Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing would prohibit people from posting guns on internet fora and meeting and selling them like we do now.


No, but it would require running a background check.

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.

So lets actually READ the law then. And rather than just say 'go read the law' I will SHOW you the parts that you may have missed in your reading.

"(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), 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.

The kicker is, it need not be a direct 'For sale' advertisement.

If I post a picture of my gun (display) and you see it then make an offer to buy it even though I never mentioned selling now UBC is needed
If I post that I need to sell some of my guns and can't decide which ones to part with, and you have seen a previous list of my guns online (either related to 'which one should I sell' or simply a list of gun I have) and IM me with an offer for a specific gun...now a UBC is needed.

I am not even sure what 'other listing' is. What about those guys who list their collection on their signature line...is that going to count?
What about if I post that I am selling a gun on facebook, is everyone on my friends list now needing a UBC if they buy, because maybe they saw the facebook post?
 
Last edited:
You appear to be the one unclear here. Where does Section 122 spell out there must be a background check on every transfer? Nowhere. It would make no sense. What you are proposing is that the statute states: Every transfer between unlicensed individuals must have a background check with the exception of people in the same state who are subject to a background check for the same transaction. That is nonsense.

Still waiting on a reference from the press conference.

Section 122 does NOT spell out there must be a background check on every transfer.

What it DOES spell out is everyone at the gunshow who buys MUST go through a background check (even non-dealers...even guys in the parking lot)

AND what it DOES spell out is any internet activity related to the sale means you now need a background check.

So, the only time two parties in the same state are exempt from 122 is if their state already possesses both a total gunshow background check requirement AND a total internet background check requirement
 
Try reading the rest of it. Especially the part marked "exceptions."

Here's the deal. Clearly everyone who is disagreeing with you is reading it...because they are posting sections of it.

This means your constant chanting of 'try reading the rest of it' is useless (not to mention insulting to the intelligence of ALL involved, including you...because any person with two brain cells would be able to tell that the people who are disagreeing with you HAVE read it, they just missed a few things or interpret them differently)

Second, imagine you were in a court of law and were going to make this argument. You couldn't tell a judge 'read the law' you'd have to spell out the connections. So why don't you try and enlighten us by spelling out the connections you seem to see that no one else does. Maybe we are wrong, but at least we are trying to foster understanding, not be unhelpfully cryptic.
 
Biden is certainly proof you don't have to be bright to have a JD. :D

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


The kicker is if all the judges and lawyers are also equally misreading it because they are only as well educated as Joe Biden and Bartholomew, then it doesn't matter if one legal genius sitting at his computer knows the true reading.

99.99% of a time the interpretation of a law is whatever 75% of the lawyers/judges say it is...even if they are 'technically wrong'

0.01% of the time the interpretation of a law is whatever 51% of 7 select legal minds say it is...even if they are 'technically wrong'
 
Wall Street Journal's take on whether the background checks will be "universal" or not:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323346304578423020482582426.html

The Senate likely will consider the background-checks amendment on Wednesday or Thursday, Mr. Toomey said Sunday. It would require all people buying guns online and at gun shows to undergo a background check through a licensed dealer. Currently, only licensed dealers have to perform background checks and keep a record of sales.
 
AND what it DOES spell out is any internet activity related to the sale means you now need a background check.

So, the only time two parties in the same state are exempt from 122 is if their state already possesses both a total gunshow background check requirement AND a total internet background check requirement

Clearly you're reading something that isn't there.
 
Clealry the antis think there is no UBC here:
Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in Washington, D.C., said: "We were pushing for a universal background-check bill and this isn't one. The bill specifically doesn't say anything about private sales, which are a major trafficking channel.
 
Bubba, I was partially on board with you earlier in this thread, until I was enlightened about the internet sales. Here is where I was wrong, this may be where you are mistaking also...

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

Look at the words in red... then replace it with... IF the Attorney General DOES NOT certify that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section

Then there is the AND...

Replace that with...; and"(ii) the transfer was not conducted in compliance with the laws of the State[/QUOTE]

In either one of these hypothetical situations, you are NOT exempt from the background check.
 
... (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), ...

Um, what? Your LGS is an FFL, and FFLs have to run background checks at gun shows. You could buy a similar gun from a private seller at a gun show with no background check, but not from and FFL.
 
Is there any data that supports the use of background checks deterring gun related crime? Because if there is not, then what's the point of this issue?
 
mrvco said:
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)

Yeah, uh, you've like never bought a gun at a gun show before, have you?


The requirement for a FFL dealer to run a background check before transfering the gun is required regardless of the location. Whether the sale/transfer takes place at his brick-and-mortar store, at his table at a gun show, or in his garage or dining room table.
 
