[gfanikf]

Manchin-Toomey amendment Text http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

Use this board...well you have to do a background check.

[Ryanxia]

I'll read the whole thing tomorrow. I'm glad that with the national deficit at 17 trillion and social security going to run out before I get there, they want to spend 100 million EACH YEAR for this bogus infringement on our Rights.

[H.m.B]

What are they going to do with $400,000,000 over the course of 4 years?


Authorization of Appropriations.-There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017.";

Sounds excessive to me!

[gfanikf]

What are they going to do with $400,000,000 over the course of 4 years?



Sounds excessive to me!
That's the least worrying thing.

[H.m.B]

Sounds like FTF personal sales are allowed, but only from your private residence?

"(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event'-
"(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and
"(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923.".

[Steel185]

After reading all the news recently i can't seem to find and answer or maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. When they say Expanded background checks, what is expanded about them? They are checking a great amount of transactions? or are they checks that dig further into your background, not just legal, but medication, work history, etc?

It might be a stupid question but i think its being sold one way, to "keep mentally ill from purchasing weapons" but is in accuality something else.

[mokin]

Good question.

I suspect it is a term coined to sell the point, like "military grade", or "high capacity", when refering to the hoops most gun buyers go through as a matter fo course. A way to open the door to all the amendmetnts which may be added to the bill whien it is finally voted on.

[buckeye8]

Does that mean that if I agree to sell my gun to a forum member face-to-face, that one of us will have to show the other one where we live?

That's WORSE than having to pay an FFL transfer fee!!!

[gfanikf]

Does that mean that if I agree to sell my gun to a forum member face-to-face, that one of us will have to show the other one where we live?

That's WORSE than having to pay an FFL transfer fee!!!
Yep....embrace it.

[browneu]

What if you live out of your car?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[morcey2]

From what I've read so far, the "Interstate Transportation" section will override all local and state laws allowing any concealed or open possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle. All firearms must be locked up, ammunition must be separate, and not just securely cased. I'm not a lawyer, but I couldn't find an exemption for it.

Matt

[Cosmoline]

Thanks!

"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

That's what I expected. Pretty much any transfer involving any internet ad--even a classified cross-printed on line--will require a check. I dare say that implicates most FTF transfers in the 21st century. And broadly construed (as BATFE doubtless WILL construe it), it would encompass any transfer involving any exchange of email, text message or PM on a forum. Post in the rifle forum and mention you might want to sell a rifle? Now you are barred from FTF transfer without NICS. Forever, presumably. It's a nightmare begetting nightmares. Far worse than a total UBC in some ways, because of the traps it lays for the unwary.

NO WAY
NO DEAL

I'm writing letters now.

[rdhood]

Does that mean that if I agree to sell my gun to a forum member face-to-face, that one of us will have to show the other one where we live?

That creates a dangerous situation. This is what happens when idiots who have never done a FTF transaction write laws. And I don't mean just firearms. Anyone who has ever purchased from Craigslist would know to meet in neutral, well lit area with people around. I'd do the same if I was selling/purchasing a guitar, a ring, or a firearm.

[morcey2]

Every FTF transaction I've done has been in a public place away from my home, other than one or two from someone I already knew. This is insane. I don't want total stranger knowing where I live and I'm sure they don't want me to have a chance to get a good look at their house. You have a choice. Meet at an FFL and pay for the BC, only buy or sell from someone you know, don't do any private transactions, or become a felon, most likely without knowing what you just did.

It'll turn many, many people who haven't otherwise done anything wrong into felons.

Matt

[jmace57]

You know...$100 million here...$100 million there...eventually it starts adding up to some real money!


..."Second Amendment Rights Protection Act". Jeez

[Bubba613]

No, I dont think so. I dont know how you police whether two people who got together on a site like THR and agrred to meet to sell a gun go through a background check or not.
Some of the other stuff looks good. You will be able to buy a handgun across state lines. WHo wants to argue against that?

[buckeye8]

No, I dont think so. I dont know how you police whether two people who got together on a site like THR and agrred to meet to sell a gun go through a background check or not.

Um... exactly how hard do you think that will be, considering the fact that there will be a (digital) written record of every single transaction? Who is going to agree to buy a gun from someone online, knowing that it is a felony, and that the person they are talking to could actually be a BATF employee?

[Bubba613]

That's what I expected. Pretty much any transfer involving any internet ad--even a classified cross-printed on line--will require a check. I dare say that implicates most FTF transfers in the 21st century. And broadly construed (as BATFE doubtless WILL construe it), it would encompass any transfer involving any exchange of email, text message or PM on a forum. Post in the rifle forum and mention you might want to sell a rifle? Now you are barred from FTF transfer without NICS. Forever, presumably. It's a nightmare begetting nightmares. Far worse than a total UBC in some ways, because of the traps it lays for the unwary.
\

No, that is not the case. The new requirement does not apply if:
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

People need to read the actual text here before going off.

[Bubba613]

Um... exactly how hard do you think that will be, considering the fact that there will be a (digital) written record of every single transaction? Who is going to agree to buy a gun from someone online, knowing that it is a felony, and that the person they are talking to could actually be a BATF employee?
There's a digital record of every transaction here? No, I dont think so. You offer your Lorcin for sale in KY and I'm a KY resident. We agree to meet. DId the transaction take place? I dunno. There's no record. Maybe you didnt show. Maybe I didnt.

[shep854]

Unless I know the buyer personally and trust him, I only sell guns by consignment, which are checked already.
No matter what laws are passed, I see no reason to change.

[FROGO207]

This is ridiculous! How to screw the whole thing up totally.:banghead::banghead: Hopefully the thing will receive so much grief it will not pass anywhere.

I re read this several times and do not see that the majority of things we now do will still be OK. I read and reason I see some interpret the answers and do not see how they arrived at their explanation. The one about we now have to have the firearm visible if it is in the same compartment in a vehicle per Maine law and unloaded unless a CCW holder now changes to locked and hidden? Also the one about having to do a FTF transfer only in your own home. ???? Then if internet or newspaper initiated not allowed FTF without a BGC??

[morcey2]

...

Matt

[gc70]

"Expanded background checks" would be background checks required for more than just purchases from dealers.

Schumer's bill, which is included in S.649, would generally (with some exemptions) require background checks for all sales, both by dealers and individuals, as well as 'transfers' - essentially letting another person hold a gun.

The Manchin-Toomey proposal would expand background checks to private transactions at gun shows and 'online sales' - not clearly defined, but probably more than commercial gun auction sites and possibly as broad as any online advertising.

[buckeye8]

There's a digital record of every transaction here? No, I dont think so. You offer your Lorcin for sale in KY and I'm a KY resident. We agree to meet. DId the transaction take place? I dunno. There's no record. Maybe you didnt show. Maybe I didnt.

You ignored a very important part of my post: Why wouldn't the BATF (or other law enforcement agencies) simply create usernames, set up deals with citizens, arrest the person when they show up, and confiscate the firearm? Hell, they would probably be allowed to sell the confiscated firearm at auction after the person was convicted, which would create a big incentive for them to actively engage in these "sting" tactics.

I am very surprised that you don't find this more disturbing than you do.

[morcey2]

Text here:

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

According to the proposed text, any transfer that was set up via any communications device would require a background check. This would include texting a seller that had posted in a good old-fashioned newspaper that had no digital version to setup a transaction.

Armslist, utahgunexchange.com, and tons of others would disappear overnight.

Matt

[Bubba613]

I dont find it disturbing because I've read the text of the bill. Have you?

[beeenbag]

Quote:
That's what I expected. Pretty much any transfer involving any internet ad--even a classified cross-printed on line--will require a check. I dare say that implicates most FTF transfers in the 21st century. And broadly construed (as BATFE doubtless WILL construe it), it would encompass any transfer involving any exchange of email, text message or PM on a forum. Post in the rifle forum and mention you might want to sell a rifle? Now you are barred from FTF transfer without NICS. Forever, presumably. It's a nightmare begetting nightmares. Far worse than a total UBC in some ways, because of the traps it lays for the unwary.
\

No, that is not the case. The new requirement does not apply if:
Quote:
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;
People need to read the actual text here before going off.

Good point, read it all in its context. Don't skip and read the "juicy" parts.


Sounds like FTF personal sales are allowed, but only from your private residence?

"(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event'-
"(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and
"(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923.".

There is the key word. This is exempting someone that may be selling their entire estate of more than the 75 gun limit, from being considered a gun show and having to do background checks, As long as they do it at their home. This does not mean all FTF transactions have to take place at your home, just estate sales that meet the requirements to be considered a gun show if you want to be exempt from NICS.

[bhesler]

Toomey's site said on Wednesday that transfers between friends and neighbors, and other people would be expemted. I did not see anything about friends and neighbors in the text. Did I miss something? (I even used the search function of my browser on those words)

[shep854]

Morcey, I should have added that I do indeed oppose background checks, on the principle that law-abiding citizens shouldn't be treated as criminals.
Sorry for coming across as apathetic!

[dragon813gt]

From what I've read so far, the "Interstate Transportation" section will override all local and state laws allowing any concealed or open possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle. All firearms must be locked up, ammunition must be separate, and not just securely cased. I'm not a lawyer, but I couldn't find an exemption for it.

Matt

Someone please tell me this is wrong. This is one of the main reasons that I have my CCW permit in PA. So I can carry them loaded since a vehicle is considered concealment here. This really bothers me since Toomey is from this state.


Brought to you by TapaTalk

[TheCracker]

How exactly is the BS gonna stop gang bangers from buying guns that their lowlife buddies stole during a burglary/robbery?

This is ludicrous!

[Doc7]

dragon, does that only apply when you're crossing state lines though? (not that it makes it a good law if it does)

[morcey2]

Someone please tell me this is wrong. This is one of the main reasons that I have my CCW permit in PA. So I can carry them loaded since a vehicle is considered concealment here. This really bothers me since Toomey is from this state.


Brought to you by TapaTalk
Like I said, IANAL. I read the proposed bill and tried to fit it into the existing law, but this is a total layman's reading of it.

Matt

[buckeye8]

Bubba613:

Based on the information provided by H.M.B. in Post #5, the scenario I proposed in Post #14 was entirely plausible. He did not note the exceptions that you noted later.

Based on the exemptions described in your post (Post #16), the scenario I proposed is not plausible, and I am wrong.

Thank you for providing more complete information. That's what I get for not clicking the link myself!

[morcey2]

Morcey, I should have added that I do indeed oppose background checks, on the principle that law-abiding citizens shouldn't be treated as criminals.
Sorry for coming across as apathetic!
edited my post accordingly...

[bikemutt]

Armslist, utahgunexchange.com, and tons of others would disappear overnight.

Could you elaborate? I don't see why requiring (by law) a background check for a non-dealer sale would add any more friction to the deal than the transfer fee, maybe I'm missing something.

[vtail]

How exactly is the BS gonna stop gang bangers from buying guns that their lowlife buddies stole during a burglary/robbery?

This is ludicrous!
It's THE LAW. They HAVE to follow it.

Right?

[razorback2003]

Where is the 'compromise'? What are we getting? Is the 86 hughes machine gun ban being repealed?

[vtail]

I'm imagining a big building, with lots of little divided spaces, like an antique mall.

And in each space, there is an individual gun show, each with 74 guns....

[razorback2003]

This is garbage. So I can only buy and sale face to face in parking lots with people who have handgun carry permits? If not, then the person has to come to my house? No thank you.

Keep the pressure on the House of Representatives.

[beeenbag]

here is where I stand after reading the complete text...

First off, I do not support it out of sheer principal, but, if it were to pass, I really don't think we will see much change at all.

This bill will make all transfers at gunshows require nics.
It will still allow ftf private transfers in state without nics.
It will allow ftf transactions between individuals where the deal was constructed online.
all shipping transfers will be the same.
We will be allowed to buy handguns from dealers out of state ftf.

Basically, it makes the gunshows a big gun store and keeps the internet from becoming a way around dealers doing nics.

[Steel Horse Rider]

If politicians have proposed it there is bound to be problems with a free people. As the comment about gang bangers pointed out, they already do not enforce the laws they have so these regulations will likely be used only to hassle the law abiding who are only trying to survive in an increasingly hostile and regulated world.

[beeenbag]

This is garbage. So I can only buy and sale face to face in parking lots with people who have handgun carry permits? If not, then the person has to come to my house? No thank you.

Keep the pressure on the House of Representatives.
Did you even read it? The part everybody is getting messed up about your house is in the definition of a gun show.

The only time a transaction is required to stay at your residence, is when you have more than 75 guns from a personal collection that you are selling if you want to be exempt from the background checks.

[razorback2003]

Are you guys seeing in the bill that people who have handgun carry permits can still advertise on Armslist? Also will people with handgun carry permits be able to sale face to face OUT of State? Such as I am a TN resident, will i be able to sale face to face to an Arkansas resident who has a pistol license? What about giving a gun to a family member in another state with this bill? Or does everyone have to be residents of the same state?

[Bubba613]

irst off, I do not support it out of sheer principal, but, if it were to pass, I really don't think we will see much change at all.

