4 more Senators now oppose Toomey-Manchin amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
A big deal killer for me is that Schumer-Toomey-Manchin removes the prohibition against ANY part of the federal government establishing a registry and instead limits only DOJ. How do you think that is going to work once it also removes HIPAA protection?
 
Ugh. I'm embarrassed to see that both of my senators are listed in the "maybe" category. Not exactly surprised, just embarrassed.

I've got some more writing to do...:banghead:
 
Pryor and Begich both voted with the Republicans first time around. I think they will do so again. That would put the NO vote at 40 (per the Huffington "whip count"). Only one more needed to defeat it. I agree that McCain belongs on the YES camp, not "Maybe." But I think at least one more Democrat is possible, as well as Heller (Nev-Republican). It is a nail-biter.
 
ngnrd said:
And what of those of us that live in free states; states who's residents don't have to ask permission from the government to exercise our rights? You know... the states with no CCW permit requirement.

Or what about the folks in the slave states that don't have a CCW, but want to sell their deer/duck gun?

Would you trample on our rights to feel like you get some of yours back?

No. We need to stick together on this. Registration is bad. And UBC's, no matter how palatable they try to make them, just bring us one more step closer to registration.

Don't be fooled. If this passes, the next tragedy will have them screaming to close the "UBC loophole". You know, the one that allows me to sell a firearm to a family member or friend. Then, the next time, they will be calling for universal registration because obviously background checks aren't effective at stopping criminals. You see where this path ends, don't you?
Click to expand...

Nothing I said conflicts with your concerns.
 
AlexanderA said:
That's fine -- if we were starting with a clean slate. The fact is, we already have gun control, and that's unlikely to change. The discussion now is about the parameters of the control. We want to move in the direction of more freedom, while the antis want to move in the direction of less freedom. This is the battlefield on which both sides maneuver. No general ever won a battle without being flexible.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately any attempt at rational discourse on this topic is followed immediately by the obligatory AJ/GB FUD-rant.
 
I'm glad Lindsey Graham has taken a stand on this issue.

He's been getting a lot of flak in S.C. recently.
 
Repeal Hughes machine gun ban (probably unconstitutional), take silencers off NFA, and maybe I would be interested in truly compromising for a system that allows private sellers to access NICS BUT not through an FFL/paperwork.
 
When you call your (TN) Senator's number in DC, how do you determine whether voicing your opinion is even Noted by the staffer who answers?:scrutiny:

Yesterday there was no response or confirmation that my stance against any more gun control was recorded by the young guy who answered Corker's number.
I had the impression that my call did not even count. Maybe it's better to ask a naive, dumb question than not know.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have a link to this amendment proposal?

I guess I may be being stupid, but I can't find the actual bill.
 
ironically you're missing out on the one thing that could easily fracture the firearms community... access to NICS.

if anyone could call (or better yet web site, phone app, etc.) into NICS, look up any potential buyer or seller FOR FREE and have it take less than 5 minutes, I suspect ALOT of people would do it.

if they wanted to establish a moral high ground, that would be the way to start. I guess we're lucky though that Schumer and DiFi are too <censored> to look down that path.
 
Watching the debate on CSPAN-2, I got the impression that the senators speaking were stalling for time. It's obvious that there's a lot of arm-twisting going on behind the scenes. Reid is good at counting votes. You can bet that the instant he has 60 lined up for Manchin-Toomey, he'll call the vote. Lautenberg is expected back on the Senate floor on Wednesday, so that's the earliest date on which a vote can take place. If the required votes (including Lautenberg) aren't there by Wednesday, the vote could be postponed until next week -- or Reid could decide to pull it off the calendar altogether. Keep in mind that Manchin-Toomey is the minimum background-check provision that the antis would accept. If it ends up not making it into the bill, the enthusiasm of the antis would drop like a rock. The gun issue would then be put off until after the 2014 elections.
 
if anyone could call (or better yet web site, phone app, etc.) into NICS, look up any potential buyer or seller FOR FREE and have it take less than 5 minutes, I suspect ALOT of people would do it.
Click to expand...

So I could check on anybody I wanted, anytime? The kid with the noisy car that wants to take my daughter out? My kids creepy teacher? The hot babe at the diner? I could check anybody I want?

If not, how are you going to control access?

I do think Senator Coburn has a viable work-around, but frankly I'm not interested in any compromise with these people. They want it all, and they'll compromise for what they can get this time, then wait for (or manufacture) the next tragedy and come to get half of what's left.

