U.S. Senator Joe Manchin said he and his colleagues are working hard to carefully tackle the details of criminal background checks.

“What we are looking at is all the rights of people that have guns, of people that really come from a gun culture and people that don’t come from a gun culture,” said Manchin. “I think we got a good working group that is moving favorably forward.”

That group includes U.S. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. 

Manchin was a guest Wednesday on the The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on CNN and made it clear that the bill he is working on with colleagues in no way threatens Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“No one’s going to take anyone’s guns away and no one is going to take your Second Amendment rights away. That’s not happening at all,” said Manchin on the show. “We are not asking on any of those infringements.”

Instead, he added, it specifically focuses on expanding background checks.

“What we are saying is if you buy a gun or transfer a gun, there should be a criminal and a mental background check,” said Manchin. “With that being said, that means at gun shows, that means online sales and individual transfers.”

Manchin mentioned that there are a few situations that would be exempt from background checks. One of those is the transfer of guns between family members and the other is when going to someones farm to hunt.

The bill would also involve the creation of a commission on mass violence which would find out exactly what the problems are and ways to correct them.

Manchin said the bill he is working on addresses the mass violence problem in today’s culture. He said it comes down to how somebody can use a gun properly.

Senator Schumer presented a background check proposal Wednesday at the Capitol in Washington D.C., however both Senators Manchin and Kirk voiced their disapproval for it in a joint statement.

“We are committed to continuing to work in a bipartisan effort with Senators Schumer, Coburn and others in order to find a commonsense solution for enhanced background checks, however, Senator Schumer’s current proposal is one we cannot support as it stands today,” said the Senators in the statement.

bubble graphic

52

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Teufel

    Why is Manchin referencing hunting someones farm as being exempt ? Makes me wonder if they intend to require one to have documentation verifying registration when hunting or sport shooting?????


    "Manchin mentioned that there are a few situations that would be exempt from background checks. One of those is the transfer of guns between family members and the other is when going to someones farm to hunt"

    • C.Hoffman

      I Agree Teufel. A very odd statement indeed. You can bet skullduggery is involved with this pile of pols.

  • Tim C

    All I know is, I'm glad shepardsown quit talking...what a dweeb!

    • Teufel

      LOL

    • Shepherdstown

      Some of us do have to work to make a living.

      This current discussion rapidly turned into what many of you complain about Congress. Mindless accusations and paranoid statements.

      I do read history. I just choose real literature and not just some worthless tract put out by the latest person with an ax to grind.

      As for the constitution violations cited, only two were even close. Jefferson did bend things with the La purchase but that was when the constitution was still being thrashed out. As for Lincoln, wasn't he in the middle of a Civil War at the time?

      • Harpers Ferry

        Although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I am glad to know that you own employment and you aren't just hanging out on the wall all day.

        Who's to say what is real literature? Moby Dick was completely disregarded in it's day and is now seen as a classic of American literature. But just so you know, when I read a history book, it's penned by someone who studies history. So that eliminates Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, in case you were wondering.

        In response to your question about Lincoln's actions during the Civil War, I pose a question to you along the same line. Am I to presume you would have been okay if G.W. Bush had suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus after the September 11th Attacks? After all, we had just been attacked by terrorists.

  • Jim

    I believe that my memory serves me correctly as I recall the Joe held a fund raiser in Charleston when he was running for Senate and who was a "special guest" and "large contributor?" None other than Charlie Schumer!
    Now comes the time for Joe to pay the piper.
    Another noteworty guest and large contibutor to this same event--none other than Harry Reid.
    And how can politicians say with a straight face that polictical contributions do not influence their actions? Just yesterday I had a similar occurrance. A man passing on the street offered me $50k. When I asked, what do I have to do for this money? His reply was nothing. Sure, right!

  • NorthernWVman

    This simply goes to show that Joe is an idiot and does not know what he is talking about. ONLINE firearms purchases are already regulated and HAVE to go through a background check. There is no such thing as just purchasing a firearm on the itnernet and having it shipped to your home. I have done this multiple times and every time I fill out a 4473 form at a local dealer that the firearm was transferred to. I have also purchased firearms at gun shows and yes every dealers has to complete a background check. The ONLY time Joe's law will come into affect is individual transfer!! So when I hand down my firearms to my children, grandchildren, neices and nephews then they will have to complete a background check.

    This bill will do NOTHING to keep firearms out of the hands of the convicted felons or mentally insane.