This bill will make all transfers at gunshows require nics.
It will still allow ftf private transfers in state without nics.
It will allow ftf transactions between individuals where the deal was constructed online.
all shipping transfers will be the same.
We will be allowed to buy handguns from dealers out of state f

Which part do you not support? The part where you can buy handguns across state lines? The part where your carry permit substitutes for a NICS check? The part where NICS has 24 hours to respond, not 72?

The only people screwed here are the guys setting up tables at gunshows with big signs saying "No background check". And to heck with them.

[beeenbag]

Which part do you not support? The part where you can buy handguns across state lines? The part where your carry permit substitutes for a NICS check? The part where NICS has 24 hours to respond, not 72?

The only people screwed here are the guys setting up tables at gunshows with big signs saying "No background check". And to heck with them.

There is really nothing in the text that I am "against".
I will not support it out of the sheer principal of creating more useless laws that will do nothing to prevent further crime.

If this is the only thing that makes it through, I will not be upset. I do fear blumenthaw's proposal to "spear head" the amendments of the AWB and Hi cap magazine restrictions being added to this bill.

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Guess I better set up an account so I can support challengers to Toomey.

[jerkface11]

Basically, it makes the gunshows a big gun store and keeps the internet from becoming a way around dealers doing nics.

Why should I have to pay to have a background check done before I can sell my property? And since when can you use the internet to get around a background check?

[jerkface11]

I do fear blumenthaw's proposal to "spear head" the amendments of the AWB and Hi cap magazine restrictions being added to this bill

No they need to be added. They will be a poison pill.

[beeenbag]

Well, you don't, nor will you if this passes, unless you want to sell it at a gunshow.

[vamo]

I really don't see any problems in this proposal. My understanding of the interstate transportation section is it prevents people from being arrested when transporting guns between two places they can legally posses them. I don't know how thats any different from the current peacable journey law on the books, but whatever. I assume that if you were previously allowed to drive around while carrying in said jurisdictions then local/state law would still be valid.

I don't know how the gun show thing is all that enforceable, but if it shuts up antis fine we got to keep private sales so I am counting that as a win. I hope they can iron out the difference between me texting or emailing a friend about a gun they are selling and people selling to just anybody on armslist.

I could not find where this bill would allow people to buy pistols over state lines like a previous poster mentioned, but if thats true I would say this is a net gain for pro 2a citizens.

Its a very long and dry bill and I am sure someone smarter than me will tear it apart and discuss the implications over the next week.

If this is the only gun control bill to come out of congress this session we won. We kept ar-15s, didn't have our magazines neutered, and we kept most private transfers.

[jerkface11]

So I only have to have government permission to sell MY property if I sell it somewhere where it is actually likely to sell????? Well that's hardly an infringement at all.

[beeenbag]

I'm not trying to sell you on this, all I was doing was trying to clarify people misreading the text and freaking out. It is a very very watered down bill compared to feinstiens s.150 they started with.

[jerkface11]

I see no reason to accept that this will pass or even make it out of the senate. Fight this crap all the way and vote out every treasonous slimeball that votes for it.

[beeenbag]

Like I said before, I do not support or accept this bill out of it being completely useless to stop any further violent crimes. I am a fan of small government.

I just don't think it is nearly as bad as what I thought would come of all of this, if this is all that gets passed.

[texasgun]

"This is garbage. So I can only buy and sale face to face in parking lots with people who have handgun carry permits? "

oooh no!!! how horrible.

btw. I live in WA State and EVERY law abiding gun owner I know pretty much only sells to people who can show a CPL. A CPL is cheap here and no training required. People buying guns here in ads without a CPL actually scare me and I certainly would not feel comfortable handing over a gun to someone who does not want to go through a dealer OR has a CPL.... :barf:

[beatledog7]

So, what in this bill would have prevented SH or Aurora? Who can tell with all the legalese mumbo-jumbo in the thing?

As for the transportation part, exactly what effect does this have on a person's ability to CCW in his or her car as he or she travels from state to state? E.g., currently I can drive from VA across WV to KY CCWing. I can't find anything that changes that (nor would I expect to).

Then again, there's nothing in it about licensing of chicken coops, nationalization of the oil industry, or full funding for high speed rail between Kalamazoo and Kankakee. But they're not finished yet.

[ngnrd]

So, I would either have to pay for a (revocable) license from the government to buy or sell otherwise legal personal property, or pay an unlicensed transaction compliance tax (background check fee) to do so? Why does anybody think this is a good thing?

[spanishjames]

if you offer to sell a firearm using any forum, gun board, Facebook, Gunbroker,com, etc. OR any classified ad in a newspaper or free trading post paper, you must do a background check. From Section 122

(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/04/text-to-manchin-toomey-amendment-is-now.html


Does that mean that if I agree to sell my gun to a forum member face-to-face, that one of us will have to show the other one where we live? That's WORSE than having to pay an FFL transfer fee!!!


Any FTF sale initiated on the internet, or any publication, would have to go through the internet. I believe if the offer was initiated in your home (sale to relative), you wouldn't need to use an FFL.

[texasgun]

summary:

selling a gun to a coworker/colleague/friend and and and - NO background check

putting a gun for sale on the internet and selling to a complete stranger - background check

lending a gun to a friend for a hunting trip or dropping off a gun at a gunsmith - NO background check


sorry... there are many completely unreasonable gun proposals which I'm glad are going nowhere and we have to fight that it stays that way (magazine limit, AWB, and and and).... but not selling to complete strangers without a background check is not one of them

also: NOWHERE in the bill does it state that you cannot have a loaded gun in your car when you fulfill the state requirements (CHL/CPL or like in TX - nada)

by pressing the panic-button and reading stuff into the bill which is simply not there... you get yourself worked up over nothing.

[jerkface11]

You realize this bars you from ADVERTISING that you have a gun for sale right?

[texasgun]

depends what kind of advertising...

why would you post an ad online when you plan on selling to friends/neighbors or relatives???

I've sold guns to friends and online.

Two different things.

[Tom from WNY]

If the Interstate Transportation portion is for real, it may be a plus in your favor. Just get caught with a handgun in your vehicle while driving through New York State if you do not have a NYS Part 400 license. Oh, by the way, those are only issued to NY residents or the very politically connected and wealthy donators to the Democrap party. I would not want to be from Texas going bear hunting in Maine with my .44 mag revolver and get caught in NY with the gun in my truck, loaded or not, ammo or none. I don't think in the current environment it will go well for you.

Given the number of posts on this board regarding people who have been caught with a handgun while flying through NYC (legally possessed in your home jurisdiction and where you are going to), yet another clear language interpretation of McClure-Volkmer is good (especially for NYC area folks).

I still don't like the definitions of who can be a FTF transferor/receiver; it seems to be only spouses (does this eliminate domestic partners? - the LGBT community will be all in a tizzy), siblings, and immediate family to first cousin level. I have friends closer and better known to me than family.

[jerkface11]

why would you post an ad online when you plan on selling to friends/neighbors or relatives???
I have a gun for sale. I post that on facebook for all my friends to see. Now I have to do a background check.

[gearhead]

I have a gun for sale. I post that on facebook for all my friends to see. Now I have to do a background check.
Or you e-mail a friend to ask if they're still interested in a gun you want to sell.

[bushmaster1313]

Face to face will be illegal at a gun show or its parking lot.

Face to face will be illegal if done following an ad online or in a publication. There might be an exemption if in a state like NJ that requires a firearms ID or a free state that allows CCW permits

FOPA is extended to ammunition, but it might not cover magazines.

[morcey2]

Or you e-mail a friend to ask if they're still interested in a gun you want to sell.
I've got to go look up the definition of "Communication Device" that is referenced in the bill, but I think if you even use anything as hi-tech as a rotary phone to setup a sale it will require a background check.

At least you can still use the postal service.

(I know that's not the case, but it's close)

Matt

[Johnny Dollar]

Face to face will be illegal at a gun show or its parking lot.

Face to face will be illegal if done following an ad online or in a publication. There might be an exemption if in a state like NJ that requires a firearms ID or a free state that allows CCW permits

FOPA is extended to ammunition, but it might not cover magazines.
__________________

All meaningless rhetoric. Even if it passes the Senate, it is dead in the House.

[ngnrd]

You realize this bars you from ADVERTISING that you have a gun for sale right?
I don't see how it bars advertising. But it does bar a transaction generated by advertising without a background check.

I'm still unclear if possession of a state-issued gun license would preclude the need for an additional BC in this case. I'm typically pretty good at reading this kind of stuff, but my brain is getting numb at this point. My eyes need a break...

[jerkface11]

You don't see how it bars advertising? If you advertise your sale you have to do a background check. If you sale at a gunshow you have to do a background check. How else do you sell a gun? Make random phonecalls till someone wants it?

[TennJed]

serious question. Define friend. I have more interaction with some of you than I do with my "friends"

If this is the only gun control bill to come out of congress this session we won. We kept ar-15s, didn't have our magazines neutered, and we kept most private transfers

And with all due respect if this passes then no we did not "win". The problem with compromise and settling on issues like this is that it will accomplish nothing. And when the next evil savage shoots up a room they will cry that this is not enough and want more. Then next bill will take away a little more and some will feel we "won"

The "compromise" I am for is one that is effective. If this would help society in any measurably way then I would be "ok" with it. It won't help and it won't satisfy in the long run

[JRH6856]

I don't see anything in the amendment that allows FTF transfers between unlicensed parties (FFL, not CHL) except between listed relatives.

{OK, now I do. thanks to ngnrd} remainder retracted

When traveling, CHL holders appear to be ok in states with reciprocity. In states without reciprocity, CHL holders and non CHL holders alike are subject to the laws of the state they are traveling in unless they comply with the requirements of the amendment. If they are in compliance, they are immune from state law in regards the transport of firearms.

Have I got that right?

[-v-]

I don't see how it bars advertising. But it does bar a transaction generated by advertising without a background check. I haven't had a chance to go through this with a fine tooth comb yet, but as I understand it: You go to the buy/sell/trade section of THR or any gun board and post "WTS: Classic American Pistol, FTF only" you have now advertised that you want to sell this gun - background check required now. If you email a buddy and say "I need some cash to make rent, I'll sell you my Ceramic Glock 7 that can sneak through metal detectors that you seem to like so much" then that can also be construed as advertising - background check required.

Again, I haven't put in the time to dissect this thing, so I might be off, but thats my first pass on it.

[ngnrd]

You don't see how it bars advertising? If you advertise your sale you have to do a background check. If you sale at a gunshow you have to do a background check. How else do you sell a gun? Make random phonecalls till someone wants it?
That's what I said. Yes, transactions generated by advertising would need to include a background check. But the language of the amendment doesn't actually bar the advertising per se.

So, again, the actual advertising isn't prohibited.

I'm not saying that I agree that private transactions should be subject to background checks. What I am saying is that advertising a firearm for sale wouldn't be illegal under this amendment as written.

[The Teacher]

If I'm reading this correctly, when put together, the information in bold suggests that a background check would not be required following an internet advertisement, as long as the transaction is between two residents of the same state and in compliance with state laws.

it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State

[gc70]

Here are my impressions that I jotted down while reading the text of the proposal.

(t)(1) private transfers at gun shows and through online sales
A transfer has to go through a dealer if it occurs at, or on the grounds of, a gun show or "pursuant to" an internet or published indication of intent to buy/sell.
Just leaving the site of the gun show to do a transfer appears to avoid the proposal's requirements; that is probably too good to be true.
Even saying online that you might consider buying/selling a gun would probably trigger the online sales provision.

(t)(2)(A) concealed carry permit as NICS alternative
Permits that qualify as NICS alternatives under current law must allow a person to possess or acquire a firearm (permits in 22 states currently qualify (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html)); this proposal adds permits that are limited to carrying a firearm.

(t)(2)(B) waiver for equivalent state requirements
The provisions of this proposal can be waived if the Attorney General certifies that applicable state requirements are equivalent to the requirements in the proposal.

(t)(2)(C) immediate family exemption
Immediate family members, through first cousins, are exempt from the proposal. I don't know whether this exemption is just somewhat bizarre ("Hi, Dad; I didn't know you were coming to this gun show but, sure, I'll sell you my gun") or it reflects an extremely broad scope for the 'online sales' provision (i.e. email communications about a sale).

(t)(4)(B) regulations - no requirement for dealers to do transfers
(t)(4)(C) regulations - no requirement for individuals to keep records
(t)(4)(C) regulations - no cap on dealer fees for transfers
What they say; regulations cannot impose any of the items listed above.

(t)(5) immune from qualified civil liability
If you follow the law, you get immunity if the gun is subsequently misused.

(t)(6) disclaimer related to (t)(5)

(t)(7)(A) definition of gun show or event
Basically any place where 75 or more guns are for sale/trade. This provision might be a problem at big shooting matches and could result in 'for sale' sales being prohibited.

(t)(7)(B) exclusion from definition of gun show or event
A large personal collection for sale/trade can be shown at the collector's residence without it being considered a gun show or event.
The one restriction in this section is "if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923." I take this to mean that a licensed dealer would not be able to use this exclusion when selling from their private collection. This should not affect C&R license holders because a C&R license is not a required license.

