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

[-v-]

I'm with Bartholomew Roberts; If Obama, Bloomberg, Schumer and company all gave thumbs up to this bill, its probably filled with quite a few clauses that do nothing but hurt the 2A. I mean lets thing about it. If Bloomberg who is arguably one of the staunches gun grabbers out there likes this bill, then what does it hold in store for us? Nothing good.

While I too would like to see what it says, that lineup above gives me a good abstract of it: Nothing good.

Plus I have this feeling that the UBC doesn't ban gun sales, but it might make the process onerous enough that its not practical to sell guns. A gun ban through red tape. /tinfoil hat off.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

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.

Bob Casey just does whatever he is told. Politicos that simply do what their party leaders tell them make me sick, no matter what party they belong to. Have some convictions and stick to them, for goodness' sake!

I have half a mind to move from Delaware to PA just so that I can vote against Casey in the next election.

 

[JRH6856]

If Obama, Bloomberg, Schumer and company all gave thumbs up to this bill, its probably filled with quite a few clauses that do nothing but hurt the 2A. I mean lets thing about it. If Bloomberg who is arguably one of the staunches gun grabbers out there likes this bill, then what does it hold in store for us? Nothing good.

Yes, the deal could be full of surprises, or it could be as benign as Toomey makes it out to be, but Schumer, Bloomer, and Biden would all be for this deal whatever it says because it gets the bill to the floor. Without it, there would be no cloture and the filibuster would kill the bill dead. The bill is still Chucky's original bill and the Toomey deal is an amendment to change the original language. Chucky now has a chance to try to preserve as much of the original bill as possible. He had no chance without this deal so of course he is for it.

 

[r1derbike]

The bill will be filled with disappointing surprises. You heard it here first.

May it be punted by those with sound minds and irrefutable scrutiny, before it becomes law.

What shocks me to the core, are some representatives are blatantly ignorant of these bills when they sponsor them.

They have no idea what they contain, couldn't understand it if they did peruse it, and they are willing to put their
John Henry on the bottom line, without even an elementary school's level of educational competence when reviewed.

These are our elected government representatives. Where the 'ell did we go wrong?

 

[JRH6856]

These are our elected government representatives. Where the 'ell did we go wrong?

Maybe when we elected them?

 

[JRH6856]

Here is Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) statement regarding the Toomey-Manchin amendment:

Apr 10 2013
Dr. Coburn’s Statement on Manchin-Toomey Proposal

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today regarding a proposal by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) to expand background checks for gun purchases:

“The Manchin-Toomey proposal is a good faith but unworkable plan. The proposal will impose new taxes and unreasonable burdens on law-abiding citizens. The agreement also prioritizes collecting records over protecting citizens. As gun control special interest groups admit, the proposal expands the government’s powers to record sales of firearms at the expense of expanding the scope of background checks. This is the wrong approach. Preventing sales to dangerous persons, not collecting receipts, will save lives.

“The proposal also unwisely expands the government’s power to regulate and control the sales of firearms. A government takeover of gun shows will open more loopholes than it closes. Instead of paying a gun show tax, gun owners will simply handle those transactions elsewhere. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, unfortunately, trades a workable way to improve access the NICS database for a system that is not workable and will be extremely difficult to pass Congress and become law.

“I entered these talks because I believe the American people want a common sense policy that respects their Second Amendment rights and freedoms while giving them the tools they need to make sure they aren’t transferring a firearm to someone who will be a threat to themselves or others. I intend to offer a substitute amendment based on many previously agreed to bipartisan reforms gun control advocates abandoned. For instance, I’ll propose a consumer portal that would facilitate access to the NICS database at not just gun shows but for virtually all private sales. While the Manchin-Toomey proposal is flawed, I commend them for their effort and look forward to the full and open debate the American people deserve.”

###​

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

^^^ I actually kinda like what Coburn is proposing, based on that short description of it.

