Cody Wilson tests gun. Courtesy Defense Distributed.

The eight-month experiment by Cody Wilson ended with a gun that can be assembled out of plastic parts, and made potentially lethal with the addition of a household nail and a bullet. Video has surfaced of Wilson firing the gun during testing.

Wilson put the plans on the Internet for free, and they were quickly downloaded by more than 100,000 people.

The project was also quickly condemned by politicians. Chuck Schumer, the U.S. senator and gun control advocate from New York, wants plastic guns banned by Congress.

Schumer’s concerns include the theory that the gun could be smuggled past airport security and used on an airplane, and that widespread access to the gun’s blueprints could lead to an explosion of cheap guns.

Schumer pointed to a character played by John Malkovich in the movie In the Line of Fire who builds a plastic and wooden gun in an attempt to assassinate a president.

The debate over plastic guns goes back several decades, including a reference in Die Hard 2 to the alleged ability of the Glock 17, an Austrian-made pistol, to get through scanners because of its ceramic body.

Critics of the 3-D plastic gun were quick to point out several factors. First, a gun made from plastic would have a short shelf life, and it could pose a greater danger to its user than an intended victim because of the construction material.

One deterrent would be the cost of buying a 3-D printer (starting at a $1,000) and the materials needed. (Wilson’s used printer cost $8,000.) Guns are available online, in stores and on the street at much lower prices.

Schumer also expressed a concern about how regulating the publishing of gun-making instructions could have First Amendment considerations.

“Obviously there are First Amendment issues,” Schumer told CNBC, as reported on the Free Republic website. “We’ve had this issue about bombs being put on the Internet in the past. And obviously someone could go overseas and put something on the Internet where our laws don’t govern.”

The issue of homemade guns has been taken up by the courts in the past. In the case of United States v. Stewart in 2003, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a part of judgment against Robert W. Stewart, Jr., who sold parts kits online to make homemade machine guns. (Stewart was also charged with gun possession from a prior case.)

The Supreme Court decided not to hear the Stewart case, but it told the Ninth Circuit to reconsider it in light of another Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich.

In the Raich case, the court ruled that the Commerce Clause gave Congress to right to ban homegrown marijuana, even when states approved it for medical uses, because of the potential effects on interstate commerce.

In 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued a new ruling in the Stewart case, saying that, “We therefore hold that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that in the aggregate, possession of homemade machine guns could substantially affect interstate commerce in machine guns.”

On Wilson’s website, he says the goal of the project is to “change the way we think about gun control and consumption. How do governments behave if they must one day operate on the assumption that any and every citizen has near instant access to a firearm through the Internet? Let’s find out.”

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

10 fascinating facts about President Harry S. Truman

Two constitutions make rare public appearances

Constitution Check: Will same-sex marriage momentum influence the Supreme Court?

Wilson’s group is set up as a 501(c)3 non-profit. He doesn’t sell the pistol’s plans, but he does sell plastic gun parts unrelated to the pistol as part of his fundraising efforts. He also accepts online donations and has ads from online parts sellers.

For now, the debate over Wilson’s gun will probably center on its legality under current regulations. The plans require a six ounce piece of metal as part of the pistol, to meet requirements under the Undetectable Firearms Act.

Last fall, Wilson had issues with the maker of the 3-D printer. In October 2012, Stratasys seized a printer that Wilson had leased from the company. He later bought the second-hand printer to complete his project.

At the time, Wilson told reporters he thought his project was legal and he talked to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which told him the idea of a plastic gun was in a regulatory “grey area.”

The AP reported that Wilson had obtained a manufacture’s license from the ATF before making his pistol.

Scott Bomboy is editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

The statement at issue:

“Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us. Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms. … A new gun-rights amendment would need to articulate a basic consensus that would let both sides claim victory.”

 – Zachary Elkins, a government professor at the University of Texas, in an op-ed column April 5 in The New York Times, “Rewrite The Second Amendment: The fight over gun rights can be settled with a constitutional change.”

