Toomey Folds - Joins Schumer, Manchin and Kirk on UBC Compromise
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
MagnunJoe said:
"Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check
when purchasing a firearm from a dealer."
Might get you out of having to do a background check if purchased through a dealer...but, big deal.
tomrkba said:
I think the poison is how they define online sales. As any sale that originated from an online advertisement if I understand correctly.
Oklacoyotekiller
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 167
Anyone who thinks the government doesnt keep records of every nics gunsale are fools!
Wish we could but other than for President most of the people in my state seem to vote for Democrats even though they do nothing for them when it comes to jobs or much else when it comes to helping the state. The local gun rights group has indicated that there is little they can do about Manchin as they feel that Obama is going to "reward" him for turning against gun owners in the state. I was born here and moved back to retire about a year ago. It is really sad what has happened to my state. When you look around the only things that appear to have changed in the past 40 years are they have built an interstate through downtown Charleston so travelers don't have to stop, nobody wants to give permission to hunt on their land and they have just opened a Cabelas. It wouldn't surprise me if we don't start moving down Best Gun Rights list rapidly with the likes of Manchin and Rockefeller at our representatives in the Senate. I do hope the NRA does something about the rating they gave Manchin. I never voted for him but I can see that him having an "A" rating with the NRA might make some republicans waste their votes.
It appears our only hope in Washington is Congresswoman Capito. I received the following reply from her regarding one of my e-mails I sent last week:
[Thank you for contacting me in response to new gun control legislation. It was good to hear your views on this important issue.
In the wake of the tragedy that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, it is important that we as policy makers and as Americans examine ways that we can prevent similar acts of violence in the future.
Recent legislation introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein of California on January 24, 2013, aims to ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of 157 specifically named rifles, pistols, shotguns, and bullet-fed semiautomatic firearms. The bill also bans all ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds and all semiautomatic rifles that have at least one so called military feature from a list that includes: a pistol grip; a forward grip; a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; a grenade launcher or a rocket launcher; a barrel shroud; or a threaded barrel. In addition, anyone who currently owns any of these prohibited firearms would be subject to the grandfather clause which prohibits any sale or transfer without strict background checks. The current legislation goes much further than the 1994 Assault Weapons ban which banned only 19 specific firearms and banned semi-automatic weapons that had at least two military characteristics.
I have always been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights throughout my time in Congress. The right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is enshrined in both our federal constitution and in West Virginia's state constitution. Responsible gun ownership is part of our heritage in West Virginia and I have heard from thousands of West Virginians who have expressed their opposition to a new federal ban on certain firearms. I believe that the legislation proposed by Senator Feinstein represents poor public policy. Should the bill come before the House of Representatives, I will oppose it.
I believe that Congress must instead take steps to improve our mental health system, address the spread of violence on television and in video games, and ensure that our existing gun laws are enforced in order to prevent felons and those with serious mental conditions from owning or possessing a gun. Mental illness has been a common denominator in a number of recent mass killings, and government has a role to play in making sure that treatment is available and accessible before a violent act occurs. I will work in support of legislation that improves the safety of our communities and protects our children by addressing the causes of violence.
Again, thank you for contacting me with your views on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you again soon. It is an honor to serve you in Congress. ]
I have heard nothing from Senator's Manchin or Rockefeller.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Politico has a report on details of the bill that are disconcerting:
How are they going to know how many Internet sales you did in any given year if they aren't keeping records on that? The story goes on to say that Toomey's amendment is supported by Schumer, Biden, Bloomberg and opposed by the NRA. That seems like quite a rogues' gallery in support of this bill.
If you haven't called your Senators yet to discuss these concerns, now might be a good time. They could be voting on this bill we still haven't seen as early as tomorrow.
How are they going to know how many Internet sales you did in any given year if they aren't keeping records on that? The story goes on to say that Toomey's amendment is supported by Schumer, Biden, Bloomberg and opposed by the NRA. That seems like quite a rogues' gallery in support of this bill.
If you haven't called your Senators yet to discuss these concerns, now might be a good time. They could be voting on this bill we still haven't seen as early as tomorrow.
mcdonl
Member
Most of the guns I purchase are from www.unclehenrys.com and they are all face to face transactions. This will not be illegal. I will have to get the print edition like I did before the internet. It was a fun race to the counter Thursday morning to pick up the print edition and be the first to call... lol...
Ok, that's pretty much meaningless. Just because Rep Carolyn McCarthy proposes to ban that shoulder thing that goes up doesn't mean Congress is on the verge of banning barrel shrouds.
"Gun show" has a very specific meaning because it is a "sanctioned event". Dealers can sell only on premises or at "sanctioned events." So it has to be defined pretty clearly.
Can someone clarify something here, what about the filibuster that was planned by McConnell and Rand Paul ? Does this 'deal' mean that this is a compromise so that that no filibuster will take place? Or is this a separate 'deal' and the filibuster will still take place.
morcey2
Member
My understanding is that those promising a filibuster will still attempt to do so at every opportunity on this. The "deal" just makes it less likely that it will succeed. The 8 Senators that are part of the "deal" will vote for cloture, at least on the introduction of the bill. Depending on what it actually turns into, they may not vote for cloture when it comes time to actually vote on the bill. At least that's my understanding.