There was some skepticism expressed earlier by Bubba613 concerning the Heritage Foundation's point that Toomey-Manchin weakens the FOPA protection against a federal registry.

gc70 at TFL has written a fantastic, well-researched post that goes even further than the Heritage Foundation analysis and shows step-by-step in plain language (and with the corresponding law cited) how it does weaken FOPA.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494010&postcount=63
 
I would hardly call it either "fantastic" or "well researched" since no research is apparent.
This:
Why would the government need to "consolidate and centralize" records of private transactions in a massive government database when the information could be maintained in databases at each FFL and accessed on demand by the government since the "transferred to" restriction could be ignored? Would the courts view a distributed database query system as a registry?
Of course each FFL already "maintains a database" of such information. To obtain the information ATF must dispatch an agent for every piece of information to the individual FFL. That info might be out of date within moments of any 4473 actually being executed. It is a cumbersome inefficient system, and meant to be. And it wouldn't be affected by anything in the bill.
 
Bubba, are you familiar with the concept that if you look around and are inclined to think everyone else in the room is wrong, you should seriously consider whether it might be you that's wrong?
 
Yeah, uh, you've like never bought a gun at a gun show before, have you?


The requirement for a FFL dealer to run a background check before transfering the gun is required regardless of the location. Whether the sale/transfer takes place at his brick-and-mortar store, at his table at a gun show, or in his garage or dining room table.
No, actually I haven't. Living in Colorado, my understanding was that since Columbine background checks have been required at gun shows in Colorado when buying from a vendor.

I thought most other states allowed these transactions to take place without a background check at a gun show... or at least I thought that was why everyone was making such a big deal about "closing the gun show loophole".

What exactly IS the "gun show loophole" then?
 
Yeah, uh, you've like never bought a gun at a gun show before, have you?

+1

I seriously don't see how the media and our politicians perpetuate the fallacy time and time again...
 
What exactly IS the "gun show loophole" then?

The gun show loophole is private sales. FFLs have to run background checks, in their shop pr at a gun show in all 50 states. Private sellers cannot run background checks. Schumer's bill seeks to end all private transfers of guns, and is so poorly written that even temporary transfers, under the right circumstances, can be a felony.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment only requires that private transfers at gun shows, or advertised on the Internet (or in a publication) require a background check. All other private transfers are untouched.

I have been to one gun show in my life. I bought a shotgun, and there was a background check. I also saw a guy who failed his background check taken out in cuffs.
 
Last edited:
mrvco said:
What exactly IS the "gun show loophole" then?

It is a lie. A big fat lie.


The Federal government licenses gun dealers - the FFL. They require any gun an FFL sells (with the exception of antique "black powder" type firearms) conduct a background check on every sale. Period. No matter where it occurs.


The media coined that term. And it's stuck, evidenced by the fact people like you believed the lie.

I - as someone not in the gun business - am still permitted to sell my shotguns and rifles in the state of PA to someone I know not to be a felon. Handguns I can't. Nonetheless, I can sell my personal collection as I see fit, and I'm not mandated by law to call into NICS and conduct a background check to do it. Nor can I. By law, only dealers and law enforcement agencies can utilize NICS. If I want to sell - or even loan - my deer rifle to my neighbor who hunts every year because I gave up hunting, I can do that.


So, if I go to a gun show and offer that same rifle for sale, that's what they term a "gun show loophole". However, it also includes me selling, or even loaning my rifle to my neighbor for the deer season.

The Federal government can compel FFLs to do a NICS check, because they issue the license and can make licensees do whatever they want in order to have it.

I don't have an FFL. I don't know what grounds they can regulate me. Now, the states are free to impose upon me that I must conduct my firearms sales through a state-mandated statute compelling me to use a background check system to transfer my guns - that's a state's rights matter.


But the "gunshow loophole" is a huge lie.
 
Ok thanks, that makes sense...

"Gun Show Loophole" = "Private Sales between people that happen to be attending a gun show".

I've only attended one gun show and that "crowded and overpriced" experience more or less cured me of any desire to attend another one.

So the important issue is still the definition of "ON-LINE SALES"...
 
Sales of any modern firearm cannot take place across state lines. When I buy something that's been offered for sale on line, it must come to my local FFL to be lawfully transfered to me.

95% of on-line sales are already covered. The only ones that aren't are ones that are:

  • offered for sale by an individual, not an FFL;
  • bought someone residing in the same state as the seller;
  • in a state that doesn't already regulate the transfer of that firearm

So, if someone living near me - in my state - offered a rifle for sale on-line, and I bought it, in PA we could meet each other and finalize the deal. I still can't do that with a handgun in PA. It would have to be transferred through an FFL, or we could go to a local Sheriff or state police barracks to run the check and handle the transfer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top