No thanks, I'll pass. I'll strongly encourage every senator on I can to pass. I'll do it again tomorrow.
 
I just received a response from Senator Heller, he just announced he'll oppose Manchin-Toomey this afternoon.
 
So I could check on anybody I wanted, anytime? The kid with the noisy car that wants to take my daughter out? My kids creepy teacher? The hot babe at the diner? I could check anybody I want?

If not, how are you going to control access?
Click to expand...

honestly? it's called GOOGLE.

example: I spent about an hour over the weekend "researching" the seller of a firearm I'm hoping to buy. found out the cursory info I wanted to know to at least verify he existed and lives where he says he lives. nevermind for a couple bucks more (< $10) I could have paid a records collection site to spill everything they had on the guy to me.

any system can be ripe for abuse. I'm just saying if they wanted to go for the high road they could make it free to the public.

note I'm not advocating for it, but I'll be honest given the fact I live in a slave state if I had access to it I'd definitely use it since they track when you wipe your butt around here.
 
Just shot this off... feel free to use any or all of it.

Upon listening to the arguments presented on the floor of the Senate today regarding pending gun control legislation, I was drawn to comments made the by both Senator Durbin and Senator Cardin, who each made it a point to quote Justice Scalia's words regarding the Supreme Court's recent "Heller" decision. Each Senator specifically referenced Scalia's comments that the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and that "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" is presumptively lawful. This quote was used by both Senators Durbin and Cardin as justification for supporting legislation requiring Universal Background Checks.

However, it should be noted that Justice Scalia intentionally inserted the word "commercial" before the phrase "sale of arms". In the very same paragraph that Scalia stated that the Second Amendment is not absolute, he stopped short of accepting that conditions and qualifications are presumptively lawful regarding the private sale of arms. This language is not unimportant. If it were, there would be no need to specify "commercial" sales in his comments. Rather, this can only be seen as a specific exclusion, a sharp demarcation of the power of the federal government to regulate private transactions of lawfully possessed goods.

Senator, as a law abiding citizen, I respect the decision of the court, and I urge you to do so as well.

You must protect the rights of your constituents, and the rights of all the citizens of this great nation. You must oppose any legislation that specifically imposes conditions and limitations on private transactions. You must oppose Universal Background Checks.
Click to expand...
 
Johnny Dollar said:
BTW, going by this recent poll almost 83% of participating THR members also don't believe in any gun control.:cool:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that 83% represented less than 400 votes in a tiny progun bubble called THR.

And that less than 400 votes is a mere drop in the ocean of total gun owners or the voting public.


In other words, its statistically irrelevant in the real voting world outside of THR.
 
I dont understand what you mean but I can say I'm speaking as someone who isnt so delusioned as to think that 83% means squat outside my 15" laptop screen.
 
Breaking news: gun control goes down in flames

The Huffington Post "whip count" has just moved Lisa Murkowski from the "maybe" to the "no" column on the Manchin-Toomey amendment. That means that there are now 40 declared "no" votes, and that to pass the 60 vote threshold, the amendment would have to get the votes of every single one of the 8 remaining undecided senators -- a practical impossibility. Without the background check provision, I think it's fair to say that gun control, on the federal level, is dead for 2013.
 
Which is good.
M-T functionally banned all F2F sales, as you needed a BC any buyer reached by any advertizing at all (including Manchin's Church bulletin board).
The "national reciprocity" was a fiction, too--really all it gave us was that the 20-21 states with full reciprocity would get federal recognition of that full reciprocity. For all other states, you have to follow FOPA and lock the arm in the trunk with ammo separate (which is not really "carry" at all).

So, ding, dong, I'm glad the witch is dead. This was one more example of wrongheadedness on this. Instead of forcing the majority good to prove we are not prohibited, we should be making ways to reliably identify the tiny minority who are prohibited. We need to return to a presumption of innocence, and a presumption of due process only in extremis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Senate (Toomey-Manchin Amend.) Gun Bill Has been...
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
144
Views
8K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
B
  • Locked
Do you oppose Scumer-Toomey-Manchin amendment?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
Ryanxia
  • Locked
The list
Replies
9
Views
1K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
M
  • Locked
Maine Senator Collins rationalizations for her yes vote on S 649
Replies
6
Views
1K
Pilot
P
B
  • Locked
Why Universal Background Checks Are Bad for Gun Owners
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top