SilentStalker
Member
Exactly!
Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck
- Thread starter gfanikf
- Start date
- Status
Exactly!
No, that's not the case. Not at all.
Para 2 says Para 1 does not apply in the following cases:
1) When it is doen through a licensed dealer.
2) When it occurs between two residents of the same state.
If the intent were to outlaw all or most private transfers then there would be no need for 2). The law would simply state transfers must go through licensed dealers.
Cosmoline
Member
The intent is indeed to outlaw most private sales, and to place the remainder under a confusing cloud of curtilege and sub-exceptions. I like your reading, but there's no way it would ever fly. And again this is absolutely not a law we should be confused about. It needs to be 100% clear. The line needs to be open and obvious. Because if you cross that line you're finished. Your life is essentially over and you'll be a federal felon. Death would be preferable in many respects.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Bubba613 said:
Exactly. Let me remind you what Para 1 says:
If your interpretation of para 2(B) is correct, then the only way to read it is that intrastate sales between non-licensees at a gun show are exempt via 2(B). However, that interpretation would make the whole gunshow background check meaningless and is clearly not what was intended.
The logical conclusion would be that 2(B) doesn't mean what you think it means; but I don't have much hope you are EVER going to see it that way.
Last edited:
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I think we should fight among ourselves more. 
Tygarys
Member
I would like to know as well, as I just applied for my C&R.and need to know if collectors are affected by this "AGREEMENT" that Senators Toomey and the West Virginia senator have orchestrated.
However, from what I see, these laws apply to private->private or Dealer->private transactions. C&R's are transfers from one FFL to another so would still be exempt from the dealer/NICS requirements.
gc70
Member
We need to quit talking about the Manchin-Toomey amendment 'requiring background checks.'
The Manchin-Toomey amendment would require gun show and internet-related transfers (and that is all that the amendment covers) to go through dealers.
Existing law already requires a background check for any transfer through a dealer.
Existing law also already requires filling out a Form 4473 for any transfer through a dealer.
The Manchin-Toomey amendment would require gun show and internet-related transfers (and that is all that the amendment covers) to go through dealers.
Existing law already requires a background check for any transfer through a dealer.
Existing law also already requires filling out a Form 4473 for any transfer through a dealer.
morcey2
Member
I've got my C&R also and have been trying to figure it out. I believe you're correct in that anything that falls under the C&R license would be exempt as it is a licensee -> licensee transfer.
I hope.
Otherwise, I'll surrender my C&R and burn my bound book. (perfectly legal for a C&R. Don't try it with any other FFL.)
Matt
Cosmoline
Member
It requires going through a dealer which requires a background check. So yes it requires background checks through dealers and outlaws or clouds most modern FTF transfers--by gun show or the internet.
Presumably. I'm not sure about transfers from a non-license holder to a C&R holder.
Shadow 7D
Member
My question is: when it comes to dispossession, are the C&R's going to have access to NICS or are they going to have to use a FFL1?
morcey2
Member
I think they would fall under whatever non-licensee-to-non-licensee category the transfer falls.
I've been monitoring the conversation about this bill on several sites and the general consensus among anti-gunner's is that they think that it is far too lax and watered-down. If I've learned one thing from this latest go-round it is that gun-grabbers are now fully out of the closet about their real agenda. They mean to destroy the Constitution and they will say anything to make that happen.
How many times have you read that "no one is going to take your guns" or "no one wants to eliminate the Second Amendment?"
Lies.
How many times have you read that "no one is going to take your guns" or "no one wants to eliminate the Second Amendment?"
Lies.
tyeo098
Member
How many states do you think the Attny General will 'Certify?'
I'm betting none.
I'm betting none.
morcey2
Member
I think there is more FUD than judgement and reason in this whole discussion at the moment, and I think that was the point of some of the language in the legislation. I have yet to hear from a lawyer on the actual meaning of the proposal, but I have my opinion. I think your interpretation is just as valid as mine at this point, but my suspicion of the bill (not of you) stems from the support by Schumer amongst others. If this passes and you're right, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I'm just cynical.
As far as arguing among ourselves, we need to be careful to not form a circular firing-squad.
Matt
ETA: I swear I'm not making fake quotes. His post was there a few minutes ago, I promise.
Cosmoline
Member
I think we can all agree this law is very far from clear cut in any aspect. And that's a sufficient reason to give it the boot. I'm not opposed to UBC's if they're done as part of comprehensive pro-gun reform all the way back to the NFA and certainly the GCA. But this is not the way to go. The only things it "gives" us are things we were already supposed to have. Now if they were talking about forcing Bloomberg to accept out of state CCW permits it MIGHT be worth it just to take a piece out of his fascist enclave. But this one is a long way from that, and Bloomberg likes it. Again that's another good reason not to support the thing.
Cosmoline
Member
No court will read an exception to swallow the rule. And the rule is that all transfers of firearms that have been posted up somewhere--probably including newspaper classifieds posed on line--will have to go through a dealer and have a check. This would include intrastate transfers. Otherwise the new law would really do nothing.
beatledog7
Member
There are many ambiguities, but one thing is certain: If this monstrosity were meant to make any ambiguity go in favor of the gun owner, it would not have been written at all.
beatledog7
Member
And all those threats to state governments about withholding federal funding if they don't comply...when will state legislatures and governors develop a spine and tell the feds to pack sand?
Cosmoline
Member
The states have nothing to say about this. They can "refuse to comply" all they want. It has nothing to do with state law or state law enforcement.
No, it would require BGC at all gun shows. I dont know for certain what the law will do with respect to private transfers. Obviously we all understand the thing is so vague that you could make several different interpretations. And nothing in the public record by the authors clarifies that.
I will wait and see what further clarification comes along. If you were right that it is meant to essentially outlaw private transactions outside of very very narrow exceptions, then it sucks and it needs to go. If it is meant to essentially outlaw private transactions within a very very narrow range then I'd probably support it. The positives in the bill that we all agree on are pretty good though.
So who will enforce it? ATF? They can't enforce the law as it stands now. What was the last 922r violation you saw enforced?
beatledog7
Member
It has to do with states inputting data, however. Or did I dream that part?
Hypothetical:
------------------------------------
I post gunXX for sale on THR. I post my phone number or some other method of non-internet communication. I state: "Do not tell me that you saw my advertisement or tell me where you saw it. If you do, I will not sell. Simply say, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"
Later, I get a call saying, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"
We arrange a meeting, no one ever says the word "internet" or "The High Road". We conclude the transaction and go on our way.
--------------------------------
Legal under this proposed law?
------------------------------------
I post gunXX for sale on THR. I post my phone number or some other method of non-internet communication. I state: "Do not tell me that you saw my advertisement or tell me where you saw it. If you do, I will not sell. Simply say, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"
Later, I get a call saying, "I am looking for gunXX, do you have one to sell?"
We arrange a meeting, no one ever says the word "internet" or "The High Road". We conclude the transaction and go on our way.
--------------------------------
Legal under this proposed law?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
