Mark Kelly: NRA Leadership Out Of Touch On Universal Background Checks

[cal04]

Mark Kelly, the former astronaut and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), said Thursday that Wayne LaPierre and other members of the National Rifle Association leadership are out of step with the mainstream on universal background checks.

Citing a survey conducted last summer by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Kelly asserted during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the overwhelming majority of the NRA's rank-and-file favor universal background checks for gun purchases.

"I mean, when you look at the NRA, the membership itself, 74 percent of the NRA members agree with Gabby and I that there should be a universal background check before buying a gun," Kelly said. "Those 74 percent of the members of the NRA do not agree with Wayne LaPierre and the leadership. So, I mean, we've got those folks on our side on this part of the issue."

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on gun violence, LaPierre denounced universal background checks as ineffective in stopping criminals and unfairly burdensome to law-abiding gun owners. Kelly also testified before the panel.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mark-kelly-nra-leadership-out-of-touch-on

[JohnnyBoots]

1. I respect the man. I think he is a great American and Husband.

I do not respect any poll by Frank Luntz though. He can get 90% of people polled to think that the sky is green and the grass is blue. He is a hired gun, I really don't give credence to his work which ever side he is working on. Sen. Feinstein cited a poll saying that 69% of Americans support an Assault Weapons Ban. The thing is though this poll was done by the John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, a biased source. Especially after Mayor Bloomberg pledged an additional 350 million to the school within the last week.

To me this is the same as BP citing a poll by the Petroleum Institute, AEI or Heritage. I am not a fan of the Left using the Right's playbook for misdirection and manipulation of data.


Link to the press release:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=232cf615-81b3-4ede-a067-b975dec24196

Which ever side of the gun debate you are on seeing Giffords and Kelly together supporting each other had to be a feel good point of your day yesterday.

[Robb]

3. "I am not a fan of the Left using the Right's playbook."

And I'm not a fan of the Right pretending to be all reasonable and then calling Democrats liars.

[JohnnyBoots]

4. Are you going to

discuss either point I made or just denigrate my character? You're one of the more unreasonable people on this board when it comes to having a civil conversation about the issue.

[Robb]

5. You just equated Feinstein to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

And I'm unreasonable.

Are you fucking kidding me? A Democrat who wants gun control is like BP?

Pull the other one.

[JohnnyBoots]

6. The parallel that was drawn

is using polling/data from a source that is on your side of the issue is biased. Citing data on gun control by a school funded by Mike Bloomberg is biased just as BP using data from the Petroleum institute is biased. Would you believe a poll from a source that was funded by the NRA?

Where did I equate Feinstein with the Deepwater Horizon spill? You are the one injecting that unreasonable comment to obfuscate the issue.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. If the NRA claims to support (and helped to pass) a law prohibiting felon purchase/possession...

Then why the fuck don't they want to pass a law that DIRECTLY supports and helps to enforce such a measure. If anybody, and I mean anybody, can buy a gun from a private citizen within their own state without a background check - then the original law barring ertain people from firearm ownership might as well not exist.

If federal lawmakers won't support this, then people need to start passing this law at the STATE LEVEL! Screw the stalemated house/senate!!! The NRA might have DC in it's pocket but it doesn't have enough money to buy off 40+ state legislatures!

[pipoman]

7. I don't know what the NRA's problem is..

they state it would be ineffective...I disagree.

The problem with federally mandated background checks on private intrastate sales between two people who are not engaged in the business of selling guns has historically been the commerce clause. There has been the will to pass legislation to this effect on both sides, but when the legislation goes to judiciary committees, they don't make it out because the committees find it to violate the commerce clause.

The first step in fixing this problem is to make the system available to private sellers, it currently isn't available even if someone wants to use it. Some states have enacted checks on private sales, but they have had to finance the expensive system on their own. Given the fiscal issues in most states, they will not be ponying up for these systems any time soon. Frankly, why should they? The NICS system is already in place and funded federally. An fairly modest increase in funding of NICS to handle the volume of private sales would be something the current congress and administration could easily do. Once done, and made available to private sellers through FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) (this would require a regulatory rule change for FFLs, again totally possible maybe even through executive order) states could begin requiring NICS checks with no cost to the state.

The NRA takes issues they want passed to the state level. The gun control lobby insistently want to pass federal legislation which sometimes works. This one will not work. It has been tried many times and will fail this time too because of constitutional limitations on federal regulation of intrastate commerce. If this is going to ever become effective, it will have to happen at the state level..how about someone acknowledge that and begin fixing the problem instead of the endless bleating and beating of dead horses?