Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by gfanikf, Apr 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,779

    No, but it would require running a background check.

    So lets actually READ the law then. And rather than just say 'go read the law' I will SHOW you the parts that you may have missed in your reading.

    "(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.

    The kicker is, it need not be a direct 'For sale' advertisement.

    If I post a picture of my gun (display) and you see it then make an offer to buy it even though I never mentioned selling now UBC is needed
    If I post that I need to sell some of my guns and can't decide which ones to part with, and you have seen a previous list of my guns online (either related to 'which one should I sell' or simply a list of gun I have) and IM me with an offer for a specific gun...now a UBC is needed.

    I am not even sure what 'other listing' is. What about those guys who list their collection on their signature line...is that going to count?
    What about if I post that I am selling a gun on facebook, is everyone on my friends list now needing a UBC if they buy, because maybe they saw the facebook post?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2013
  2. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    Try reading the rest of it. Especially the part marked "exceptions."
     
  3. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,779
    Section 122 does NOT spell out there must be a background check on every transfer.

    What it DOES spell out is everyone at the gunshow who buys MUST go through a background check (even non-dealers...even guys in the parking lot)

    AND what it DOES spell out is any internet activity related to the sale means you now need a background check.

    So, the only time two parties in the same state are exempt from 122 is if their state already possesses both a total gunshow background check requirement AND a total internet background check requirement
     
  4. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,779
    Here's the deal. Clearly everyone who is disagreeing with you is reading it...because they are posting sections of it.

    This means your constant chanting of 'try reading the rest of it' is useless (not to mention insulting to the intelligence of ALL involved, including you...because any person with two brain cells would be able to tell that the people who are disagreeing with you HAVE read it, they just missed a few things or interpret them differently)

    Second, imagine you were in a court of law and were going to make this argument. You couldn't tell a judge 'read the law' you'd have to spell out the connections. So why don't you try and enlighten us by spelling out the connections you seem to see that no one else does. Maybe we are wrong, but at least we are trying to foster understanding, not be unhelpfully cryptic.
     
  5. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,779

    The kicker is if all the judges and lawyers are also equally misreading it because they are only as well educated as Joe Biden and Bartholomew, then it doesn't matter if one legal genius sitting at his computer knows the true reading.

    99.99% of a time the interpretation of a law is whatever 75% of the lawyers/judges say it is...even if they are 'technically wrong'

    0.01% of the time the interpretation of a law is whatever 51% of 7 select legal minds say it is...even if they are 'technically wrong'
     
  6. Geneseo1911

    Geneseo1911 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,016
    Location:
    South of I-80, PR of IL
    Wall Street Journal's take on whether the background checks will be "universal" or not:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323346304578423020482582426.html

     
  7. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    Clearly you're reading something that isn't there.
     
  8. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    Clealry the antis think there is no UBC here:
     
  9. beeenbag

    beeenbag Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Location:
    Grayson, Ky
    Bubba, I was partially on board with you earlier in this thread, until I was enlightened about the internet sales. Here is where I was wrong, this may be where you are mistaking also...

    Look at the words in red... then replace it with... IF the Attorney General DOES NOT certify that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section

    Then there is the AND...

    Replace that with...; and"(ii) the transfer was not conducted in compliance with the laws of the State[/QUOTE]

    In either one of these hypothetical situations, you are NOT exempt from the background check.
     
  10. bhesler

    bhesler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    Um, what? Your LGS is an FFL, and FFLs have to run background checks at gun shows. You could buy a similar gun from a private seller at a gun show with no background check, but not from and FFL.
     
  11. docnyt

    docnyt Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,284
    Location:
    HeArT of DiXiE
    Is there any data that supports the use of background checks deterring gun related crime? Because if there is not, then what's the point of this issue?
     
  12. BullfrogKen

    BullfrogKen Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    14,885
    Location:
    Lewisberry, PA
    Yeah, uh, you've like never bought a gun at a gun show before, have you?


    The requirement for a FFL dealer to run a background check before transfering the gun is required regardless of the location. Whether the sale/transfer takes place at his brick-and-mortar store, at his table at a gun show, or in his garage or dining room table.
     
  13. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    There was some skepticism expressed earlier by Bubba613 concerning the Heritage Foundation's point that Toomey-Manchin weakens the FOPA protection against a federal registry.

    gc70 at TFL has written a fantastic, well-researched post that goes even further than the Heritage Foundation analysis and shows step-by-step in plain language (and with the corresponding law cited) how it does weaken FOPA.
    http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494010&postcount=63
     
  14. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    I would hardly call it either "fantastic" or "well researched" since no research is apparent.
    This:
    Of course each FFL already "maintains a database" of such information. To obtain the information ATF must dispatch an agent for every piece of information to the individual FFL. That info might be out of date within moments of any 4473 actually being executed. It is a cumbersome inefficient system, and meant to be. And it wouldn't be affected by anything in the bill.
     
