Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

[vamo]

I really don't see any problems in this proposal. My understanding of the interstate transportation section is it prevents people from being arrested when transporting guns between two places they can legally posses them. I don't know how thats any different from the current peacable journey law on the books, but whatever. I assume that if you were previously allowed to drive around while carrying in said jurisdictions then local/state law would still be valid.

I don't know how the gun show thing is all that enforceable, but if it shuts up antis fine we got to keep private sales so I am counting that as a win. I hope they can iron out the difference between me texting or emailing a friend about a gun they are selling and people selling to just anybody on armslist.

I could not find where this bill would allow people to buy pistols over state lines like a previous poster mentioned, but if thats true I would say this is a net gain for pro 2a citizens.

Its a very long and dry bill and I am sure someone smarter than me will tear it apart and discuss the implications over the next week.

If this is the only gun control bill to come out of congress this session we won. We kept ar-15s, didn't have our magazines neutered, and we kept most private transfers.

 

[jerkface11]

So I only have to have government permission to sell MY property if I sell it somewhere where it is actually likely to sell????? Well that's hardly an infringement at all.

 

[beeenbag]

I'm not trying to sell you on this, all I was doing was trying to clarify people misreading the text and freaking out. It is a very very watered down bill compared to feinstiens s.150 they started with.

 

[jerkface11]

I see no reason to accept that this will pass or even make it out of the senate. Fight this crap all the way and vote out every treasonous slimeball that votes for it.

 

[beeenbag]

Like I said before, I do not support or accept this bill out of it being completely useless to stop any further violent crimes. I am a fan of small government.

I just don't think it is nearly as bad as what I thought would come of all of this, if this is all that gets passed.

 

[texasgun]

"This is garbage. So I can only buy and sale face to face in parking lots with people who have handgun carry permits? "

oooh no!!! how horrible.

btw. I live in WA State and EVERY law abiding gun owner I know pretty much only sells to people who can show a CPL. A CPL is cheap here and no training required. People buying guns here in ads without a CPL actually scare me and I certainly would not feel comfortable handing over a gun to someone who does not want to go through a dealer OR has a CPL....

 

[beatledog7]

So, what in this bill would have prevented SH or Aurora? Who can tell with all the legalese mumbo-jumbo in the thing?

As for the transportation part, exactly what effect does this have on a person's ability to CCW in his or her car as he or she travels from state to state? E.g., currently I can drive from VA across WV to KY CCWing. I can't find anything that changes that (nor would I expect to).

Then again, there's nothing in it about licensing of chicken coops, nationalization of the oil industry, or full funding for high speed rail between Kalamazoo and Kankakee. But they're not finished yet.

 

[ngnrd]

So, I would either have to pay for a (revocable) license from the government to buy or sell otherwise legal personal property, or pay an unlicensed transaction compliance tax (background check fee) to do so? Why does anybody think this is a good thing?

 

[spanishjames]

if you offer to sell a firearm using any forum, gun board, Facebook, Gunbroker,com, etc. OR any classified ad in a newspaper or free trading post paper, you must do a background check. From Section 122

(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.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/04/text-to-manchin-toomey-amendment-is-now.html

Does that mean that if I agree to sell my gun to a forum member face-to-face, that one of us will have to show the other one where we live? That's WORSE than having to pay an FFL transfer fee!!!

Any FTF sale initiated on the internet, or any publication, would have to go through the internet. I believe if the offer was initiated in your home (sale to relative), you wouldn't need to use an FFL.

 

[texasgun]

summary:

selling a gun to a coworker/colleague/friend and and and - NO background check

putting a gun for sale on the internet and selling to a complete stranger - background check

lending a gun to a friend for a hunting trip or dropping off a gun at a gunsmith - NO background check


sorry... there are many completely unreasonable gun proposals which I'm glad are going nowhere and we have to fight that it stays that way (magazine limit, AWB, and and and).... but not selling to complete strangers without a background check is not one of them

also: NOWHERE in the bill does it state that you cannot have a loaded gun in your car when you fulfill the state requirements (CHL/CPL or like in TX - nada)

by pressing the panic-button and reading stuff into the bill which is simply not there... you get yourself worked up over nothing.

 

[jerkface11]

You realize this bars you from ADVERTISING that you have a gun for sale right?

 

[texasgun]

depends what kind of advertising...

why would you post an ad online when you plan on selling to friends/neighbors or relatives???

I've sold guns to friends and online.

Two different things.

 

[Tom from WNY]

If the Interstate Transportation portion is for real, it may be a plus in your favor. Just get caught with a handgun in your vehicle while driving through New York State if you do not have a NYS Part 400 license. Oh, by the way, those are only issued to NY residents or the very politically connected and wealthy donators to the Democrat party. I would not want to be from Texas going bear hunting in Maine with my .44 mag revolver and get caught in NY with the gun in my truck, loaded or not, ammo or none. I don't think in the current environment it will go well for you.

Given the number of posts on this board regarding people who have been caught with a handgun while flying through NYC (legally possessed in your home jurisdiction and where you are going to), yet another clear language interpretation of McClure-Volkmer is good (especially for NYC area folks).

I still don't like the definitions of who can be a FTF transferor/receiver; it seems to be only spouses (does this eliminate domestic partners? - the LGBT community will be all in a tizzy), siblings, and immediate family to first cousin level. I have friends closer and better known to me than family.

 

[jerkface11]

why would you post an ad online when you plan on selling to friends/neighbors or relatives???

I have a gun for sale. I post that on facebook for all my friends to see. Now I have to do a background check.

 

[gearhead]

I have a gun for sale. I post that on facebook for all my friends to see. Now I have to do a background check.

Or you e-mail a friend to ask if they're still interested in a gun you want to sell.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Face to face will be illegal at a gun show or its parking lot.

Face to face will be illegal if done following an ad online or in a publication. There might be an exemption if in a state like NJ that requires a firearms ID or a free state that allows CCW permits

FOPA is extended to ammunition, but it might not cover magazines.

 

[morcey2]

Or you e-mail a friend to ask if they're still interested in a gun you want to sell.

I've got to go look up the definition of "Communication Device" that is referenced in the bill, but I think if you even use anything as hi-tech as a rotary phone to setup a sale it will require a background check.

At least you can still use the postal service.

(I know that's not the case, but it's close)

Matt

 

[ngnrd]

You realize this bars you from ADVERTISING that you have a gun for sale right?

I don't see how it bars advertising. But it does bar a transaction generated by advertising without a background check.

I'm still unclear if possession of a state-issued gun license would preclude the need for an additional BC in this case. I'm typically pretty good at reading this kind of stuff, but my brain is getting numb at this point. My eyes need a break...

 

[jerkface11]

You don't see how it bars advertising? If you advertise your sale you have to do a background check. If you sale at a gunshow you have to do a background check. How else do you sell a gun? Make random phonecalls till someone wants it?

 

[TennJed]

serious question. Define friend. I have more interaction with some of you than I do with my "friends"

If this is the only gun control bill to come out of congress this session we won. We kept ar-15s, didn't have our magazines neutered, and we kept most private transfers

And with all due respect if this passes then no we did not "win". The problem with compromise and settling on issues like this is that it will accomplish nothing. And when the next evil savage shoots up a room they will cry that this is not enough and want more. Then next bill will take away a little more and some will feel we "won"

The "compromise" I am for is one that is effective. If this would help society in any measurably way then I would be "ok" with it. It won't help and it won't satisfy in the long run

 

[JRH6856]

I don't see anything in the amendment that allows FTF transfers between unlicensed parties (FFL, not CHL) except between listed relatives.

{OK, now I do. thanks to ngnrd} remainder retracted

When traveling, CHL holders appear to be ok in states with reciprocity. In states without reciprocity, CHL holders and non CHL holders alike are subject to the laws of the state they are traveling in unless they comply with the requirements of the amendment. If they are in compliance, they are immune from state law in regards the transport of firearms.

