Toomey Folds - Joins Schumer, Manchin and Kirk on UBC Compromise

[beeenbag]

OTOH, it removes the restriction on interstate sales of handguns, mandates state reporting of felons and the criminally insane,

Can you provide evidence of this? I can't seem to find the text.

 

[JRH6856]

Internet sales which already require transfer by a dealer, and thus a background check. A minor inconvenience, at worst.

Once again, dealer transfer is currently only required for interstate transactions. Intrastate private party transactions do not require a dealer and seller can ship directly to the buyer.

Basically, we are trading intrastate private party internet transactions. for interstate private party handgun transactions. That may be a toss up.

 

[hso]

It only requires background checks on all transactions at gun shows (where facilities will be available to, er, facilitate transactions) and on Internet sales which already require transfer by a dealer, and thus a background check. A minor inconvenience, at worst.

No, it requires background checks for every transfer except for family and friends (how he defines "family" and "friend" are yet to be detailed). That's clearly established in the summary on his website.

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.

- Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.

- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).

- 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.

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.

- 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.

- 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.

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

- Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.

- Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.

- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

- Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.

- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

TITLE THREE: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE

Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.

The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.

"other loopholes" should scare the daylights out of you.

 

[Hypnogator]

No, it requires background checks for every transfer except for family and friends (how he defines "family" and "friend" are yet to be detailed).

No..... From your own post:

Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

(emphasis added)

It would seem to exempt all individual transactions. True, I'd be happier if that were more explicitly spelled out. I still say we're getting more than we're giving.

 

[jk.308]

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.

manchin is here for the stay I am afraid.....however Rockefeller is out as of 2014 as he has said he will not run again......Capito has been calling around the state for a while seeing how many votes she can get for the 2014 senate race. So that may be a saving grace for us. Rahall down here in the south is Democrat but has sent 2-3 letters in responses to emails i have sent. all pro 2a. Not able to get a response from Capito as I am not in her district.

 

[mrvco]

- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

Is this saying that I could travel to a state other than my home state and purchase a firearm, using my home state CCW permit instead of the FFL dealer running a background check?

 

[Hypnogator]

Is this saying that I could travel to a state other than my home state and purchase a firearm, using my home state CCW permit instead of the FFL dealer running a background check?

That's how I read it.

 

[mrvco]

That's how I read it.

Speaking as someone that has never bought a gun at a gun show and probably never will...

The devil is in the details, but after reading through that list, I'm having a hard time finding the devil in any of those details.

Obviously the definition of a private-party sale is too loose for comfort, but other than that I'm unclear why I should be outraged... What else am I missing?

 

[dragon813gt]

48 hours for a background check? I currently don't have a waiting period in my state. And I don't want one. Toomey is a traitor and I have let him know over the past few days what I think of him. Anyone that thinks we need anymore laws is blind. It won't fix any of the problems. Criminals don't obey laws. I don't understand how people don't follow this simple logic.


Brought to you by TapaTalk

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OTOH, it removes the restriction on interstate sales of handguns, mandates state reporting of felons and the criminally insane, and provides for fifteen years in prison for anyone who attempts to use firearms transactional records to establish a database

It is against federal law to sell firearms to Mexican drug lords. How many people from Fast and Furious are under federal indictment for that? It was against federal law (the Tiahrt Amendment) to share gun trace data with the Washington Post, yet when it served the ATF's needs, the Washington Post had a list of the top ten gun stores with guns traced to Mexico and how many guns (it would later turn out at least 4 of the 10 were cooperating with ATF). Nobody in jail for that one either. Since the same types of people are going to be the ones breaking a law forbidding any type of registration, color me skeptical on the value of this provision.

Would it be nice to have? Sure. Would I be willing to trade any of my legal rights for it? No, not even minor ones. Even if you take the Toomey-Manchin press release at face value, a fair amount of the so-called benefits are things that we are already supposed to have under existing law.

There is already an appeals process to be removed as a prohibited person. it was definded by Congress. How is creating a new one funded by Congress an improvement worth trading my rights for?

FOPA 1986 already was written to protect travellers from inadvertent violation of state gun laws 27 years ago; but for a decade New York has been arresting totally innocent people, some of whom did not even plan a layover in New York, for gun crimes and the courts have allowed that. But now we should surrender more rights to get the original intent of a law written 27 years ago.

It is already illegal to have centralized registration. How does giving it a criminal penalty make it worth my rights?

Seriously, I feel like Charlie Brown going at the football here. They are selling us the same, exact broken promises they have made in the past in exchange for new restrictions on our rights. Why would I want that deal? Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin should be ashamed. NRA spent $1.5 million to get Toomey elected. I can't even begin to explain my feelings for these two politicians and stay within the code of conduct here.

 

[mrvco]

I'm not being flippant when I ask whats rights are being given up here?

Is this just about no BC's at gun shows?

If by "online sales" they do mean Armslist and sites like that fronting private-party sales, then the nature of the Internet turns that into an enforcement quagmire... e.g. I have a Glock I don't need, call me and let's be friends. Or a WTB post with a telephone number would be another option.

 

[mrvco]

48 hours for a background check? I currently don't have a waiting period in my state. And I don't want one.

Brought to you by TapaTalk

It is not a "waiting period"... It is the maximum amount of time that your FFL dealer has to wait for your BC to clear before they can quit waiting and just sell you the gun. The current maximum allowable wait is three days, this appears to lower it to two and then one days.

 

[Bubba613]

So because politicians have tried to do this in the past and Toomey will not explain how it is defined in his bill, we shouldn't worry about it? We should just assume it will work out for the best? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Please detail the politicians who have tried to do this in the past. You are a little short on specifics every time this comes up. The law already defines what a gun show is. What evidence do you have that this will change?

The Toomey-Manchin bill is opposed by NRA. It is supported by Schumer, Bloomberg and Biden. That is plenty of information for me to make my decision.

OK, that's a low information way to make decisions. I'd prefer to see the bill and the details in it before making any judgments. But that's me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Please detail the politicians who have tried to do this in the past. You are a little short on specifics every time this comes up

This may shock you; but I am not your personal research assistant. I explained how to find bills in Thomas. Go look them up yourself - or don't. You appear to have the mistaken impression that I value or respect your opinion. I do not. Clear enough?

OK, that's a low information way to make decisions. I'd prefer to see the bill and the details in it before making any judgments. But that's me

Yes, it is probably foolish of me to reach the outlandish conclusion that this is not the one in a million bill that Schumer, Bloomberg and Biden support and the NRA opposes; but that actually turns out to be a great deal for gun owners.

I too, would love to read the text of the bill and make an informed decision. Sadly, despite this bill being worked on for weeks; somehow they have not managed to release any text of the proposed amendment and the motion to proceed vote on S.649 is tomorrow. So even if they gave the text of the bill to Thomas tomorrow, it would be Monday or Tuesday of next week before any of us could read it on Thomas. I am sure that is also mere coincidence. As a result, if I want to tell my Senator whether to oppose or support that bill, I have to act now since tomorrow may be too late. I chose to oppose it. You have chosen to wait and deliberate. I think your approach has numerous flaws; but I don't really consider it worth my time to go into it with you since you appear to want an argument and not a debate.

 

[msb45]

Thieves in the Night

The reason for making "low information" decisions is that a "deal" has been struck today. A 1,000 page bill will be voted upon tomorrow.

IMHO a good rule of thumb is never OK something you don't understand. Pushy salesmen with limited time offers usually means a bad deal for you.

Given the track record of the supporters in advocating a ban I say NO.

Even if we disagree I'm amazed how many people are OK with a middle of the night back-room deal. Publish the bill, have discourse and public dialog, then vote.

My township requires a few public hearings for a building code variance. I think effectively voiding a portion of the Bill of Rights should get at least that much consideration and public discourse based on facts as me having an over sized deck in my backyard.

Oh yea now that the Feds declare CCW Permits are valid across all state lines they can begin to define standards. Good luck with that. :banghead:

 

[JohnsXDM]

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'm in Illinois and have 2 senators that are doing the same!

 

[gc70]

I'd prefer to see the bill and the details in it before making any judgments. But that's me.

Me, too. Unfortunately, this last-minute deal the day before voting starts, with only a vague summary rather than full text, leaves us somewhat in a "pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" situation. In that type of inherently low information environment, opposing anything that Chuck Schumer heartily recommends to his fellow travelers seems like a reasonable conclusion.