  • Luke

    So Joe doesn't want to be able to leave his gun collection to Joe IV or his grandsons without subjecting them to a criminal and mental background check? Or buy them a hunting rifle without taking them in for background checks? Or trade guns with a friend? Or loan a gun to a friend? Everyone has the right to do that now, it is called freedom. So more government intrusion into our lives isn't an infringement of our rights under the 2nd Amendment? As I recall what happened at Newtown, Joe's big bi-partisan knee jerk solution wouldn't have prevented a thing, or saved one life, or kept one rifle out of the possession of the shooter.

    • Mac

      No, but it would have prevented a lot of others. There is no solution that will prevent everything. Something must be done. The United States has more per capita gun deaths than Iraq.... (Forbes) Things are going terribly wrong when more people are dying in this country than in an active war zone.

      • Roger

        A very high percentage of these gun deaths are drug/gang related. The problem is the criminal justice system, not the guns.

      • Lule

        Oh, really? Name one. And by the way, all of these nanny state legislative provisions begin with the usual left wing nut clamor about "doing something to make sure this never happens again."

        I don't own a gun, but this political nonsense surrounding Newtown is causing me to reconsider. How about we work on reducing government spending instead?

      • Geno

        Forbes is wrong, they are a lot of things going on in Iraq, that Forbes doesn't know about.

  • Protechcpa

    Just as we thought, and as Manchin denied and lied, he is in on the gun grab. Obama has promised him something and now he is owned. Time for a recall.

    • uniteordie

      Unfortunately WV doesn't have a recall option. Our democratically controlled house of delegates and senate that has ruled Charleston for 80+ years has made sure of that. WV needs to clean house of the Communists sitting in Charleston so that something constructive can get done within our State. Send these good ole boys home now. If they don't uphold the Constitution, they're no good for me and fellow West Virginians. Just remember, we told you Manchin = Obama but people fell for that pile of crap and voted him in. You could have had a real Statesman and Constitutional Senator sitting in DC right now fighting against the Communists, in defense of your 2nd Amendment Rights, but now you have TRAITOR JOE, Obama's new lapdog.

  • Medman

    How in the world does he think he will get any background information on mental health status? Privacy laws will not allow doctors to enter that info into a government data base and any challenge to that will be fought and won by the ACLU. Background checks would have had no impact in preventing any of the past 5 mass murders, but they will pass something just for political advantage.

  • west virginian

    1st registration,,,,,,,,,,then confiscation of all guns.

    • Teufel

      Yes, it's a slippery slope and once that line is crossed there is no turning back.

  • Lloyd G

    Hey if you look into the facts you will see there's a devil in the woodpile in Washington.
    Homeland Security are building up for something. Goverment buying all of the ammo up so that people can't buy any. and more. Obama will tear up the Constitution if he can. He is doing his best to destroy our goverment for the new goverment that he wants.

  • MIKEYD

    Manchin is two faced , I will never ever ever vote for him .

    • Jim

      Exactly, he went from saying that rural areas would have difficultly doing background and mental health checks; plus was comfortable with private sales in those rural ares to all sales must not have these checks in place first.

      He's quickly becoming a puppet for the POTUS.

  • Dave

    Current checks are sufficient to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. The new check system will be used to build a data base to take guns from legal gun owners when the liberal gun grabbers want, as in Nazi Germany in 1935. Manchin is selling out the citizens of West Virgina to curry favor with his liberal friends.

    • Shepherdstown

      This irrational nonsense about a data base to take guns from legal gun owners is the most laughable poppycock there is.

      If you do not trust the supreme court, congress, and president ( yes the president) to protect and defend the constitution on this fundamental right then how can you expect any tenant of this nation to survive?

      Our constitution deserves a better treatment. Too many fine Americans have given their all to defend it over the past 237 years.

      • Really?

        I see that you don't read much history, do you.

        • Shepherdstown

          Cite a credible example in actual history. Not the virtual crap made up extremists.

          • Really?

            Well looking at your other posts I see no need to cite anything for you. It's obvious that you have already made up your mind and a list of historical facts would only confuse you.

          • Harpers Ferry

            Hmmm, where to begin.

            Presidents:
            T. Jefferson - Louisiana Purchase is technically unconstitutional.
            A. Lincoln - What didn't he do that was unconstitutional? But I'll just highlight suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus for now.
            R. Nixon - Does Watergate ring a bell?
            B. Clinton - Does Monica Lewinski ring a bell?
            JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama - Sending US troops into battle without a declaration of war passed by Congress.