  15. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Dave Kopel has additional concerns.
     
  16. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,646
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    As many have tried to explain to you, you are misreading the exceptions.
     
  17. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    You're repeating it doesn't make it true. Sorry.
     
  18. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Bubba, are you familiar with the concept that if you look around and are inclined to think everyone else in the room is wrong, you should seriously consider whether it might be you that's wrong?
     
  19. mrvco

    mrvco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Colorado
    No, actually I haven't. Living in Colorado, my understanding was that since Columbine background checks have been required at gun shows in Colorado when buying from a vendor.

    I thought most other states allowed these transactions to take place without a background check at a gun show... or at least I thought that was why everyone was making such a big deal about "closing the gun show loophole".

    What exactly IS the "gun show loophole" then?
     
  20. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,035
    Location:
    TX
    +1

    I seriously don't see how the media and our politicians perpetuate the fallacy time and time again...
     
  21. bhesler

    bhesler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    The gun show loophole is private sales. FFLs have to run background checks, in their shop pr at a gun show in all 50 states. Private sellers cannot run background checks. Schumer's bill seeks to end all private transfers of guns, and is so poorly written that even temporary transfers, under the right circumstances, can be a felony.

    The Manchin-Toomey amendment only requires that private transfers at gun shows, or advertised on the Internet (or in a publication) require a background check. All other private transfers are untouched.

    I have been to one gun show in my life. I bought a shotgun, and there was a background check. I also saw a guy who failed his background check taken out in cuffs.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2013
  22. BullfrogKen

    BullfrogKen Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    14,885
    Location:
    Lewisberry, PA
    It is a lie. A big fat lie.


    The Federal government licenses gun dealers - the FFL. They require any gun an FFL sells (with the exception of antique "black powder" type firearms) conduct a background check on every sale. Period. No matter where it occurs.


    The media coined that term. And it's stuck, evidenced by the fact people like you believed the lie.

    I - as someone not in the gun business - am still permitted to sell my shotguns and rifles in the state of PA to someone I know not to be a felon. Handguns I can't. Nonetheless, I can sell my personal collection as I see fit, and I'm not mandated by law to call into NICS and conduct a background check to do it. Nor can I. By law, only dealers and law enforcement agencies can utilize NICS. If I want to sell - or even loan - my deer rifle to my neighbor who hunts every year because I gave up hunting, I can do that.


    So, if I go to a gun show and offer that same rifle for sale, that's what they term a "gun show loophole". However, it also includes me selling, or even loaning my rifle to my neighbor for the deer season.

    The Federal government can compel FFLs to do a NICS check, because they issue the license and can make licensees do whatever they want in order to have it.

    I don't have an FFL. I don't know what grounds they can regulate me. Now, the states are free to impose upon me that I must conduct my firearms sales through a state-mandated statute compelling me to use a background check system to transfer my guns - that's a state's rights matter.


    But the "gunshow loophole" is a huge lie.
     
  23. morcey2

    morcey2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,240
    Location:
    Central Utah
    Lindsey Graham just came out against toomey-manchin:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345615/graham-oppose-toomey-manchin-eliana-johnson

    from-twitter-quoted-in-the-article:
    I still would have rather had him support the filibuster....
     
  24. mrvco

    mrvco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ok thanks, that makes sense...

    "Gun Show Loophole" = "Private Sales between people that happen to be attending a gun show".

    I've only attended one gun show and that "crowded and overpriced" experience more or less cured me of any desire to attend another one.

    So the important issue is still the definition of "ON-LINE SALES"...
     
  25. BullfrogKen

    BullfrogKen Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    14,885
    Location:
    Lewisberry, PA
    Sales of any modern firearm cannot take place across state lines. When I buy something that's been offered for sale on line, it must come to my local FFL to be lawfully transfered to me.

    95% of on-line sales are already covered. The only ones that aren't are ones that are:

    • offered for sale by an individual, not an FFL;
    • bought someone residing in the same state as the seller;
    • in a state that doesn't already regulate the transfer of that firearm

    So, if someone living near me - in my state - offered a rifle for sale on-line, and I bought it, in PA we could meet each other and finalize the deal. I still can't do that with a handgun in PA. It would have to be transferred through an FFL, or we could go to a local Sheriff or state police barracks to run the check and handle the transfer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice