Stunning news regarding the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment

[smellslikemichigan]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video...n-bill-reveals-numerous-gains-for-gun-owners/
“If you read the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment, you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, and most important of all, the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry,” said Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA.

 

[MatieA]

A trap baited with honey; is still just a trap..

 

[LeviR]

Looks like Gottlieb is selling us out.

 

[ADobbs1989]

If they would get rid of the restrictions on internet private sales I wouldn't have a huge problem with the bill. I would prefer if background checks were done away with altogether, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[rushcreek2]

I think as more of US have had a chance to read the bill - as it stands NOW - even the NRA is going to come around to support it.

This bill will shut-up the " gun show loophole " mantra - that I keep hearing ringing in my ears of late.

No BC should be required with a handgun license BC within last 5 years is good.

HIPPA amendment to facilitate MENTAL ILLNESS reporting - a step in the right direction.

Penalty for gun registry.

The "Commission" created causes me a bit of concern, but still - this is an attempt to find solutions, and the MAKE UP of any commission is the issue.This is what the American people want. Something is going to be enacted.......in response to Sandy Hook, and given that we already have BC's, this is not the end of the world for the 2A. Some very good provisions in the bill.

I don't think there should be ANY federal regulation of the RTKBA - but given what has already been enacted at the federal level - this isn't onerous.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Also need to be careful with the "mental illness" aspect. If they try to define mental illness like NY has it's gonna be used as a form of gun confiscation. NY has already proven this to be true, so this part makes me nervous. I have taken anti-anxiety/depression medication before, along with hundreds of millions of other Americans. Mental illness really needs to be strictly defined in the bill as to what constitutes a reason to be denied.

 

[bellyfat]

vets?

i still dont see anything protecting returning vets rights.
any one can siffer from depression. for many reasons. it doesnt mean someone will go off.

 

[MKEgal]

This bill will shut-up the "gun show loophole " mantra - that I keep hearing ringing in my ears of late.

I don't care how many times they say it, it doesn't exist.
Why should we be happy about a restriction on our property rights? It's been shown that very very few (like 1-2% IIRC) guns used in crimes were bought at a gun show.

So we'd be required to give up more of our rights and the community wouldn't be any safer. There's no tradeoff, no carrot from the anti-gun radicals, no way in which this improves the community. (Well, OK, it would shut them up. That's a benefit.)

HIPPA amendment to facilitate MENTAL ILLNESS reporting - a step in the right direction.

I strongly disagree.
There are already laws requiring a health care provider who reasonably believes that a patient is a danger to self or others to report that person to police.

There are already laws so that when someone is adjudicated mentally incompetent (by a court) or found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental defect (by a court) they're prohibited from purchasing or even possessing firearms or ammunition.

If those laws were enforced, if the reports were followed up on, if the adjudications were entered into the NICS system, some of the mass murders would probably have been prevented, or at least the criminals would have had a harder time getting their guns.

Further stigmatizing any particular illness isn't going to help the problem. In fact, it will make things worse because people won't get treatment, so will be even more sick.

If we're going to prevent gun ownership & use by any group of people with a particular illness, I'd say we should prevent people with neuromuscular disorders. They can't control their body, they can't safely control a gun.

Of course, that's just as stupid as saying "all people with a mental illness" should be in a gov't database, or have extra background checks, or be restricted from purchase or possession.

 

[MKEgal]

BTW, this site has the text of the amendment.
49 page PDF.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video...n-bill-reveals-numerous-gains-for-gun-owners/

 

[eye95]

The ultimate problem with the bill is that it still is putting the Right in the hands of legislators to determine what it is and how we can exercise it.

The only gun law Congress should pass is a repeal of the gun laws that now restrict us. Period.

When I hear Gottlieb talk about what the bill "gives" us. I feel like, as we receive it, someone should pat us on the head and say, "Who's a good boy now? Huh? Who's a good boy? You are! Yes, you are. You're such a good boy."

I ain't a dog. I don't want a bone. I am a man. I expect my Rights. Uninfringed.

 

[TFred]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video...n-bill-reveals-numerous-gains-for-gun-owners/
“If you read the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment, you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, and most important of all, the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry,” said Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA.

Let's see... now tell me, who exactly will be enforcing this law?

Wouldn't that be the Department of Justice? That same Department of Justice, who, when provided irrefutable evidence that dozens of folks were involved in a conspiracy to sell thousands of those "scary looking assault rifles" to the Mexican drug cartels, they decided to ignore it and just move everyone around to different offices, rather than prosecute these serious crimes?

How is this supposed to give me a warm fuzzy that any future gun registry violators will even get a hand slap, much less a jail sentence?

What good are laws or penalties for breaking them, when they are both enforced by dirty cops?

Fool me once...

TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

In video, Gottlieb explains the bill as he understands it.

Pro Gun Group Endorses Gun Bill; Reveals Numerous Gains for Gun Owners gunssavelives.net
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has come out in support of the compromise....

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video...n-bill-reveals-numerous-gains-for-gun-owners/

 

[marshaul]

I would never support any bill such as this, but I suppose if it were to pass in this form I wouldn't lose any sleep.

I'll be honest: I don't give a crap about BGCs at gun shows. I don't really care too much about gun sales via classified ads, either. Way more people use gunbroker than classified ads anyway, and in practice most of those will end up being interstate and therefore through an FFL and therefore requiring a BGC.

What I care about is that there is some mechanism for ordinary folks to buy, sell, trade, and gift guns without undergoing a BGC. Even if its all word of mouth, or friend-to-friend. That must be preserved, but I don't see much difference if 98% of commercial exchanges which are required to do a BGC becomes 99%.

Now, if you were to talk about getting rid of all BGCs, I'd support that in a heartbeat. But, as it stands, most of the time when I buy a gun, it goes through an FFL. This won't change that for most people.

 

[KYGlockster]

The good in this bill is NOT worth the bad. In our modern age, if you do away with the legal ability to post your firearm for sale on the Internet, then you effectively cease private sales. Who today doesn't sale their firearm by posting it on the Internet?

I haven't sold a firearm in the past several years that wasn't advertised as being for sale on the Internet; that is pretty much the only way you can sale a firearm these days if you are wanting to sale it within a short amount of time.

As for the portion of the bill that will prohibit the Federal Government from establishing any form of registration, well, it already exists. They pass this provision every year in the annual budget bill, and if I'm not mistaking, I believe this is one of the riders that they made permanent this year. Also, who honestly believes the Federal Government is going to obey the law? Do they ever? If the United States Constitution doesn't stop them, then do you honestly believe a law will? If you believe the Federal Government will obey the law then I have a real nice bridge for sale in San Fransico that I will gladly sell you. Do you believe it is mandatory for FFLs to keep 4473s for twenty years just because? Why else would they mandate that these forms be kept for twenty years if they were not intending to do something with those 4473s? Also, how many gun stores do you know that last twenty years?

I will NO longer compromise away my rights! This is a violation of my privacy rights, gun rights and my right to do as I please with my private property. Do NOT compromise people; they are only making it look so good so they can get their insidious infringement through Congress!

 

[marshaul]

The good in this bill is NOT worth the bad. In our modern age, if you do away with the legal ability to post your firearm for sale on the Internet, then you effectively cease private sales. Who today doesn't sale their firearm by posting it on the Internet?

I haven't sold a firearm in the past several years that wasn't advertised as being for sale on the Internet; that is pretty much the only way you can sale a firearm these days if you are wanting to sale it within a short amount of time.

Just out of curiosity, how many of your online sales were intrastate?

I'm not really trying to defend this, only that I don't think it will actually change very much in practice. To be totally objective, you act as though this is a prohibition on online sales, when it merely requires you to go through an FFL, which it seems to me most do anyway, using gunbroker and the like and selling interstate.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. Maybe private party selling intrastate online is a common practice.

 

[TFred]

Just out of curiosity, how many of your online sales were intrastate?

I'm not really trying to defend this, only that I don't think it will actually change very much in practice. To be totally objective, you act as though this is a prohibition on online sales, when it merely requires you to go through an FFL, which it seems to me most do anyway, using gunbroker and the like and selling interstate.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. Maybe private party selling intrastate online is a common practice.

I would say it is a very common practice.

http://www.vaguntrader.com/forums/

TFred

 

[marshaul]

I would say it is a very common practice.

http://www.vaguntrader.com/forums/

TFred

Hmm. Point taken.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

In video, Gottlieb explains the bill as he understands it.

Pro Gun Group Endorses Gun Bill; Reveals Numerous Gains for Gun Owners gunssavelives.net
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has come out in support of the compromise....

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video...n-bill-reveals-numerous-gains-for-gun-owners/

Level heads are prevailing, thank goodness.

The House is going to have a hard time turning it's back on it. I don't envy Boehner's position.

 

[HyDef]

I want to know how they are going to enforce the UBC law? Also, who is going to enforce it? They are suing Arizona for trying to enforce federal laws. Are they going to send dozens of federal agents to every gun show to follow people who bring personal weapons to sell? Are they going to follow every citizen who lists a gun for sale in any publication or online? How will they determine if you are "friends" with the person you are selling to? There is no way this "thing" can be enforced.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I want to know how they are going to enforce the UBC law? Also, who is going to enforce it? They are suing Arizona for trying to enforce federal laws. Are they going to send dozens of federal agents to every gun show to follow people who bring personal weapons to sell? Are they going to follow every citizen who lists a gun for sale in any publication or online? How will they determine if you are "friends" with the person you are selling to? There is no way this "thing" can be enforced.

It can, and will be enforced, unless of course the Law is rendered not enforceable.

The FED's will enforce the Law. Arizona has not Authority to enforce Federal Laws; only the Federal Government has the Authority, and Power.

This Law, like all other Laws, will find it's Test Cases, and the courts will eventually be dealing with determining where the Law stands.