Subscribe Register Login

Saturday, May 18, 2013, 7:05 p.m.
Top Picks - Mobile App

NRA likens universal checks to gun registry

By The Associated Press

This article was originally published February 3, 2013 at 10:21 a.m. Updated February 3, 2013 at 11:21 a.m.

WASHINGTON — 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 teachers 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.

Comments on: NRA likens universal checks to gun registry

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Jackabbott says... February 3, 2013 at 11:43 a.m.

Actually the owners of military style weapons and handguns need to be registered like sex offenders. So neighbors, acquaintances, employers, educators, parents, churchgoers can know how to deal with these people or choose to avoid them.
Concealed guns owners who are permintted should have their names and addresses published on a national wide web sites to keep the public informed.
You own a gun, a vehicle, you are responsible for its usage.

( | suggest removal )

Jfish says... February 3, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.

I am a conservative gun owner and I believe that the NRA is fighting a losing battle on this issue. This is the whole problem with the gun debate, each side wants to stake out extreme positions. Hopefully level heads and the middle will prevail.

( | suggest removal )

Duanebutchjordan says... February 3, 2013 at 12:06 p.m.

If they would enforce the gun laws it would take 90% of the criminals with guns off the street. It would be a much safer country to live in.

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 3, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.

One LaPierre is correct on ALL issues.
~
One needs to read "Forget hunting" great column.

( | suggest removal )

2Knights says... February 3, 2013 at 3:31 p.m.

Sandy Hook has been called the Dunblane of America. The Dunblane(Scotland) mass murder was committed with a .22 caliber revolver. See where this is going? Confiscate all firearms immediately instead of piecemeal. When the crime rate soars, as it will, institute martial law. If the U.S. can't or won't do a door-to-door sweep, then there are a lot of African, Muslim, Asian & European nations who'd gladly come over & help, & even stay afterwards as a peacekeeping force. Instant gun control + socialism, whoopee!

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... February 3, 2013 at 4:40 p.m.

I predict that in the end there will be no laws banning so assault type rifles but there will be a limit on clip size and full background checks with no loopholes. The reason this is going to happen is the majority of Americans want this to happen. There will be some win and lose on both sides of this issue. That is how a democracy is supposed to work.

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 3, 2013 at 5:25 p.m.

What part of "Shall not be infringed upon" is not understood?

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... February 3, 2013 at 5:36 p.m.

What part of "a well regulated militia being necessary" is not understood?

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 3, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.

"What part of "a well regulated militia being necessary" is not understood?"
~
That "militia" is We the People.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... February 3, 2013 at 7:09 p.m.

They were far them before they were against them, polls show something difference.
New York Times/CBS News poll this month that found an 85 percent majority of people in households with an NRA member supporting universal background checks.

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... February 3, 2013 at 7:54 p.m.

When the Constitution was written the militia was controlled by state governors and they met and drilled as a group as needed for the defense of first the colonies then later the states. The US military was not big enough to provide protection for states particularly on the frontier where they were needed for protection from very real threats. If you want to be a Constitutional purest, then being armed requires you to be a part of a state controlled militia which today is the National Guard. If you want an assault weapon with a 30 round clip, by all means join the National Guard. They will buy one for you, train you on it and buy all the ammunition you need.

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... February 3, 2013 at 8:29 p.m.

Gotta love it when Gaffes Biden lets the cat out of the bag. WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden conceded on Thursday that gun regulations aren’t going to end every murder or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting, but argued changes are needed to save lives.

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol. “But there are things that we can do demonstrably can do that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives.”

As a staffer tried unsuccessfully to cut Biden off repeatedly, the vice president argued to reporters that none of the proposals would infringe on constitutional rights.

Joe says "But there are things that we can do demonstrably can do that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives.”
Soooo they will let us have our weapons so they can say no infringement on second amendment rights but buying the ammo for those weapons is the rest of the story.

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 3, 2013 at 10:05 p.m.

RonF …. You too need to read the Op-Ed “Forget hunting”, and “In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia ...”.
~
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
~
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...” Thus saying We the people being well armed to defend ourselves from an oppressive Government. “ … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This saying NO REGULATION OR OTHER RULES, LAWS NOR AMENDMENTS.

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... February 3, 2013 at 10:28 p.m.

So DontDrinkDatKoolAid any kind of gun ban is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 3, 2013 at 10:59 p.m.

WOW, you just now see this?

( | suggest removal )

djigoo says... February 3, 2013 at 11:01 p.m.

"One LaPierre?"

( | suggest removal )

aimee says... February 4, 2013 at 12:45 a.m.

The NRA and some of the posters here just need to admit that they are on the wrong side of history..!!!

( | suggest removal )

T6 says... February 4, 2013 at 6:26 a.m.

Yeah Aimless... EVERYBODY knows only the leftwing libtards are always right on everything. Note sarcasm! Our country is in choas from left wing policies?

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... February 4, 2013 at 8:09 a.m.

2Knightts........ See where this is going......YOU have just been awarded "The Black Helicopter Award" for the week. You appear to be an anti government wacko just like the guy in the bunker in Alabama.

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... February 4, 2013 at 8:21 a.m.

T6, it's not just liberals that want full background checks. It includes moderates and some conservatives and NRA members. In fact, 85% of all Americans want universal background checks. That makes the NRA on the wrong side of this issue.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... February 4, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.

Aimee, isn't it amazing that it is usually the conservatives, who think they are the country's moral compass, who can't speak to the other side without using school yard level taunts and rude, ignorant made up names for people, politicians, and parties??

( | suggest removal )

Walter says... February 4, 2013 at 9:11 a.m.

I am an NRA member, but I am truly ashamed of Wayne Lapierre.
I don't feel that he is speaking for the full membership of the NRA,
most of whom would have NO PROBLEM with instant checks for purchases.
But, let's have a little give-and-take when we discuss this subject.
The judiciary system needs to do their part and stop turning criminals back out on the street.
There needs to be much more severe penalties for using a gun during the commission of any crime.
No more plea bargaining, if you use a gun while committing a crime, you do your time, period.
And, if you kill someone, you get the death penalty, one appeal, and if you lose that appeal, it's over.
Stop letting these criminals live a life of luxury on death-row during their lifetime of appeals.
Do you hear me anyone?

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... February 4, 2013 at 9:52 a.m.

Something interesting is floating around the web today. Snopes hasn't been able to verify it yet, but it bears watching. People are saying LaPierre got a draft deferment for "a nervous disorder", a polite way of saying a mental illness. Is this why he's dead set against background checks? Maybe the great poobah of being over armed shouldn't have guns.
I appreciate NRA members who publicly take exception to the NRA's current behavior. Why can't there be another coup that takes the NRA back to the respectable organization it used to be?

( | suggest removal )

NONSHEEPLE says... February 4, 2013 at 9:53 a.m.

I think there should be a PUBLIC registry of people who DON'T own firearms and it includes what they drive and where they live.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... February 4, 2013 at 10:03 a.m.

That sounds pretty threatening. It sure doesn't make it sound like you should be allowed to have guns. It makes you sound like a danger to the public well being.

( | suggest removal )

BillSmith says... February 4, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.

NONSHEEPLE....... You also are like the guy in the bunker in Alabama.

( | suggest removal )

23cal says... February 4, 2013 at 10:40 a.m.

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says, "That "militia" is We the People." It isn't quite that simple, at least not according to the Militia Acts of 1792 and other Militia Acts. You would think the people writing the militia acts in 1792 would have a better idea of what militia is than DontDrink, but factual information sometimes doesn't fit into his fantasy. If you are part of the militia, then you were a free white male citizen conscripted when you were between the ages of 18 and 45, and you were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. You also were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

If this doesn't describe you, then guess what? You're not part of the militia.

( | suggest removal )

23cal says... February 4, 2013 at 11:11 a.m.

What I find especially amusing is this jewel from the Militia Act of 1792: " The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service....". Can you imagine these guys who are blustering about the militia being "we the people" (meaning themselves, of course) when OBAMA calls them and says, "Okay, get your shootin' irons and come on, boys". Oh, oh, the squealing that would be. By claiming to be in the militia, they give their beloved leader OBAMA the right to call them up,and imply they will go obey his commands when he does. Oh, the irony is delicious.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... February 4, 2013 at 11:14 a.m.

Beautiful, 23Cal!

( | suggest removal )

PaulRevere says... February 4, 2013 at 11:38 a.m.

JFish. You may not agree with the position staked out by the NRA, but these slugs who are willing to give up their constitutional rights, and take mine will not stop until they have completed their extremist agenda. The question is the middle ground, and I don't disagree with enhancing background checks if they fix the one we currently have first. Until then, the NRA needs its members to trust that they are reasonable people and will bend where, and when it is time to do so. As you can see here, they are already manufacturing personal attacks through innuendo and outright lies, just as they did with Rapert. They have already infiltrated these local forums with paid and volunteer Obama staffers out of Washington DC. To them it is a war, and we cannot take it less seriously than do they.

( | suggest removal )

PaulRevere says... February 4, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.

23cal: You need to do a little more research. Read up on the "organized" vs "unorganized" state militia. Read up on the Posse Comitatus Act, which has been largely ignored in recent years. May surprise you.

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... February 4, 2013 at 12:05 p.m.

I think some of the wing nuts are working loose.

( | suggest removal )

NONSHEEPLE says... February 4, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.

I think you are missing my point. If YOU think it's prefectly fine to list gun owners why not list NON gun ownders? Make it EASY for criminals to know which houses to rob..

( | suggest removal )

inquire says... February 4, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.

One would keep all of us safer. The other would target the least violent of us to be killed for your revenge.

( | suggest removal )

NONSHEEPLE says... February 4, 2013 at 1:19 p.m.

Neither surve a VALID purpose. 99.999% of gun owners in the US are responsible and safe. To treat them ALL as you say would be unjust to say the least. Pray you never need a gun to protect you or your family and that a cop is always standing right next to you if something does happen and "maybe" you'll be just fine. Leave the rest of us who wish to take a more active roll in personal protection. As stated above nearly all are law biding citizens..

( | suggest removal )

ualrpike says... February 4, 2013 at 3:47 p.m.

I am pretty sure that "we the people" meaning males registered for the selective service at age 18. Meaning at anytime we could be called into federal service by Congress or the President. So don't tread on me

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 4, 2013 at 4:16 p.m.

Thank you F and B.
~
This just shows just how dumb down the average citizen is, on our American history.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... February 4, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.

Hey inquire - "I think some of the wing nuts are working loose." Gotta give it to you, that's pretty funny. And you are of course speaking of liberal wing nuts, are you not?

Hey morebeer - That survey you mention, does it explain that universal background checks include private individual transactions including family and neighbor transfers as well as gun show sales? Using those qualifiers, the survey response changes dramatically. Universal background checks will also be found unconstitutional as restrictions on free trade and an overt constraint on the 2nd Amendment. Whether you like the 2nd Amendment or not, it nevertheless sets the bar extremely high regarding "infringement". Universal background checks will cause a lengthy process for the buyer that is an undue burden compared to the reality that criminals will either steal their guns or procure them on the black market, sans background checks. The key term here is "undue burden". Would you be surprised to know 92% of jail inmates guilty of gun violence got their guns somewhere other than legal means? It probably does, because you just can't fix stupid.

( | suggest removal )

PaulRevere says... February 4, 2013 at 5:22 p.m.

For those who like to cite "Well Regulated" Militia... If you took the time to do your due diligence, you would learn that the term "Well Regulated" in that day meant "prepared". Citizens were urged to obtain and keep their arms, ammunition and supplies well regulated and ready for use. I realize it doesn't suit your agenda, and fools like Inquire and Aimee will ignore facts that are inconvenient, but perhaps others will research for themselves.

( | suggest removal )

23cal says... February 4, 2013 at 5:31 p.m.

FairandBlanced: The militia referred to in the Bill of Rights is the same militia referred to in the Militia Acts of 1792 only five years later. Neither made a distinction as to "unorganized" militia; indeed, the Militia Acts of 1792 specifically called for "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. If the founders at that time were using the word consistently, then it obviously didn't refer to "unorganized militia".
If you want to argue that virtually the same people in the same time period used "militia" to mean organized in 1792 but unorganized in 1787, I will gladly peruse your evidence. As far as I'm concerned, if you get to use "shall not be infringed", then you have to be "organized" militia. That would be consistent use of the word in these major two documents of that time.
Taking it a step farther, the unorganized militia was created in the Militia Act of 1903, which also created the National Guard and Naval Militia as the remaining "organized militia".
I really don't think you get to use the word as it was used 110 years later to describe a new entity, and retroactively try to apply that to t he constitution.

As to the Posse Comitatus Act, The original Posse Comitatus Act referred essentially to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. The United States Coast Guard is not included in the Act, nor is any "militia". Further, it doesn't apply to Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 6, 2013 at 1:14 a.m.

voxvocispublicus.homestead.c om/Battle-of-Athens.html

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

TOP JOBS

Search 612 jobs >

Top Picks - Mobile App
Arkansas Online