The first problem for Senate Democrats is that Joe Manchin’s preferences are dramatically out of line with theirs.
The shootings in Colorado and Georgia have prompted many of the filibuster’s critics to add gun control to the list of Democratic agenda items that the 60-vote threshold is supposedly throttling. Having looked around a little today, though, I’m really not sure that’s true.
The three changes Joe Biden says he wants are a ban on “assault weapons,” the prohibition of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, and the extension of the federal background-check system to intrastate private sales. The first two provisions have not even passed the House and are explicitly opposed by Senator Manchin. The third provision has passed the House, but in a form that Manchin opposes. As it stands, Democrats can’t get to 50 on any of these proposals.
Is this likely to change? Not really, no. Asked today whether he was interested in passing the House’s background check bills, Senator Manchin made it clear that he was not:
The House passed two bills this month: one to extend the window for completing a background check before a gun sale and a second that would extend background checks to all sales and transfers. However, the second bill provides exemptions including for transfers between family members, responding to an immediate threat or temporary transfer for hunting.
Manchin, however, suggested he wanted a bill that provided a bigger carve-out for private sales between individuals who know each other.
“I come from a gun culture. I’m a law-abiding gun owner,” Manchin said, adding that he supports “basically saying that commercial transactions should be background checked. You don’t know a person.”
“If I know a person, no,” Manchin said.
This, of course, is not a flat “no.” Indeed, back in 2013, Manchin co-wrote a bill with Senator Toomey that, had it not been filibustered, would have achieved “universal background checks” in at least some form. But it also not a “yes.” And the devil, as usual, is in the details.
The first problem for Senate Democrats is that Manchin’s preferences are dramatically out of line with theirs. Indeed, in addition to being considerably weaker than the background-check that passed the House this year (HR8), Manchin’s 2013 effort contained a provision that directly contradicted the aims of the other bill that the House just approved (HR1446) and that Senate leadership wants to send to Biden’s desk. HR1446, which passed the House on March 11th, extended the amount of time that a gun buyer can be delayed by a federal background check from three days to ten, thereby “closing” what advocates misleadingly term the “Charleston Loophole.” Manchin’s 2013 bill, by contrast, “reduced the amount of time a seller must wait for a response from the background check system before proceeding with a weapon sale, from three business days to 48 hours.”
And that’s not all. In addition to reducing the maximum delay time, Manchin’s bill removed the ban on the interstate purchase of handguns, added private sellers to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and was openly sold by its authors as a stepping stone to national concealed carry reciprocity. The Biden administration and Chuck Schumer remain vehemently opposed to all of these measures — in fact, they are trying to take federal policy in precisely the opposite direction.
Which brings us to the Democrats’ second problem: However you look at it, the numbers don’t work. It is, of course, possible that Senator Manchin might decide that now is the time to take his old bill out of mothballs. It is less possible, however, that it could be knocked into a shape that is acceptable to 60 senators. Last time around, in a Senate that featured only 45 Republicans, Manchin’s bill garnered 54 votes. Today, only two of those Republican “yes” votes remain, and there are five fewer Democrats to boot. Frankly, it is difficult to think what Manchin could do to address this without alienating so many senators that the bill was dead on arrival. If, in attempt to attract Republican support, Manchin were to add some more pro-Second Amendment elements into the mix, he’d likely lose his own party. If he were to remove those Republican-friendly elements — or tighten the bill so it more closely resembled HR8 — he’d quickly lose most Republicans, and, possibly, lose himself. And if he were to throw up his hands and stop seeking a bipartisan solution, he’d have to consent to abolish the legislative filibuster.
Is that likely? I doubt it. My read on Manchin is that his commitment to the filibuster is partly sincere and partly self-interested. Yes, he wants comity and buy-in and all that, but he is also aware just how much it helps him as an endangered Democrat from West Virginia. Given this, one must ask what the chances are that he will reverse course on his most famous promise in order to pass, of all things, gun control?