Manchin Toomey redux

[wojownik]

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey are reportedly again looking to revise firearms legislation, and are trying to think of something that could get the needed 60 votes in the Senate.

Very preliminary and formative, but worth keeping eyes and ears open.

Washington Post article here http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...both-interested-in-reviving-gun-control-push/

 

[X-Rap]

Nothing would surprise me, least of all it passing. We are in amazing times and the last few weeks in Washington should make most believers if the last six years haven't.
Wouldn't be surprised if they voted before the bill was written.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The article said they want to pass "meaningful" legislation. I guess that means they want something that will accomplish their stated goal of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and diagnosed mentally unstable dangerous people. Nothing short of keeping these people locked up will keep guns - and other lethal weapons - out of their hands. Once locked up there will be no need for "gun control" other than subjugation.

Woody

 

[vamo]

I can't imagine any gun control bill getting a majority in either chamber, much less a super majority in the senate.

 

[gbran]

Notice they aren't trying to structure a law that will solve a problem, but just looking for a law they think could get enough votes to pass.

 

[Jim K]

Manchin is a real hypocrite; he says he hunts (not sure what) and that he is pro-gun, etc., etc. He once claimed to own a bolt action rifle, that no one needed any other kind of gun, but that even they needed to be "strictly controlled". He is dangerous because some of his WV constituents actually believe his blather. He appears always eager to kiss up to the likes of Chuck Schumer and, short of a total gun ban, there are probably no "gun control" laws he would not support.

(Some of the good folks in WV have caught on - his tenure in the Senate may be short.)

Jim

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's see... It is already illegal to buy a gun for someone else even if that someone else can legally own a gun (straw purchase) unless that gun is a gift. Even as a gift, it is illegal to give a gun to someone you know to be a convicted felon. Just like it is illegal to murder someone with their own guns a la Newtown.

Ironically, one of the few purchases Schumer-Toomey-Manchin exempted from background checks were some interfamily transfers (like from father to son), so once again, the proposed "fix" for Newtown or Charleston wouldn't have even slowed down the shootings.

You can tell how sincere these folks are by the way they keep proposing laws that burden non-criminals every time a criminal shoots something up. Wonder if they'll even charge Dylan Roof's father given how few gun crimes of this type they attempt to prosecute?

 

[Uncle Richard]

Manchin ....... his tenure in the Senate may be short.)

Jim

I hope so. It seemed like the majority praised him as governor but not as senator.

 

[abajaj11]

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 if needed, confiscation of firearms.

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.
Just my 2 cents.