What is not stated in the proposal:
Since the scope of the proposal is limited to gun shows and sales related to the internet, you do not need to go through a dealer or get a background check for other face-to-face deals where the participants get together through word of mouth - or a note on Manchin's proverbial cork board at church.
Most importantly, it contains no 'temporary transfer' BS.

[The Teacher]

However, there is something that peeves me. In Indiana we have lifetime carry permits. This language means we will have to renew it every 5 years if we want to use it in lieu of background checks.

the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm

edit: never mind, it appears Indiana's permits don't qualify anyway.

[gc70]

If I'm reading this correctly, when put together, the information in bold suggests that a background check would not be required following an internet advertisement, as long as the transaction is between two residents of the same state and in compliance with state laws.

You appear to have overlooked the word "and" between (B)(i) and (B)(ii). The Attorney General also has to certify that the state laws you are complying with in (B)(ii) are the equivalent of the requirements in the proposal.

[tarosean]

How else do you sell a gun? Make random phonecalls till someone wants it?

Back before the advent of the internet we used to buy and sell them at flea markets, garage sales, swap meets, etc.

[The Teacher]

You appear to have overlooked the word "and" between (B)(i) and (B)(ii). The Attorney General also has to certify that the state laws you are complying with in (B)(ii) are the equivalent of the requirements in the proposal.
No, I can read and that's pretty plain to see. I was simply trying to put in bold the parts relevant to the question. The attorney general's approval doesn't address the question of whether or not the language requires background checks for any and every gun advertised online. If further actions are taken, perhaps it might, but as the language stands it does not require background checks for every transaction stemming from every gun advertised online, as there are approved exemptions.

The attorney general's approval does bring up some other unfortunate questions though.

[ngnrd]

I don't see anything in the amendment that allows FTF transfers between unlicensed parties (FFL, not CHL) except between listed relatives.

I'm no lawyer. But here's what I read. <some verbiage snipped>

(1)<snip>it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer <snip> to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show <snip>
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement <snip>

NOTE: The above paragraph (paragraph 1) applies ONLY to gun shows and firearms advertised for sale. Below are the exceptions to that paragraph.

"(2) Paragraph (1) {quoted above} shall not apply if-
"(A)<snip> a licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm <snip> and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter, <snip> except that <snip> the licensee may accept <snip> a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State <snip>

"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the <snip> State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

"(C) the transfer is made between [unprohibited family members up to first cousin] <snip>

"(D) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

As far as I can tell, Paragraph One quoted above is the only section that describes a new unlawful act related to the sale of a firearm. So, If I want to sell my rifle to a co-worker, or a friend, or even a friend-of-a-friend that I've never met before, and I didn't advertise it anywhere, and I'm not at a gun show, that would be perfectly legal without a background check.

[JRH6856]

Most importantly, it contains no 'temporary transfer' BS.

At least we won't have to go through that again. ;)

[gc70]

The Teacher:

The new federal requirement would be to go through a dealer and get a background check for a transfer at a gun show or a transfer resulting from internet advertising.

That federal requirement would not apply to two people from the same state if two conditions were met:

the Attorney General certified state requirements were equivalent to the new federal requirement and
the transfer complied with state law


So, if a state requires a transfer resulting from internet advertising to go through a dealer and get a background check, there would be no need to duplicate those state-required actions.

[Johnny Dollar]

^ Can we go back to 1959 and forget about all this garbage?

[Cosmoline]

No, that is not the case. The new requirement does not apply if:
Quote:
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

Which is simply saying that if your state already requires UBC's then you're OK. It is not a safe haven! This is a BAD BILL.

selling a gun to a coworker/colleague/friend and and and - NO background check

Unless you email him. And unless you posted a thread about the gun and wrote that you were thinking of selling it. etc. etc. Nothing is certain about this thing. It's an open invitation to bushwhacks and stings.

we kept most private transfers

Oh no we don't. Not unless you're absolutely sure you've never posted a thread about your for sale gun at some point, or posted a picture of it on a forum where sales take place (like THR), or emailed someone about selling it at some point. Remember your "ad" on the internet doesn't have to be the one the buyer sees! It could have been posted years earlier. And for all you know he posted a WTB thread about your firearm. You never saw it, but the law doesn't care. This thing is a nightmare, and it will be subject to further regulation by an agency that defined a shoelace as a fully automatic firearm.

"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

Note there's no connector between the WTS and WTB required. Nor is there any requirement that they be formal WTS or WTB posts. This language is broad enough to cover a sale where the BUYER, unbeknownst to the seller, had posted about really wanting X firearm! You can argue it wasn't "pursuant to" the thread, but at that point you're already in shackles, your guns are seized and your life turned upside down. The agency prosecuting you is the same one writing the regulations interpreting this law. They hold ALL the cards.

And of course most of our firearm deals now involve the internet unless you're riding a carriage around town. Email and forum posts are a major means of arranging FTF transfers. All that will end, which is very intentional on old Chuck's part. The "conservatives" supporting this are either flat out turncoats or too stupid to understand how modern gun trades work.

[sporty66]

It doesn't matter what this bill says at this point and time, by the time all the ammendments are added it will look completly different. Any thing that might look good now will just be a loophole gun control advacates will want closed next time gun control comes up. Why should we as legal and resposible gun owners be held responsible for the acts of the mentally disturbed and violent crimminals of this country. As this bill stands IT WILL DO NOTHING to stop gun violence, last time I checked crimminals dont go through backround checks, if someone wants a gun to do harm to someone or commit a crime they will get a gun no matter what laws are in place .I for one will not be made the scapegoat for these politicians failed attemps at curbing gun violence .My line in the sand has been drawn and I will not give anything just so they "can do something".


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

[Armymutt]

I'm going through this line by line, so please excuse the disjointed nature. There's still a "gun show loophole". It says in the show or curtilage. This means the area immediately surrounding the show. Go across the street and you should be ok. Buying one as a result of seeing it advertised in print or the internet will require a check. On the other hand, this requirement goes away if you have a permit issued within the last 5 years. The Senators from IN need to get this modified because a lot of their constituents have life time permits. It looks like they've tried to cover most of the family situations, but failed to bring it into the 21st Century - excludes step-parents, step-children, fiances, and same-sex couples. Still a felony to go on vacation and leave it with a roommate. I don't know if it was covered in an old law, but it looks like military posts near the borders of states are the place to be - qualify as a resident in your home state, the state you live in, and the state you are stationed in. At Ft. Campbell, I would have qualified for IN, KY, and TN. I think that the interstate transport part is actually a favorable move. I don't have time to go through the text of FOPA, but I think there were loopholes being exploited in the anti-gun states.

Overall, the only thing I see bad is the advertising. It needs clarified. If I can do a FTF with someone who has a permit, why does it matter how I found that person?

[Bubba613]

The inability of people to read and understand legal language is downright scary. Nothing would prohibit people from posting guns on internet fora and meeting and selling them like we do now. Nothing would mandate people meeting buyers at their homes.
People are so fixated on "this bill must be a bad bill because its a compromise" that they refuse to read and understand what's actually in it.

[Bubba613]

According to the proposed text, any transfer that was set up via any communications device would require a background check. This would include texting a seller that had posted in a good old-fashioned newspaper that had no digital version to setup a transaction.

No actually it wouldn't. You really need to read the text of the bill.

The expansion refers to two things. First, more records would be online and available for background checks. Adjudications of mental incompetency are the big ones. Second, it would apply, depending on the version discussed, to all sales at gun shows, or all sales/transfer period.

[Ingsoc75]

Is the 86 hughes machine gun ban being repealed?

Ohhhh don't I wish. Do to them what they did to us in 1986.

[abajaj11]

Could you elaborate? I don't see why requiring (by law) a background check for a non-dealer sale would add any more friction to the deal than the transfer fee, maybe I'm missing something.
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and over time, confiscation of firearms, one small segment at a time.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.

Please consider calling your senators and congressman to point this out.
For identifying your congressman : http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Put in your zip code and find your congressman.

For identifying your 2 senators:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find your senators by selecting your state

Hope this helps make sense of what they are trying to push through.
:)

[Bubba613]

You need to read the amendment to the bill before going off on it.

[DWFan]

You are witness to the ultimate in insanity in our government. A mass shooting where the weapons used were stolen is being used to promote legislation that applies to weapons purchases shortly after the government has admitted that they sponsored illegal sales to intentionally supply weapons to drug dealers and mass murderers for which they deem no explanations, repercussions or even apologies to the families of those who have been killed are warranted.
And the public is buying this lunacy.

[Ryanxia]

Remember, just because it may not relate to what you specifically are doing, don't give in and let this pass. They will try to divide us, slice the pie as it were, until there is nothing left.

Write your reps!

[kwguy]

You are witness to the ultimate in insanity in our government. A mass shooting where the weapons used were stolen is being used to promote legislation that applies to weapons purchases shortly after the government has admitted that they sponsored illegal sales to intentionally supply weapons to drug dealers and mass murderers for which they deem no explanations, repercussions or even apologies to the families of those who have been killed are warranted.

And the public is buying this lunacy.

This. That's what's crazy. The fact that threads, TV, and mental energy is even being devoted to this topic is just plain nuts. Talk about going off on a nationwide tangent. Wow. It's watching the movie 'Idiocracy', except it's really happening.

[Geneseo1911]

According to the proposed text, any transfer that was set up via any communications device would require a background check. This would include texting a seller that had posted in a good old-fashioned newspaper that had no digital version to setup a transaction.
No actually it wouldn't. You really need to read the text of the bill.

The expansion refers to two things. First, more records would be online and available for background checks. Adjudications of mental incompetency are the big ones. Second, it would apply, depending on the version discussed, to all sales at gun shows, or all sales/transfer period.

You're wrong. The bill specifically says "pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm." must go through a dealer, just like a new gun. This bill KILLS PRIVATE SALES.

[beatledog7]

So, a simple "feeler" posting on THR -- "looking at acquiring a summer carry gun" -- would constitute an intent to acquire, and the poster would be unable to purchase such a gun by any means w/o NICS.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

I have made a first read of the entire bill and here are my first impressions:

Allows the Feds to withhold various federal funds from the states if they do not improve their submissions of records into the NICS system.

States that HIPAA does not prevent mental health records from being submitted into the NICS system (Comment: As a standalone provision, this is a huge problem. The text is vague and creates the possibility that any doctor who thinks it prudent could submit you to NICS with no oversight. If this was adopted in conjunction with S.480, I would have no problem with it.)

Sets up appeals process for veterans denied their Second Amendment rights (S.480 has better language and should replace this language IMO)

Extends background checks to gun shows (defined as 75 guns or more with an exemption for sales of a large collection at a private residence) or the curtilage of a gun show.

Extends background checks to Internet sales (Comment: this is defined incredibly broadly. Basically, if you use the Internet for any portion of the sale and they aren't one of the relatives exempted by the bill (parents, children, siblings, and spouses of same), it has to go through a background check. I see a hundred ways for people who have been buying and selling over the Internet to get in trouble. This provision reads like it was written by two old men who only use their Windows 95 machines to play solitaire.). It looks like it might also create liability for online forums like TFL who facilitate such sales - I need to research that further since it references multiple sections of federal law I am less familiar with.

Additionally, the bill contains all the "benefits" outlined by the earlier Toomey-Manchin fact sheet. Apart from the fact that I don't think the interstate travelling language is strong enough to prevent the kind of abuses New York has been perpetrating, those all seem to be fairly straightforward.

[Geneseo1911]

Which is simply saying that if your state already requires UBC's then you're OK. It is not a safe haven! This is a BAD BILL.

IL already has UBC in the form of a FOID card. It will be a cold day in hell before our AG "Little Lisa Madigan" certifies that private sales are already subject to BC's I suspect the same would be true of and D controlled state.


Extends background checks to Internet sales (Comment: this is defined incredibly broadly. Basically, if you use the Internet for any portion of the sale and they aren't one of the relatives exempted by the bill (parents, children, siblings, and spouses of same), it has to go through a background check. I see a hundred ways for people who have been buying and selling over the Internet to get in trouble. This provision reads like it was written by two old men who only use their Windows 95 machines to play solitaire.). It looks like it might also create liability for online forums like TFL who facilitate such sales - I need to research that further since it references multiple sections of federal law I am less familiar with.

Yeah- So broadly that it includes printed media. It is a roundabout way of banning any private sale outside of family.

[Greenmachin3]

Bubba613,

Because legalese is considered a different language from English. I'm being serious. It is quite officially a separate language.

Bartholomew Roberts,

Yeah, that's basically what I got from it. Not too miffed about any one particular thing. Just miffed at the effort put forth to address a "situation in America" that isn't really a situation at all if you go by the statistics. Not compared to obesity, heart disease, and a myriad of other problems because people have the natural right to choose.

[Bubba613]

Extends background checks to Internet sales (Comment: this is defined incredibly broadly. Basically, if you use the Internet for any portion of the sale and they aren't one of the relatives exempted by the bill (parents, children, siblings, and spouses of same), it has to go through a background check. I see a hundred ways for people who have been buying and selling over the Internet to get in trouble. This provision reads like it was written by two old men who only use their Windows 95 machines to play solitaire.). It looks like it might also create liability for online forums like TFL who facilitate such sales - I need to research that further since it references multiple sections of federal law I am less familiar with.