 

[JRH6856]

The reason for making "low information" decisions is that a "deal" has been struck today. A 1,000 page bill will be voted upon tomorrow.

More "low information" :banghead: What will be voted on tomorrow is a cloture motion to quash a filibuster and open the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself. At least not yet. And there can still be a filibuster before the final vote and no deal has yet been announced on that.

 

[mrvco]

More "low information" :banghead: What will be voted on tomorrow is a cloture motion to quash a filibuster and open the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself. At least not yet. And there can still be a filibuster before the final vote and no deal has yet been announced on that.

Thank you for clarifying that little (important) detail.

Hopefully we can leave the knee-jerk reactions to the antis and develop coherent and rational support and/or opposition to these proposals.

 

[Kim]

I hope PA votes Casey out of office. He is on Piers Morgan stating how he has changed his mind on gun control. Supporting magazine and Assault weapons ban etc. Boy he sure has changed or evolved on alot of things since Obama has been in office.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

More "low information" What will be voted on tomorrow is a cloture motion to quash a filibuster and open the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself. At least not yet. And there can still be a filibuster before the final vote and no deal has yet been announced on that.

During S.1805 in 2004, they voted for cloture of the motion to proceed on the 25th and voted on 5-6 amendments on the 26th. If Toomey submits the text of the bill tomorrow, it will not show up on Thomas until early next week. So there is a possibility that Senators may vote on whether to adopt Toomey's amendment before any of us can read it, though I imagine NRA or GOA will publish it as soon as it is available.

If we don't want to be in the position of calling these Senators a few hours before the vote hoping to influence them, we may have to make some "low-information" decisions; though we now have a list of sponsors, RKBA groups that oppose the bill (i.e. all of them), and various press releases from the authors.

 

[msb45]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRH6856 View Post
More "low information" What will be voted on tomorrow is a cloture motion to quash a filibuster and open the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself. At least not yet. And there can still be a filibuster before the final vote and no deal has yet been announced on that.
Thank you for clarifying that little (important) detail.

Hopefully we can leave the knee-jerk reactions to the antis and develop coherent and rational support and/or opposition to these proposals.

OK let me restate to clarify my point.

We are going to vote to debate a bill tomorrow. Reportedly 1,000 pages long that I can not find posted anywhere. My Senator Toomey only has a paragraph stating what's so great on his website. Guess taking 5 minutes to upload a PDF to inform his constituents isn't worth the effort.

I may be old but when I was taught the legislative process a bill was written, PUBLISHED, READ, and debated. In the debates amendments were offered and voted upon after debate. The bill was AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

If passed it was then sent to the other chamber for consideration to be acted upon. Once again the public was informed and given an opportunity for comment. Any differences were reconciled between the houses in conference.

I agree that we need to debate on merits. My point was that there is a lack of transparency in the process. I did not state a final vote was scheduled for tomorrow. I can see where that could be misunderstood, my apologies.

How can there be an educated discourse without time for reflection and thought? What are they debating? Where is the bill? It is a legislative body not a high school debate team.

Remember we have to pass it to know what's in it? Remember Ms. Pelosi marching from the offices to the Capitol, public consensus be dammed?

Sorry I think my legislators should do their job properly. A US Senator should be able to perform better than my township supervisor in my deck example. Therefore I say :banghead:

As in all polite discourse I support your right to disagree.

 

[JRH6856]

Senate rules can be confusing and it is entirely possible I am reading them wrong, but...

It appears Reid isn't using the guaranteed 2 amendments per side" deal to avoid the filibuster, so as I understand it, each amendment offered must be debated and voted. Yes, they can be pushed through quickly, or they can each be delayed by separate filibuster on each vote. By going to cloture to quash the filibuster on debate, Reid has opened it up for several more later in the process.

 

[mrvco]

If I'm reading this right...

I would be able to walk into any gun store in the nation, show my CCW permit and buy a gun with no background check, while still being able to do face-to-face private party sales with no FFL involvement....

How is that not equal to or better than the current way of doing things?

Is it just the gun show thing?

 

[jerkface11]

You wouldn't be able to ADVERTISE the gun you are selling or sell it at a gun show.