the EBG bill. I'll just cut and paste the body of the email.

by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn

Many Oklahomans and gun owners across the country have asked why I have decided to participate in negotiations, and then vote to move to a debate, they view as designed to limit their rights. I understand my role in this debate appears surprising in light of my long record of not only defending but expanding Second Amendment rights by, for example, giving Americans the right to carry guns in national parks. I have also filibustered popular bills in order to defend the rights of veterans who have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights without due process because they were wrongly declared mentally unfit.

First, let me be clear about what the Senate will and will not be considering in the coming days. The most onerous and blatantly unconstitutional provisions the gun control lobby favors - a ban on supposed "assault weapons" (any gun in the hands of a criminal is an assault weapon) and a plan to limit magazine sizes, policies I vehemently oppose - have zero chance of passing. What is up for consideration is how to improve a broken system that literally allows illegal aliens, drug traffickers, child molesters, rapists, felons, members of al Qaeda cells and mentally-deranged persons to buy firearms. If you believe the Second Amendment gives those people the right to arm themselves then we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. If you believe the Constitution allows for laws that prevent those people from buying guns then keep reading.

Let me also say plainly that my job as a United States Senator isn't to get reelected or to do what is popular. Instead, my job is to do what is right and follow my oath to defend and protect the Constitution to the best of my ability. Some have even suggested a more pro-Second Amendment Republican should run against me in the primary next election. I hate to disappoint them but I respect the will of the people so much I have primaried myself by term-limiting myself. I announced my decision to limit my Senate service to two terms when I ran in 2004 and will leave the Senate in 2016.

In my view, not participating in this debate would do more to jeopardize Americans' Second Amendment rights than participating. The fact is there are gaps in the law that make it far too easy for dangerous people to access firearms. Every act of gun violence not only takes away the rights - and sometimes lives - of victims but also chips away at the rights of law abiding citizens. Responsible gun owners should be leading the effort to make sure firearms are used for the purpose our founders' intended - self-defense and freedom, not mayhem and murder.

That is precisely why I have spent weeks working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop an easy way to transfer firearms that protects Americans' Second Amendment rights while giving them the tools they need to make sure they aren't selling a gun to someone who will be a threat to themselves or others.

The gun control lobby calls this goal "universal background checks" which is an inaccurate and inappropriate term. Let me clear about what I am proposing: When a person wants to buy a gun they are not, and should not be, subjected to an investigation or have their background inspected by the federal government. What is Constitutional in my view (and current law) is to determine whether that person is on a list of dangerous or prohibited persons. This list is called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or (NICS) list.

In practice, the NICS system is more like the check every American goes through when they buy a plane ticket. If you are not on the "do not fly list" you are not subjected to a special investigation. The NICS system is essentially a "do not buy list" that is supposed to stop dangerous people from buying guns. The vast majority of gun owners aren't opposed to a "do not buy list." Just as Americans do not want to board a plane with someone on the "do not fly list" they do not want to sell a gun to, or be in a public place with, someone on the "do not buy list."

The problem is the NICS system isn't very useful because it's very easy for dangerous people to evade. The central question the Senate will debate in the coming days is how to improve that system.

Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) have proposed a solution that is unworkable and unfair to gun owners. Their proposal would expand the broken NICS system and facilitate a government takeover of gun shows and commercial sales. If their proposal becomes law, visitors to Wanenmacher's gun show in Tulsa and gun shows across America will face a new tax of $30 to $50, and sometimes more, as they exercise their constitutional right to buy a gun. Or, if you see an ad for a gun online, you will be declared a felon if you do anything but drive to a gun store and perform the transaction in the presence of someone with a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Both gun shows and FFLs will also be required to keep a record of those sales. Gun owners will reject and ignore these changes.

The proposal I will offer, on the other hand, would create a consumer portal that would allow someone to go online for free and print out a pass that proves they are not on the NICS list. Law abiding citizens won't be treated as guilty until proven innocent and they won't face a new tax as they exercise their constitutional rights. Citizens also won't be required to keep records under my proposal. Finally, my bill will allow people who already have a concealed carry permit to buy a gun without taking additional steps, and it will give states the right to come up with their own ways to declare that someone isn't on the NICS list.