Nope. You need to read further down.

"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

[Geneseo1911]

And to be clear; I'm not advocating selling guns to complete strangers with no due diligence. In IL, we are stuck with FOID, which for all it's flaws and unconstitutionality (if FOID is OK, why not voter ID?) at least makes it very easy to know you're not selling to a prohibited person.

I would be OK with UBC's IF they could be done by the individual without paying a dealer or doing paperwork. The proposed bill has a provision for voluntary BC's for employer's; why can't individuals have a system like that? The answer is of course, that the real goal is getting all guns "on paper".

[Bubba613]

You're wrong. The bill specifically says "pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm." must go through a dealer, just like a new gun. This bill KILLS PRIVATE SALES.
No, I am not wrong. The bill does no such thing. Go back and read it.

[Geneseo1911]

Yeah-IF the AG says the state already has UBC's. How is state UBC better than federal?

[Bubba613]

Where does the bill state that? Nowhere.

[Geneseo1911]

I did. You're missing the 'and' here:
the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

[Geneseo1911]

Here:

(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

[Bubba613]

I dont see any mention of "universal background checks" in the quoted passage. You'll have to clarify.

[Bubba613]

I missed nothing. You are misreading the section.

[DWFan]

kwguy, agree or disagree; that is your prerogative and right. However, I would appreciate it if you did not equate my comments with the actions of someone out of touch with reality.

[Geneseo1911]

The AG (and I'm not clear if it's the state's AG or Holder) has to certify that the state already has provisions similar to the section about any sale advertised anywhere being subject to a BC. If the AG does that, then the state's residents are exempt from the federal bill.

[Beentown]

^ Can we go back to 1959 and forget about all this garbage?

1791 please...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, second read and here are my two major concerns:


SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).

This section is worse than useless. It removes all HIPAA protections for reporting mental health info NICS; but doesn't provide any standards or guidelines for what information is reportable. Can a doctor call up and report you because he thinks you shouldn't have a gun? How do you get out of the system if that happens? This is unacceptable language. My take is they should strip all the mental health language out and go with the NRA backed S.480.

"(B) A provider of an interactive computer service shall be immune from a qualified civil liability action relating to the transfer of a firearm as if the provider of an interactive computer service were a seller of a qualified product.

As defined, this forum, your ISP, are all interactive computer services. They are provided the same immunity as a qualified seller under 47 USC 7903. However, as defined in that section, if an illegal sale takes place (no background check) then that immunity disappears. So if two people buy a firearm after talking about it in THR and do not go through a background check, THR is potentially liable for the illegal sale - and even if not liable, they won't get the PLCA protection against being dragged into BS lawsuits. Furthermore, except for three categories relating to FFL transfer availability and fees, the Attorney General (Eric Holder lest we forget) is given free reign to set up the regulations on how this law will actually be implemented.

[Bubba613]

The AG (and I'm not clear if it's the state's AG or Holder) has to certify that the state already has provisions similar to the section about any sale advertised anywhere being subject to a BC. If the AG does that, then the state's residents are exempt from the federal bill.

You made that up.

The language is that the AG must certify the state has requirements "substantially similar to those of this section." What are the requirements of "this section"? Hint: universal background check is not one of them because there is already an exemption spelled out.

[beatledog7]

Bubba613, why are you in favor of this bill? What does it do that you think is needed?

[Bovice]

I don't understand this "expand background checks to gun shows" thing. Every gun show I have been to, the dealers conduct them just like they would at the storefront. Private sales are a different animal, but those aren't as prolific as sales from volume dealers at the same show.

They'd like the general population to believe that gun shows are like the wild west. There's more in that bill than we think. This is not going well at all.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The language is that the AG must certify the state has requirements "substantially similar to those of this section." What are the requirements of "this section"? Hint: universal background check is not one of them because there is already an exemption spelled out.

On the contrary, his interpretation was exactly right. "This section" refers to Section 122: Firearms Transfers. As long as the requirements of your state are substantially similar to Section 122, you don't have to comply.

[Bubba613]

On the contrary, his interpretation was exactly right. "This section" refers to Section 122: Firearms Transfers. As long as the requirements of your state are substantially similar to Section 122, you don't have to comply.
It was completely wrong. And you have misread this entire bill consistently through this discussion.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Note also that the online sales cover any publication as well, so basically if you out of the blue decide to buy a gun from a neighbor during a conversation - OK. If you advertise in any way other than church bulletin board or lost puppy flyers - background check (and those could arguably be prohibited as well, I am just taking the two Senators comments during the press conference at face value).

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It was completely wrong. And you have misread this entire bill consistently through this discussion

So what does "this section" refer to then, if not the Section it is located in (Section 122: Firearms Transfers)?

[Bubba613]

Bubba613, why are you in favor of this bill? What does it do that you think is needed?
Clearly the only "restriction" here is on gun show activity. Presently private sellers can sell without background checks at gun shows (and of course outside of them). I have no issue with someone selling his personal collection. I do have an issue with people who set up tables at show after show advertising "No background checks!". Those guys have got to go. This bill does that.
On the positive side it allows handgun sales across state lines, which is a huge plus. It also allows carry permits to substitute for background checks.
People are getting bent out of shape thinking they cannot buy and sell on, e.g. THR if they happen to live in the same state. There is no such provision in the bill. Nor could it possibly be enforced if it were. Nor would it really make a lot of sense.
Yes, of course this will do nothing to stop outrageous acts of violence. But that was never really in the cards, nor what any of this was about.

[Bubba613]

Note also that the online sales cover any publication as well, so basically if you out of the blue decide to buy a gun from a neighbor during a conversation - OK. If you advertise in any way other than church bulletin board or lost puppy flyers - background check (and those could arguably be prohibited as well, I am just taking the two Senators comments during the press conference at face value).
That simply is not true.
Where did the senators say such in their press conference?

[Keb]

Please explain how the Second Amendment works.

What, the Well Armed Militia is now people only in your family, or people you transfer to a gun shows with a BGC, or in a parking lot in a free state if the transferee has a CC permit?

Or a public sale in time of National Emergency in your own yard, no doubt well attended by the evil object of the very need for the 2nd to come in to play.... sorta like asking King George's General Gage to come to your open house in Lexington, right after the guy rides past talking about "one if by land, two if by sea".

What does "infringe" mean?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Any publication is included in the language.

(t)(1)(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or...

"Publication" is undefined. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to create any regulations necessary to enact the bill*, so "publication" will ultimately be defined by Eric Holder, though I assumed in the post you quoted that Joe Manchin's comment that a sale on a church bulletin board would not be subject to a background check indicates an intent that bulletin boards, neighborhood flyers and the like would not be considered a "publication.". However, Joe Manchin won't be the one defining it and his comment at the press conference may not carry a lot of weight in court during an argument over whether the AG's definition of publication is correct.

*"(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Geneseo1911's interpretation is absolutely correct and Bubba613 is wrong. Rather than retype everything I have already written in this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=712566&page=4

I'll just ask the mods to merge these.

[bhk]

One of my concerns with any of the stuff is over really OWNS the guns in my house. My wife and I have always considered our guns mutual property. I guess the UBC concept changes this and our guns have to legally become either HERS or MINE (or some hers and some mine).

What if I leave the house for a couple of weeks. It seems that I would have to make some 'effort' to legally transfer MY guns to HER (I know no background check is required under this circumstance). Maybe just saying, 'Honey, the guns are all yours until I come back" is sufficient. I seems that the whole UBC concept relies on the fact that guns are owned or titled to individual persons. This whole thing is totally rediculous.

[gc70]

Buying one as a result of seeing it advertised in print or the internet will require a check. On the other hand, this requirement goes away if you have a permit issued within the last 5 years.

The permit would act as a substitute for a NICS check, but the transfer would still have to go through a dealer.

Note that the core of the bill is not a requirement to get a background check, but to go through a dealer for a transfer.

it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed

Dealers have to run background checks when they do transfers. Current law already provides for the use of permits as an alternative to a NICS check.

[gc70]

The language is that the AG must certify the state has requirements "substantially similar to those of this section." What are the requirements of "this section"? Hint: universal background check is not one of them because there is already an exemption spelled out.

The proposal spells out "this section":

SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
(a) In General.-Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-

To be absolutely precise, the part of the proposal about gun shows and online sales would become the United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 922, subsection (t).

The term "Attorney General" is defined in 18 USC 921(a)(18) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921):

18 USC § 921(a) As used in this chapter—
(18) The term “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States.

[Geneseo1911]

You made that up.

The language is that the AG must certify the state has requirements "substantially similar to those of this section." What are the requirements of "this section"? Hint: universal background check is not one of them because there is already an exemption spelled out.

No, Joe Manchin did. "This Section" refers to the above paragraph saying any advertised sale must go through an FFL. The part we are discussing, about the AG waiving the requirement, IS the exemption. There are four exemptions:
A)Importers & licensees
B)AG says state already requires BC's on all sales (the one I'm discussing)
C)Family as defined in the bill
D)a specific exemption directly from the AG

ANY sale not meeting one of those exemptions must go through an FFL. Lets look at exemption B again, the one you are saying exempts any private sale:
(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

That 'if' and 'and' are quite critical. BOTH conditions must be met for the exemption to be valid. What is the exemption from? This paragraph:
"(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-

Here's the entire thing in context for those following along:

"(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;
"(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law; or
"(D) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

[Bubba613]

"Publication" is undefined. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to create any regulations necessary to enact the bill*, so "publication" will ultimately be defined by Eric Holder, though I assumed in the post you quoted that Joe Manchin's comment that a sale on a church bulletin board would not be subject to a background check indicates an intent that bulletin boards, neighborhood flyers and the like would not be considered a "publication.". However, Joe Manchin won't be the one defining it and his comment at the press conference may not carry a lot of weight in court during an argument over whether the AG's definition of publication is correct.

Yes. And that does not apply if the buyer and seller are resident of the same state.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Dealers have to run background checks when they do transfers. Current law already provides for the use of permits as an alternative to a NICS check.

gc70, thanks! You just clued me in on a huge issue with this bill - even if the buyer has a valid CHL issued within the last 5 years, he must still go to an FFL to purchase a firearm. The CHL exempts you from the NICS check; but not the requirement to conduct the transfer through an FFL.

Now why would it be necessary for someone who has already gone through a background check and is exempt from a NICS check to go to an FFL to buy a privately owned firearm? The only thing that provision does is generate a 4473 and an FFL transfer fee on someone we KNOW can legally own a gun.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes. And that does not apply if the buyer and seller are resident of the same state.

As has already been pointed out to you, by three different people, you are ignoring the first part of a conjunctive requirement. The Attorney General must certify that state laws are substantially similar to Section 122 of this bill AND the buyer and seller must be residents of the same state.

What about that is unclear for you?

[Bubba613]

No, Joe Manchin did. "This Section" refers to the above paragraph saying any advertised sale must go through an FFL. The part we are discussing, about the AG waiving the requirement, IS the exemption. There are four exemptions:
A)Importers & licensees
B)AG says state already requires BC's on all sales (the one I'm discussing)
C)Family as defined in the bill
D)a specific exemption directly from the AG

That is a complete fabrication.
There is no mention, not one, of a universal background check anywhere in the bill. There is no mention of the AG waiving any requirement. The language of the bill references an IRS statute that is concerned with the SOT.

[Bubba613]

As has already been pointed out to you; by three different people you are ignoring the first part of a conjunctive requirement. The Attorney General must certify that state laws are substantially similar to Section 122 of this bill AND the buyer and seller must be residents of the same state.

What about that is unclear for you?
You appear to be the one unclear here. Where does Section 122 spell out there must be a background check on every transfer? Nowhere. It would make no sense. What you are proposing is that the statute states: Every transfer between unlicensed individuals must have a background check with the exception of people in the same state who are subject to a background check for the same transaction. That is nonsense.

Still waiting on a reference from the press conference.

[morcey2]

Any publication is included in the language.


(t)(1)(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or...




"Publication" is undefined. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to create any regulations necessary to enact the bill*, so "publication" will ultimately be defined by Eric Holder, though I assumed in the post you quoted that Joe Manchin's comment that a sale on a church bulletin board would not be subject to a background check indicates an intent that bulletin boards, neighborhood flyers and the like would not be considered a "publication.". However, Joe Manchin won't be the one defining it and his comment at the press conference may not carry a lot of weight in court during an argument over whether the AG's definition of publication is correct.

*

"(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.



The AG defining the regulations is an opening that they could drive the nightmare-bus through. That's one of the issues in Obamacare. It leaves so much of the regulation definition to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Thus it's at 20,000 pages and growing. I can see Eric Holder making the obamacare regulation stack look like a pamphlet in comparison.

Matt

[Bubba613]

Even teh NRA understands that Toomey's bill does not mandate universal background checks:

“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools,” the National Rifle Association said in a statement issued even before Manchin and Toomey finished their press conference.

