Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, there is something that peeves me. In Indiana we have lifetime carry permits. This language means we will have to renew it every 5 years if we want to use it in lieu of background checks.

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

edit: never mind, it appears Indiana's permits don't qualify anyway.
 
The Teacher said:
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.

You appear to have overlooked the word "and" between (B)(i) and (B)(ii). The Attorney General also has to certify that the state laws you are complying with in (B)(ii) are the equivalent of the requirements in the proposal.
 
How else do you sell a gun? Make random phonecalls till someone wants it?

Back before the advent of the internet we used to buy and sell them at flea markets, garage sales, swap meets, etc.
 
You appear to have overlooked the word "and" between (B)(i) and (B)(ii). The Attorney General also has to certify that the state laws you are complying with in (B)(ii) are the equivalent of the requirements in the proposal.
No, I can read and that's pretty plain to see. I was simply trying to put in bold the parts relevant to the question. The attorney general's approval doesn't address the question of whether or not the language requires background checks for any and every gun advertised online. If further actions are taken, perhaps it might, but as the language stands it does not require background checks for every transaction stemming from every gun advertised online, as there are approved exemptions.

The attorney general's approval does bring up some other unfortunate questions though.
 
I don't see anything in the amendment that allows FTF transfers between unlicensed parties (FFL, not CHL) except between listed relatives.
I'm no lawyer. But here's what I read. <some verbiage snipped>

(1)<snip>it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer <snip> 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 <snip>
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement <snip>

NOTE: The above paragraph (paragraph 1) applies ONLY to gun shows and firearms advertised for sale. Below are the exceptions to that paragraph.

"(2) Paragraph (1) {quoted above} shall not apply if-
"(A)<snip> a licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm <snip> and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter, <snip> except that <snip> the licensee may accept <snip> a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State <snip>

"(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 <snip> 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;​

"(C) the transfer is made between [unprohibited family members up to first cousin] <snip>

"(D) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.​

As far as I can tell, Paragraph One quoted above is the only section that describes a new unlawful act related to the sale of a firearm. So, If I want to sell my rifle to a co-worker, or a friend, or even a friend-of-a-friend that I've never met before, and I didn't advertise it anywhere, and I'm not at a gun show, that would be perfectly legal without a background check.
 
Last edited:
The Teacher:

The new federal requirement would be to go through a dealer and get a background check for a transfer at a gun show or a transfer resulting from internet advertising.

That federal requirement would not apply to two people from the same state if two conditions were met:
  • the Attorney General certified state requirements were equivalent to the new federal requirement and
  • the transfer complied with state law

So, if a state requires a transfer resulting from internet advertising to go through a dealer and get a background check, there would be no need to duplicate those state-required actions.
 
No, that is not the case. The new requirement does not apply if:
Quote:
"(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;

Which is simply saying that if your state already requires UBC's then you're OK. It is not a safe haven! This is a BAD BILL.

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

Unless you email him. And unless you posted a thread about the gun and wrote that you were thinking of selling it. etc. etc. Nothing is certain about this thing. It's an open invitation to bushwhacks and stings.

we kept most private transfers

Oh no we don't. Not unless you're absolutely sure you've never posted a thread about your for sale gun at some point, or posted a picture of it on a forum where sales take place (like THR), or emailed someone about selling it at some point. Remember your "ad" on the internet doesn't have to be the one the buyer sees! It could have been posted years earlier. And for all you know he posted a WTB thread about your firearm. You never saw it, but the law doesn't care. This thing is a nightmare, and it will be subject to further regulation by an agency that defined a shoelace as a fully automatic firearm.

"(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.

Note there's no connector between the WTS and WTB required. Nor is there any requirement that they be formal WTS or WTB posts. This language is broad enough to cover a sale where the BUYER, unbeknownst to the seller, had posted about really wanting X firearm! You can argue it wasn't "pursuant to" the thread, but at that point you're already in shackles, your guns are seized and your life turned upside down. The agency prosecuting you is the same one writing the regulations interpreting this law. They hold ALL the cards.

