marshaul
Campaign Veteran
If by "enforced" you mean, used to aggressively jail a few people unlucky enough to be "made an example out of", then yes.
If by "enforced" you mean, able to actually stop criminals from ignoring it, then no.
-
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.
-
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.
Stunning news regarding the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment
- Thread starter smellslikemichigan
- Start date
If by "enforced" you mean, used to aggressively jail a few people unlucky enough to be "made an example out of", then yes.
If by "enforced" you mean, able to actually stop criminals from ignoring it, then no.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Of course. People won't stop doing something unless the coercive force of the Government is effected, and people are made an example of. That's how Law and Order is retained.
This Bill will have zero impact on illegal firearm purchases.
Personally, I would be down for people to sell to whomever they wish. Now, if you sell to someone who then commits a crime with the firearm, you should be charged with felony aiding.--definitely make you think twice before selling to someone you don't know.
How exactly is this level-headed?
The filibuster was done to require a 60-vote passage of any gun control bill. Since they got cloture, 51 votes in the Senate will pass whatever the grabbers (from either party) want.
Aknazer
Regular Member
From how I understand it they still need another 60votes to end cloture on the bill and proceed to the final vote. So depending on how things go it could very easily not go to a final vote. Throw in too much pro-gun stuff and I can see antis not letting it go to a vote, and too much anti stuff and they lose the republicans/moderate democrats. Plus there's still the issue of getting it through the house.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The only way they could enforce is to keep a ummmmm~registry! Ya know what they are claiming they are not going to do!
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Remember the secret deals made with the health care bill?
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
It's a smooth move by Republicans, don't you think. Republicans give the 60+ to hit the floor, then back away, and let it pass.
Every Republican that let it get to the floor, agreed with it's passage; they can't hit Yea, or they'll lose their job.
Yes, those who voted to break the filibuster that was set by a bunch of cowards, are level headed.
From VCDL Va-Alert dated 4/15
***************************************
1. The Toome/Manchin/Schumer gun control bill amendment was apparently written by a gun-rights organization
***************************************
As a shocker, the Toome/Manchin/Schumer amendment to a gun-control bill in Congress was written by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)!
Alan Gottlieb, with CCRKBA, told a group of gun owners at a meeting that his organization wrote the bill and it has a lot of improvements to current law that are good for gun owners. In fact, CCRKBA actually ENDORSES the bill (http://tinyurl.com/cea4le4). HOWEVER, VCDL continues to OPPOSE that bill.
The bill does indeed offer some improvements to current law:
* Provides a felony penalty for anybody who attempts to make a gun registration database (currently such a thing is illegal, but there is no penalty)
* Allows handgun to be purchased in all 50 states, and not in just the state where the purchaser resides
* Clarifies the federal peaceful journey law to allow a person to stop at a hotel, eat a meal, get gasoline, etc. while traveling across a gun-unfriendly state
* Provides criminal and civil protections for private sellers whose sale was run through a background check
* Provides a method for protecting veterans from having their gun rights removed without proper adjudication
While those items are indeed good, the serious problems with the bill comes in the area of requiring background checks for all guns sold at gun shows or for guns that are advertised either in a "publication" or on the internet. While selling a gun or giving a gun to a family member would be allowed without a background check, selling a gun to anybody else would become almost impossible:
1. If you sell a gun at a gun show, then a background check MUST be done. There is no requirement in the bill, however, that a dealer would be available to run the background check! So it would be quite possible that private sales at gun shows would not be possible at all if no dealer agreed to run the background check. In fact, based on the definition of a gun show as having 75 or more guns for sale, a large flea market might qualify as a "gun show" because of a lot of small private sellers, with NO FFL present at the show to run background checks. In that case NO guns could be legally sold at the flea market at all, wasting everyone's time. And how would a person know if there were 75 or more guns at the flea market or not? Talk about a trap to turn good people into felons!
2. If you say you have a gun for sale and either list it on the internet or post something about it in a "publication," then the gun MUST be sold through a dealer at that point. If the buyer posts in either place that he is looking for a gun, the gun he purchases will also require a background check. The only way to sell a gun to a non-family member is if you are NOT at a gun show and never make mention of wanting to sell the gun on the internet or in any kind of publication. Basically, you would have to do it by word of mouth only. Good luck with that! What are you going to do - walk down a street and ask everyone you pass if they want to buy a gun from you?
3. While Alan claims that this bill would in no way lead to a registry, the data would be there for the taking, since the sale would be on a form 4473 kept by the dealer. If you didn't sell through a dealer, the feds would know they only have to look to your family members to find the gun, since they would be the only people really exempt from the background check.
There is no doubt that this bill would do serious harm to gun shows and to private sales. You could find yourself at a gun show unable to sell your gun because no dealer will run the background check. You might not be able to sell your gun at a large flee market because there are no dealers in attendance to run the check. Make a mistake in how you sell that gun, for example mentioning it in an email but not selling it with a background check, and you can become a felon.
This is simply not the time for ANY gun bills to be considered in Congress, because they can be hijacked and made into anti-gun bills. Or, in this bill's case, it already has some serious problems that can be made even worse. Surely, no one is really stupid enough to trust Senator Chuck Schumer when it comes to guns?
VCDL continues to OPPOSE ALL gun control bills in Congress. Sadly, this bill only makes our job harder at a time when Bloomberg and his illegal mayors are about to go on another offensive against our gun rights.
Here is the text of the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/c4r6pdo
Here is video of Alan explaining the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/c3ro553
Alan's faith in background checks, and in Chuck Schumer, is misplaced and this bill must be defeated. Criminals will continue to have no problems getting guns with or without background checks. It's the rest of us who will have lost our right to sell or buy guns from a private sale without Big Brother's approval. That Big Brother, BTW, is the same Big Brother who provided guns to the Mexican cartels in Fast and Furious and tried to blame innocent gun dealers.
***************************************
1. The Toome/Manchin/Schumer gun control bill amendment was apparently written by a gun-rights organization
***************************************
As a shocker, the Toome/Manchin/Schumer amendment to a gun-control bill in Congress was written by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)!
Alan Gottlieb, with CCRKBA, told a group of gun owners at a meeting that his organization wrote the bill and it has a lot of improvements to current law that are good for gun owners. In fact, CCRKBA actually ENDORSES the bill (http://tinyurl.com/cea4le4). HOWEVER, VCDL continues to OPPOSE that bill.
The bill does indeed offer some improvements to current law:
* Provides a felony penalty for anybody who attempts to make a gun registration database (currently such a thing is illegal, but there is no penalty)
* Allows handgun to be purchased in all 50 states, and not in just the state where the purchaser resides
* Clarifies the federal peaceful journey law to allow a person to stop at a hotel, eat a meal, get gasoline, etc. while traveling across a gun-unfriendly state
* Provides criminal and civil protections for private sellers whose sale was run through a background check
* Provides a method for protecting veterans from having their gun rights removed without proper adjudication
While those items are indeed good, the serious problems with the bill comes in the area of requiring background checks for all guns sold at gun shows or for guns that are advertised either in a "publication" or on the internet. While selling a gun or giving a gun to a family member would be allowed without a background check, selling a gun to anybody else would become almost impossible:
1. If you sell a gun at a gun show, then a background check MUST be done. There is no requirement in the bill, however, that a dealer would be available to run the background check! So it would be quite possible that private sales at gun shows would not be possible at all if no dealer agreed to run the background check. In fact, based on the definition of a gun show as having 75 or more guns for sale, a large flea market might qualify as a "gun show" because of a lot of small private sellers, with NO FFL present at the show to run background checks. In that case NO guns could be legally sold at the flea market at all, wasting everyone's time. And how would a person know if there were 75 or more guns at the flea market or not? Talk about a trap to turn good people into felons!
2. If you say you have a gun for sale and either list it on the internet or post something about it in a "publication," then the gun MUST be sold through a dealer at that point. If the buyer posts in either place that he is looking for a gun, the gun he purchases will also require a background check. The only way to sell a gun to a non-family member is if you are NOT at a gun show and never make mention of wanting to sell the gun on the internet or in any kind of publication. Basically, you would have to do it by word of mouth only. Good luck with that! What are you going to do - walk down a street and ask everyone you pass if they want to buy a gun from you?
3. While Alan claims that this bill would in no way lead to a registry, the data would be there for the taking, since the sale would be on a form 4473 kept by the dealer. If you didn't sell through a dealer, the feds would know they only have to look to your family members to find the gun, since they would be the only people really exempt from the background check.
There is no doubt that this bill would do serious harm to gun shows and to private sales. You could find yourself at a gun show unable to sell your gun because no dealer will run the background check. You might not be able to sell your gun at a large flee market because there are no dealers in attendance to run the check. Make a mistake in how you sell that gun, for example mentioning it in an email but not selling it with a background check, and you can become a felon.
This is simply not the time for ANY gun bills to be considered in Congress, because they can be hijacked and made into anti-gun bills. Or, in this bill's case, it already has some serious problems that can be made even worse. Surely, no one is really stupid enough to trust Senator Chuck Schumer when it comes to guns?
VCDL continues to OPPOSE ALL gun control bills in Congress. Sadly, this bill only makes our job harder at a time when Bloomberg and his illegal mayors are about to go on another offensive against our gun rights.
Here is the text of the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/c4r6pdo
Here is video of Alan explaining the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/c3ro553
Alan's faith in background checks, and in Chuck Schumer, is misplaced and this bill must be defeated. Criminals will continue to have no problems getting guns with or without background checks. It's the rest of us who will have lost our right to sell or buy guns from a private sale without Big Brother's approval. That Big Brother, BTW, is the same Big Brother who provided guns to the Mexican cartels in Fast and Furious and tried to blame innocent gun dealers.
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
i agree. and the only way to enforce the registration is to apply background checks to ALL sales, not just online and "gun show." now face to face transfers of firearms would have to be subject to background checks in order to know who has what gun.
i'm with the other people who don't support the bill as a whole, but realize that if it goes through with this amendment, it will soften the blow.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
[Julie Andrews' voice]A spoonful of sugar helps the poison go down...[/Julie Andrew's voice]
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
And let's not forget this is a concealed carry push, another slap to open carry. You can avoid the BGC IF you have a permit/license, but then you are registered in each state as a gun owner, and that means you are registered as a gun owner with the federal government.