Matt
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Bubba613 said:
No, it is not meaningless. Frequently in the past, politicians have supported expanding background checks to cover private sales at gun shows. Almost every single time, they end up writing a bill that would define all kinds of private sales as "gun shows". To give one example, you hit hard times and decide to sell some guns. You invite a friend over to look at your collection and make an offer. He brings his brother with him. You have more than X guns. Congratulations, you are now a gun show and already in violation of these past proposed laws because you didn't file the necessary federal paperwork to host a gun show.
Accordingly, how "gun show" is defined by the bill is very important to us. However, when asked about that by a reporter, Toomey and Manchin declined to answer it and nobody has seen the text yet. So those past example show how the absence of that definition can be quite meaningful.
Where in the federal code is gun show given a very specific meaning and how do you know whether that meaning is changed by Toomey's bill when none of us have seen the text of the bill yet?
Would you like to explain what you are talking about and how it is relevant in a way I can understand?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Reid will hold a vote to end the filibuster started by Mike Lee, Rand Paul, McConnell, et al. tomorrow. Reid is going to win that vote because at least 9 Republicans have already defected, so he will have 60 votes.
However, this filibuster was only on the motion to begin debating gun control. There will still be another opportunity to filibuster at the end of the actual debate after all the amendments have been voted on. At that point, we will probably have more votes since some Senators are just supporting Reid on the first vote for political purposes and because the bill may be amended to the point where enough gun control and pro-gun people want to see it dead that they join the second filibuster.
Thanks
Here is one I have not seen addressed: in Kansas (I believe this may be nation-wide) even a licensed dealer may skip the background check if the buyer has a concealed carry permit issued after a certain date (I think it is July of 2012). I have bought several guns in this manner, just fill out the usual form and that's it. I have not heard a peep about whether a new universal check law would put an end to this. Anybody?
JRH6856
Member
People on both sides of the issue will be watching so that kind of balances out. And we should already know where the people who purport to represent us stand on the issues we feel are important. Asking for a vote to see where they stand is the equivalent of pulling the trigger on a gun to see if it's loaded. You may regret the result.
Cosmoline
Member
There are some parts, unrelated to the background check, that seem fine from the summary. Maybe someone in the GOP can hack those out and offer them as an amendment to the amendment, thereby allowing the bulk of Republicans to vote for something, and bog down the entire thing in a morass of conflicting amendments.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Since background checks already extend to "online sales" he is either a liar, or too ignorant to be in the position he holds.
InkEd
Member
Yes we DO want a filibuster! There is no need to even let this crap make it far enough to vote.
Cosmoline
Member
The only online sales that require NICS are interstate sales. In Alaska for example a good 80 or 90% of FTF intrastate sales are arranged online in forums and swap and sells. The actual gun shows have tumbleweed blowing through them and virtually everyone has some level of connectivity now. I've made several hundred gun and gun-related transactions through on-line forums in Alaska over the decades. I've made maybe two or three that weren't via some internet intermediary, and even these still involved emails. A bill that makes internet-organized intrastate FTF sales subject to NICS may as well make everything subject to NICS.
But again I don't think we have the bill yet. Devil is in the details.
But again I don't think we have the bill yet. Devil is in the details.
InkEd
Member
Sounds like they are trying to ban FTF sales posted online. Equine Manure!
All the other stuff is already the law but is ignored.
The whole thing is rubbish and Toomey needs to dropped by the party!
All the other stuff is already the law but is ignored.
The whole thing is rubbish and Toomey needs to dropped by the party!
NickEllis
Member
We should really play Israel to Palestine on this one: if they want a compromise for UBC, make them sweat and bleed for it:
1) Suppressors and SBRs removed from NFA.
2) Firearms, Ammo and feeding devices are tax exempt, forever, as a necessary part of 2nd Amendment non-infringement.
3) Non retention of records
Without these, they can pound sand. Let them gain some political capital for their lefty backers (and pay the price at the ballot box later); let us gain a lot of additional freedom.
1) Suppressors and SBRs removed from NFA.
2) Firearms, Ammo and feeding devices are tax exempt, forever, as a necessary part of 2nd Amendment non-infringement.
3) Non retention of records
Without these, they can pound sand. Let them gain some political capital for their lefty backers (and pay the price at the ballot box later); let us gain a lot of additional freedom.
SabbathWolf
member
I agree 100%
This type of stuff doesn't even deserve the respect of a vote.
Send 'em packin'
Shanghai McCoy
Member
My take on this is that if Schumer is OK with the bill it must be bad for gun owners...
Total waste of time. One knows where their senators stand, if pro-2nd Amendment, they will do the right thing, if antis, nothing said will change their predisposed positons.
I now know where our two US Senators here in Arizona stand, politically speaking, they are behind gun owners, stabbing them in the back.
I now know where our two US Senators here in Arizona stand, politically speaking, they are behind gun owners, stabbing them in the back.
- Status