Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're wrong. The bill specifically says "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." must go through a dealer, just like a new gun. This bill KILLS PRIVATE SALES.
Click to expand...
No, I am not wrong. The bill does no such thing. Go back and read it.
 
I did. You're missing the 'and' here:
the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;
Click to expand...
 
Here:

(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;
Click to expand...
 
I dont see any mention of "universal background checks" in the quoted passage. You'll have to clarify.
 
kwguy, agree or disagree; that is your prerogative and right. However, I would appreciate it if you did not equate my comments with the actions of someone out of touch with reality.
 
The AG (and I'm not clear if it's the state's AG or Holder) has to certify that the state already has provisions similar to the section about any sale advertised anywhere being subject to a BC. If the AG does that, then the state's residents are exempt from the federal bill.
 
OK, second read and here are my two major concerns:


SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).
Click to expand...

This section is worse than useless. It removes all HIPAA protections for reporting mental health info NICS; but doesn't provide any standards or guidelines for what information is reportable. Can a doctor call up and report you because he thinks you shouldn't have a gun? How do you get out of the system if that happens? This is unacceptable language. My take is they should strip all the mental health language out and go with the NRA backed S.480.

"(B) A provider of an interactive computer service shall be immune from a qualified civil liability action relating to the transfer of a firearm as if the provider of an interactive computer service were a seller of a qualified product.
Click to expand...

As defined, this forum, your ISP, are all interactive computer services. They are provided the same immunity as a qualified seller under 47 USC 7903. However, as defined in that section, if an illegal sale takes place (no background check) then that immunity disappears. So if two people buy a firearm after talking about it in THR and do not go through a background check, THR is potentially liable for the illegal sale - and even if not liable, they won't get the PLCA protection against being dragged into BS lawsuits. Furthermore, except for three categories relating to FFL transfer availability and fees, the Attorney General (Eric Holder lest we forget) is given free reign to set up the regulations on how this law will actually be implemented.
 
The AG (and I'm not clear if it's the state's AG or Holder) has to certify that the state already has provisions similar to the section about any sale advertised anywhere being subject to a BC. If the AG does that, then the state's residents are exempt from the federal bill.
Click to expand...

You made that up.

The language is that the AG must certify the state has requirements "substantially similar to those of this section." What are the requirements of "this section"? Hint: universal background check is not one of them because there is already an exemption spelled out.
 
I don't understand this "expand background checks to gun shows" thing. Every gun show I have been to, the dealers conduct them just like they would at the storefront. Private sales are a different animal, but those aren't as prolific as sales from volume dealers at the same show.

They'd like the general population to believe that gun shows are like the wild west. There's more in that bill than we think. This is not going well at all.
 
Bubba613 said:
The language is that the AG must certify the state has requirements "substantially similar to those of this section." What are the requirements of "this section"? Hint: universal background check is not one of them because there is already an exemption spelled out.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, his interpretation was exactly right. "This section" refers to Section 122: Firearms Transfers. As long as the requirements of your state are substantially similar to Section 122, you don't have to comply.
 
On the contrary, his interpretation was exactly right. "This section" refers to Section 122: Firearms Transfers. As long as the requirements of your state are substantially similar to Section 122, you don't have to comply.
Click to expand...
It was completely wrong. And you have misread this entire bill consistently through this discussion.
 
Note also that the online sales cover any publication as well, so basically if you out of the blue decide to buy a gun from a neighbor during a conversation - OK. If you advertise in any way other than church bulletin board or lost puppy flyers - background check (and those could arguably be prohibited as well, I am just taking the two Senators comments during the press conference at face value).
 
Bubba613 said:
It was completely wrong. And you have misread this entire bill consistently through this discussion
Click to expand...

So what does "this section" refer to then, if not the Section it is located in (Section 122: Firearms Transfers)?
 
Bubba613, why are you in favor of this bill? What does it do that you think is needed?
Click to expand...
Clearly the only "restriction" here is on gun show activity. Presently private sellers can sell without background checks at gun shows (and of course outside of them). I have no issue with someone selling his personal collection. I do have an issue with people who set up tables at show after show advertising "No background checks!". Those guys have got to go. This bill does that.
On the positive side it allows handgun sales across state lines, which is a huge plus. It also allows carry permits to substitute for background checks.
People are getting bent out of shape thinking they cannot buy and sell on, e.g. THR if they happen to live in the same state. There is no such provision in the bill. Nor could it possibly be enforced if it were. Nor would it really make a lot of sense.
Yes, of course this will do nothing to stop outrageous acts of violence. But that was never really in the cards, nor what any of this was about.
 
Note also that the online sales cover any publication as well, so basically if you out of the blue decide to buy a gun from a neighbor during a conversation - OK. If you advertise in any way other than church bulletin board or lost puppy flyers - background check (and those could arguably be prohibited as well, I am just taking the two Senators comments during the press conference at face value).
Click to expand...
That simply is not true.
Where did the senators say such in their press conference?
 
Step Back... Second Amendment

Please explain how the Second Amendment works.

What, the Well Armed Militia is now people only in your family, or people you transfer to a gun shows with a BGC, or in a parking lot in a free state if the transferee has a CC permit?

Or a public sale in time of National Emergency in your own yard, no doubt well attended by the evil object of the very need for the 2nd to come in to play.... sorta like asking King George's General Gage to come to your open house in Lexington, right after the guy rides past talking about "one if by land, two if by sea".

What does "infringe" mean?
 
Any publication is included in the language.

(t)(1)(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.

SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or...
Click to expand...

"Publication" is undefined. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to create any regulations necessary to enact the bill*, so "publication" will ultimately be defined by Eric Holder, though I assumed in the post you quoted that Joe Manchin's comment that a sale on a church bulletin board would not be subject to a background check indicates an intent that bulletin boards, neighborhood flyers and the like would not be considered a "publication.". However, Joe Manchin won't be the one defining it and his comment at the press conference may not carry a lot of weight in court during an argument over whether the AG's definition of publication is correct.

*
"(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.
Click to expand...
 
One of my concerns with any of the stuff is over really OWNS the guns in my house. My wife and I have always considered our guns mutual property. I guess the UBC concept changes this and our guns have to legally become either HERS or MINE (or some hers and some mine).

What if I leave the house for a couple of weeks. It seems that I would have to make some 'effort' to legally transfer MY guns to HER (I know no background check is required under this circumstance). Maybe just saying, 'Honey, the guns are all yours until I come back" is sufficient. I seems that the whole UBC concept relies on the fact that guns are owned or titled to individual persons. This whole thing is totally rediculous.
 
ArmyMutt said:
Buying one as a result of seeing it advertised in print or the internet will require a check. On the other hand, this requirement goes away if you have a permit issued within the last 5 years.
Click to expand...

The permit would act as a substitute for a NICS check, but the transfer would still have to go through a dealer.

Note that the core of the bill is not a requirement to get a background check, but to go through a dealer for a transfer.

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
Click to expand...

Dealers have to run background checks when they do transfers. Current law already provides for the use of permits as an alternative to a NICS check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Toomey Folds - Joins Schumer, Manchin and Kirk on UBC Compromise
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
206
Views
9K
msb45
M
B
  • Locked
Gottleib on Registration Again SMH
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Bruno2
B
A
  • Locked
re Tuesday's primaries, Republican PA Gunnies might be interested
Replies
3
Views
838
MrBorland
MrBorland
Ranger Roberts
  • Locked
Manchin, Toomey both interested in reviving gun control push
Replies
14
Views
2K
hso
hso
J
  • Locked
Call Your Senators Now!!
Replies
1
Views
605
Jeff White
J
Back
Top