“While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-background-checks-deal-89856.html#ixzz2QGGR3vvY

[Geneseo1911]

Wow. Did you read my long post #106 above? It's all laid out very plainly. They don't specifically call it a UBC....they just require a BC on any advertised sale. Since it's hard to sell something without advertising it's availability, I would call that a UBC.

I really don't want to argue with you, and it appears that you refuse to see the truth, even when plainly laid out. I just don't want you to lull people into the idea that this bill is no big deal.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL. It is the end of private sales as we know it, and it may just be watered down & well hidden enough to pass both chambers unless we raise hell about it.

Please read the language I have quoted for you....or go here & read the whole bill: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968. Don't rely on the words out of politician's mouths for the truth.

[Bubba613]

Why does the NRA not say it will end private sales by requiring a background check?
I spelled out that there is an exception that covers virtually all face to face in-state transactions outside of gun shows. That you refuse to believe what is plainly written is not my fault.

[beatledog7]

The bill would be a big deal even if it didn't essentially end private sales. It is federal gun legislation that has bi-partisan support (at least it appears to have), and that alone is a red flag to any gun owner.

[Lj1941]

;)I am now wondering how this will affect any person who is a C & R licensee. They are now able to deal in interstate commerece in weapons listed as CURIO & RELICS without a background check.Many common highly desired weapons are on this list.I am playing the "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" :evil: and need to know if collectors are affected by this "AGREEMENT" that Senators Toomey and the West Virginia senator have orchestrated.:confused::cuss:

[gc70]

You appear to be the one unclear here. Where does Section 122 spell out there must be a background check on every transfer? Nowhere. It would make no sense. What you are proposing is that the statute states: Every transfer between unlicensed individuals must have a background check with the exception of people in the same state who are subject to a background check for the same transaction. That is nonsense.

Here is a simple explanation of the text (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968):

SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
(a) In General.-Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
<snip>
(4) by inserting after subsection (s), as redesignated, the following:
"(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
[the stuff concerning gun show and online sales continues all the way to ...]
<snip>
(b) Prohibiting the Seizure of Records or Documents.

The core of the proposal is that gun show and online transfers must go through a dealer. Background checks -and filling out 4473 forms- are a result of going through a dealer.

There is no explicit commandment labeled "background check" in the proposal because a transfer through a dealer already requires a background check under the provisions of 18 USC 922(t)(1) in current law [which would be redesignated as 18 USC 922(s)(1) by the proposal].

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Why does the NRA not say it will end private sales by requiring a background check?

The NRA press release you are quoting is from Wednesday morning, prior to having the text of the Toomey-Manchin amendment available and before even Senators had the chance to read the text. The NRA was responding to the summary of the amendment released by the Senators.

Still waiting on a reference from the press conference.

I explained what Joe Manchin said and explained where and when he said it. Exactly what more do you consider necessary? And for that matter, why do you think that is even relevant since it indicates an intent by Manchin not to cover sales from church bulletin boards?

[razorback2003]

I don't see any compromise that benefits the gun community in this bill. Now if we got Hughes 86 machine gun ban repealed then MAYBE I could see compromise. Right now we aren't getting anything and in the process another right is being chiseled away.

[gc70]

Why does the NRA not say it will end private sales by requiring a background check?

Wouldn't that be sweet; the NRA doing a Chicken Little Dance saying that background checks on online sales would be the end of private sales.

Gun grabbers have been telling the public that evil, anonymous online sales are a huge problem in guns being trafficked to criminals. I somehow doubt that the NRA is going to issue a statement that could be read to confirm the gun grabbers' narrative.

[Ryanxia]

I hope the NRA does something to help us stand our ground, as has been stated this is still a horrible infringement on our Rights (not that we could understand the laws after this) but it might be watered down enough to go through. God help us.

Continue to contact/call your representatives, do it every day until they vote on this.

[Bubba613]

I explained what Joe Manchin said and explained where and when he said it. Exactly what more do you consider necessary? And for that matter, why do you think that is even relevant since it indicates an intent by Manchin not to cover sales from church bulletin boards?
You indicated that at the press conference they said essentially they were requiring all private sales to have a background check. Here's an account of what was said and I see nothing of the kind.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/10/coverage-of-the-toomey-manchin-gun-control-press-conference/

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I said: "If you advertise in any way other than church bulletin board or lost puppy flyers - background check (and those could arguably be prohibited as well, I am just taking the two Senators comments during the press conference at face value)"

What I meant by that, since you apparently do not understand, is that the law requires any ad or offer to sale made through the Internet or by publication to undergo a background check. During the press conference, Manchin was asked about this and said it would not cover a sale made on the church bulletin board. When I said I was taking the two Senators comment at face value, I meant that I was assuming that the regulation that eventually defined "publication" would be interpreted so that a church bulletin board was not a publication. Do you understand now?

You appear to be the one unclear here. Where does Section 122 spell out there must be a background check on every transfer?

gc70 already gave a great explanation of this. It covers the subject well.

[OldTex]

The ultimate goal of the gun-grabbers is to do away with the 2nd Amendment. The honest ones openly admit that. They know they don't have the political muscle to do it all at once, so they've been chipping away at our rights since the 1930's. Every time they take one bite out of the apple, they start working on the next one.

I remember when they passed the NICS bill in '94. They said BG checks would only apply to commercial dealers. They made private sales from one person to another a "reasonable exception" to the law. But once that law was set in stone, the "reasonable exception" for private sales suddenly became the "gun show loophole" that had to be fixed.

So now they give us this bill to fix the gun show loophole. They throw us a bone in the form of 'reasonable exceptions' for transfers to family members and a prohibition against federal record-keeping to make us think we are getting something out of the deal. How long do you think those are going to be 'reasonable' after this bill becomes law? Only a fool would believe that this will be the end of their plans.

Like idiots with no memories, politicians always seem so willing to compromise and give away another piece of the pie. This bill would have done absolutely nothing to stop the mass shootings and everyone admits that. So why in the world are we so willing to compromise again? We already have the right to make family transfers and there is already a prohibition against federal record keeping. A 'compromise' means both sides get something. What are we getting out of the deal?

[Bubba613]

What I meant by that, since you apparently do not understand, is that the law requires any ad or offer to sale made through the Internet or by publication to undergo a background check.

Except if the transaction is conducted by two non-licensees in the same state.

The language is vague and troublesome, but I am not alone here.
By my reading, those exceptions apply to transactions conducted at guns shows, on the Internet or in publications, because transfers between unlicensed individuals is only prohibited under those circumstances. BTW, (D) refers to NFA transfers.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/11/we-have-language-on-the-toomey-manchin-amendment/

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Except if the transaction is conducted by two non-licensees in the same state.

Look at the language. Paragraph 1 describes where background checks apply (gun shows and background checks). Paragraph 2 describes the exemptions to ALL OF Paragraph 1. If your interpretation of 2(B) is correct, the two non-licensees in the same state could buy guns at a gun show with no background check. That is clearly not the intent of the drafters in the conference esterday.

[SilentStalker]

This does not seem to bad on its face but I don't like it because I fear it is the beginning. it opens more windows and restricts one even more than they were, albeit not a whole lot more restriction but the fact is this is how battles are won. A little at a time is all it takes and who is to say they don't come back and amend this later on? One could also argue that this is all a show to appease the anti's and not really piss off the gun toters but if it is then it is a huge waste of everyone's tax dollars. They need to start worrying about real problems and forget this garbage when they cannot even rightly enforce all of the laws they already have.

[Cosmoline]

they just require a BC on any advertised sale. Since it's hard to sell something without advertising it's availability, I would call that a UBC.

In a nutshell. The only things left would be sales between the Amish gun nuts and purely internal transfers done on the spur of the moment. And even then I'm not too sure. A great deal is left to the regulations, and those haven't been drafted yet.

The language is vague and troublesome, but I am not alone here.

Well we may be alone in the prison cell. This is NOT the sort of law where ambiguity is acceptable. Vague and ambiguous terms will be defined by BATFE in the most restrictive way possible. That's how they have always operated. As it stands now we have a pretty clear division between interstate and intrastate transfers, that fits in with centuries of law dividing interstate and intrastate activity. So we generally know what is and is not supposed to be going through a license holder with a NICS check. This new law is anything but clear, and that alone is a deal breaker.

And of course we haven't even gotten into the gun show nonsense, or what constitutes "curtilage thereof." Curtilage isn't what you sprain picking up a big fifty, and it isn't part of the cheese making process. But as far as what it actually is, who can say. There's no clear line beyond which you'll be safe. And again federal prison is not something you want to be vague about.

[SilentStalker]

In a nutshell. The only things left would be sales between the Amish gun nuts and purely internal transfers done on the spur of the moment. And even then I'm not too sure. A great deal is left to the regulations, and those haven't been drafted yet.

Exactly!

[Bubba613]

Look at the language. Paragraph 1 describes where background checks apply (gun shows and background checks). Paragraph 2 describes the exemptions to ALL OF Paragraph 1. If your interpretation of 2(B) is correct, the two non-licensees in the same state could buy guns at a gun show with no background check. That is clearly not the intent of the drafters in the conference esterday.
No, that's not the case. Not at all.

Para 2 says Para 1 does not apply in the following cases:
1) When it is doen through a licensed dealer.
2) When it occurs between two residents of the same state.

If the intent were to outlaw all or most private transfers then there would be no need for 2). The law would simply state transfers must go through licensed dealers.

[Cosmoline]

The intent is indeed to outlaw most private sales, and to place the remainder under a confusing cloud of curtilege and sub-exceptions. I like your reading, but there's no way it would ever fly. And again this is absolutely not a law we should be confused about. It needs to be 100% clear. The line needs to be open and obvious. Because if you cross that line you're finished. Your life is essentially over and you'll be a federal felon. Death would be preferable in many respects.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Quote:
Look at the language. Paragraph 1 describes where background checks apply (gun shows and background checks). Paragraph 2 describes the exemptions to ALL OF Paragraph 1. If your interpretation of 2(B) is correct, the two non-licensees in the same state could buy guns at a gun show with no background check. That is clearly not the intent of the drafters in the conference esterday.
No, that's not the case. Not at all.

Para 2 says Para 1 does not apply in the following cases:
1) When it is doen through a licensed dealer.
2) When it occurs between two residents of the same state.

Exactly. Let me remind you what Para 1 says:

"(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or...

If your interpretation of para 2(B) is correct, then the only way to read it is that intrastate sales between non-licensees at a gun show are exempt via 2(B). However, that interpretation would make the whole gunshow background check meaningless and is clearly not what was intended.

The logical conclusion would be that 2(B) doesn't mean what you think it means; but I don't have much hope you are EVER going to see it that way.

[DeepSouth]

I think we should fight among ourselves more. :rolleyes:

[Tygarys]

;)I am now wondering how this will affect any person who is a C & R licensee. They are now able to deal in interstate commerece in weapons listed as CURIO & RELICS without a background check.Many common highly desired weapons are on this list.I am playing the "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" :evil: and need to know if collectors are affected by this "AGREEMENT" that Senators Toomey and the West Virginia senator have orchestrated.:confused::cuss:
I would like to know as well, as I just applied for my C&R.

However, from what I see, these laws apply to private->private or Dealer->private transactions. C&R's are transfers from one FFL to another so would still be exempt from the dealer/NICS requirements.

[gc70]

We need to quit talking about the Manchin-Toomey amendment 'requiring background checks.'

The Manchin-Toomey amendment would require gun show and internet-related transfers (and that is all that the amendment covers) to go through dealers.

Existing law already requires a background check for any transfer through a dealer.

Existing law also already requires filling out a Form 4473 for any transfer through a dealer.

[morcey2]

I would like to know as well, as I just applied for my C&R.

However, from what I see, these laws apply to private->private or Dealer->private transactions. C&R's are transfers from one FFL to another so would still be exempt from the dealer/NICS requirements.
I've got my C&R also and have been trying to figure it out. I believe you're correct in that anything that falls under the C&R license would be exempt as it is a licensee -> licensee transfer.

I hope.

Otherwise, I'll surrender my C&R and burn my bound book. (perfectly legal for a C&R. Don't try it with any other FFL.)

Matt

[Bubba613]

If your interpretation of para 2(B) is correct, then the only way to read it is that intrastate sales between non-licensees at a gun show are exempt via 2(B). However, that interpretation would make the whole gunshow background check meaningless and is clearly not what was intended.

The logical conclusion would be that 2(B) doesn't mean what you think it means; but I don't have much hope you are EVER going to see it that way.

Based on that logic there would be no need for 2B at all. Obviously 2B is there to exempt something. That something must be transactions not at gun shows.

[Cosmoline]

We need to quit talking about the Manchin-Toomey amendment 'requiring background checks.'

It requires going through a dealer which requires a background check. So yes it requires background checks through dealers and outlaws or clouds most modern FTF transfers--by gun show or the internet.

C&R's are transfers from one FFL to another so would still be exempt from the dealer/NICS requirements.

Presumably. I'm not sure about transfers from a non-license holder to a C&R holder.

[Shadow 7D]

It requires going through a dealer which requires a background check. So yes it requires background checks through dealers and outlaws or clouds most modern FTF transfers--by gun show or the internet.