We checked the Constitution, and…

In the 222 years since the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, Americans in every generation have toyed with the idea of adding more amendments. At any given point, at least a handful of proposed changes circulate in the body politic. And yet, only 17 additional amendments have actually made it into the Constitution.

There are a couple of lessons in this history. One of them, in fact, can be found in a phrase that Professor Elkins wrote at the end of his column: the need for “a basic consensus” before an amendment can succeed. Another is that, since 1803 and the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, Americans have more or less trusted the Supreme Court to provide change when it was deemed truly necessary.

And, if the Supreme Court got it wrong, contradicting some “basic consensus” prevailing across the country, the formal process of amendment under Article V has been available to make the correction. Indeed, six of the 17 amendments since 1791–just about a third–were added for just that purpose.

It is important to note, though, that only two of those were quick in coming: the 11th Amendment, reinforcing state sovereignty, came just two years after a ruling by the justices in 1793, and the 26th Amendment, guaranteeing 18 as the minimum age for voting in all elections, came within about a year after a 1970 decision.

The other four responses to the court had to simmer for some time–one might say until a basic consensus had formed. Those were the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th), not added until at least eight years after the court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, and the 16th Amendment, allowing an income tax, 18 years following the court’s decision in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co..

Judicial review–the notion that the job of interpreting the Constitution’s formal meaning is better performed as a judicial than a political function–is now widely accepted in America, although not universally. One thing clearly to its credit is that it has prevented the Constitution from ballooning into a huge document that reflects every passing fancy in politics, without any sense of lasting value. Free people need to know what the constitutional rules are, and frequent changes in the basic rules add too much uncertainty.

Professor Elkins’ plea for a clarifying amendment for the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a “right to keep and bear arms” is based largely on his argument that the Supreme Court has not yet adopted “fixed doctrine” on what the Second Amendment means. That is his view of the justices’ 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Its unsettled nature, he suggests, was due to the 5-4 vote in that case.

The very consensus that he finds expressed in current public opinion polling, though, is exactly what the court said about the Second Amendment five years ago: “a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety.” Those are the professor’s words, and they are an accurate summary of the decision. The amendment that went into the Constitution in 1791 finally became, more than two centuries later, a guarantee of a personal right to own a gun, but the decision stressed that it was not an absolute right because it could be regulated by “reasonable” gun control.

It is true that the Heller ruling left unanswered a number of specific questions about gun rights. Maybe the most important of those is whether the personal right to possess firearms reaches beyond the home. But lower courts have been in the process, for the past five years, of making decisions on that very point, and sooner or later, the Supreme Court is almost certain to step in to sort it out.

What has been happening over the years since 2008 is that the reach of the Second Amendment has been percolating, both in the courts and in politics. And, while the country waits for the Supreme Court to get involved again, to provide some new constitutional guidance, the opinion polls cited by the Texas professor might be interpreted to suggest that the country as a whole thinks the court got it about right.

Related Constitution Checks

Constitution Check: Can a local government order every family in town to have a gun?

Constitution Check: Can there be no exceptions to Second Amendment gun rights?

The Founders made it quite difficult to alter the Constitution, and they did that intentionally. As one watches these days the difficulty in Congress and in state legislatures in crafting new laws to deal with gun violence, it hardly seems likely that two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-fourths of all the states could now agree on language to amend the Second Amendment.

A dominant characteristic of the language of the American Constitution is that much of it is quite general. To illustrate: When the Constitution guarantees “due process,” what process is due? When it promises “equal protection of the laws,” who is equal to whom? When it creates a right to “bear arms,” where does that apply, and to what kind of firearms?

The Supreme Court’s most important gun rights decision so far, in the Heller case, allowed for “reasonable” regulations. Could the country agree on a different and more workable word or phrase to replace that, a replacement that would result in “fixed doctrine”?  Not likely.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 55 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Tax Day trivia: Why do we have the IRS (and other factoids)?