And of course most of our firearm deals now involve the internet unless you're riding a carriage around town. Email and forum posts are a major means of arranging FTF transfers. All that will end, which is very intentional on old Chuck's part. The "conservatives" supporting this are either flat out turncoats or too stupid to understand how modern gun trades work.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what this bill says at this point and time, by the time all the ammendments are added it will look completly different. Any thing that might look good now will just be a loophole gun control advacates will want closed next time gun control comes up. Why should we as legal and resposible gun owners be held responsible for the acts of the mentally disturbed and violent crimminals of this country. As this bill stands IT WILL DO NOTHING to stop gun violence, last time I checked crimminals dont go through backround checks, if someone wants a gun to do harm to someone or commit a crime they will get a gun no matter what laws are in place .I for one will not be made the scapegoat for these politicians failed attemps at curbing gun violence .My line in the sand has been drawn and I will not give anything just so they "can do something".


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
 
I'm going through this line by line, so please excuse the disjointed nature. There's still a "gun show loophole". It says in the show or curtilage. This means the area immediately surrounding the show. Go across the street and you should be ok. Buying one as a result of seeing it advertised in print or the internet will require a check. On the other hand, this requirement goes away if you have a permit issued within the last 5 years. The Senators from IN need to get this modified because a lot of their constituents have life time permits. It looks like they've tried to cover most of the family situations, but failed to bring it into the 21st Century - excludes step-parents, step-children, fiances, and same-sex couples. Still a felony to go on vacation and leave it with a roommate. I don't know if it was covered in an old law, but it looks like military posts near the borders of states are the place to be - qualify as a resident in your home state, the state you live in, and the state you are stationed in. At Ft. Campbell, I would have qualified for IN, KY, and TN. I think that the interstate transport part is actually a favorable move. I don't have time to go through the text of FOPA, but I think there were loopholes being exploited in the anti-gun states.

Overall, the only thing I see bad is the advertising. It needs clarified. If I can do a FTF with someone who has a permit, why does it matter how I found that person?
 
The inability of people to read and understand legal language is downright scary. Nothing would prohibit people from posting guns on internet fora and meeting and selling them like we do now. Nothing would mandate people meeting buyers at their homes.
People are so fixated on "this bill must be a bad bill because its a compromise" that they refuse to read and understand what's actually in it.
 
According to the proposed text, any transfer that was set up via any communications device would require a background check. This would include texting a seller that had posted in a good old-fashioned newspaper that had no digital version to setup a transaction.

No actually it wouldn't. You really need to read the text of the bill.

The expansion refers to two things. First, more records would be online and available for background checks. Adjudications of mental incompetency are the big ones. Second, it would apply, depending on the version discussed, to all sales at gun shows, or all sales/transfer period.
 
Could you elaborate? I don't see why requiring (by law) a background check for a non-dealer sale would add any more friction to the deal than the transfer fee, maybe I'm missing something.
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and over time, confiscation of firearms, one small segment at a time.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.

Please consider calling your senators and congressman to point this out.
For identifying your congressman : http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Put in your zip code and find your congressman.

For identifying your 2 senators:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find your senators by selecting your state

Hope this helps make sense of what they are trying to push through.
:)
 
You are witness to the ultimate in insanity in our government. A mass shooting where the weapons used were stolen is being used to promote legislation that applies to weapons purchases shortly after the government has admitted that they sponsored illegal sales to intentionally supply weapons to drug dealers and mass murderers for which they deem no explanations, repercussions or even apologies to the families of those who have been killed are warranted.
And the public is buying this lunacy.
 
Remember, just because it may not relate to what you specifically are doing, don't give in and let this pass. They will try to divide us, slice the pie as it were, until there is nothing left.

Write your reps!
 
You are witness to the ultimate in insanity in our government. A mass shooting where the weapons used were stolen is being used to promote legislation that applies to weapons purchases shortly after the government has admitted that they sponsored illegal sales to intentionally supply weapons to drug dealers and mass murderers for which they deem no explanations, repercussions or even apologies to the families of those who have been killed are warranted.

And the public is buying this lunacy.

This. That's what's crazy. The fact that threads, TV, and mental energy is even being devoted to this topic is just plain nuts. Talk about going off on a nationwide tangent. Wow. It's watching the movie 'Idiocracy', except it's really happening.
 
According to the proposed text, any transfer that was set up via any communications device would require a background check. This would include texting a seller that had posted in a good old-fashioned newspaper that had no digital version to setup a transaction.
No actually it wouldn't. You really need to read the text of the bill.

