Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

I originally was against the bill, but having read three times now, and listening to Allen Gottlied, I am going to give it the benefit of a doubt, while I give it more thought.

I am not quite ready to give my senators a call to support it yet, but I may.

I will admit that I am not lawyer enough to read the law from a hair splitting perspective, but the more I read it, the better it looks.

I am going to give it the benefit of a doubt, while I give it more thought.

Click to expand...

Did you read the part where Heritage Foundation explains how existing interpretation of administrative law might be read to create a registry under Toomey-Manchin?

Did you read the part where Heritage Foundation explains how existing interpretation of administrative law might be read to create a registry under Toomey-Manchin?

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought it was pretty forced and unconvincing. If they can clarify what they consider "internet sales" I'd be a lot happier. But you get a lot with their bill.

Yeah, Bubba613, I think we are all clear you like universal background checks.

Yeah, Bubba613, I think we are all clear you like universal background checks.

Click to expand...

You can't read and understand my posts. What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?

It would be a lot easier if they wouldn't be so freaking meely-mouthed when they write legislation. There are a lot of positives in here, but unfortunately some suspiciously obtuse language to go with it.

I honestly don't have a problem with FFL holders having to do background checks at "gun shows" (the idea that I can fail a background check at my LGS on Friday and show up at their gun show table on Saturday morning and buy the gun with no background check has never made any sense), but the FTF / private party / Internet sales language is just way too loose for comfort. The reality is that from a technology perspective there is very little difference between an email, text message and a telephone call made from a modern smart phone and the lines get more and more blurred all the time with Twitter, Facebook, Tumbler, etc.

That being said, this legislation would cause the number of CCW Permit holders to skyrocket across the nation.

What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?

Click to expand...

It was that darn juris doctorate degree I received. It started giving me the idea I could read, draft and interpret legislation.

Same degree Joe Biden has. I think I see the problem.

Bubba613 said:

You can't read and understand my posts. What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Bartholomew Roberts works in the legal field.

Bubba613 said:

Same degree Joe Biden has. I think I see the problem.

Click to expand...

Bubba, your posts aren't coming across as effectively as you seem to think. It is a beautiful Sunday afternoon, perhaps a walk outside to clear the head?

mrvco said:

but the FTF / private party / Internet sales language is just way too loose for comfort. The reality is that from a technology perspective there is very little difference between an email, text message and a telephone call made from a modern smart phone and the lines get more and more blurred all the time with Twitter, Facebook, Tumbler, etc

Click to expand...

Damn skippy.

How does an "internet sale" get defined? Say I post on my Facebook page that I'm getting out of duck hunting and selling my double-barrel shotgun, any of my local friends who want it get first dibs before I take it to the local shop. A friend across town calls my Andoid from his I-phone, and I send him a picture and dollar amount. I e-mail my buddy my address, and he texts me when he's leaving.

With technology being what it is, is that an internet sale or not?


More directly to the issue, how do I prove I didn't sell my shotgun at a gun show or through an internet sale when I sold it to my buddy across town, or my old college roommate across state? Seems to me I do have to keep some record to prove I didn't sell it through either of those two venues.

Biden is certainly proof you don't have to be bright to have a JD.

I can say that even very talented lawyers make drafting mistakes and a document crowdsourced to the Internet will find them.

How about if you get something like the Coburn deal with no record keeping, repeal Hughes so that there is REAL compromise.

Laws are always written in obtuse language so we'll continue to need lawyers to tell us what they mean and so they can mean whatever those in power wish them to mean.

That's why we should stop electing lawyers to public office.

I imagine one reason the language is vague here is both sides are trying to write something that gives them an edge on the other side; but they can't write it in such an obvious way that the other side notices it. Gottlieb as much as said that was his approach. He apparently thinks the other side didn't do the same to us. I am not so sure myself.

What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?

Click to expand...

This brings up a germane point.

We all (mostly) reasonably understand "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" as a first principal. We in the arms-bearing community may feel it even more sharply than most, our privileges to own being derived from having to constantly prove oursleves more virtuous than the wife of Caesar.