The forgotten man who almost became president after Lincoln

10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday

The Senate might start the debate over a background check compromise proposed last week by two senators, Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, on Tuesday. That will mark the start of the official public debate over an issue that many see as the most meaningful change in a series of measures proposed after the Sandy Hook shootings.

Three other measures are currently seen as having a good chance of passing in the Senate: tougher measures against “straw” purchasers of guns used in crimes; more efforts to divert resources to mental health programs; and more funding for security for schools.

Currently, the Democrats have 53 votes in the Senate and two independent senators who usually vote with the Democrats. Most likely, 60 votes will be needed for any amendment to be added to legislation.

Two factors complicate the process: Some Democrats could split from the caucus, based on how they feel the issue affects their constituents, and any bill passed by the Senate still needs to be approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Three Democrats, Mark Begich, Heidi Heitkamp, and Mark Pryor, may not vote in favor of the Manchin-Toomey amendment. So the Democrats would need to get eight GOP senators to make up the difference.

Based on the reports coming out of Washington, here are the senators to watch as this very public discussion over the Second Amendment unravels this week.

1. Majority Leader Harry Reid. It will be up to Reid to manage the amendment process in the House and how (and when) votes are taken. With a filibuster and numerous other amendments possible, Reid will have the final say on how key parts of the debate proceed.

2. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Republican from Kentucky doesn’t support background checks in their current form. If McConnell changes his stance, possibly from the introduction of a rival background check proposed by a GOP senator, it could present some Democrats with a dilemma.

3. Max Baucus. The Democratic senator from Montana didn’t vote to block the gun control bill from going to the full Senate, but said he wouldn’t support it in the end. He didn’t comment on the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

4. Mary Landrieu. The Louisiana Democrat is expected to have a tough re-election battle. She told CNN recently that she supported background checks in theory but would vote to reflect her constituents’ wishes.

5. Susan Collins. The Maine Republican said over the weekend that she will vote to support the Manchin-Toomey background check amendment.

6. John McCain. The former presidential candidate from Arizona is on the fence and has supported background checks in the past. If McCain endorses the Manchin-Toomey amendment, he could bring several other Republicans with him.

7. Tom Coburn. The senator from Oklahoma has proposed an alternative amendment that would greatly limit record-keeping and give states the option to expand enforcement. Senator John Thune is rumored to be the lawmaker who will introduce the Coburn amendment.

8. Mark Kirk. The Illinois Republican publicly supported the Manchin-Toomey amendment last week, giving the bill another GOP vote.

9. Kay Hagan. The first-term North Carolina Democrat is being targeted in an ad campaign from Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group. She has publicly supported background checks, but she also comes from a state that went to Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

10. Pat Toomey. The Pennsylvania senator’s late entrance into bipartisan negotiations over background checks helped craft a compromise with Joe Manchin. Toomey is also making the rounds on news talk shows to discuss the amendment.

To be sure, other senators will have a public, vocal role in the debate process, from Democrat Chuck Schumer to Republicans Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. But the vote could come down to a bipartisan effort to influence some of the GOP members who opposed a filibuster, including Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, and Dean Heller.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Tax Day trivia: Why do we have the IRS (and other factoids)?
The forgotten man who almost became president after Lincoln
10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday
Postal Service hints at bailout in delaying Saturday service cuts

The petition in the case of Kachalsky v. Cacace asked the Supreme Court to rule on two questions: Does the Second Amendment permit handguns for self-defense outside the home? And, do state officials violate the Second Amendment by denying handgun carry licenses in certain cases?

The writ of certiorari petition for the case was backed by the Second Amendment Foundation. The justices, as the process works at the court, didn’t disclose why they declined to hear the case.

Five New Yorkers brought the case to court after they were denied permits to carry their handguns in public. That state’s law requires people who want to carry a concealed handgun to prove they have a special reason before getting a license.