Have I got that right?

 

[-v-]

I don't see how it bars advertising. But it does bar a transaction generated by advertising without a background check.

I haven't had a chance to go through this with a fine tooth comb yet, but as I understand it: You go to the buy/sell/trade section of THR or any gun board and post "WTS: Classic American Pistol, FTF only" you have now advertised that you want to sell this gun - background check required now. If you email a buddy and say "I need some cash to make rent, I'll sell you my Ceramic Glock 7 that can sneak through metal detectors that you seem to like so much" then that can also be construed as advertising - background check required.

Again, I haven't put in the time to dissect this thing, so I might be off, but thats my first pass on it.

 

[ngnrd]

You don't see how it bars advertising? If you advertise your sale you have to do a background check. If you sale at a gunshow you have to do a background check. How else do you sell a gun? Make random phonecalls till someone wants it?

That's what I said. Yes, transactions generated by advertising would need to include a background check. But the language of the amendment doesn't actually bar the advertising per se.

So, again, the actual advertising isn't prohibited.

I'm not saying that I agree that private transactions should be subject to background checks. What I am saying is that advertising a firearm for sale wouldn't be illegal under this amendment as written.

 

[The Teacher]

If I'm reading this correctly, when put together, the information in bold suggests that a background check would not be required following an internet advertisement, as long as the transaction is between two residents of the same state and in compliance with state laws.

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.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
"(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

 

[gc70]

Here are my impressions that I jotted down while reading the text of the proposal.

(t)(1) private transfers at gun shows and through online sales
A transfer has to go through a dealer if it occurs at, or on the grounds of, a gun show or "pursuant to" an internet or published indication of intent to buy/sell.
Just leaving the site of the gun show to do a transfer appears to avoid the proposal's requirements; that is probably too good to be true.
Even saying online that you might consider buying/selling a gun would probably trigger the online sales provision.

(t)(2)(A) concealed carry permit as NICS alternative
Permits that qualify as NICS alternatives under current law must allow a person to possess or acquire a firearm (permits in 22 states currently qualify); this proposal adds permits that are limited to carrying a firearm.

(t)(2)(B) waiver for equivalent state requirements
The provisions of this proposal can be waived if the Attorney General certifies that applicable state requirements are equivalent to the requirements in the proposal.

(t)(2)(C) immediate family exemption
Immediate family members, through first cousins, are exempt from the proposal. I don't know whether this exemption is just somewhat bizarre ("Hi, Dad; I didn't know you were coming to this gun show but, sure, I'll sell you my gun") or it reflects an extremely broad scope for the 'online sales' provision (i.e. email communications about a sale).

(t)(4)(B) regulations - no requirement for dealers to do transfers
(t)(4)(C) regulations - no requirement for individuals to keep records
(t)(4)(C) regulations - no cap on dealer fees for transfers
What they say; regulations cannot impose any of the items listed above.

(t)(5) immune from qualified civil liability
If you follow the law, you get immunity if the gun is subsequently misused.

(t)(6) disclaimer related to (t)(5)

(t)(7)(A) definition of gun show or event
Basically any place where 75 or more guns are for sale/trade. This provision might be a problem at big shooting matches and could result in 'for sale' sales being prohibited.

(t)(7)(B) exclusion from definition of gun show or event
A large personal collection for sale/trade can be shown at the collector's residence without it being considered a gun show or event.
The one restriction in this section is "if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923." I take this to mean that a licensed dealer would not be able to use this exclusion when selling from their private collection. This should not affect C&R license holders because a C&R license is not a required license.

What is not stated in the proposal:
Since the scope of the proposal is limited to gun shows and sales related to the internet, you do not need to go through a dealer or get a background check for other face-to-face deals where the participants get together through word of mouth - or a note on Manchin's proverbial cork board at church.
Most importantly, it contains no 'temporary transfer' BS.