The expansion refers to two things. First, more records would be online and available for background checks. Adjudications of mental incompetency are the big ones. Second, it would apply, depending on the version discussed, to all sales at gun shows, or all sales/transfer period.

You're wrong. The bill specifically says "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." must go through a dealer, just like a new gun. This bill KILLS PRIVATE SALES.
 
So, a simple "feeler" posting on THR -- "looking at acquiring a summer carry gun" -- would constitute an intent to acquire, and the poster would be unable to purchase such a gun by any means w/o NICS.
 
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

I have made a first read of the entire bill and here are my first impressions:

Allows the Feds to withhold various federal funds from the states if they do not improve their submissions of records into the NICS system.

States that HIPAA does not prevent mental health records from being submitted into the NICS system (Comment: As a standalone provision, this is a huge problem. The text is vague and creates the possibility that any doctor who thinks it prudent could submit you to NICS with no oversight. If this was adopted in conjunction with S.480, I would have no problem with it.)

Sets up appeals process for veterans denied their Second Amendment rights (S.480 has better language and should replace this language IMO)

Extends background checks to gun shows (defined as 75 guns or more with an exemption for sales of a large collection at a private residence) or the curtilage of a gun show.

Extends background checks to Internet sales (Comment: this is defined incredibly broadly. Basically, if you use the Internet for any portion of the sale and they aren't one of the relatives exempted by the bill (parents, children, siblings, and spouses of same), it has to go through a background check. I see a hundred ways for people who have been buying and selling over the Internet to get in trouble. This provision reads like it was written by two old men who only use their Windows 95 machines to play solitaire.). It looks like it might also create liability for online forums like TFL who facilitate such sales - I need to research that further since it references multiple sections of federal law I am less familiar with.

Additionally, the bill contains all the "benefits" outlined by the earlier Toomey-Manchin fact sheet. Apart from the fact that I don't think the interstate travelling language is strong enough to prevent the kind of abuses New York has been perpetrating, those all seem to be fairly straightforward.
 
Which is simply saying that if your state already requires UBC's then you're OK. It is not a safe haven! This is a BAD BILL.

IL already has UBC in the form of a FOID card. It will be a cold day in hell before our AG "Little Lisa Madigan" certifies that private sales are already subject to BC's I suspect the same would be true of and D controlled state.

Extends background checks to Internet sales (Comment: this is defined incredibly broadly. Basically, if you use the Internet for any portion of the sale and they aren't one of the relatives exempted by the bill (parents, children, siblings, and spouses of same), it has to go through a background check. I see a hundred ways for people who have been buying and selling over the Internet to get in trouble. This provision reads like it was written by two old men who only use their Windows 95 machines to play solitaire.). It looks like it might also create liability for online forums like TFL who facilitate such sales - I need to research that further since it references multiple sections of federal law I am less familiar with.

Yeah- So broadly that it includes printed media. It is a roundabout way of banning any private sale outside of family.
 
Bubba613,

Because legalese is considered a different language from English. I'm being serious. It is quite officially a separate language.

Bartholomew Roberts,

Yeah, that's basically what I got from it. Not too miffed about any one particular thing. Just miffed at the effort put forth to address a "situation in America" that isn't really a situation at all if you go by the statistics. Not compared to obesity, heart disease, and a myriad of other problems because people have the natural right to choose.
 
Extends background checks to Internet sales (Comment: this is defined incredibly broadly. Basically, if you use the Internet for any portion of the sale and they aren't one of the relatives exempted by the bill (parents, children, siblings, and spouses of same), it has to go through a background check. I see a hundred ways for people who have been buying and selling over the Internet to get in trouble. This provision reads like it was written by two old men who only use their Windows 95 machines to play solitaire.). It looks like it might also create liability for online forums like TFL who facilitate such sales - I need to research that further since it references multiple sections of federal law I am less familiar with.

Nope. You need to read further down.

"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(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;
 
And to be clear; I'm not advocating selling guns to complete strangers with no due diligence. In IL, we are stuck with FOID, which for all it's flaws and unconstitutionality (if FOID is OK, why not voter ID?) at least makes it very easy to know you're not selling to a prohibited person.

I would be OK with UBC's IF they could be done by the individual without paying a dealer or doing paperwork. The proposed bill has a provision for voluntary BC's for employer's; why can't individuals have a system like that? The answer is of course, that the real goal is getting all guns "on paper".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top