The story the media has not reported, and citizens in Oklahoma and elsewhere have not heard, is that in the negotiations about how to improve access to the NICS list, it has been my office versus the gun control lobby. Second Amendment groups, unfortunately, have chosen to sit on the sidelines and pretend we can't fix a system that allows illegal aliens to buy guns.

As the Senate debates these measures every American has a responsibility to do their homework and understand what is and is not under consideration. My office is prepared to answer as many questions as possible as clearly and quickly as we can. This is a debate defenders of the Second Amendment can't afford to ignore.

Sorry for the long post. Just thought some of you would like to know what a Sen. with an A+ rating from the NRA thinks. My belief is he should have voted no. That way it wouldn't be able to be debated.

[WeedWacker]

What is up for consideration is how to improve a broken system that literally allows illegal aliens, drug traffickers, child molesters, rapists, felons, members of al Qaeda cells and mentally-deranged persons to buy firearms

No, it's not a broken system, it is an unregulated system. He is referring to the background check that will be required of all civilian sales. It's the sale of private property. So should we also have background checks when someone buys a knife with particular dimensions and blade style? A 4" fixed blade tanto with serrations is now to be registered and a new form for knife salesmen to have us fill out just because that blade is "designed to kill"? He's paying lip service and falling into the emotionally reactive verbiage putting out images of violent criminals easily acquiring firearms because Everyday Joe has no problem selling them to those who wish us harm. It's a bunch of crock as he gears up for the next election by making a statement (via e-mail with no chance of rebuttal) to be official and grandstand on his conservative platform while behaving as a big-government "progressive".

I stand by what others have said, that UBC's will lead to registration will lead to confiscation. Look at the SAFE act and how the New York government has confiscated firearms from people who either haven't done something wrong but someone in their family has, or they have admitted they need help on some psychiatric issue and are barred the right to keep arms because they MIGHT become violent. HIPPA violations, 4th Amendment search issues, as well as state law stuff. [/rant]

[Ralgha]

Did you even read what he wrote? Maybe broken wasn't the right word choice, but the current system isn't perfect.

He said he opposes the so called "universal background check" proposal. He outlined an alternative that he plans to propose that honestly sounds pretty OK to me in principle. It has major flaws as outlined by him, but I don't expect a fully detailed final plan in a letter such as this either.

He also said he's not running for reelection.

[SHE3PDOG]

In all likelihood, the bill was going to be debated either way. I agree with most of what the senator said. The UBC is an awful idea, but his proposal seems like a solid step back from what anti-gun rights advocates are proposing.

I understand the whole registry bit, but his plan clearly outlines that bills of sale will not be kept, and that the transactions will not involve an additional government tax.

All those things seem alright to me. I don't live in Oklahoma, but I would support what he is proposing if I did.

[Aguila Blanca]

The letter started off "okay," but I had to stop reading when I came to "gun violence." Gun violence is "violence" that happens to be perpetrated with guns. As has been noted in other discussions on this site, the FBI's own statistics for a multi-year period show that far more murders were carried out using hammers and blunt instruments than with rifles (which are "guns" to the antis). We also have seen in the news recently knife violence; motor vehicle violence; toxic substance "violence" (an attack by poison can be just as deadly as an attack by a gun or machete); and animal violence (people allowing their attack dogs to ... attack). IMHO, by even using the term "gun violence" the senator is demonstrating that he doesn't comprehend the scope of the issue.

The problem, Senator, is not "gun" violence. The problem is a society that sees violence as the logical response to anything that upsets us.

[osageid]

He is actually a reasonable guy, met him loooong time ago when I was in med school ( he is a doc ) I feel at least he is trying to get to a solution but terms like "gun violence" is a poor choice. I hope will continue to try get the proper verbage/adjectives. I hope his willingness to compromise does not compromise 2nd amendments and more.

[Ralgha]

Be a little open minded. If use of the term "gun violence" shuts you down at the drop of a hat then you aren't helping. Like it or not, there are people in places of power who are very interested in gun violence, which is a real thing (a subset of violence) no matter its size.

This senator proposed an idea that is quite reasonable from my point of view, and might placate some of those who are crying for the so called "universal background checks."