So, if our laws become (or have become) so complex that only those with specialized and specific education can know them, how can a reasonably-knowledgeable person be said to be not ignorant of them?

At what point do such laws ipso facto violate our 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendment rights?

Nine pages on this topic, and dozens of posts all arguing over an interpretation of a conjunction. One, I, personally, feel is quite clear in that those states that require prior government permission to sell a firearm will not be required to get more permission. States with FOIP, or CT's new laws, in other words.

Personally, I am convinced we have this not merely backwards, but upside down as well. What we should be doing is finding ways not to identify the huge majority of the law-abiding (removing an onus of presumed mens rea conveyed by mere ownership) to one of identifying the tinier minority those known to be prohibited.

By stingy numbers there are around 30 million gun owners, this versus perhaps 3 million prohibited persons--and the legal presumption is that the legal ones much continue to prove innocence? This is roughly akin to requiring all airline passengers to demonstrate that they have the ability to fly a plane before riding in one.

Could we get back to a presumption that a well-regulated militia does not include substance abusers, the incompetent, nor high criminals? Or that '[E]very terrible implement of the soldier..." ought be the definition?

There aren't nearly enough federal agents to do that. Look, the GCA of 1968 made it illegal to transport a gun across state lines. How many federal agents have there been running stings on people doing just that?

Click to expand...

Telling me "but they'll never actually prosecute you" is not a valid response. The bill must be CRYSTAL CLEAR about what is and is not permitted FTF without a dealer. That's not up for compromise, unless you are comfortable compromising your life and liberty. There can be no dice rolls on transfers. It is not my goal to skirt federal law as much as possible hoping I won't get caught.

I get the feeling some people on our side simply don't understand how pervasive internet communications are in modern transfers, or how significant a change this will mean on the ground. When was the last time Gottlieb bought iron off a local on-line swap meet? When was the last time he bought iron at all? These guys are academics. And they're not exactly youngsters either. So to them it may seem like no big deal to sell out internet sales.

Sounds like FTF personal sales are allowed, but only from your private residence?

"(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event'-
"(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and
"(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923.".

Click to expand...

That's not what the section means.

It says 'no FTF at gun shows'

and then it defines gun shows as

'someplace with more than 75 guns for display or sale'

it further then defines a gun show as 'I you have a 75+ gun collection in your home, then showing off your collection then selling one gun is NOT a gun show'

Bubba613 said:

\

That's what I expected. Pretty much any transfer involving any internet ad--even a classified cross-printed on line--will require a check. I dare say that implicates most FTF transfers in the 21st century. And broadly construed (as BATFE doubtless WILL construe it), it would encompass any transfer involving any exchange of email, text message or PM on a forum. Post in the rifle forum and mention you might want to sell a rifle? Now you are barred from FTF transfer without NICS. Forever, presumably. It's a nightmare begetting nightmares. Far worse than a total UBC in some ways, because of the traps it lays for the unwary.

Click to expand...

No, that is not the case. The new requirement does 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;

People need to read the actual text here before going off.

Click to expand...

I think the original poster is right.

The only time the 'same state' rule comes into play is if that state already requires face-to-face transactions to have some sort of check.

It is possible that in a state where you have to have a Firearms Owner ID card where you have to go through a background check every few years or something could simply show a card, but for states where two guys can currently simply meet and exchange gun for cash and a handshake, being in the same state is irrelevant, the (proposed) federal law still applies.

bhesler said:

Toomey's site said on Wednesday that transfers between friends and neighbors, and other people would be expemted. I did not see anything about friends and neighbors in the text. Did I miss something? (I even used the search function of my browser on those words)

Click to expand...

I think what he is referring to is if you are talking to a friend and he mentions he needs to sell a gun and you are interested, because no internet and no gun show component are in play you can do a FTF

HOWEVER....

Let's say your friend texts you 'hey here is a pic of that gun you and I were talking about...you still interested in buying it?'

now the internet clause comes in and you have to do a UBC...as I read it.