Presumably. I'm not sure about transfers from a non-license holder to a C&R holder.
My question is: when it comes to dispossession, are the C&R's going to have access to NICS or are they going to have to use a FFL1?

[morcey2]

My question is: when it comes to dispossession, are the C&R's going to have access to NICS or are they going to have to use a FFL1?
I think they would fall under whatever non-licensee-to-non-licensee category the transfer falls.

[SuperNaut]

I've been monitoring the conversation about this bill on several sites and the general consensus among anti-gunner's is that they think that it is far too lax and watered-down. If I've learned one thing from this latest go-round it is that gun-grabbers are now fully out of the closet about their real agenda. They mean to destroy the Constitution and they will say anything to make that happen.

How many times have you read that "no one is going to take your guns" or "no one wants to eliminate the Second Amendment?"

Lies.

[rdhood]

How many times have you read that "no one is going to take your guns" or "no one wants to eliminate the Second Amendment?"

Lies.

Kind of like: "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it" and "bend the cost curve down" . Proponents of these measures will say anything to get them passed

[tyeo098]

How many states do you think the Attny General will 'Certify?'

I'm betting none.

[morcey2]

A better explanation is I have a difference of opinion on something that is not at all clear cut and rather than acknowledge that everyone wants to jump all over me because I'm not willing to let FUD cloud judgment and reason.

I think there is more FUD than judgement and reason in this whole discussion at the moment, and I think that was the point of some of the language in the legislation. I have yet to hear from a lawyer on the actual meaning of the proposal, but I have my opinion. I think your interpretation is just as valid as mine at this point, but my suspicion of the bill (not of you) stems from the support by Schumer amongst others. If this passes and you're right, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I'm just cynical.

As far as arguing among ourselves, we need to be careful to not form a circular firing-squad.

Matt

ETA: I swear I'm not making fake quotes. His post was there a few minutes ago, I promise.

[Cosmoline]

I think we can all agree this law is very far from clear cut in any aspect. And that's a sufficient reason to give it the boot. I'm not opposed to UBC's if they're done as part of comprehensive pro-gun reform all the way back to the NFA and certainly the GCA. But this is not the way to go. The only things it "gives" us are things we were already supposed to have. Now if they were talking about forcing Bloomberg to accept out of state CCW permits it MIGHT be worth it just to take a piece out of his fascist enclave. But this one is a long way from that, and Bloomberg likes it. Again that's another good reason not to support the thing.

[TennJed]

Originally Posted by Bubba613

The inability of people to read and understand legal language is downright scary. Nothing would prohibit people from posting guns on internet fora and meeting and selling them like we do now. Nothing would mandate people meeting buyers at their homes.
People are so fixated on "this bill must be a bad bill because its a compromise" that they refuse to read and understand what's actually in it.

Originally Posted by Bubba613

The language is vague and troublesome, but I am not alone here.

Bubba613 with all due repsect, it seems like you are going out of your way to defend the bill before we are really clear on it. That is just as problematic as someone going out of thier way to bash it before everythign is known

[Cosmoline]

Nothing would prohibit people from posting guns on internet fora and meeting and selling them like we do now. Nothing would mandate people meeting buyers at their homes.

No court will read an exception to swallow the rule. And the rule is that all transfers of firearms that have been posted up somewhere--probably including newspaper classifieds posed on line--will have to go through a dealer and have a check. This would include intrastate transfers. Otherwise the new law would really do nothing.

[beatledog7]

There are many ambiguities, but one thing is certain: If this monstrosity were meant to make any ambiguity go in favor of the gun owner, it would not have been written at all.

[beatledog7]

And all those threats to state governments about withholding federal funding if they don't comply...when will state legislatures and governors develop a spine and tell the feds to pack sand?

[Cosmoline]

The states have nothing to say about this. They can "refuse to comply" all they want. It has nothing to do with state law or state law enforcement.

[Bubba613]

No court will read an exception to swallow the rule. And the rule is that all transfers of firearms that have been posted up somewhere--probably including newspaper classifieds posed on line--will have to go through a dealer and have a check. This would include intrastate transfers. Otherwise the new law would really do nothing.

No, it would require BGC at all gun shows. I dont know for certain what the law will do with respect to private transfers. Obviously we all understand the thing is so vague that you could make several different interpretations. And nothing in the public record by the authors clarifies that.

I will wait and see what further clarification comes along. If you were right that it is meant to essentially outlaw private transactions outside of very very narrow exceptions, then it sucks and it needs to go. If it is meant to essentially outlaw private transactions within a very very narrow range then I'd probably support it. The positives in the bill that we all agree on are pretty good though.
The states have nothing to say about this. They can "refuse to comply" all they want. It has nothing to do with state law or state law enforcement.

So who will enforce it? ATF? They can't enforce the law as it stands now. What was the last 922r violation you saw enforced?

[beatledog7]

It has to do with states inputting data, however. Or did I dream that part?

[rdhood]

Hypothetical:
------------------------------------
I post gunXX for sale on THR. I post my phone number or some other method of non-internet communication. I state: "Do not tell me that you saw my advertisement or tell me where you saw it. If you do, I will not sell. Simply say, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"

Later, I get a call saying, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"

We arrange a meeting, no one ever says the word "internet" or "The High Road". We conclude the transaction and go on our way.

--------------------------------


Legal under this proposed law?

[Bubba613]

Possible outcomes:
1) Perfectly legal.
2) Illegal but uncaught
3) ATF sting and you'll be in the cell with Darnell.

No one knows at this point.

[Squeaky Wheel]

I might have to start living in van down by the river.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have yet to hear from a lawyer on the actual meaning of the proposal, but I have my opinion.

Actually, you have heard from a lawyer - more than one in this thread alone, though I am not sure how many are still practicing.

[hang fire]

H.m.b.: Sounds like FTF personal sales are allowed, but only from your private residence?

Not to worry, that little matter will be taken care of shortly.

[hang fire]

Hypothetical:
------------------------------------
I post gunXX for sale on THR. I post my phone number or some other method of non-internet communication. I state: "Do not tell me that you saw my advertisement or tell me where you saw it. If you do, I will not sell. Simply say, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"

Later, I get a call saying, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"

We arrange a meeting, no one ever says the word "internet" or "The High Road". We conclude the transaction and go on our way.

--------------------------------


Legal under this proposed law?
HA, LOL, dream on, or did you forget the sarcasm tag?

[exbrit49]

Went through the entire document and found about 7 items I strongly disagree with and put together a polite but strong email and sent it to all my federal representatives. I also stated why I objected to the specific items.
Luckily most of our reps are very much on our side. I am sure that enough emails, letters and phone calls will prod our local guys to oppose the sections of the bill we find objectionable. Common sense will hopefully prevail.
Lets stay on top of this and if we are going to have to give an inch, ( a foregone conclusion) lets make it palatable!

Come on guys and gals, Posting here and bitching wont do a thing, get on the phone. email or write to your reps/ We can get this changed but wasting lots of hot air on a forum wont get it done!

[rdhood]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdhood View Post
Hypothetical:
------------------------------------
I post gunXX for sale on THR. I post my phone number or some other method of non-internet communication. I state: "Do not tell me that you saw my advertisement or tell me where you saw it. If you do, I will not sell. Simply say, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"

Later, I get a call saying, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"

We arrange a meeting, no one ever says the word "internet" or "The High Road". We conclude the transaction and go on our way.

--------------------------------


Legal under this proposed law?
HA, LOL, dream on, or did you forget the sarcasm tag?

But lets suppose I also posted info on my church bulletin board, the local telephone pole, and the grocery store bulletin board. I really have no idea where the buyer saw my advertisement. Or, if I simply posted that I have a gunxxx for sale and you can find my ad on the telephone pole at 5th and Vine. Or , someone sets up a physical bulletin board, and points a webcam at it. If folks happen to post their advertisements on the bulletin board... you get the drift. There are about a thousand ways I can think of to remove the direct email/personal message/internet forum connection to the sale such that I, as the seller, don't know the source of the buyer.

Just like a FTF transaction now, if I have no reason to believe that the purchaser is not from my state, the transaction (for me) is legal. Similarly, if I have no reason to believe that the purchaser saw my ad online or in some other digital domain (i.e. "Internet sale"), then it would still appear to be legal to do a face-to-face.

Instead of snarky remarks, how about an honest discussion. Why would this not be legal?

[DeadMoneyDrew]

I've been monitoring the conversation about this bill on several sites and the general consensus among anti-gunner's is that they think that it is far too lax and watered-down. If I've learned one thing from this latest go-round it is that gun-grabbers are now fully out of the closet about their real agenda. They mean to destroy the Constitution and they will say anything to make that happen.

How many times have you read that "no one is going to take your guns" or "no one wants to eliminate the Second Amendment?"

Lies.
Gah. After reading this post I wandered over to that Million Moms for Nobody Ever Having a Gun Herpderpderp site. The comments on that site make my brain hurt.

EDIT: except for this post which made me LOL.


Just wondering why there isn’t a one million dads for gun control? I googled and sadly all that came up was one million dads for gun rights.

:)

[texasgun]

"The Manchin-Toomey amendment would require gun show and internet-related transfers (and that is all that the amendment covers) to go through dealers.

Existing law already requires a background check for any transfer through a dealer.

Existing law also already requires filling out a Form 4473 for any transfer through a dealer."

as quoted earlier. So what exactly is the big deal? As stated - private party sales are OK as long as you do not sell to strangers you advertise to on the internet. The MAIN THING they are going after is the guy at gun shows with the "no background checks" sign on his table who hands over a Glock to anyone with enough cash who walks up to his table. I hardly feel sorry for those guys who give gun shows and licensed dealers a bad name. But maybe it's just me who prefers that a guy freshly released from prison does not drive to the next gun shows and buys a pistol no questions asked.... because obviously licensed dealers or ANYONE with a background check won't work and buying a stolen gun off the streets is a tad risky for someone fresh out of the slammer.

[Sam1911]

What's the big deal? :scrutiny: How about the fact that if you and I live in the same state and you go on THR's Trading Post and see that I've got a neat-o rifle for sale we cannot simply get together and make the deal. We'll have to go to a dealer and put that gun and your name on paper just like folks selling across state lines or buying from a dealer to begin with.

How about the fact that if I head off to the local gun show and walk the aisles with a "For Sale" sign on my FAL or 870, I cannot simply sell that gun to another resident of my state. Again, we've got to go to one of the dealers and pay them to do a transfer -- put that gun and the new owner's name on paper.

You "hardly feel sorry..."? Well ain't that grand? Just another bit of anti-gun brainwashing we've all had our heads filled with. The idea that we all SHOULD be "background checked" and firearms SHOULD be "papered" somewhere. RUBBISH.

[tarosean]

What's the big deal? How about the fact that if you and I live in the same state and you go on THR's Trading Post and see that I've got a neat-o rifle for sale we cannot simply get together and make the deal. We'll have to go to a dealer and put that gun and your name on paper just like folks selling across state lines or buying from a dealer to begin with.

In addition, they specifically put in not to cap the transfer fee...So now everyone will be forced to FFL.. knowing this, you will see transfer fees go through the roof... See CA for an example!

[hang fire]

After reading all the news recently i can't seem to find and answer or maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. When they say Expanded background checks, what is expanded about them? They are checking a great amount of transactions? or are they checks that dig further into your background, not just legal, but medication, work history, etc?

It might be a stupid question but i think its being sold one way, to "keep mentally ill from purchasing weapons" but is in accuality something else.
Want to buy or sell a gun from a friend or your brother-in-law? Well, the seller will be required to submit buyer to a background check, and pay for it. Oh, the antis will say no, no such thing, but the devil is always concealed in the legalese details, to be interpreted by faceless bureaucrats enforcing the law.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions by naive and ignorant people.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

as quoted earlier. So what exactly is the big deal? As stated - private party sales are OK as long as you do not sell to strangers you advertise to on the internet. The MAIN THING they are going after is the guy at gun shows with the "no background checks" sign on his table who hands over a Glock to anyone with enough cash who walks up to his table.

If that is what they are after, why do they force CHLs to transfer through an FFL when they have already had a background check and are exempt from the NICS check? What does that accomplish except to generate a 4473 for a private sale to someone we already know can legally own a gun?

[morcey2]

Regardless of anything else, the only way to enforce it even with lots of exemptions is going to be universal registration. If this somehow gets passed (and I doubt it will), you'll start hearing complaining about how the new laws haven't been as effective as the-smartest-guys-in-the-room thought they would be. Thus, we need registration to be able to enforce the already passed laws.

"But there's a law prohibiting any kind of federal gun registration!"

Yep. And it can be repealed by the same collection of political weasels that passed it in the first place.

I like the idea of being able to buy a gun anywhere in the country without having to ship it to an FFL here and I like some parts of the transporting proposals, but I'm not willing to accept the semi-Universal background check to get those. I can go to a different state and buy food, cars, lumber, squid entrails, land, fishin' poles, really bad toupe's, and shoes. Last time I checked, none of those were mentioned in the constitution. Except for fishing poles. The whole pursuit of happiness thing.

