S.649 Live Debate Thread - CSPAN2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Text of the Bill, under Transfer

`(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
`(B) a transfer made from a decedent's estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;
`(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if--
`(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
`(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
`(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
`(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--
`(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
`(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; or
`(iii) while hunting or trapping, if--
`(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;
`(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and
`(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.
`(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--
`(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and
`(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.
`(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.
`(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph--
`(i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and
`(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments-
(1) SECTION 922- Section 922(y)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking `, (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II)' and inserting `and (g)(5)(B)'.
(2) SECTION 925A- Section 925A of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `subsection (s) or (t) of section 922' and inserting `section 922(s)'.
(3) NICS IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT- Section 103(f) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 is amended by striking `section 922(t)' and inserting `section 922(s)'.
(4) CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012- Section 511 of title V of division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking `subsection 922(t)' and inserting `section 922(s)' each place it appears.

SEC. 123. LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING.

(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end--
`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.'.
(b) Penalty- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (q), or (aa) of section 922;'.

SEC. 124. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this title shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
 
After the vote to proceed, Reid discussed the open amendments process and other procedural details. I was not listening as closely as I should have been, but I thought he said something about moving forward today so Manchin and Toomey would be able to prepare to discuss their amendment on Tuesday morning.
 
We need lots of folks to hit that site, and make sure their senators know we are looking. Immagine if the traffic crashed the site or hit record numbers....

Lots of uncomfortable Senators!
 
At this point in time they're is no reason to rush to judgment, and some good reasons not to.

We should not forget that both the president and NRA are in complete agreement on one point: They both want these bills to go forward far enough to be voted on.

Why?

Because then both sides will know who is on what side. When it comes to legislators what they say is meaningless. How they vote is what matters. If supposed friends turn on us now we will deal with them latter in the mid-term 2014 election or later, and fortunately we have time to get ready and hopefully financially support those that really stand fast with us with donations to their campaign funds. Those that turn out to be pretended supporters of the 2nd Amendment will discover they kicked a hornet's nest.

Even if these bills survive and pass through the Democrat-dominated Senate in they're present form (which is far from a sure thing), they must still be passed in the House of Representatives, that at the present time seems doubtful. Since all of the House members will be up for election in 2014, our communications and e-mails - especially if they continue- will carry additional weight.

As time passes we will both lose and win some battles, but the war is far from over.
 
ETA: Ohio Gun Guy posted the text of the bill while I was posting this. I don't see anything in the bill that would permit transfers between "neighbors".

Supposedly this is a synopsis of the bill (firearm-related stuff only), my comments are in red:
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965
TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.

• Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply. - All funds? Some funds?

• Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees. - While nice, it wouldn't necessarily pick up everything I as a store owner need to know before trusting someone to handle money.

• Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA) - This is a MAJOR problem IMO.

• Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm. - I thought one already exists.

TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES

Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

• Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members. - 1) There is no "gun show loophole", and 2) what "other loopholes"?

• Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment. - OK this is good and hopefully will stop places like NYC and Port of NJ from infringing on the rights of air travelers, but I won't hold my breath unless it also includes some sort of punishment for the state or locality.

• Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now. - How many private sellers have ever been sued for this?

• Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident. - About time.

• Ensures that sales at gun shows are not prevented by delayed approvals from NICS. - So what if I call NICS at 4:55 pm on Sunday afternoon from a gun show, and I get a delayed response?

• Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships. - So now we have to tell NICS if we're calling from a gun show or from the premises? Yeah, figure every weekend every FFL will be calling in from a gun show no matter what.

• Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. - Across the board in all states, no matter what standard the state uses to issue permits?

• Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers. - This is long overdue.

• Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states. - They can already with appropriate ID.

• Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks. - But what if you see your neighbor at a gun show? How is "neighbor" defined?

• Adds a 15 year penalty for improper use or storage of records.
 
Last edited:
Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm. - I thought one already exists.


There is one big sticking point. The VA and other federal agencies do not use an adjudification process.
 
• Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks. - But what if you see your neighbor at a gun show? How is "neighbor" defined?

Or friend for that matter???
 
Tarosean, the facts really do not matter to them. Its about exploiting emotions and gaining control.

Ohhhhh.. I would have never guessed that with the constant pictures of the slain children. :fire:
 
I would love to explain but I am ignorant to the how & why myself. Reid expressed his wish that it go down that way. I don't know if he has the power to do that as Senate Majority Leader or if they are working that out in caucus now during a recess and he was just expressing what he would like.
 
The vote is up. Check this list and see if your Senator is on it:

Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea

Begich (D-AK), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay

Why isn't the NRA "scoring" this vote?
 
Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---68
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---31
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
 
Last edited:
We should not forget that both the president and NRA are in complete agreement on one point: They both want these bills to go forward far enough to be voted on.

Why?