 

[JRH6856]

Well, a lot of people like what Toomey is proposing, based in the short description. I'll wait until I see the full text of either.

An no, I don't believe anyone is going to be allowed to ram this through on a quick vote tomorrow or the next day. Several of the senators voting for cloture want to go on record in the debate as for or against or they want to force others to go on record. It's something they feel they need or it's just good party strategy to get something on the record for future campaigns. I think both sides see this issue as a tipping point for 2014. The Republicans are looking for a repeat of what happened after the AWB, and the Dems think they will gain enough support to push some red and purple states to blue.

I think they may be correct and we'll see in 2014.

But some of those same senators voting for cloture tomorrow, will be joining the filibuster before the final bill comes to a vote, and they are not going to let this be rammed through. I doubt Reid even wants to do that right now.

 

[RX-178]

As much as I'm against the idea of a UBC bill, I do have to give credit where credit is (apparently) due.

Toomey has actually made an effort to reach an ACTUAL compromise. As opposed to the 'compromise' on the gun grabbers side of just giving them PART of what they want. Things like enabling FFLs to sell handguns out of state, and allowing CCW holders to bypass background checks in any state.

I cannot in good conscience deny him credit for bringing pro-gun items to this bill, but it doesn't change my position on the bill as a whole. My hope is that all 2nd Amendment supporters in the Senate proceed with a filibuster, vote for every single one of Toomey's additions, and then vote against the bill itself, in that order.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

I too will wait to pass final judgement until I see the full text of what is being proposed.

And yeah. We need more of this:

ACTUAL compromise.

and much, much less of this:

'compromise' on the gun grabbers side of just giving them PART of what they want.

 

[dragon813gt]

To those saying it's "not that bad." Can you please explain to me why we need more laws? I can't understand why you think we do. Enforce the ones currently on the books. Do that first for a considerable amount of time. If its not working I will gladly accept debate on law changes.

This is all playing on the emotions of Sandy Hook. I live in PA and know of no one that is happy w/ Toomey right now. And I'm not a die hard conservative that only associates w/ other die hards. There is no way I will say his compromise is acceptable. Enforce the laws we currently have instead of making new ones.


Brought to you by TapaTalk

 

[Pilot]

What part of "INFRINGE" do they not understand? If they want a compromise, pass an amendment to the Constitution changing the 2A. They know that won't happen so instead pass these bogus laws or have the courts with activist judges infringe on our rights.

Do we have a natural right to Keep and Bear Arms or not?

 

[vito]

Even if the statements about this bill make it sound pretty mild, just knowing that the gun-grabbers ultimate goal of banning the private ownership of firearms has never been given up, I am opposed to yielding any ground to them. Here in IL we have a fanatic anti-gunner, Durbin and a wishy-washy RINO named Kirk. Folks are afraid to criticize Kirk sometimes because he is recovering from a serious stroke, but he has never been someone that 2nd Amendment supporters could expect support from. In some ways the anti-gun crowd must be salivating: this bill could get passed because of sympathy for the murdered children at Newtown, but will do absolutely nothing to stop more such mass shootings. I guess the anti-gunners will be hoping for more mass killings so that they can again push for more and more gun restrictions. I'm sure they feel they hit the jackpot with Newtown because most of the victims were young children.

 

[Bubba613]

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?

It is clear that you have nothing but bias and hysteria to base any opinion on. That is insufficient for any rational discussion. It is about on a par with "they're cummin to take yer guns!!"

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.

So some orgs are opposed because? They don't have any more information than the rest of us. It is the blind leading the blind.

I used to say that everything liberals said about conservatives was true. But it was true about liberals, not conservatives. Now I wonder whether it isn't true the other way as well.

 

[mrvco]

To those saying it's "not that bad." Can you please explain to me why we need more laws? I can't understand why you think we do.

...

Brought to you by TapaTalk

Obviously we haven't seen the text of the actual bill, but based on the summary...