Matt

[razorback2003]

I already have a handgun carry permit, why should I have to run to a dealer to swap with someone who is a TN who may even have a handgun carry permit, with an ad in the newspaper, gunbroker, armslist? That is completely stupid. It is nothing but to get records of people swapping guns.

[ngnrd]

It is nothing but to get records of people swapping guns.
You figured that out, did you? :cool:

[BBQJOE]

If private party guy A, sells to private party guy B, who will know unless someone says something?

Just about everyone will be a crook when DC is done doing what they want.

Do criminals care about getting caught?

I suppose only the ones that get caught.

I'm just glad I don't make a living buying, selling, or trading guns.

[TennJed]

If private party guy A, sells to private party guy B, who will know unless someone says something?

Just about everyone will be a crook when DC is done doing what they want.

Do criminals care about getting caught?

I suppose only the ones that get caught.

I'm just glad I don't make a living buying, selling, or trading guns.
If person A or B in an undercover agent then you are in trouble. Unfortunately we have to follow the law. That is why keeping unfair laws off the books is so important

[Bubba613]

There aren't nearly enough federal agents to do that. Look, the GCA of 1968 made it illegal to transport a gun across state lines. How many federal agents have there been running stings on people doing just that?

[sonick808]

if passed, this would lead to multiple felonies and people in prison because they had no idea of this requirement. We've been able to sell our goods in classifieds (paper or electronic) for...... centuries ?

Then, someone who isn't rough enough for prison accidentally becomes a gun felon, and ends up in jail; where they are expose to all kinds of abuse and possibly murdered.

but hey, IF IT SAVES ONE PERSON'S LIFE IT'S WORTH IT to get beat within an inch of your life

[tarosean]

How about the fact that if I head off to the local gun show and walk the aisles with a "For Sale" sign on my FAL or 870, I cannot simply sell that gun to another resident of my state.


hmmmmm. As it stands now, If by some miracle it passed the House, that may actually be the only way left for us to advertise. just couldnt have the gun with us I suppose... That would surely chap their rears... ha ha

[Bartholomew Roberts]

ALAN GOTTLIEB SAYS SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION STAFF WROTE ORIGINAL TOOMEY-MANCHIN AMENDMENT

http://daylightdisinfectant.com/gun-rights-advocate-helped-write-background-check-bill/

Watch the video, it contains some interesting developments. I have some big reservations still:

1. Why are CHLs being forced to transfer through an FFL for Internet/Gun show sales when they have already been background checked and are exempt from NICS

2. I think Mr. Gottlieb is overly optimistic about how he is "getting over" on the antis. Chuck Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden disn't sign off on that deal because they are stupid. They think they are getting something too - and there is a lot of gray area to justify their thoughts. The whole reason FOPA needs strengthening is because a combination of judges and bureaucrats have twisted the language and ignored the intent of the drafters. I don't know why Mr. Gottlieb doesn't think that is going to happen again if the language allows for more than one interpretation.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Heritage Foundation says that due to sloppy drafting, Toomey-Manchin will allow federal registry at the discretion of the Attorney-General:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/11/schumer-toomey-manchin-gun-control-legislation-bad-law-on-federal-gun-registry/

They discuss the specific language problems and underlying law at the link.

[Sam1911]

Hmmmmmmmm...:scrutiny:....:eek:....:uhoh:...:confused: ... well, we'll see, I guess. Not sure I buy the idea completely, but there's a lot of facets which could be read quite badly for us, or not badly at all. And some of Gottlieb's statements would indeed be very positive.

Not quite ready to write Toomey an apology for any of the things I've said to him just yet, though!

[BullfrogKen]

Gottlieb is overly optimist if he thinks making abusing the background checks to form a gun registry will send a single soul to jail. The Justice Dept decides what crimes to prosecute, and which ones it won't. No one is going to prison over Fast and Furious. No one who stood in front of the polling place in Philly with bats and nightsticks 4 years ago is going to prison. That's empty legislation. The only way it would work to provide abuse from Federal misconduct is if a state's Attorney General were empowered to prosecute the crime. The Justice Dept is not going to prosecute itself for crimes it's own people commit.


Furthermore, that restoration of gun rights stuff won't happen. We already have a provision on the books allowing for the restoration of rights. It's been there for decades. Congress specifically refuses to fund that activity. They deny funding for that purpose in every budget they pass. The law can be there on the books, but if Congress refuses to fund the office and employees necessary to do it - like they do now - no one will have any rights restored.

I appreciate his thinking, but he's still under the impression that we can make the Federal government do something because we passed a law making them do it - like restoration or prosecution for abuse of NICS.

[we are not amused]

I originally was against the bill, but having read three times now, and listening to Allen Gottlied, I am going to give it the benefit of a doubt, while I give it more thought.

I am not quite ready to give my senators a call to support it yet, but I may.

I will admit that I am not lawyer enough to read the law from a hair splitting perspective, but the more I read it, the better it looks.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I am going to give it the benefit of a doubt, while I give it more thought.

Did you read the part where Heritage Foundation explains how existing interpretation of administrative law might be read to create a registry under Toomey-Manchin?

[Bubba613]

Did you read the part where Heritage Foundation explains how existing interpretation of administrative law might be read to create a registry under Toomey-Manchin?
Yes, I thought it was pretty forced and unconvincing. If they can clarify what they consider "internet sales" I'd be a lot happier. But you get a lot with their bill.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yeah, Bubba613, I think we are all clear you like universal background checks.

[Bubba613]

Yeah, Bubba613, I think we are all clear you like universal background checks.
You can't read and understand my posts. What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?

[mrvco]

It would be a lot easier if they wouldn't be so freaking meely-mouthed when they write legislation. There are a lot of positives in here, but unfortunately some suspiciously obtuse language to go with it.

I honestly don't have a problem with FFL holders having to do background checks at "gun shows" (the idea that I can fail a background check at my LGS on Friday and show up at their gun show table on Saturday morning and buy the gun with no background check has never made any sense), but the FTF / private party / Internet sales language is just way too loose for comfort. The reality is that from a technology perspective there is very little difference between an email, text message and a telephone call made from a modern smart phone and the lines get more and more blurred all the time with Twitter, Facebook, Tumbler, etc.

That being said, this legislation would cause the number of CCW Permit holders to skyrocket across the nation.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?

It was that darn juris doctorate degree I received. It started giving me the idea I could read, draft and interpret legislation.

[Bubba613]

Same degree Joe Biden has. I think I see the problem.

[SuperNaut]

You can't read and understand my posts. What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?


I'm pretty sure that Bartholomew Roberts works in the legal field.

[SuperNaut]

Same degree Joe Biden has. I think I see the problem.
Bubba, your posts aren't coming across as effectively as you seem to think. It is a beautiful Sunday afternoon, perhaps a walk outside to clear the head?

[BullfrogKen]

but the FTF / private party / Internet sales language is just way too loose for comfort. The reality is that from a technology perspective there is very little difference between an email, text message and a telephone call made from a modern smart phone and the lines get more and more blurred all the time with Twitter, Facebook, Tumbler, etc

Damn skippy.

How does an "internet sale" get defined? Say I post on my Facebook page that I'm getting out of duck hunting and selling my double-barrel shotgun, any of my local friends who want it get first dibs before I take it to the local shop. A friend across town calls my Andoid from his I-phone, and I send him a picture and dollar amount. I e-mail my buddy my address, and he texts me when he's leaving.

With technology being what it is, is that an internet sale or not?


More directly to the issue, how do I prove I didn't sell my shotgun at a gun show or through an internet sale when I sold it to my buddy across town, or my old college roommate across state? Seems to me I do have to keep some record to prove I didn't sell it through either of those two venues.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Biden is certainly proof you don't have to be bright to have a JD. :D

I can say that even very talented lawyers make drafting mistakes and a document crowdsourced to the Internet will find them.

[razorback2003]

How about if you get something like the Coburn deal with no record keeping, repeal Hughes so that there is REAL compromise.

[beatledog7]

Laws are always written in obtuse language so we'll continue to need lawyers to tell us what they mean and so they can mean whatever those in power wish them to mean.

That's why we should stop electing lawyers to public office.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I imagine one reason the language is vague here is both sides are trying to write something that gives them an edge on the other side; but they can't write it in such an obvious way that the other side notices it. Gottlieb as much as said that was his approach. He apparently thinks the other side didn't do the same to us. I am not so sure myself.

[CapnMac]

What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?

This brings up a germane point.

We all (mostly) reasonably understand "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" as a first principal. We in the arms-bearing community may feel it even more sharply than most, our privileges to own being derived from having to constantly prove oursleves more virtuous than the wife of Caesar.

So, if our laws become (or have become) so complex that only those with specialized and specific education can know them, how can a reasonably-knowledgeable person be said to be not ignorant of them?

At what point do such laws ipso facto violate our 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendment rights?

Nine pages on this topic, and dozens of posts all arguing over an interpretation of a conjunction. One, I, personally, feel is quite clear in that those states that require prior government permission to sell a firearm will not be required to get more permission. States with FOIP, or CT's new laws, in other words.

Personally, I am convinced we have this not merely backwards, but upside down as well. What we should be doing is finding ways not to identify the huge majority of the law-abiding (removing an onus of presumed mens rea conveyed by mere ownership) to one of identifying the tinier minority those known to be prohibited.

By stingy numbers there are around 30 million gun owners, this versus perhaps 3 million prohibited persons--and the legal presumption is that the legal ones much continue to prove innocence? This is roughly akin to requiring all airline passengers to demonstrate that they have the ability to fly a plane before riding in one.

Could we get back to a presumption that a well-regulated militia does not include substance abusers, the incompetent, nor high criminals? Or that '[E]very terrible implement of the soldier..." ought be the definition?

[Cosmoline]

There aren't nearly enough federal agents to do that. Look, the GCA of 1968 made it illegal to transport a gun across state lines. How many federal agents have there been running stings on people doing just that?

Telling me "but they'll never actually prosecute you" is not a valid response. The bill must be CRYSTAL CLEAR about what is and is not permitted FTF without a dealer. That's not up for compromise, unless you are comfortable compromising your life and liberty. There can be no dice rolls on transfers. It is not my goal to skirt federal law as much as possible hoping I won't get caught.

I get the feeling some people on our side simply don't understand how pervasive internet communications are in modern transfers, or how significant a change this will mean on the ground. When was the last time Gottlieb bought iron off a local on-line swap meet? When was the last time he bought iron at all? These guys are academics. And they're not exactly youngsters either. So to them it may seem like no big deal to sell out internet sales.

[akodo]

Sounds like FTF personal sales are allowed, but only from your private residence?

"(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event'-
"(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and
"(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923.".

That's not what the section means.

It says 'no FTF at gun shows'

and then it defines gun shows as

'someplace with more than 75 guns for display or sale'

it further then defines a gun show as 'I you have a 75+ gun collection in your home, then showing off your collection then selling one gun is NOT a gun show'

[akodo]

\

That's what I expected. Pretty much any transfer involving any internet ad--even a classified cross-printed on line--will require a check. I dare say that implicates most FTF transfers in the 21st century. And broadly construed (as BATFE doubtless WILL construe it), it would encompass any transfer involving any exchange of email, text message or PM on a forum. Post in the rifle forum and mention you might want to sell a rifle? Now you are barred from FTF transfer without NICS. Forever, presumably. It's a nightmare begetting nightmares. Far worse than a total UBC in some ways, because of the traps it lays for the unwary.

No, that is not the case. The new requirement does not apply if:

"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

People need to read the actual text here before going off.

I think the original poster is right.

The only time the 'same state' rule comes into play is if that state already requires face-to-face transactions to have some sort of check.

It is possible that in a state where you have to have a Firearms Owner ID card where you have to go through a background check every few years or something could simply show a card, but for states where two guys can currently simply meet and exchange gun for cash and a handshake, being in the same state is irrelevant, the (proposed) federal law still applies.

[akodo]

Toomey's site said on Wednesday that transfers between friends and neighbors, and other people would be expemted. I did not see anything about friends and neighbors in the text. Did I miss something? (I even used the search function of my browser on those words)


I think what he is referring to is if you are talking to a friend and he mentions he needs to sell a gun and you are interested, because no internet and no gun show component are in play you can do a FTF

HOWEVER....

Let's say your friend texts you 'hey here is a pic of that gun you and I were talking about...you still interested in buying it?'

now the internet clause comes in and you have to do a UBC...as I read it.

[akodo]

Which part do you not support? The part where you can buy handguns across state lines? The part where your carry permit substitutes for a NICS check? The part where NICS has 24 hours to respond, not 72?

The only people screwed here are the guys setting up tables at gunshows with big signs saying "No background check". And to heck with them.


Here's the parts I object to:



#1 I see the internet angle as a huge potentially dangerous angle. What if I am buying a gun from a friend or neighbor, and we communicate via text and/or he snaps a pic with his phone and emails it to me...am I violating the law due to the internet part? When discussing a potential sale between friends to we have to say 'DO NOT DISCUSS THIS AT ALL ON THE NET!' for fear of an errant email or text meaning we have to do the UBC?