Alan Gura, an attorney involved with two other gun-related cases that were heard by the court, was on the legal team seeking a date in front of the nine justices. He had publicly said before the court’s decision on Monday that the case was a threat to the Second Amendment.

“The New York law is in complete conflict with the idea that people enjoy a Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Gura said in a pre-decision story from USA Today.

Gura was part of the team that argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008.

The Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

That right, however, was not found by the court to be absolute.

In 2010, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that those rights extended to individual states through the 14th Amendment.

The issues of gun rights and gun control are at the forefront of public opinion this week, as the Senate starts debates over proposed gun control legislation after last year’s Sandy Hook shootings.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
What happens next with gun control in the Senate?
Tax Day trivia: Why do we have the IRS (and other factoids)?
The forgotten man who almost became president after Lincoln
10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday

Majority Leader Harry Reid had asked for a compromise on background checks from two senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, by Tuesday night.

Manchin and Toomey announced the bipartisan deal on Wednesday morning, which the National Rifle Association opposed immediately.

The approval of at least eight Republicans is crucial because Reid will need 60 votes in the Senate on Thursday  to have a successful cloture vote to avoid a filibuster.

So far, eight Republican senators say they will not vote to support a filibuster.

A group of Republican senators including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Jim Inhofe have said they will filibuster “any legislation that infringe[s] on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms.”

Toomey, a staunch conservative, became a last-minute player in the debate over background check measures that Democrats and Republicans could both support.

Manchin, a conservative Democrat, had been working with three other senators on a bipartisan background check agreement: Tom Coburn, Chuck Schumer, and Mark Kirk. Those talks fell apart when Coburn rejected record-keeping requirements he felt would lead to a national gun registry.

The two senators reached a compromise that would require background checks for gun show and online sales, and exempt any checks for private sales. Any transaction records would be kept in private hands. They also proposed a commission to study the causes of mass violence.

The NRA is also reportedly working on its own background check proposal.

Reid wanted to introduce a modified gun control bill this week for a full vote on the floor. Provisions about semi-automatic weapon and high-capacity magazine clips won’t be part of the bill (although senators will be allowed to propose them as amendments).

But the contentious issue of background checks is a key part of the legislation. Two other measures in the bill are expected to have an easier time in the Senate: more funds for mental health measures; and more funds for school safety.

Harsher laws on illegal “straw purchases” of guns may also have problems passing a Senate vote.

Another factor is the presence of moderate Democrats from conservative states in the process. There’s already been a backlash from some Democrats about New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s campaign to force the gun control issue.

“I do not need someone from New York City to tell me how to handle crime in our state. I know that we can go after and prosecute criminals without the need to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding North Dakotans,” said Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota in a statement.

At least six Democratic senators are on record opposing expanded gun control measures, and 21 Senate seats will be up for grabs in 2014.

And even if a gun control bill can pass through the Senate with background checks intact, it still needs to be approved by the Republican-controlled House.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Constitution Check: Can a local government order every family in town to have a gun?

Margaret Thatcher’s place among historic female leaders

The message of Marian Anderson’s Lincoln Memorial concert

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to introduce a modified gun control bill in April for a full vote on the floor. Provisions about semi-automatic weapon and high-capacity magazine clips won’t be part of the bill (although senators will be allowed to propose them as amendments).

But the contentious issue of background checks will be a central part of the legislation. Three other measures in the bill are expected to have an easier time in the Senate: harsher laws on illegal “straw purchases” of guns; more funds for mental health measures; and more funds for school safety.

Before Reid left for the Senate’s recess period for Passover and Easter, he vowed that broader background checks would remain in the proposed gun control bill.

“I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks,” Reid said on March 23.

Congress is back in business on April 8, and Reid’s commitment to keeping background checks in the bill will be tested in the coming weeks. A bipartisan group of four senators couldn’t agree on a background check measure that included mandatory registration of private transactions.

Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma was part of that group, but he objected to plans that would require permanent records of private transactions, over fears of creating a “national gun registry.”