My solution, hold all criminals to a stiff prison sentence with limited parole options. Keep dangerous mental patients in secure hospitals. Eliminate all firearm restrictions, and allow the population to defend themselves. Not only does my option promote liberty, it limits government, and balances the budget.
The only thing more laws do is create more felons, who will own guns illegally anyway, and intimidate good citizens from buying arms for self defense.
If they were serious about a UBC it would not be done by anyone charging money not like gun dealers who will profit from it. It would be done for free, and the results would be shredded immediately after the transfer so NO record would exist to be placed in a registry. In other words the gun numbers would not be used at all, and the whole transaction destroyed as soon as it was done. I still would be against it, but if they were honest this would be the way to do it honestly.
In NC we have a old Jim Crow system, but actually it works fairly well. You get a PP from your sheriff for purchase, NO serial numbers are recorded. In NC this is required for all transactions of a handgun outside of family(gifting). I would go one step further and allow notary to provide UBC permits, after they check a database for records. They then would issue a notarized slip showing a person free of crime or MI. This paper could be used for employment verification, or other transactions that might be improved by papers of good standing in the community. That way any records a notary would have, would not point to gun ownership. If there is to be a UBC it should just be that a UBC for anything that might have more veracity with proof.
The only purpose of tracing guns is to punish gun owners, guns after all do not commit crimes, people do. We have already seen what is done when a notorious crime is committed. The feds trace the gun from the manufacturer all the way down the line, proving that they use the checks and record keeping as a registry. I would be less livid with the present system if the FFL's were required to destroy records immediately, and they were allowed to sell the checks for other options such as employers doing background checks, to cloud the intentions of a check. I would also want permit/license holders be removed from any federal database, and no longer allow the information to be in state DOT databases.
My solution, hold all criminals to a stiff prison sentence with limited parole options. Keep dangerous mental patients in secure hospitals. Eliminate all firearm restrictions, and allow the population to defend themselves. Not only does my option promote liberty, it limits government, and balances the budget.
The only thing more laws do is create more felons, who will own guns illegally anyway, and intimidate good citizens from buying arms for self defense.
If they were serious about a UBC it would not be done by anyone charging money not like gun dealers who will profit from it. It would be done for free, and the results would be shredded immediately after the transfer so NO record would exist to be placed in a registry. In other words the gun numbers would not be used at all, and the whole transaction destroyed as soon as it was done. I still would be against it, but if they were honest this would be the way to do it honestly.
In NC we have a old Jim Crow system, but actually it works fairly well. You get a PP from your sheriff for purchase, NO serial numbers are recorded. In NC this is required for all transactions of a handgun outside of family(gifting). I would go one step further and allow notary to provide UBC permits, after they check a database for records. They then would issue a notarized slip showing a person free of crime or MI. This paper could be used for employment verification, or other transactions that might be improved by papers of good standing in the community. That way any records a notary would have, would not point to gun ownership. If there is to be a UBC it should just be that a UBC for anything that might have more veracity with proof.
The only purpose of tracing guns is to punish gun owners, guns after all do not commit crimes, people do. We have already seen what is done when a notorious crime is committed. The feds trace the gun from the manufacturer all the way down the line, proving that they use the checks and record keeping as a registry. I would be less livid with the present system if the FFL's were required to destroy records immediately, and they were allowed to sell the checks for other options such as employers doing background checks, to cloud the intentions of a check. I would also want permit/license holders be removed from any federal database, and no longer allow the information to be in state DOT databases.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Dishonest quoting: partial quote, out of context. -10 points
So you want the bills to pass? I find your ad hominem and conspiracy theories distasteful.
Yeah, you're right. However, McCain and others will keep voting the way they did on the first cloture vote. Struggling to remain relevant.
TFred
Regular Member
Some critical legal analysis of the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
TFred
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/th...toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/
TFred
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/th...toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/
ADobbs1989
Regular Member
There are at least 50 facebook groups for the state of Alabama alone to buy/sell/trade guns, ammo, and other weapons. All sales are intrastate, and all gun sales are private meeting sales. Tons more people use sites like facebook to sell intrastate guns than those who use websites like gunbroker where most everything is overpriced out the ass.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It seems to me that 18 -20 year olds will be virtually shut out of the legal abilty to buy handguns also- a FFL can't sell such to under 21 year olds as it is.
Very true.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I hope the Bill is debated; I hope the Bill is passed.
TFred
Regular Member
Interesting point and a very good reason this bill should not be rushed into law. I haven't read it word-for-word, but I don't recall anyone addressing this. Technically if a FFL is doing a background check for a private sale, does it count as a sale BY the FFL? I would think not. But this is not clear at all.It seems to me that 18 -20 year olds will be virtually shut out of the legal abilty to buy handguns also
By the way, this tidbit isn't getting much airplay, but what incentive does an FFL have to DO these background checks? I'm guessing NONE.
TFred