            Supreme Court:
            Look up Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson and then come back to me.

            Congress:
            I'm pretty sure they violate the Constitution on a daily basis, especially this Congress.

            So please, take your petrulli oil and your soy milk through the cloud of smug that hangs over Shepherdstown and visit the library there. Start reading up on your history.

      • Wowbagger

        Let's see, should we grant even more power to a President who retains the option of murdering American citizens within the United States without due process?

        Somehow the outside possibility of being wasted by a drone in my back yard makes me just a little nervous. What about you?

        • Shepherdstown

          This is a extremist cannard that has no bearing in fact.

          • Wowbagger

            But, it does have bearing in fact! I bring up a valid point that is currently in the news with a hypothetical example and you term it offhand as an "extremist cannard".

            The only acceptable answer from Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Paul's inquiry was to state that the President would under no circumstances order the death of a citizen on US soil without due process!

            The current administration doesn't dare expose an enemy combatant to the temporary discomfort of water boarding, but killing a citizen without due process on US soil is not a problem?

        • Teufel

          I agree, I don't see how anyone could argue in defense of the credibility of our government.

      • Roger

        The problem here is that the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President have all proven they can't be trusted to adhere to the Constitution.

        When they pass a law and uphold it in court that forces citizens to buy something they don't want or feel a need for, they can do anything. Their new motto is: "We don't need no stinkin' Constitution".

        • Shepherdstown

          Such as what? Car insurance for the under insured or not insured?

          Since you are probably talking about the recent health care issue, how about the unfunded mandate those of us with medical insurance have to pay to those who do not have, or cannot afford, medical coverage?

          • Roger

            No, we don't need to waste bandwith comparing car insurance to health insurance. That comparison has long since been debunked.

            Most intelligent people agreed the health care system needed fixed. There were remedies available that didn't require the complete unconstitutional federal takeover that Obamacare is.

      • Granddadbother

        Amen!

    • Mac

      Hey Dave, tell that to AZ Senator Giffords. She was shot with a "legally" purchased firearm that would not have been sold had background checks been followed. OOPS!

      Oh yeah, don't forget about the other 18 people shot... But no, by all means lets do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

      • Uncle Fester

        Mac daddy, get your facts correct. You are a moron to the n-th degree. First Giffords was a Representative, not a Senator. Second of all, a background check was performed when that gun was purchased. We do not need more laws. We need to enforce the ones already on the books or strengthen the ones already passed. Did you know, Mr. Moron, that it is against the law for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm??? However, the penalty for that is only up to 5 years in prison. It should be more. Much more. Liberals are letting convicted murderers out of prison at an alrming rate. It looks to me like it is the liberals who are doing "absolutely nothing" about keeping guns away from criminals.

    • Gary

      Call me an extremist if you will but, I think some of you are missing the point. There are already laws covering most every issue on the table of late. The real issue is the overturning of the Second Amendment. Of course it can't be done outright!! It has to be a slow methodical process, hence the background checks,etc. When fault can be found with the "new laws" and there will be fault,that will be further reason to go back and hammer away at the rights of legal gun owners under the guise of gun control and safety "for our own good."
      Someone previously mentioned not trusting our government officials.....Are you kidding me? Why do you think the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution? Can you not read into it that they,and we,should not fully trust our government? Absolute power corrupts even the best intentioned man/woman, IF... he/she is not held accountable to the people in a simple process by which we can put an immediate stop to their unconstitutional/traitorous activities. Do you think Obama would have taken so many liberties if our process of reining in unrestrained power was more readily available?

  • Chad

    It is against the law for criminals and the mentally ill to own weapons now, but I'm sure another law will make all the differance.

  • Roger

    Never take what Manchin says at face value. What he says and what he does seldom are the same.

  • Sherry

    While I have disagreed with Sen Manchin on some issues, he is being thoughtful & fair on this issue. It is imperative to keep guns out of the hands of those convicted of criminal activities & those suffering from mental illness.

    • derek

      No matter how many laws the government passes they will not be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This will only hurt the law abiding gun owners!!

      • Uncle Fester

        That is exactly what the lieberal pukes want.

  • Dewey

    Joe is caving to those who want to infringe on my constitutional rights. He voteswiththe Obama liberals every time! We will fire him.