U.S. Senator Joe Manchin is one of four U.S. Senators working on a compromise plan that could potentially expand background checks for gun buyers.

Senator Manchin, a Democrat, is reportedly in talks with Republican Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrat Senator Charles Schumer from New York on draft legislation.

Both Senator Manchin and Senator Coburn are members of the National Rifle Association and have “A” ratings from the group.  The NRA gives both Senator Kirk and Senator Schumer, the third in the leadership line in the U.S. Senate, “F” ratings.

Right now, only guns sales to individuals from federally licensed gun dealers require background checks.

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, President Barack Obama proposed universal background checks as part of a larger gun control package.

All indications from Capitol Hill are that additional requirements for background checks for gun purchases have the best chance of getting approval from both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • David

    The anti gun extremist are after one thing and that is complete control of the purchase and transfer of all firearms. There is no compromise. People should stand up to these Assault Liberals and tell them no.

    • L Gill

      I agree gun owners need to make a stand before it is to late. NO NEW USELESS LAWS

  • gary keiffer

    Senator Manchin also voted to give tanks and F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. He also voted for Chuck Hagel for Sec. of Defense. Please remember how he voted in the Senate when you vote next time.

    • C.Hoffman

      And don't forget the Affordable Care Act & the National Defense Authorization Act. Both assaults to our individual sovereignty granted to us by the Creator. Un-a-lienable rights be gone.

  • Tim C

    L Gill,
    Then it will be too late.....you should bombarded his office with your opposition to this bill.

    • L Gill

      I have bombarded all of our leaders and told them how I feel and if they don't listen they will not get my vote. Protect the 2nd

  • L Gill

    If this law passes ol Joe won't get my vote

  • Wowbagger

    Who thinks NRA-ILA will continue to give Joe Manchin an "A" rating?

    • Chris

      Hard to say, Mitt Romney signed into law, a permanent assault weapons ban, as governor of Massachusetts in 2004. The NRA endorsed him for president and I have a good suspicion most of the people crying foul right now voted for him.

    • thornton

      Last I noticed, Harry Reid had an NRA B rating so...I can see Joe maybe keeping an A or A-.
      The NRA plays politics, just like 'em all.
      Their rating means nothing anyway, once beyond the choir loft.

      I also expect the senator to win his next election....not really my choice but, win he will.

      While I don't think a background check of the level likely to be seen will mean anything in preventing a tragedy, I don't fret much about it either.Then again, I would not miss any of those guns listed on nutty Fienstein's bill...especially the silly scatterguns.
      If any of those guns was a cat...I wouldn't feed it.

      • Wowbagger

        I don't really think a lot of NRA-ILA ratings either as they, like most lobbying efforts favor those already in power at the expense of new blood. We desperately need new blood in Washington as well as West Virginia!

        Harry Reid did present a difficult issue to NRA-ILA before the last election and in the end they didn't endorse him, even after he got federal funding to build a really big new range in Las Vegas. I thought that they compromised and left his "A" rating, but I'm not sure.

        We are pretty much in agreement about the shotguns on Feinstein's list. My real interest in some fairly rare collectible competition and target arms is probably arcane, even by your standards.

        Feinstein's bill bans some guns while others that are functionally identical, but look a little more like traditional rifles are on the exempt list. AR-15s are on the banned list, but most Ruger Mini-14s that have been sold to third world governments in fully automatic versions for assault rifles are on the exempt list. Both are chambered for NATO 5.56 mm ammunition. Perusing a Mini-14 Manual once I was surprised by the warning about ammunition cooking off in really hot barrels. 5, 10, 20, and 30 round magazines are available for both. The exemption list includes some fairly rare left handed versions of competition guns like the single shot Anschutz 64 Silhouette left (handed), but oddly leaves out the right handed versions. It is obvious that the staffers who wrote this legislation know nothing about guns and the bill is just feel good legislation to ban ugly guns. One reason to have threaded barrels (banned in Feinstein's bill) is to be able to install legal (with a $200 stamp) class II suppressors that have valid uses like animal control. In parts of Europe and New Zealand suppressors (or silencers), really mufflers for guns, are encouraged and relatively easy to purchase.

        Joe Manchin will be about 72 by his next election and I personally think he wants to build his reputation over the next six years even at the expense of some old credentials like his NRA rating. After this six year term I predict he will cash in and become a high paid lobbyist for several years. I honestly think he sees the hand writing on the wall that West Virginia is becoming a more bipartisan state and doesn't plan to run again.

        • thornton

          You may well be correct...I have heard the idea that Joe may seek the bucks in the lobby.
          He does like the klieg lights tho.

          • Wowbagger

            In Joe's case the kleig lights are both a personal preference and a convenient vehicle to get his ultimate price up as he will not have the long tenure that normally translates to a high price as a lobbiest.

  • Wowbagger

    "Sure, only law-abiding folks will comply but this may be enough of a compromise to make the fascism-loving liberals go away...for now."

    The left has been slowly eroding liberty since the civil war so why compromise away a little bit more for some temporary respite?

    If you recall this is all supposed to be about the Sandy Hook tragedy. "Universal background checks" were not an issue as the perpetrator stole the guns, murdered his mother with one of them, went to the school and murdered children and teachers indiscriminately. I haven't seen a description about exactly what happened in the school and it is unclear which firearms were actually used.