Being able to buy a gun in any state by showing my CCW Permit is better for me than the way it is now. Gun shows are irrelevant to me. I would like to see the text of the bill regarding what qualifies as "advertising" and "on-line sales" before I pass final judgement.

I'm far more concerned about the mental health amendment and that it will keep anyone who owns a gun or anyone who thinks they may want to own a gun in the future from being open and honest with their doctor and will keep them from seeking help for themselves or their family members.

 

[gc70]

Being able to buy a gun in any state by showing my CCW Permit is better for me than the way it is now

Removing the prohibition on out-of-state sales just makes it possible to immediately walk out of an out-of-state gun store with a newly purchased gun in your hand.

We can already buy guns out of state; at worst, the gun has to be shipped to a gun store where you live to do paperwork and take delivery.

 

[JohnBT]

"Obviously we haven't seen the text of the actual bill"

So there's nothing to discuss yet.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

According to Mike Lee, as of this morning, even the Senators themselves don't know how many or what amendments will be allowed. However, it would be extremely unusual for Reid to allow a filibuster of each individual amendment - I'm far from a Senate historian; but that has never happened in the previous Senate gun debates I've followed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Big surprise! Reid just asked that the rules requiring a 30-hour delay be suspended so they can begin debate on amendments immediately. The first amendment to be offered will be the Toomey-Manchin amendment. Nobody has any text for the amendment yet.

And add Blumenthal to the list of supporters of the Toomey-Manchin amendment.

 

[jerkface11]

If it bans private sales it's a bad bill.

 

[gc70]

However, it would be extremely unusual for Reid to allow a filibuster of each individual amendment - I'm far from a Senate historian; but that has never happened in the previous Senate gun debates I've followed.

The Congressional Research Service report on the The Legislative Process on the Senate Floor suggests that filibusters are possible on amendments, but usually avoided.

Senators can prolong the debate indefinitely on any bill or amendment (or nomination or treaty), as well as on many motions, subject only to tabling motions or to a successful cloture process.

Although there may be many matters to which some Senators may be adamantly opposed, filibusters are not daily events.

 

[alsaqr]

It's a red herring issue. The administration and the anti-gunners in congress are pushing ubc while they refuse to fix existing law that outlaws the purchase of guns by adjudicated violence prone mental cases.

 

[22-rimfire]

I'm far more concerned about the mental health amendment and that it will keep anyone who owns a gun or anyone who thinks they may want to own a gun in the future from being open and honest with their doctor and will keep them from seeking help for themselves or their family members.

In the real world, I would intensely avoid any kind of mental health care unless it was forced upon me. There is a stigma involved that goes to employment prospects as well as firearms.

I still find it hard to believe that 85% of the population support UBCs. Must be dominantly non-gun owners who participate in those surveys mostly. But I often read here that there is some support by THR members. I guess they want to pay $40 or $50 to transfer a gun in a private sale plus all the inconvenience involved.... meet at FFL dealer, wait until paperwork completed and check run, then turn over firearm to new owner. If there is a delay, then it probably means another trip to the FFL dealer... the only time I would feel good about it would be when it was discovered that the person has serious documented mental health issues or otherwise are a prohibited person. But prohibited people will not be meeting at the gunshop to do a transfer.... they'd be crazy to do so.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Congressional Research Service report on the The Legislative Process on the Senate Floor suggests that filibusters are possible on amendments, but usually avoided.

Thanks for taking the time to look that up and share it with us, gc70! I learned something new on Senate procedure thanks to that.

 

[JRH6856]

I still find it hard to believe that 85% of the population support UBCs. Must be dominantly non-gun owners who participate in those surveys mostly.

Unlike gun owners that frequent gun forums and discuss this issue on a daily basis (which is a very small percentage of gun owners), most gun owners are like the rest country and don't have a clue as to the details of UBC requirements. They just hear "background check" and think it sounds like a good idea and don't understand why anyone would oppose it (except for nutcases that couldn't pass one).