Bubba613 said:

Which part do you not support? The part where you can buy handguns across state lines? The part where your carry permit substitutes for a NICS check? The part where NICS has 24 hours to respond, not 72?

The only people screwed here are the guys setting up tables at gunshows with big signs saying "No background check". And to heck with them.

Click to expand...

Here's the parts I object to:



#1 I see the internet angle as a huge potentially dangerous angle. What if I am buying a gun from a friend or neighbor, and we communicate via text and/or he snaps a pic with his phone and emails it to me...am I violating the law due to the internet part? When discussing a potential sale between friends to we have to say 'DO NOT DISCUSS THIS AT ALL ON THE NET!' for fear of an errant email or text meaning we have to do the UBC?

If it is going to be the 'gunshow UBC', and the ONLY people who were going to be impacted were those guys you describe selling at private tables (and you conveniently forget those guys who walk in with a gun because they know the pawn shop or gun store will offer 50% of true value) then why bring up the internet part at all?

#2 there is no reason why any check should take 24 hours let alone 72 hours with the computing power of today.

#3 I object to the basic lip service it does to making the Dept of Justice go after felons who try and buy but are denied by background check.

#4 I am against spending piles of money for zero actual results.

ALAN GOTTLIEB SAYS SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION STAFF WROTE ORIGINAL TOOMEY-MANCHIN AMENDMENT

http://daylightdisinfectant.com/gun-...nd-check-bill/

Watch the video, it contains some interesting developments. I have some big reservations still:

1. Why are CHLs being forced to transfer through an FFL for Internet/Gun show sales when they have already been background checked and are exempt from NICS

2. I think Mr. Gottlieb is overly optimistic about how he is "getting over" on the antis. Chuck Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden disn't sign off on that deal because they are stupid. They think they are getting something too - and there is a lot of gray area to justify their thoughts. The whole reason FOPA needs strengthening is because a combination of judges and bureaucrats have twisted the language and ignored the intent of the drafters. I don't know why Mr. Gottlieb doesn't think that is going to happen again if the language allows for more than one interpretation.

Click to expand...

Ok, after watching this video, he clears up something I was wrong about. I will not support this bill.

The only way to not do a background check would be narrowed way down. To a point where you would have to not be trying to sell the firearm when you sold it. I can't think of many productive ways to advertise a firearm for sale without being at a gunshow, or online.

Fleemarkets would be out, they would be considered a gunshow. It basically IS universal background checks, without ACTUALLY being universal background checks. This bill is a NO GO for me.

vamo said:

I really don't see any problems in this proposal. My understanding of the interstate transportation section is it prevents people from being arrested when transporting guns between two places they can legally posses them.

Click to expand...

There already IS a Federal Law which protects as you describe. Now, it may not specifically mention getting your car fixed or staying at a hotel. However, too many people who are NOT staying at hotels or getting cars fixed, but simply actively traveling through anti-gun state are STILL being arrested and charged.

If you really are concerned about interstate transportation protection, then there should be some sort of penalty such as "

for each day a firearm seized that should have been protected under the federal law Attorney General shall withhold 1 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755)

10% for each day a person sits in custody for transportation that is legal per the federal rule.

All this reminds me of that old adage from politicians, "Let's give 'em something that more or less sounds like YES, but really means NO!

Buford T. Justice, ya' done it again, ol' boy! Attaboys and pats on the back, all 'round the room! Page, where's my drink? Next bill, please!

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.

Click to expand...

it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer 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 or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(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.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter 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, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
"(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

No.

As I read it, states that already require background checks, firearms Owner ID cards, registration, or some other 'generally equivalent' background check can have two people from the same state meet and follow state law and be fine.

So, two people both from New Jersey can show their Firearms Buyer Identity cards and be fine, but two people both from Nebraska who have no similar law and freely allow Face-to-Face transactions, THEY'D not be exempt just because they both happen to be Nebraska residents currently in Nebraska.