Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

gc70 · Apr 12, 2013

Bubba613 said:
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):

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

Geneseo1911 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

"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 · Apr 12, 2013

gc70 said:
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 · Apr 12, 2013

Bubba613 said:
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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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...

Click to expand...

"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.

Click to expand...

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

C & R Licensee

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.

gc70 · Apr 12, 2013

Bubba613 said:
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:

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 · Apr 12, 2013

Bubba613 said:
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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

Bubba613 said:
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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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?

Bubba613 said:
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 · Apr 12, 2013

The Slippery Slope

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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 · Apr 12, 2013

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.

Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

member

Member

member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads