beeenbag
Member
OTOH, it removes the restriction on interstate sales of handguns, mandates state reporting of felons and the criminally insane,
Can you provide evidence of this? I can't seem to find the text.
OTOH, it removes the restriction on interstate sales of handguns, mandates state reporting of felons and the criminally insane,
Internet sales which already require transfer by a dealer, and thus a background check. A minor inconvenience, at worst.
It only requires background checks on all transactions at gun shows (where facilities will be available to, er, facilitate transactions) and on Internet sales which already require transfer by a dealer, and thus a background check. A minor inconvenience, at worst.
TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.
- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
- Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES
Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.
- Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
- Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
- Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.
- Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.
- Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.
- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
- Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
TITLE THREE: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE
Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.
The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.
No, it requires background checks for every transfer except for family and friends (how he defines "family" and "friend" are yet to be detailed).
(emphasis added)Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
manchin is here for the stay I am afraid.....however Rockefeller is out as of 2014 as he has said he will not run again......Capito has been calling around the state for a while seeing how many votes she can get for the 2014 senate race. So that may be a saving grace for us. Rahall down here in the south is Democrat but has sent 2-3 letters in responses to emails i have sent. all pro 2a. Not able to get a response from Capito as I am not in her district.Wish we could but other than for President most of the people in my state seem to vote for Democrats even though they do nothing for them when it comes to jobs or much else when it comes to helping the state. The local gun rights group has indicated that there is little they can do about Manchin as they feel that Obama is going to "reward" him for turning against gun owners in the state. I was born here and moved back to retire about a year ago. It is really sad what has happened to my state. When you look around the only things that appear to have changed in the past 40 years are they have built an interstate through downtown Charleston so travelers don't have to stop, nobody wants to give permission to hunt on their land and they have just opened a Cabelas. It wouldn't surprise me if we don't start moving down Best Gun Rights list rapidly with the likes of Manchin and Rockefeller at our representatives in the Senate. I do hope the NRA does something about the rating they gave Manchin. I never voted for him but I can see that him having an "A" rating with the NRA might make some republicans waste their votes.
It appears our only hope in Washington is Congresswoman Capito. I received the following reply from her regarding one of my e-mails I sent last week:
[Thank you for contacting me in response to new gun control legislation. It was good to hear your views on this important issue.
In the wake of the tragedy that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, it is important that we as policy makers and as Americans examine ways that we can prevent similar acts of violence in the future.
Recent legislation introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein of California on January 24, 2013, aims to ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of 157 specifically named rifles, pistols, shotguns, and bullet-fed semiautomatic firearms. The bill also bans all ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds and all semiautomatic rifles that have at least one so called military feature from a list that includes: a pistol grip; a forward grip; a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; a grenade launcher or a rocket launcher; a barrel shroud; or a threaded barrel. In addition, anyone who currently owns any of these prohibited firearms would be subject to the grandfather clause which prohibits any sale or transfer without strict background checks. The current legislation goes much further than the 1994 Assault Weapons ban which banned only 19 specific firearms and banned semi-automatic weapons that had at least two military characteristics.
I have always been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights throughout my time in Congress. The right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is enshrined in both our federal constitution and in West Virginia's state constitution. Responsible gun ownership is part of our heritage in West Virginia and I have heard from thousands of West Virginians who have expressed their opposition to a new federal ban on certain firearms. I believe that the legislation proposed by Senator Feinstein represents poor public policy. Should the bill come before the House of Representatives, I will oppose it.
I believe that Congress must instead take steps to improve our mental health system, address the spread of violence on television and in video games, and ensure that our existing gun laws are enforced in order to prevent felons and those with serious mental conditions from owning or possessing a gun. Mental illness has been a common denominator in a number of recent mass killings, and government has a role to play in making sure that treatment is available and accessible before a violent act occurs. I will work in support of legislation that improves the safety of our communities and protects our children by addressing the causes of violence.
Again, thank you for contacting me with your views on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you again soon. It is an honor to serve you in Congress. ]
I have heard nothing from Senator's Manchin or Rockefeller.
- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
Is this saying that I could travel to a state other than my home state and purchase a firearm, using my home state CCW permit instead of the FFL dealer running a background check?
Speaking as someone that has never bought a gun at a gun show and probably never will...That's how I read it.
Hypnogator said:OTOH, it removes the restriction on interstate sales of handguns, mandates state reporting of felons and the criminally insane, and provides for fifteen years in prison for anyone who attempts to use firearms transactional records to establish a database
48 hours for a background check? I currently don't have a waiting period in my state. And I don't want one.
Brought to you by TapaTalk
Please detail the politicians who have tried to do this in the past. You are a little short on specifics every time this comes up. The law already defines what a gun show is. What evidence do you have that this will change?So because politicians have tried to do this in the past and Toomey will not explain how it is defined in his bill, we shouldn't worry about it? We should just assume it will work out for the best? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
The Toomey-Manchin bill is opposed by NRA. It is supported by Schumer, Bloomberg and Biden. That is plenty of information for me to make my decision.
Bubba613 said:Please detail the politicians who have tried to do this in the past. You are a little short on specifics every time this comes up
OK, that's a low information way to make decisions. I'd prefer to see the bill and the details in it before making any judgments. But that's me
I'm in Illinois and have 2 senators that are doing the same!Total waste of time. One knows where their senators stand, if pro-2nd Amendment, they will do the right thing, if antis, nothing said will change their predisposed positons.
I now know where our two US Senators here in Arizona stand, politically speaking, they are behind gun owners, stabbing them in the back.
Bubba613 said:I'd prefer to see the bill and the details in it before making any judgments. But that's me.
The reason for making "low information" decisions is that a "deal" has been struck today. A 1,000 page bill will be voted upon tomorrow.
Thank you for clarifying that little (important) detail.More "low information" :banghead: What will be voted on tomorrow is a cloture motion to quash a filibuster and open the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself. At least not yet. And there can still be a filibuster before the final vote and no deal has yet been announced on that.
More "low information" What will be voted on tomorrow is a cloture motion to quash a filibuster and open the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself. At least not yet. And there can still be a filibuster before the final vote and no deal has yet been announced on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRH6856 View Post
More "low information" What will be voted on tomorrow is a cloture motion to quash a filibuster and open the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself. At least not yet. And there can still be a filibuster before the final vote and no deal has yet been announced on that.
Thank you for clarifying that little (important) detail.
Hopefully we can leave the knee-jerk reactions to the antis and develop coherent and rational support and/or opposition to these proposals.