[psyfly]

Well, I did read the whole thing...

Sen. Coburn:
"...allow someone to go online for free and print out a pass that proves they are not on the NICS list. Law abiding citizens won't be treated as guilty until proven innocent."

The good senator will "allow" a law abiding citizen to go online to "prove(s)" that he isn't guilty. Which, of course, he is treated as until proven innocent.

Sigh.

Not denying that Sen. Coburn is a good guy, but the BS from the elite doesn't smell a lot better coming from a "good guy" than it does from any other.

W

[SHE3PDOG]

The proposal I will offer, on the other hand, would create a consumer portal that would allow someone to go online for free and print out a pass that proves they are not on the NICS list. Law abiding citizens won't be treated as guilty until proven innocent and they won't face a new tax as they exercise their constitutional rights.

Out of context quotes are out of context. Creating a consumer portal which allows people to print a pass for free is not the same as saying that by his grace, he is granting people the power to be proven innocent after assumed guilty. If you're going to play the sources game, do it right.

[psyfly]

And, please, if you're going to admonish me, explain how the first sixteen words of that quote changes the contextual meaning of the part I included?

Still means, you have to go prove you're not a dangerous person. Still unconstitutional, I think.

W

[SHE3PDOG]

The good senator will "allow" a law abiding citizen to go online to "prove(s)" that he isn't guilty. Which, of course, he is treated as until proven innocent.

The senator is not allowing people to go online and prove their innocence. By his bill, he wishes to create an online program which facilitates the printing of a free pass that states you are cleared to purchase a weapon through the NICS. If you are buying from an FFL, this is something that already has to be done, but it costs money.

The senator is trying to make this something that won't be taxed into oblivion by the federal government and provide a simpler means of becoming cleared through the NICS, a preexisting program. As mentioned in the email, the NICS checks are not background checks; they merely provide the means to identify people who are on a ban list of sorts that should not be allowed to purchase firearms. They do not look into your background any further than that list of names.

[thallub]

Let me also say plainly that my job as a United States Senator isn't to get reelected or to do what is popular. Instead, my job is to do what is right and follow my oath to defend and protect the Constitution to the best of my ability


Wrong, Coburn.

Coburns job in the US senate is to represent his OK constituents. By pandering to the anti-gunners Coburn is doing the law abiding gunowners in OK a grave disservice. Coburn took NRA members money then stabbed us in the back just like Dirty Dave McCurdy and Mike Synar.

[Tom Servo]

It would seem as though he has caught some flack over voting for the EBG bill.
Nobody has voted for S. 649. The vote was to move forward with debate on the bill. It damages the credibility of our correspondence with elected officials when we accuse them of doing things they didn't.

[Aguila Blanca]

Be a little open minded. If use of the term "gun violence" shuts you down at the drop of a hat then you aren't helping. Like it or not, there are people in places of power who are very interested in gun violence, which is a real thing (a subset of violence) no matter its size.
I disagree.

"Gun violence" is another anti-gun buzzword, created by the anti-gun faction the same way they created "assault weapon" twenty years ago -- to give them a scary-sounding talking point. They talk about "gun violence" as if the violence is perpetrated by the guns, so all we have to do is eliminate the guns (which is what they want) and there won't be any more violence.

Except that there WILL still be violence. There will still be knife violence, machete violence, hammer violence, baseball bat violence, tire iron violence, work boot violence, motor vehicle violence (MVs used as weapons for attack, not referring to accidents), pillow violence (smothering), and manual violence (strangulation).

By allowing the anti-gunners to focus discussion on "gun" violence while ignoring other forms of violence is once again allowing them to control the debate. Feinstein and her obsession with a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) is a good example. They're after scary-looking rifles ... yet the FBI's own statistics clearly show far more murders have been committed with hammers and blunt objects than have been committed by ALL TYPES of rifles (not just evil, scary-looking black rifles). So where is the hue and cry for a 20-ounce hammer ban? After all, a 16-ounce hammer is all any honest man needs to drive a nail. Where's the outcry for background checks and fingerprinting before we're allowed to buy a hammer?

What we need, obviously, is an AHB. It's for the children. And it's a commonsense solution to the problem of hammer violence.