The three other senators, Chuck Schumer, Mark Kirk, and Joe Manchin, have been trying to find a compromise that would attract Republican support. One rumored compromise would include different rules for online gun sales and transactions involving rural areas.

In late March, The Hill reported that Senator John McCain could be enlisted to marshal Republican support if a compromise solution is reached.

Dean Heller, a senator from Nevada, would be another potential ally, but he’s also on record opposing any permanent record-keeping for private gun sales.

The approval of at least 10 Republicans is crucial because Reid will need 60 votes in the Senate to have a successful cloture vote to avoid a filibuster.

A group of Republican senators including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Jim Inhofe have said they will filibuster “any legislation that infringe[s] on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms.”

For now, the group’s effort is expected to be a silent filibuster: a procedural motion that will force Reid to get 60 votes in the Senate to bring the law to a vote.

In March, Paul took advantage of a Democratic procedural mistake to take over the Senate floor for nearly 13 hours in an old-fashioned talking filibuster, with help from Cruz, Rubio, and other senators.

That isn’t expected to happen in the gun control debate.

Another factor is the presence of moderate Democrats from conservative states in the process. There’s already been a backlash from some Democrats about New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s campaign to force the gun control issue.

“I do not need someone from New York City to tell me how to handle crime in our state. I know that we can go after and prosecute criminals without the need to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding North Dakotans,” said Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota in a statement.

At least six Democratic senators are on record opposing expanded gun control measures, and 21 Senate seats will be up for grabs in 2014.

And even if a gun control bill can pass through the Senate with background checks intact, it still needs to be approved by the Republican-controlled House.

Scott Bomboy is editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

April Fools? German as America’s official language in 1795

Gun control suffers two setbacks in Congress

Constitution Check: Can there be no exceptions to Second Amendment gun rights?

Presidential Madness (Round 9): Pick the best secretary of state ever!

Majority leader Harry Reid said he was withdrawing the assault weapons legislation after he couldn’t get within 20 votes of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. In fact, Reid said he couldn’t muster 40 votes, meaning that at least 15 Democrats or independents opposed the ban.

Reid also indicated that universal background checks, including checks on private gun sales, needed help to make it to a floor vote after Easter.

“There are a couple different background check proposals floating around,” Reid said. “All these issues are important and I’m going to do what I can to make sure we have a fair, sound debate on this but we can’t have it unless I have something that I can put on the floor to proceed to it,” Reid said in remarks reported by The Hill.

The current background check proposal was offered by Senator Chuck Schumer over the objections of several members of a bipartisan committee. Schumer intended it as a “placeholder” until a compromise could be negotiated, but that hasn’t been forthcoming.

Reid may introduce three gun-control measures as a package to the Senate, including two measures that have wider support: increased penalties for gun trafficking and more money for school safety. He’s currently waiting to see if a compromise background check measure can be part of the package.

Progress has been stalled over background checks over the issue of whether people who sell guns directly to others should be required to keep records of the sale, in the same way that licensed dealers handle a transaction.

Senator Tom Coburn said that was a deal breaker for an expanded background check law. Senators Coburn, Schumer, Joe Manchin, and Mark Kirk have been working for the past two weeks to find a compromise on checks.

Manchin said on Monday he was trying to find a way to work with the NRA and other gun rights groups on a background check solution.

Manchin spoke at a breakfast sponsored by Bloomberg News and said he hoped to convince people that “I’m not going to take your guns away,” referring to fears that more background checks would lead to a national gun registry.

But Manchin also acknowledged that he hadn’t been able to get a Republican with NRA ties to sign on to his plan.

Senator Dianne Feinstein indicated on Tuesday that she may try to add an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity gun clips onto future legislation.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Constitution Check: Can there be no exceptions to Second Amendment gun rights?
Two tales of the Constitution, marijuana and guns
First proposed gun control laws coming from Senate

Source: United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Nullification is the idea that in a system of state and federal laws, one law passed by a government can be overruled by another.

For example, if the state of New Jersey barred watching reality TV shows and an amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights to watch “Storage Wars,” one law trumps the other.

In the case of gun control, a Pennsylvania state lawmaker, State Senator John H. Eichelberger Jr., is introducing a law that makes it illegal for the federal government to enforce its gun control laws within his state.

Eichelberger joins another state legislator, Daryl Metcalfe, in proposing Pennsylvania laws that seek to nullify the enforcement of federal laws. Other states have also proposed their own nullification laws that would trump federal gun laws.

And in the case of marijuana, nine former leaders of the Drug Enforcement Administration said in a statement that they want the federal government to nullify newly passed state laws in Colorado and Washington, which legalize recreational marijuana use under controlled circumstances.

Former DEA administrator Peter Bensinger said nullification was a “no brainer.”

“It is outrageous that a lawsuit hasn’t been filed in federal court yet,” said Bensinger.

What each story has in common is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2, states that in a conflict of state and federal laws, the federal law is the supreme law of the land:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Some proponents of states’ rights and the 10th Amendment don’t agree with the concept. But when challenged, the Supreme Court has decided that federal laws can’t be nullified by the states.

During the 1950s, a group of Southern states passed laws to block the desegregation of public schools. The court ruled in Cooper v. Aaron that the state of Arkansas couldn’t nullify a federal law and that the court had the power to make that decision.

States can contest the constitutionality of a federal law through the court system, and hope that a law is overturned. But they can’t decide to ignore a federal law—at least in theory.

That’s where the marijuana controversy comes into play in Colorado and Washington state, and in states that have passed their own medical marijuana laws.

The current federal statute on controlled substances makes medical and recreational marijuana a Schedule 1 controlled substance that is illegal nationally.

However, 18 states have made medical marijuana legal, and Colorado and Washington are now allowing people to smoke pot for fun under certain circumstances.

The administration of President Barack Obama faces a problem. Attorney General Eric Holder hasn’t made a decision yet about taking Colorado and Washington to court to invalidate their recreational marijuana laws.

If Holder does go to court, what does that mean for the states that have medical marijuana laws on the books? The attorney general has targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in recent years, but not smokers. Will those states also face lawsuits?

What if the Obama administration reaches a compromise with Colorado and Washington to let parts of their recreational marijuana laws stand?

Those state laws effectively nullify federal law, which isn’t exactly a precedent that the Justice Department would want to set for states that ignore possible federal gun control laws.

There’s some hope that Congress may act to change the federal statutes about marijuana use. And it seems unlikely, at this point, that major gun control laws will be coming from Congress in the near future.

But that could change if a compromise is reached in Congress on background checks on gun purchases. Several states strongly oppose the idea, and some local lawmakers have proposed state nullification laws to make gun registration illegal.

In some cases, the proposed state laws provide for the arrest of any federal official trying to enforce a gun-control law.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Two tales of the Constitution, marijuana and guns

A third constitution that briefly controlled part of America

Evidence suggests Thurmond 24-hour filibuster record is debatable

Today Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is starting the bill markup process, which could extend into next week, giving negotiators more time to find a solution on background checks.

Video Replay: Second Amendment debate at the National Constitution Center

The Senate is considering separate bills on assault weapons and ammunition clips; more money for schools to buy safety equipment; and universal background checks.

Stricter laws on gun trafficking were approved by the Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning.

The widely anticipated law on background checks seems in danger, but Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma hinted on Thursday that a deal could still be reached.

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer had broken off talks with Coburn on Wednesday. The two were part of a four-person team trying to broker a compromise deal on background checks.

On an MSNBC talk show, Coburn said negotiations still could be fruitful. He said one sticking point is the logistics of tracking gun transfers.

“I think we’ll ultimately get there even though, you know, the outside groups aren’t comfortable with it yet,” he said.

Schumer, Coburn, Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois had been concentrating on closing the “gun show loophole,” a provision that excludes background checks for sales at private events.

Instead, Schumer will press on by offering a tougher bill he previously crafted on background checks. But Manchin and Kirk said on Wednesday they would oppose the effort to put that bill in as a “placeholder” until a compromise can be negotiated.

“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,” the two senators said in a statement.

The Washington Post said that Manchin and Kirk were working toward getting Republican support for the compromise they had negotiated with Schumer.

Last week, Coburn said that progress was stalled over whether people who sell guns directly to others should be required to keep records of the sale, in the same way that licensed dealers handle a transaction. Coburn said that was a deal breaker for an expanded background check law.

Some Democrats believe keeping records of private sales is needed because current federal law requires licensed gun dealers to keep similar records.

Since the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have pressed for expanded gun violence measures in several areas.

It’s unlikely that there is enough support currently in Congress to pass legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity gun clips.

Last month, Constitution Daily looked at polling questions on guns from nine different sources, including Fox News, NBC, ABC, Pew Research, and Gallup. On average, 89 percent of those people polled wanted expanded background checks.

Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he would oppose expanded background checks.

The National Rifle Association also is on record opposing expanding background checks.

The NRA and Goodlatte are opposed to a record-keeping requirement for private gun sales because they believe it will lead to a national gun registry. Democrats counter that a national gun registry is illegal and that their efforts are in good faith to make sure background checks are enforced better.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Evidence suggests Thurmond 24-hour filibuster record is debatable
Constitution Check: Does it violate the First Amendment for the president to bypass the press?
Rand Paul’s filibuster in historical terms
How the librarian of Congress controls your cellphone’s future

Since the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have pressed for expanded gun violence measures in several areas: assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition clips, expanded background checks, and expanded mental health programs.

It’s unlikely that there is enough support currently in Congress to pass legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity gun clips.

President Obama has issued a series of executive orders to address the problem of the mentally ill having access to guns. In Congress, some senators have proposed broader laws to devote more resources to mental health issues, while states are addressing the mental health problem in different ways. The sequester may affect the delivery of some mental health-related services.

It was the high-profile issue of expanded background checks for gun measures that appeared to have the most public support and traction in the Senate, which is taking the first pass at writing a law.

Last month, Constitution Daily looked at polling questions on guns from nine different sources, including Fox News, NBC, ABC, Pew Research, and Gallup. On average, 89 percent of those people polled wanted expanded background checks.

Support also seemed strong in the Senate, where four leading members were working toward a consensus bill on background checks.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois were concentrating on closing the “gun show loophole,” a provision that doesn’t require background checks for sales at private events.

But last week, Coburn said that progress was stalled over whether people who sell guns directly to others should be required to keep records of the sale, in the same way that licensed dealers handle a transaction.

Coburn said that was a dealbreaker for an expanded background check law.

Some Democrats believe keeping records of private sales is needed because current federal law requires licensed gun dealers to keep similar records.

Vice President Biden has also questioned the logic of having a universal background check law that didn’t require transaction records for private sales.

“They want the law to say no record would be kept,” Biden told the National Association of Attorneys General. “How in the hell would you know if that transaction would be real if no record can be kept?”

Later in the week, Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he would oppose expanded background checks.

The National Rifle Association also is on record opposing expanding background checks.

“My problem with background checks is you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks,” said Wayne LaPierre, CEO for the NRA, told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January. “None of it makes any sense in the real world.”

The NRA and Goodlatte are opposed to a record-keeping requirement for private gun sales because they believe it will lead to a national gun registry. Democrats counter that a national gun registry is illegal and that their efforts are in good faith to make sure background checks are enforced better.

For now, the Senate will likely consider separate bills on the assault weapon, ammunition clip, and expanded background check issues. Among the three, universal background checks appear to have the best chance of getting a close vote in the Senate. But some compromise solution will most likely be needed to have a chance in the House.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

What happens if the federal government shuts down on March 27?

March 4: A forgotten huge day in American history

Sotomayor talks about life, career at National Constitution Center