    Why give the gun grabbers a victory in hopes that they will go away "for now"?

    Also, "universal background checks" make registration, the next step down this particular slippery slope much easier.

    • Don Jr.

      You're right, the liberals are not ever going to give up on this.
      The way that I see it there are four groups that want to see us unarmed:
      1/ Elitest (These are in both parties but more prevalent in the Dems)
      2/ Liberals
      3/ Criminals
      4/ The Elite Liberal Followers (These are the folks that just follow the elite agenda, not ever really thinking and reasoning for themselves, not much of an understanding of reality going on here)
      I'm uncomfortable with any one of the above being in charge of things, myself.

  • Tim C

    I can't believe all you guys voted for Manchin the first time. He's a democrat, what political party has consistently voted for gun control? Good Lord this is about confiscation not a silly background check! Wake up!

  • John

    I'm a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment and can't think of a more ardent supporter of the spirit and intent of its purpose. In my lifetime, I've even moved from NY state to the free Republic of Texas largely due to the liberties of firearm ownership afforded by the latter. I have an ever-growing arsenal bolted to the foundation of my home in a fire and theft-proof safe. That said, I don't mind the notion of requiring private transfer of arms to be regulated through background checks. If a firearm is worth selling or bartering with a friend or fellow enthusiast, then I think it's worth filling out the paperwork with an FFL license holder for a fee of $20. Sure, only law-abiding folks will comply but this may be enough of a compromise to make the fascism-loving liberals go away...for now. To me, universal background checks strike the perfect balance between "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed".

    • NorthernWVman

      No such thing as a "theft proof" or "fire proof" safe. Maybe a fire and theft reisistant safe but not proof. Sorry. You simply are buckling, like many others, on the issue to help appease them a little. Do you really think they will stop at that? Give an inch, they take a mile.

      • John

        If the common thief can circumvent my home's security system and happens to carry a bulldozer and a plasma torch, yeah, I suppose you're right. My safe isn't theft-proof.

        My point remains that the liberals are going to get their pound of flesh on this issue and we need to construct an artful way to let them "win" on something that really costs us nothing. I don't do my gun shopping at yard sales and still own every firearm I've ever acquired so I don't feel terribly inconvenienced by background checks being imposed on private sales.

        I draw a firm line on magazine size restrictions and every other color and shade of new regulations. If you don't enter a negotiation with a plan to acquiesce on something, then prepare to lose even more than you wanted. Also, history judges kindly those whom made every attempt to compromise before firing the shots.

        Spare the grandstanding and bellicose retorts for those whom don't support the 2nd Amendment. I'm the best friend you'll likely never meet in terms of upholding our 2A rights.

    • Damion

      This would accomplish three things:
      1. Create more federal jobs to process the paperwork, thus increasing the deficit
      2. Tax lawful citizens yet again
      3. Develop a data base on everyones' name and address who buys or sells a firearm. Currently, this does not occur, but it will.

      These initiatives are not about making us safer or reducing crime. It is just another step in disarming the law-abiding citizen. It must be vigorously opposed.

      • Teufel

        Well said !

  • Teufel

    For those that are not aware Senator Jay Rockefeller is cosponsor to Seator fienstien's new Gun Control Bill.

    Even as he ends his riegn as senator he continues to prove he doesn't represent the population of WV

    • Geno

      You shouldn't expect anymore out of a New Yorker.

  • wvman75

    I voted for Manchin the last time. I won't be making that mistake again.

    • Teufel

      I am have voted for and supported Machin in the past - like many others I will not be voting for him again

  • Damion

    While Obama's administration is touting the bogus 40% of all firearm sales do not require a background check (what was the methodology to spin that result?), the real question is how many private sales are criminal?
    The DOJ did studies of incarcerated prisoners of violent crime. They were asked how did they obtain their weapons. One study showed less than 1% got their firearms at gun shows. The other study showed less than 2%.
    Very similar to misinformation regarding the use of assault rifles in crimes of violence. The FBI reports 323 deaths in 2011 by the use of ALL rifles. Less than murders by blunt objects as well as hands and feet.
    While these politicians are planning how to take away our right to defend ourselves, they are ignoring the real issue: why do people plot and carry out these shooting sprees? What do they have in common? (Hint: they are mentally ill and untreated).
    Leave us legal gun owners alone and do something intelligent!



  • Jim

    Got it Joe and I will not forget at the next election and---- I VOTE!

    • derek

      That's right Jim I will remember Joe next time also!

  • Roger

    The big issue here is that nobody has said these proposed "universal background checks" would have prevented the massacre at the Sandy Hook school.

    The state of Connecticut already has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

  • Don Jr.

    While the terminolgy "universal background checks" sounds appealing, especially to the gun control folks, it actually has a negative effect on the law abiding gun owning citizen. The negative impact that I'm speaking of is the right to sell your guns. Today, we buy sell and trade guns amongst ourselves with no government involvement. There are laws in place to limit the number of transactions to prevent someone from becoming a gun dealer without a license. The laws are already there, in place. I would hate to see this lead to people being arrested or fined simply for selling a firearm to their neighbor or a friend.