Do you oppose Scumer-Toomey-Manchin amendment?


PDA






Bartholomew Roberts
April 15, 2013, 09:06 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/293777-manchin-toomey-bill-inching-closer-to-60-votes-in-the-senate

The Hill reports that the amendment is inching closer to 60 votes and that Republicans Mark Kirk, Pat Toomey, Susan Collins, and John McCain are onboard. The article goes on to list Republicans and Democrats who have not yet committed or who are opposed. Please take a moment today to call these Senators and thank them for their support/urge them to oppose (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm).

Wobbly:
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-SD)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)


Opposed:
Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
Johnny Isaakson (R-GA)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
John Hoeven (R-ND)

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you oppose Scumer-Toomey-Manchin amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vamo
April 15, 2013, 09:48 AM
From what I have heard I can't say I really oppose it as long as they can differentiate from the person blatantly selling on armslist to complete strangers and the person who list a gun online and then turns around and sells to a friend or family member.

However, I am a bit concerned when this doesn't prevent the next mass shooting the focus next time will be on AWB, registration, or magazine restrictions since background checks have been addressed.

Ryanxia
April 15, 2013, 11:37 AM
This is wrong in so many ways. There are loopholes and wordings that can still infringe severely on our Rights. We need to talk to our reps and tell them to OPPOSE this.
Not to mention they're going to blow another 400 million when we can't afford to pay our bills as it is.

mljdeckard
April 15, 2013, 11:58 AM
There is a growing sentiment that it does more good than harm. I was driving yesterday listening to Tom Gresham, I came in in the middle, but he was saying that Gottlieb was supporting the bill. (I was hoping to log in here and see more details on it.)

I won't quote what I heard, because I only caught half of it. But IF, and of course it's a huge if, the bill included nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry, language forbidding retention of background check data, and allowance of transfers to family members, ....could we live with it?

See, the real opposition would hate it. It would give Feinstein nothing she wants. But the REST of the dems would be able to say they did something about violence, and the Rs will be able to show they are willing to compromise and get something done. They are thinking it's win-win.

mljdeckard
April 15, 2013, 12:05 PM
Quoted from Red State:

"By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | April 15th, 2013 at 10:33 AM | 0

A prominent gun rights activist and board member of the American Conservative Union said this weekend he supports the Manchin-Toomey compromise, even telling associates that he believed “the gun grabbers have stepped into our trap.”

Alan Gottlieb, the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a power player within the conservative ACU, emailed nearly four dozen gun activists on Sunday with an explanation of the proposed legislation. His email address, incidentally, begins with “AkaGUNNUT”.

“If you read the bill you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection if you sell a gun plus more,” he wrote in the email. (The email, with the “to” field redacted, is posted below.)

Gottleib claimed that if a gun owner has a concealed weapons permit they will not be required to submit to a background check every time they purchase an additional firearm, instead they would merely fill out a form that will be held by the dealer as a record of sale. Now, either he’s confused, or lying, especially where background checks are concerned.

“If you have any kind of current state permit to own, use or carry no check is done just the Form 4473 to stay with a dealer,” he said.

Wrong. The compromise bill contains no CCW (concealed carry of a weapon) exemption, despite his protestations.

Gottleib, though, is positively giddy at the prospect of the legislation being passed and signed by President Obama. “It will be fun to see Obama forced to sign it,” he exclaimed in the email."

Godsgunman
April 15, 2013, 12:22 PM
No thanks! Enforce what is already law and the problem is solved. Stop trying to get a "compromise" because all that word means is everyone is a loser. We are on the right side no reason for us to lose anything.

mljdeckard
April 15, 2013, 12:54 PM
I didn't say I want it. I'm asking what people think. Basically I'm wondering if Gottlieb knows something we don't.

dab102999
April 15, 2013, 01:06 PM
There are many things about the bill that sound a little good but the biggest problem I have with the whole proposal is it will do nothing to stop what they want it to stop...there for when it doesn't work they will just try to take more with the next one. At one time in my life I thought a national resprosity bill would be good. But after reading a lot out there I no longer feel that way. In michigan our carry rights as much as some of the rules suck at the same time are much better then most states....once the feds get involved in it I can only see the worst state law be the norm for a set rule...and that I do not like. The idea of being able to travel to any state and be able to carry is nice. But in all reality the three states that I will probably travel for the rest of my life are pretty much the three that I travel now.