Because then both sides will know who is on what side.
I really have to question this line of thinking. If there is any chance at all of a bill like this passing (and while it may be unlikely, anyone who thinks its impossible is living in a fools paradice) I feel we should take every opportunity that presents itself to stop this bill. :mad:

Its up now, and there are a lot of suprising (to me at least) votes. I see AZ, GA, and TN, all solidly Republican states, voted for "cloture" (whatever the heck that means). Many other states split their votes, with yet more Republicans voting for "cloture". If they needed 60 votes to pass the motion, it was Republicans who give them the push over the top they needed. :fire:

At least I have the comfort that both of my Senators voted against the motion.
 
All this vote will do is move the bills to the floor for more debate and possible amendments. The bills in question may not end up looking anything like they do now (which could be good or bad depending how things go, and it could go on for weeks). Also it is highly improbable that all those who voted today to block a filibuster will also vote to support the present bills.

Then a final vote may or may not be filibustered. If or when it is blocked the final vote will be taken. If it isn't blocked all of the bills will fail.

If the bills survive they will go on the the House of Representatives, and a whole different environment.

We are not yet past the middle of this war.
 
Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PLW="P

If you'd liked to read up on procedure. I don't envision a waiving of those 30 hours or consideration/debate from certain senators.

Time for Consideration and Debate
Rule XXII imposes a cap of no more than 30 additional hours for the Senate to consider a
question after invoking cloture on it. This 30-hour cap is a ceiling on the time available for postcloture consideration, not just for debate. The time used in debate is counted against the 30 hours,
but so too is the time consumed by quorum calls, roll call votes, parliamentary inquiries, and all
other proceedings that occur while the matter under cloture is pending before the Senate. The 30-
hour period can be increased if the Senate agrees to a non-debatable motion for that purpose.
Adopting this motion also requires a three-fifths vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.
 
I called Kirk's office (R-IL) and it went straight to an automated system. Told him flat out if he sticks with his vote to not count on me for any future endeavors. There is no reason to call Durbin as it is a waste of time. He is a ring leader of this sort of legislation.
 
After the vote to proceed, Reid discussed the open amendments process and other procedural details. I was not listening as closely as I should have been, but I thought he said something about moving forward today so Manchin and Toomey would be able to prepare to discuss their amendment on Tuesday morning.

Yes, he said Toomey and Manchin have a lot of work to do and it might be Tuesday morning before they get to the amendment but then he said that was no reason why they shouldn't move forward and reiterated that he wants to deal with Toomey-Manchin, AWB, and mag bans first. I'm guessing they'll have to push Toomey-Manchin back... If none of the Senators have the text, how are they going to debate it?
 
I really have to question this line of thinking. If there is any chance at all of a bill like this passing (and while it may be unlikely, anyone who thinks its impossible is living in a fools paradise) I feel we should take every opportunity that presents itself to stop this bill.

The likelihood of a vote blocking an open debate on these bills through a filibuster was questionable at best, even if 100% of the Republicans supported it. On a straight party vote the Democrats have the majority. Now the senators on our side, Republicans and Democrats, will have a chance to muddle the waters and mess up the bills with amendments which may in the end get them voted down on an individual basis, or so bad that they're is no chance of then getting through the House. Is their a risk? Sure, but it's a small one. The filibuster that matters will be the last one, and if it comes to that you will see an entirely different vote. The opportunities you want to exploit are the ones you have the best chance of winning. This wasn't one of them.
 
ETA: Ohio Gun Guy posted the text of the bill while I was posting this. I don't see anything in the bill that would permit transfers between "neighbors".

Ohio Gun Guy posted the text of S.649, not the Toomey-Manchin amendment.
 
GlockFan said:
I called Kirk's office (R-IL) and it went straight to an automated system. Told him flat out if he sticks with his vote to not count on me for any future endeavors. There is no reason to call Durbin as it is a waste of time. He is a ring leader of this sort of legislation.

Durbin and Kirk don't give a rat's behind about how you or I would like for them to vote. I've been writing to them both for over a year and don't get any response from Kirk at all and form letters from Durbin. All they care about is Chicago politics.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
 
I wrote both my senators (Franken and Klobuchar) and told them their "Yea"s have lost my vote. I know Klobuchar doesn't give a hoot; Franken might if he remembers how close his election was, but I will do my part to ensure the both of them see the light in 2014. The light of day as they stand waiting in the unemployment line that is. They make me ashamed to call MN my home state.
 
The following is a list of Republican lawmakers who voted to advance the gun legislation in the Senate Thursday:

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn

Maine Sen. Susan Collins

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson

Arizona Sen. John McCain

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller



Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...ections-senate-gun-legislation/#ixzz2QB9kQGn6
 
I am of mixed feelings on proceeding with this bill. Obviously, eliminating private sales is out of the question. I will have to go through the text myself to see the particulars of what else is not going to fly.

They seem to have thrown us a few bones in a few small ways. Obviously they did so to increase the chances of the bill being voted on, but wouldn't it be kind of nice to flush most of the bill, while cherry picking out all the little bonuses? I for one would be happy to be able to show my valid FL CWL in lieu of waiting on an NICS call. The strengthening of FOPA is also a good thing.

Of course, we could always strike the whole thing down and next year come out with a bill including all of the little perks from this bill..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top