April 10th, 2013
08:50 AM ET
10 years ago

Deal reached on background checks in Senate  

(CNN) - Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, plan to announce a bipartisan deal on background checks for gun shows and Internet sales at an 11 a.m. press conference today, CNN's Dana Bash has learned.       

A Democratic leadership source says the compromise will likely be the first amendment to gun legislation being considered, after the Senate votes to begin the gun debate Thursday.        

READ MORE: CNN Poll: Popular background checks also cause worry

The breakthrough background check agreement is a key part of gun legislation. Because it has been struck by two senators with strong support from the NRA, they hope to find the 60 votes that will be needed to overcome opposition to pass their amendment        

The senate is expected to debate gun legislation for at least two weeks.    

Democrats believe as many as a dozen GOP senators will vote with them, making up for the handful of pro-gun Democrats who might vote against beginning debate on the bill. Fourteen Republicans promise to filibuster taking up the measure.

Several Republican senators told CNN Tuesday they would only vote to begin debate on the bill if they were assured by Democrats they would be allowed to offer amendments to the legislation.

Democratic leaders want to give senators from both parties ample opportunities to amend the bill and are prepared to debate it beyond a scheduled recess the first week in May, if doing so will increase the chances of passage.

“The way you put together a coalition to pass the bill is to allow as many amendment votes as you can. We are willing to take the time to do that and have that process,” the aide said.

Those negotiators will now have more time to find common ground on language, since the gun debate is expected to be lengthy. Democratic leaders also argue any bill they put on the floor will represent a substantial improvement in gun safety.

Many of those additional votes could be politically difficult for centrist Democrats, especially those up for re-election in red states, as Republicans are expected to craft amendments designed to put those senators on the spot. Nevertheless, Democratic leaders have determined it’s a risk they need to take if they want to pass substantive legislation to respond to the mass shootings that have plagued the nation in recent years.

“Once we’re on it we want to have an open process where there are a lot of votes and we really work through that,” the aide said.   

- CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

Filed under: Gun control • Gun rights • Senate
soundoff (222 Responses)
  1. Mike

    It's a start.

    April 10, 2013 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  2. cliff

    I don't agree with this there's already to much stuff we go thought to posse the little firearms we have

    April 10, 2013 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  3. Cando

    Finally congress working the way its supposed to???

    April 10, 2013 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  4. Elan Mackey

    Lets prove to Our children and the World that we as Americans Love our children More than we love our Guns!!!

    April 10, 2013 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  5. KrjMc

    Let's just hope with the compromise that the GOP won't water it down so far that it is ineffective. All guns sales need background checks.

    April 10, 2013 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  6. Jim

    It's about time...

    April 10, 2013 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  7. SenateHacks

    I wonder if they realize that internet sales are already subject to background checks as the firearms must ship to an FFL which initiates the transfer thus calling in NICS. How about we propose legislation that prevents legislators from introducing bills in which they are uninformed.

    April 10, 2013 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  8. 4real

    Well, it looks like the brown stuff is ready to roll down the hill, fill this bill with Feinstein's draconian confiscation garb and then force a vote that will show those voting against the bill are not willing to pass any gun control laws at all.

    April 10, 2013 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  9. Wolfy Wolf

    2.will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.

    1.(used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here.

    9.(used with the present participle or infinitive of the principal verb to indicate future action): She is visiting there next week. He is to see me today.
    10.(used with the past participle of another verb to form the passive voice): The date was fixed. It must be done.

    1.to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
    verb (used without object)
    2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

    definitely will-prohibition-future action-violate

    1.the act of prohibiting.

    verb (used with object)
    1.to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law: Smoking is prohibited here.
    2.to forbid the action of (a person).

    1.to command (a person) not to do something, have something, etc., or not to enter some place: to forbid him entry to the house.

    April 10, 2013 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  10. George Smythson

    Internet gun sales already have to go thru a Federally licensed fire arms dealer and background check–same as if a firearm were purchased thru a brick and mortar store...

    April 10, 2013 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  11. hjc

    I think most American's see UBC as legitimate. I do as long as as it is a check and then no list kept of who owns guns.
    Yea or nay, no records.