Hangingrock
April 15, 2013, 01:23 PM
With legislation/law the devil is in the details/enforcement. These are the same clowns whom let Obama Care become the law of the land with out comprehending the consequences.

alsaqr
April 15, 2013, 02:23 PM
We don't need this feel good gun control scheme. UBC would not keep guns out of the hands of violent nutcases or criminals. The Obama administration stead fastly refuses to enforce existing US gun laws.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 15, 2013, 02:37 PM
Anyone who is thinking this bill is good news needs to read this piece by Dave Kopel:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

Also, give the Toomey-Manchin Text thread in General Gun a read. This bill is not good for us.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 15, 2013, 04:27 PM
Contact pages & phone numbers:

(IF THIS IS USEFUL, PLEASE COPY/PASTE/REUSE AS YOU WISH.)

First, RINOs planning on supporting the bill. Contact them and plead with them!

John McCain (202) 224-2235
Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Mark Kirk (202) 224-2854

Now, the wobblers who may be swayed:

Jeff Flake (202) 224-4521
Bob Corker (202) 224-3344
Kelly Ayotte (202) 224-3324
Heidi Heitkamp (202) 224-2043
Max Baucus (202) 224-2651
Mark Pryor (202) 224-2353
Mark Begich (202) 224-3004
Mary Landrieu (202) 224-5824

Finally, THANK these senators who are opposing the bill!

Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
Johnny Isakson (202) 224-3643
Saxby Chambliss (202) 224-3521
Tom Coburn (202) 224-5754
Lamar Alexander (202) 224-4944
Richard Burr (202) 224-3154
John Hoeven (202) 224-2551


There is a vote on this amendment tomorrow morning. You have the rest of today and tomorrow morning to let your Senators know how you feel while it can still make a difference.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 15, 2013, 05:30 PM
According to the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us/politics/party-rifts-complicate-chances-for-gun-bill-passage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0), the following "wobbly" Senators are now voting against Schumer-Toomey-Manchin:

Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Two unnamed Dem Senators

clutch
April 15, 2013, 05:57 PM
Lets just repeal GCA 68. I'm not interested in any more constitution trampling.

wildbilll
April 15, 2013, 06:50 PM
Hi,

I read the Toomey, et al bill line by line. I compared it to what exists in law today.

I did read the Dave Kopel article. I disagree with him.
The FFL's already surrender the 4473's when they go out of business. Nothing new there. I don't like turning records over to the feds, but this is a different fight.
There is a law that requires destruction of the NICS records (for the OK to sell) within 24 hours. How is Holder to build a database when he is prohibited already? How will some other agency get the data when it is already illegal under Tiahart?
He mentions the health records. I remember some discussion that there is language in Obamacare about prohibiting HHS from gathering records.

On to the FOPA improvements.
I think he misread the proposal. Some of the comments on that page agree with my read of the bill. And a few small word changes can fix all of this.
I see that in order to be charged under this law, I need to have intentionally tried to break a state law.
I see that the police are barred from arrest of detention for violating a gun law while carrying a gun that is locked when traveling interstate to a place when it's legal. This would mean no more arrests like we have seen in NY and NJ for some airline passengers.
In summary, I think the UBC law is baloney, but I think the rest of the bill is a win for us.

Steve51
April 15, 2013, 08:43 PM
I do not willing to give it my trust. I would rather live with current Federal laws with no additions. I JUST DO NOT TRUST ANY SENATORS.
I am from Illinois and Mark Kirk is gun control all the way! Not much difference between a Chicago Democrat and a Chicago Republican!

Bartholomew Roberts
April 15, 2013, 09:04 PM
There is a law that requires destruction of the NICS records (for the OK to sell) within 24 hours. How is Holder to build a database when he is prohibited already? How will some other agency get the data when it is already illegal under Tiahart?

The "notwithstanding" language means that Holder is only bound by 18 USC 923(m). The Tiahrt Amendment, 18 USC 926, etc. can all be set aside if the AG determines it is necessary to implement the regulations.

Here is a great analysis:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494010&postcount=63

oakchas
April 15, 2013, 10:20 PM
To the OP's question. Yes, I oppose the bill.

To those who think no data base can be made from the forms, ask your friendly local FFL if they've ever had BATFEDS ask to see the forms linked to the NICS #. And, what the friendly BATFED did with the form...

I still oppose the bill.

Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?

wingman
April 16, 2013, 12:35 AM
I oppose the bill, it opens the door for down the line registration, another point, while I certainly don't want a mentally ill person having a firearm it's a slippery slope allowing government into our health records and with Obama care moving forward I can see some serious problems. The agenda is total confiscation no matter what is said.

