• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Summary of Manchin-Toomey Amendment

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns

Boy...they're going all out to pass a bill. Let's see if PT Barnum was right.

As user warns, it's worse than advertised:

The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns
I just talked to someone familiar with the Toomey-Manchin proposal who raises a serious concern based on his understanding of the legislation.

The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.

There would be no due process requirement. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will. Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.

Worse, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, ...

Yes, it gets worse.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
More coverage, from WaPo.

TFred

Interesting excerpts:

The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.

Under the terms of the Manchin-Toomey deal, all background checks would be conducted by federally licensed gun dealers, who would need to verify the validity of a purchaser’s gun license and record that a check was performed. Background checks would need to be completed within three days, except at gun shows, where they would have to be completed within two days for the next four years, and then within 24 hours. To avoid processing delays, the FBI would be required to complete background checks requested at gun shows before those requested elsewhere.

A precise list of which transactions would be covered by the background-check deal was not immediately available. One person familiar with the discussions said the proposed legislation would likely require background checks on all advertised transactions, including those posted on Internet sale sites. It was unlikely, the person said, that sales conducted through an individual, private e-mail exchange would be governed by the new deal. But, he added, it is impossible to say with certainty until legislative language is announced.

Under the Manchin-Toomey deal, records of the newly covered transactions would be kept by federally licensed arms dealers, according to a person familiar with the agreement. Currently, licensed arms dealers keep records of gun sales that take place in gun stores.
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
under the terms of the manchin-toomey deal, all background checks would be conducted by federally licensed gun dealers, who would need to verify the validity of a purchaser’s gun license and record that a check was performed.

A WHAT? We are going to need a license to purchase a gun now?
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
Indeed. Call Senator Warner's office asap. Not only will liberal activist Drs. turn you in for any contrived reason, the people that actually need help will be reluctant to seek treatment.
What especially scares me is I wonder - is there any language that would prevent them from placing folks they don't even know onto the list , people they have never even spoken to or treated? Perhaps based on, say, a forum post, FB post, twitter feed, or even liking a picture on FB? Or even hearsay of such things?
 

Forty-five

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
223
Location
, Virginia, USA
What especially scares me is I wonder - is there any language that would prevent them from placing folks they don't even know onto the list , people they have never even spoken to or treated? Perhaps based on, say, a forum post, FB post, twitter feed, or even liking a picture on FB? Or even hearsay of such things?

Another pass the bill so that we can see what's in it.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
A WHAT? We are going to need a license to purchase a gun now?
Obviously we can't say for sure, because we haven't seen the text of the amendment yet.

I would attribute this statement to either the ignorance of the reporter, or the ignorance of the author of the amendment. Whichever one it is, obviously they have no clue that most states do not require a license to merely own a firearm.

TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Obviously we can't say for sure, because we haven't seen the text of the amendment yet.

I would attribute this statement to either the ignorance of the reporter, or the ignorance of the author of the amendment. Whichever one it is, obviously they have no clue that most states do not require a license to merely own a firearm.

TFred

I don't want to assume that until I read the bill which hopefully is less than a thousand pages.
 
Top