    And let those who get a "nay" be told they can expect a call advising them they are breaking the law.

    April 10, 2013 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  12. Terry

    I 've been watching your news on this gun reform. The question I want to ask is, how do you keep them out of the hands of the people that are normal but allow their son that is mentally incompatent to get their hands on them. That is what happened at that school. That boy didn't get the gun the mother bought the gun for him. And I do think we need to take off all those assault weapons. Background checks won't stop people from giving guns to mentally ill people. They should be the ones held responsible. What laws are they gonna have for these kinda people?

    April 10, 2013 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  13. draughnk

    Hey senators, you all do know when you buy a gun via the internet it has to be shipped to an FFL where they run the background check before you are allowed to leave with the gun. Knowledge is power.

    April 10, 2013 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  14. Kevin

    Ah, yes. Because criminals who cannot legally buy guns already, but buy them through strawmen, will obey these laws too. Still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook.

    April 10, 2013 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  15. Jim

    the house will not pass it.
    dream on

    April 10, 2013 10:14 am at 10:14 am |
  16. Bugs

    I'm as pro-gun as they come but I don't mind more extensive national background checks – provided they don't place impractical burdens on buyers and sellers. Is this intended to actually prevent criminals and the mentall ill from buying guns? Or is it a back-handed way to discourage private citizens and small business people from trading in firearms?

    April 10, 2013 10:14 am at 10:14 am |
  17. NooneOfInterest

    I like that the gun shop owner, in the video, pointed out that in an ideal world the people that were rejected by the background check would be arrested and prosecuted if the laws were enforced. It is a felony to lie on the forms filled out during a fire arm purchase. During one of Feinstein's ( a CA senator that is spearheading the gun control bills) hearings she brought in a police commissioner to testify. One of the senators that opposes additional gun control laws questioned the commissioner about how many people in his city were prosecuted. He tried to dance around the subject a bit but admitted that he didn't know. The senator then sited some statistics from the previous year. The background checks stopped ~10,000 purchases in the US that year, but only 18 of these felons nationwide were prosecuted, nationwide. Existing laws need to be enforced, otherwise new laws will be just as ineffective. Also, for those that want to state that gun shows are a huge loophole: Almost all of the people selling guns at gun shows are from gun shops and they must carry out a background check (even at a gun show) before a purchase can be made. Person-to-person sales would still be a loophole for straw purchases, but because those are illegal anyways, more gun laws would not stop those.

    April 10, 2013 10:14 am at 10:14 am |
  18. T M

    How are they going to run a background check on the criminals?

    April 10, 2013 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  19. Yoshi Togukawa

    It`s about time Congress does what most people want. They should also fix the financial situation. It is, after all, what most people want. All Congress members have to remember is that they were elected by the people to work for the people.

    April 10, 2013 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  20. Don

    Folks, how do you like this?.. your government is spending lots and lots of time on "guns" while the economy is imploding, North Korea is planning war, Syria and Iran are changing that part of the world which will impact everyone, tons of people are still jobless and the list goes on & on.

    How does that sit with you?.

    April 10, 2013 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  21. Bilbo

    None of which would've prevented what happened in CT or will in the future. So this solves......what?

    April 10, 2013 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  22. lottie

    any movement is better than none. About time these clowns start to work together. Isn't that what we voted them in for?

    April 10, 2013 10:16 am at 10:16 am |
  23. OregonTom

    A deal on background checks for internet gun sales? It is already illegal to sell a firearm over the internet and ship it to anyone unless you are an FFL holder. All sales by an FFL holder already require a background check.

    April 10, 2013 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  24. Aaron

    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.

    Maybe we should look up the definition of infringed.

    Definition of infringe (v)

    bing.com · Bing Dictionary


    [ in frínj ]

    1.disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
    2.encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way

    Synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep

    April 10, 2013 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  25. True conservative

    The child should be tried as an adult. Consider capital punishment for the parents, of course.

    All their property should be seized and sold to pay retribution to the victim's family. PERIOD.

    April 10, 2013 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9