TheSaint
April 16, 2013, 01:51 AM
We already have thousands of federal and state, not to mention local laws on the books related to firearms. I'm against all new legislation unless it is something that is about honoring existing CCW's licenses between states, etc. We don't need more gun laws to control violence. We need more awareness of the mentally ill and how best to serve these disturbed individuals. Keep in mind, there are many more out there who are a danger to themselves and others that slip under the radar. As caring citizens, we must focus our efforts on that issue, not the legal gun owner. No more laws, just more common sense and compassion without lawyer induced papers.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 09:22 AM
Reports that Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is now opposing the amendment:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=713112

HankR
April 16, 2013, 10:15 AM
Starting a new round of calls this morning.

Lots of reasons to oppose this. It doesn't say what Toomey say it says, and even if it did we've been down this road before where last minute amendments totally change the bill. I don't want to pass this to see what's in it. Just call and email and ask your senator (and those other senators on the waffle list) to strongly oppose this mess.

Ryanxia
April 16, 2013, 10:23 AM
Starting a new round of calls this morning.

Lots of reasons to oppose this. It doesn't say what Toomey say it says, and even if it did we've been down this road before where last minute amendments totally change the bill. I don't want to pass this to see what's in it. Just call and email and ask your senator (and those other senators on the waffle list) to strongly oppose this mess.
This right here. I'll be calling and sending another e-mail today at lunch.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 01:24 PM
Great job everyone! No vote was held this morning because they can't get the votes. They are going into party caucus and the Dem Senators are going to get browbeat. Please call the ones supporting us or undecided and thank them. They need reassurance to stand tough on the arm-twisting.

gc70
April 16, 2013, 01:46 PM
Gottleib claimed that if a gun owner has a concealed weapons permit they will not be required to submit to a background check every time they purchase an additional firearm, instead they would merely fill out a form that will be held by the dealer as a record of sale. Now, either hes confused, or lying, especially where background checks are concerned.
.....
Wrong. The compromise bill contains no CCW (concealed carry of a weapon) exemption, despite his protestations.

See (t)(2)(A)(i) (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968) concerning carry permits as NICS alternatives. 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)); (t)(2)(A)(i) adds permits that are limited to carrying a firearm.

... 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 ...

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 04:07 PM
Currently, they still don't have the votes. They are trying to flip Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich of Alaska by offering to amend Schumer-Toomey-Manchin again. If you live in AK, please, please give your Senators a call.

hso
April 16, 2013, 05:09 PM
Bart

Do you have the zip codes associated with the Senators that need a nudge? We can use Bloomberg's call forwarding system to contact these people toll free if we can pull that info up.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=711345

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 06:09 PM
I do not. I know that 720xx and 72032 are AR zip codes for Sen. Pryor.

theshephard
April 16, 2013, 06:47 PM
Just a quick tip: when reading contracts and legislation, it's important to realize that "notwithstanding" is synonymous with "despite". Sub in the word "despite" to get a clearer picture of what's being complied with, or not, as is most often the case.
This may be a no-brainer for most, but it was an 'ah-ha' moment for me in the course of contract reviews. Just thought I'd share. ;)

LubeckTech
April 16, 2013, 07:57 PM
I also heard Alan Gottlieb on Tom Gresham's program and while from what I heard it does not sound bad BUT a big red flag for me is that Chuckie Schumer does not oppose it. I don't trust the antis (when they offer a compromise WATCH OUT!) and what kind of crap would end up in the bill thru amendments if it got traction. The only way I could support this bill is if it were to pre-empt all of the state gun and magazine restrictions. The problem with that is "Fearless Leader" would never sign such a bill or use his power of line item veto to mess it up

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 08:07 PM
99504(anchorage), 99502(anchorage), 99503(anchorage) , 99775(fairbanks), 99705(northpole)

Bartholomew Roberts
April 17, 2013, 02:15 AM
Murkowski is now being reported as a "No" and Dean Heller is officially opposed.

The HuffPo whip count shows 52 for, 40 against, and 8 undecided. So to pass Toomey-Manchin supporters need Lautenberg to show up and vote tomorrow and get all 8 undecideds.

AJC Blog is saying they are 5-8 votes short.

Currently the vote is scheduled for 4pm eastern tomorrow. Keep up the pressure!

hso
April 17, 2013, 08:45 AM
Lautenberg is rumored to be coming in for the vote.

LubeckTech
April 17, 2013, 11:23 AM
Who is still undecided??
If we can stop this bill here it will send a clear message!

hso
April 17, 2013, 03:06 PM
A zip code to feed Bloomberg's toll free number.is 37830 for Corker. I just used it and was sent to voicemail.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 17, 2013, 03:25 PM
Corker is an official No now, as are Flake, Heitkamp and Ayotte.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you oppose Scumer-Toomey-Manchin amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!