If it is going to be the 'gunshow UBC', and the ONLY people who were going to be impacted were those guys you describe selling at private tables (and you conveniently forget those guys who walk in with a gun because they know the pawn shop or gun store will offer 50% of true value) then why bring up the internet part at all?

#2 there is no reason why any check should take 24 hours let alone 72 hours with the computing power of today.

#3 I object to the basic lip service it does to making the Dept of Justice go after felons who try and buy but are denied by background check.

#4 I am against spending piles of money for zero actual results.

[beeenbag]

ALAN GOTTLIEB SAYS SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION STAFF WROTE ORIGINAL TOOMEY-MANCHIN AMENDMENT

http://daylightdisinfectant.com/gun-...nd-check-bill/

Watch the video, it contains some interesting developments. I have some big reservations still:

1. Why are CHLs being forced to transfer through an FFL for Internet/Gun show sales when they have already been background checked and are exempt from NICS

2. I think Mr. Gottlieb is overly optimistic about how he is "getting over" on the antis. Chuck Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden disn't sign off on that deal because they are stupid. They think they are getting something too - and there is a lot of gray area to justify their thoughts. The whole reason FOPA needs strengthening is because a combination of judges and bureaucrats have twisted the language and ignored the intent of the drafters. I don't know why Mr. Gottlieb doesn't think that is going to happen again if the language allows for more than one interpretation.


Ok, after watching this video, he clears up something I was wrong about. I will not support this bill.

The only way to not do a background check would be narrowed way down. To a point where you would have to not be trying to sell the firearm when you sold it. I can't think of many productive ways to advertise a firearm for sale without being at a gunshow, or online.

Fleemarkets would be out, they would be considered a gunshow. It basically IS universal background checks, without ACTUALLY being universal background checks. This bill is a NO GO for me.

[akodo]

I really don't see any problems in this proposal. My understanding of the interstate transportation section is it prevents people from being arrested when transporting guns between two places they can legally posses them.

There already IS a Federal Law which protects as you describe. Now, it may not specifically mention getting your car fixed or staying at a hotel. However, too many people who are NOT staying at hotels or getting cars fixed, but simply actively traveling through anti-gun state are STILL being arrested and charged.

If you really are concerned about interstate transportation protection, then there should be some sort of penalty such as "

for each day a firearm seized that should have been protected under the federal law Attorney General shall withhold 1 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755)

10% for each day a person sits in custody for transportation that is legal per the federal rule.

[r1derbike]

All this reminds me of that old adage from politicians, "Let's give 'em something that more or less sounds like YES, but really means NO!

Buford T. Justice, ya' done it again, ol' boy! Attaboys and pats on the back, all 'round the room! Page, where's my drink? Next bill, please!

[akodo]

If I'm reading this correctly, when put together, the information in bold suggests that a background check would not be required following an internet advertisement, as long as the transaction is between two residents of the same state and in compliance with state laws.

it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State

No.

As I read it, states that already require background checks, firearms Owner ID cards, registration, or some other 'generally equivalent' background check can have two people from the same state meet and follow state law and be fine.

So, two people both from New Jersey can show their Firearms Buyer Identity cards and be fine, but two people both from Nebraska who have no similar law and freely allow Face-to-Face transactions, THEY'D not be exempt just because they both happen to be Nebraska residents currently in Nebraska.

[akodo]

Nothing would prohibit people from posting guns on internet fora and meeting and selling them like we do now.


No, but it would require running a background check.

No actually it wouldn't. You really need to read the text of the bill.

The expansion refers to two things. First, more records would be online and available for background checks. Adjudications of mental incompetency are the big ones. Second, it would apply, depending on the version discussed, to all sales at gun shows, or all sales/transfer period.

So lets actually READ the law then. And rather than just say 'go read the law' I will SHOW you the parts that you may have missed in your reading.

"(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

The kicker is, it need not be a direct 'For sale' advertisement.

If I post a picture of my gun (display) and you see it then make an offer to buy it even though I never mentioned selling now UBC is needed
If I post that I need to sell some of my guns and can't decide which ones to part with, and you have seen a previous list of my guns online (either related to 'which one should I sell' or simply a list of gun I have) and IM me with an offer for a specific gun...now a UBC is needed.

I am not even sure what 'other listing' is. What about those guys who list their collection on their signature line...is that going to count?
What about if I post that I am selling a gun on facebook, is everyone on my friends list now needing a UBC if they buy, because maybe they saw the facebook post?

[Bubba613]

Try reading the rest of it. Especially the part marked "exceptions."

[akodo]

You appear to be the one unclear here. Where does Section 122 spell out there must be a background check on every transfer? Nowhere. It would make no sense. What you are proposing is that the statute states: Every transfer between unlicensed individuals must have a background check with the exception of people in the same state who are subject to a background check for the same transaction. That is nonsense.

Still waiting on a reference from the press conference.

Section 122 does NOT spell out there must be a background check on every transfer.

What it DOES spell out is everyone at the gunshow who buys MUST go through a background check (even non-dealers...even guys in the parking lot)

AND what it DOES spell out is any internet activity related to the sale means you now need a background check.

So, the only time two parties in the same state are exempt from 122 is if their state already possesses both a total gunshow background check requirement AND a total internet background check requirement

[akodo]

Try reading the rest of it. Especially the part marked "exceptions."

Here's the deal. Clearly everyone who is disagreeing with you is reading it...because they are posting sections of it.

This means your constant chanting of 'try reading the rest of it' is useless (not to mention insulting to the intelligence of ALL involved, including you...because any person with two brain cells would be able to tell that the people who are disagreeing with you HAVE read it, they just missed a few things or interpret them differently)

Second, imagine you were in a court of law and were going to make this argument. You couldn't tell a judge 'read the law' you'd have to spell out the connections. So why don't you try and enlighten us by spelling out the connections you seem to see that no one else does. Maybe we are wrong, but at least we are trying to foster understanding, not be unhelpfully cryptic.

[akodo]

Biden is certainly proof you don't have to be bright to have a JD. :D

I can say that even very talented lawyers make drafting mistakes and a document crowdsourced to the Internet will find them.


The kicker is if all the judges and lawyers are also equally misreading it because they are only as well educated as Joe Biden and Bartholomew, then it doesn't matter if one legal genius sitting at his computer knows the true reading.

99.99% of a time the interpretation of a law is whatever 75% of the lawyers/judges say it is...even if they are 'technically wrong'

0.01% of the time the interpretation of a law is whatever 51% of 7 select legal minds say it is...even if they are 'technically wrong'

[Geneseo1911]

Wall Street Journal's take on whether the background checks will be "universal" or not:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323346304578423020482582426.html

The Senate likely will consider the background-checks amendment on Wednesday or Thursday, Mr. Toomey said Sunday. It would require all people buying guns online and at gun shows to undergo a background check through a licensed dealer. Currently, only licensed dealers have to perform background checks and keep a record of sales.

[Bubba613]

AND what it DOES spell out is any internet activity related to the sale means you now need a background check.

So, the only time two parties in the same state are exempt from 122 is if their state already possesses both a total gunshow background check requirement AND a total internet background check requirement

Clearly you're reading something that isn't there.

[Bubba613]

Clealry the antis think there is no UBC here:
Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in Washington, D.C., said: "We were pushing for a universal background-check bill and this isn't one. The bill specifically doesn't say anything about private sales, which are a major trafficking channel.

[beeenbag]

Bubba, I was partially on board with you earlier in this thread, until I was enlightened about the internet sales. Here is where I was wrong, this may be where you are mistaking also...

it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State

Look at the words in red... then replace it with... IF the Attorney General DOES NOT certify that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section

Then there is the AND...

Replace that with...; and"(ii) the transfer was not conducted in compliance with the laws of the State[/QUOTE]

In either one of these hypothetical situations, you are NOT exempt from the background check.

[bhesler]

... (the idea that I can fail a background check at my LGS on Friday and show up at their gun show table on Saturday morning and buy the gun with no background check has never made any sense), ...

Um, what? Your LGS is an FFL, and FFLs have to run background checks at gun shows. You could buy a similar gun from a private seller at a gun show with no background check, but not from and FFL.

[docnyt]

Is there any data that supports the use of background checks deterring gun related crime? Because if there is not, then what's the point of this issue?

[BullfrogKen]

I honestly don't have a problem with FFL holders having to do background checks at "gun shows" (the idea that I can fail a background check at my LGS on Friday and show up at their gun show table on Saturday morning and buy the gun with no background check has never made any sense)

Yeah, uh, you've like never bought a gun at a gun show before, have you?


The requirement for a FFL dealer to run a background check before transfering the gun is required regardless of the location. Whether the sale/transfer takes place at his brick-and-mortar store, at his table at a gun show, or in his garage or dining room table.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There was some skepticism expressed earlier by Bubba613 concerning the Heritage Foundation's point that Toomey-Manchin weakens the FOPA protection against a federal registry.

gc70 at TFL has written a fantastic, well-researched post that goes even further than the Heritage Foundation analysis and shows step-by-step in plain language (and with the corresponding law cited) how it does weaken FOPA.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494010&postcount=63

[Bubba613]

I would hardly call it either "fantastic" or "well researched" since no research is apparent.
This:
Why would the government need to "consolidate and centralize" records of private transactions in a massive government database when the information could be maintained in databases at each FFL and accessed on demand by the government since the "transferred to" restriction could be ignored? Would the courts view a distributed database query system as a registry?
Of course each FFL already "maintains a database" of such information. To obtain the information ATF must dispatch an agent for every piece of information to the individual FFL. That info might be out of date within moments of any 4473 actually being executed. It is a cumbersome inefficient system, and meant to be. And it wouldn't be affected by anything in the bill.

[baz]

gc70 at TFL has written a fantastic, well-researched post that goes even further than the Heritage Foundation analysis and shows step-by-step in plain language (and with the corresponding law cited) how it does weaken FOPA.Dave Kopel has additional concerns (http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/).

[Cosmoline]

Try reading the rest of it. Especially the part marked "exceptions."

As many have tried to explain to you, you are misreading the exceptions.

[Bubba613]

You're repeating it doesn't make it true. Sorry.

[beatledog7]

Bubba, are you familiar with the concept that if you look around and are inclined to think everyone else in the room is wrong, you should seriously consider whether it might be you that's wrong?

[mrvco]

Yeah, uh, you've like never bought a gun at a gun show before, have you?


The requirement for a FFL dealer to run a background check before transfering the gun is required regardless of the location. Whether the sale/transfer takes place at his brick-and-mortar store, at his table at a gun show, or in his garage or dining room table.
No, actually I haven't. Living in Colorado, my understanding was that since Columbine background checks have been required at gun shows in Colorado when buying from a vendor.

I thought most other states allowed these transactions to take place without a background check at a gun show... or at least I thought that was why everyone was making such a big deal about "closing the gun show loophole".

What exactly IS the "gun show loophole" then?

[tarosean]

Yeah, uh, you've like never bought a gun at a gun show before, have you?

+1

I seriously don't see how the media and our politicians perpetuate the fallacy time and time again...

[bhesler]

What exactly IS the "gun show loophole" then?

The gun show loophole is private sales. FFLs have to run background checks, in their shop pr at a gun show in all 50 states. Private sellers cannot run background checks. Schumer's bill seeks to end all private transfers of guns, and is so poorly written that even temporary transfers, under the right circumstances, can be a felony.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment only requires that private transfers at gun shows, or advertised on the Internet (or in a publication) require a background check. All other private transfers are untouched.

I have been to one gun show in my life. I bought a shotgun, and there was a background check. I also saw a guy who failed his background check taken out in cuffs.

[BullfrogKen]

What exactly IS the "gun show loophole" then?

It is a lie. A big fat lie.


The Federal government licenses gun dealers - the FFL. They require any gun an FFL sells (with the exception of antique "black powder" type firearms) conduct a background check on every sale. Period. No matter where it occurs.


The media coined that term. And it's stuck, evidenced by the fact people like you believed the lie.

I - as someone not in the gun business - am still permitted to sell my shotguns and rifles in the state of PA to someone I know not to be a felon. Handguns I can't. Nonetheless, I can sell my personal collection as I see fit, and I'm not mandated by law to call into NICS and conduct a background check to do it. Nor can I. By law, only dealers and law enforcement agencies can utilize NICS. If I want to sell - or even loan - my deer rifle to my neighbor who hunts every year because I gave up hunting, I can do that.


So, if I go to a gun show and offer that same rifle for sale, that's what they term a "gun show loophole". However, it also includes me selling, or even loaning my rifle to my neighbor for the deer season.

The Federal government can compel FFLs to do a NICS check, because they issue the license and can make licensees do whatever they want in order to have it.

I don't have an FFL. I don't know what grounds they can regulate me. Now, the states are free to impose upon me that I must conduct my firearms sales through a state-mandated statute compelling me to use a background check system to transfer my guns - that's a state's rights matter.


But the "gunshow loophole" is a huge lie.

[morcey2]

Lindsey Graham just came out against toomey-manchin:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345615/graham-oppose-toomey-manchin-eliana-johnson

from-twitter-quoted-in-the-article:
I will oppose the Toomey-Manchin background check amendment. The proposal, while well-intentioned, is not a solution to illegal gun violence

I still would have rather had him support the filibuster....