[JN01]

Coburns proposal seems much less odious than the other alternatives. If you have to have something rammed down your throat, smaller bites are better. Of course, the devil is always in the details, which we have not seen.

And will this proposed amendment even be seriously considered?

[wingman]

Sadly all politicians feel they must pass something mostly due to media pressure 24 hours per day, basically anything to get the liberal press off there back.

[okiewita40]

I think Coburn should have followed suit with Inhofe and voted no on letting the bill hit the floor for discussion.

They just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Rather than coming up with new ones.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you are of the school of thought that sooner or later, we will have UBCs forced down our throat or that it is only a matter of time before some guy who bought his guns privately goes berserk and the media makes a big push, then Coburn's amendment is probably the best deal we are likely to see.

Coburn is NRA A+ rated, GOA A+ rated, and GOA's "most important election of 2004."

Having said that, this bill will not stop another mass shooting from happening and the antis are going to push gun control hard regardless. 30 days after this bill passes, Bloomberg will have a new issue that takes this "common sense legislation" one step further. If you compromise with people who want to drive you into the sea, you are eventually going to end up treading water if you don't go on the offensive.

That is the major problem I have with Senator Coburn. He appears to believe he is dealing in good faith with people who can be satisfied with a compromise. However, that is not the case.

Look at HI, CT, MD, NY, CA, etc. All of those states have had more draconian private purchase rules on the books for years. Did it stop any of them from ramming a bunch more gun control down the throats of their citizens when Newtown happened? No. In fact, I think you can make a good argument that because owning a gun legally was such a paperwork problem, there were fewer legal gun owners with even less political power.

[Musketeer]

Even if you agree with his reasons letting the liberals get this thing to the floor for amendments and expansion is like letting Dracula into your house. He is working from the misconception that our enemies (his coworkers in elected office) are honest and will not take advantage of every opportunity to ban firearms as they have long done. The only way to win this game is not to play.

[Aguila Blanca]

That is the major problem I have with Senator Coburn. He appears to believe he is dealing in good faith with people who can be satisfied with a compromise. However, that is not the case.
This statement sums up the problem very well.

Connecticut enacted some of the most draconian anti-gun laws in the country at noon on April 4th of this year. The ink wasn't even dry on the governor's signature before the anti-gun forces in the (former) Constitution State were saying it was (get ready, here it comes) "a good first step."

[thallub]

In an unanswered letter to senator Coburn i pointed out the fact that early last year the CT legislature voted down a bill that would have allowed the involuntary treatment or incarceration of mental cases who were deemed a threat to themselves or others. The bill was voted down at the request of the ACLU. The ACLU claimed the bill would violate the rights of violent mental cases.

The state of CT continues to release violent felons from prison early despite the fact that some of those felons have committed murder soon after being released.

CT politicians not concerned about violence prone mental cases getting guns. They would much rather punish law abiding gunowners.

[freedash22]

The only debate the senators should be having in my opinion, is the debate on how to better enforce existing laws; NOT creating news ones. There are already so many bans and so many laws regarding this and still the criminal shootouts continue.

Sen. Coburn's intentions may be noble and sincere but he needs to see that ANY compromise will only lead to the eventual collapse of the 2nd amendment. All I can think of is what will happen if the gun control lobby gets every compromise they ask for. Then eventually, all that will be left to give is Dianne's uncompromising AWB laws. What happens then?

The only thing these debates do is further alienate responsible gun owners and condition people on the fence and others into more easily giving up their 2A rights.

[Willie Sutton]

The proposal I will offer, on the other hand, would create a consumer portal that would allow someone to go online for free and print out a pass that proves they are not on the NICS list. Law abiding citizens won't be treated as guilty until proven innocent and they won't face a new tax as they exercise their constitutional rights. Citizens also won't be required to keep records under my proposal. Finally, my bill will allow people who already have a concealed carry permit to buy a gun without taking additional steps, and it will give states the right to come up with their own ways to declare that someone isn't on the NICS list.


Stepping back a bit, a bearing in mine that I contribute 5 figures a year to a combination of the SAF and the ILA, so make no mistake about it, I am a 2nd Amendment Defender, what is really wrong with the above?

If I had the ability to go to an app on my iPhone, punch in the name and SSN of a guy standing in front of me who I am selling a firearm to, get an "OK" in a moment, and then be able to rest assured that my sale to him was not going to bite me in the ass later, and that by taking this step I am absolved from any liability for what the firearm might be used for later, what's the downside?

Forget replying with "but ... but ... but ....." Really, if the system was set up *exactly like it is described* above, there is no record of the firearm serial number, etc., it's a people-check.

In Wisconsin, and I am sure elsewhere, many diligent sellers are already doing the same thing on their own. I require, and many other local sellers require, a CCW be displayed prior to a sale. That's become the informal "background check" for the Armslist crowd here, and it works. Meet at McDonalds for coffee, show your CCW, and do business. Substitute "Show CCW or punch in the info on an iPhone and get an OK" and... well.... if that's the worst thing that happens to us, it's not the end of the world. Really, it would add ZERO to my existing hassle-factor, or to those to whom I sell. We are already doing that ourselves. No reputable seller wants to sell to a prohibited person. I would WELCOME the ability to have personal access to a system to help me make sure.

Donning flameproof suit now.


Willie

.

[JimDandy]

If I had the ability to go to an app on my iPhone, punch in the name and SSN


First, I'm not giving some stranger my SSN w/out brick and mortar store.
Second, I'm not trusting that was some stranger's name and SSN, 4473 includes descriptive data i.e. height, weight, address, etc.
Third, we've already seen DNS hacking, I want an 800 number and a human being.

[Willie Sutton]

^^^^


"Whatever"...

But let me get this straight: You want a phone number so I can READ your SSN to a live operator? Who will take more time than me (or you) punching it into a computer? And you don't think that I can check your name against your drivers license, etc? I do that already when I look at your CCW........ :rolleyes: And in the end, you don't need to do business with me, and I don't need to sell to you. In order for a transaction to take place two people must agree to mutual terms. That's why it's called a PRIVATE sale, right? Right now you WILL show me a Wisconsin CCW to buy from me, or we will not do business. If there is a system set up for me to do a quick-check on you as a buyer, and you don't want to be checked, "see ya 'round'" ..

In any event the process is irrelevent: The fact is that if there was a routine and easy way for private sellers to make sure the buyer isn't a prohibited person, without keeping a record, I would applaud it.



Willie

.

[JimDandy]

What's the whatever in quotes?

No, I don't want a phone number so you can read my SSN to someone on the other line. I want a phone number so a bonded FFL can call it in, and do the ID specific detail work.

Neither my license nor my CPL have my SSN on it.

[Willie Sutton]

^^


So let me get this straight. You want all private sales to go thru a FFL where you would need to pay a fee, never mind the time spent, rather than having an online system available to joe-blow the seller so he can take a minute to make sure you aren't on the "no guns for this guy" list before he hands over something that you found on Armslist? You prefer to need to go to an FFL rather than to allow a private seller to check you out in a minute, for free, from his smartphone? :eek:



Uhh.... "whatever" .... :rolleyes:


Willie


,

[Aguila Blanca]

I want a phone number so a bonded FFL can call it in, and do the ID specific detail work.

FFLs are bonded?

I've never heard that before. If they are bonded, what are they bonded for or against? Does theeir bond cover knowing a customer's social security number, or does it cover just things like selling defective guns or taking money and not providing product?

[csmsss]

Somehow this got into the wrong thread. Weerd.

[Willie Sutton]

The letter sent by the Senator included his vision of an internet enabled instant background check system available to the general public. Actually the system that he proposed would allow the BUYER to run a check on himself, and then print proof of this to be provided to a seller. This would alleviate privacy concerns, as expressed above, and enable seamless private sales without delay. It's actually not a bad idea. In fact it's likely a darned good one. I missed the part about the BUYER running the check on himself when first responding.


FFL's aren't bonded for anything.



Willie


.

[csmsss]

I think a lot of gunsmiths are bonded, and lots of gunsmiths are also FFL's - but the bonding is a function of the gunsmithing work and responsibilities.

[Willie Sutton]

Most FFL's are not, and ALL gunsmiths who keep work overnight are FFL's.


Willie


.