Toomey Folds - Joins Schumer, Manchin and Kirk on UBC Compromise

[JRH6856]

So the Senate votes 68-31 to move S649 forward for debate. No filibuster so instead of Republican senators reading from Shakespeare or whatever, do we get debate on 649? No, we get Dick Durbin talking about China and Africa.
(we return now to our normally scheduled programming).

 

[Cosmoline]

The first amendment to be offered will be the Toomey-Manchin amendment. Nobody has any text for the amendment yet.

It's a bushwhack. A page right of of Cuomo's book. What really scares me is the possibility, albeit a remote one, that this could get through the House in exchange for some budgetary goodies for the right.

 

[mrvco]

"Obviously we haven't seen the text of the actual bill"

So there's nothing to discuss yet.

You sir and your way of thinking will be the death of the Internet!

 

[mrvco]

Big surprise! Reid just asked that the rules requiring a 30-hour delay be suspended so they can begin debate on amendments immediately. The first amendment to be offered will be the Toomey-Manchin amendment. Nobody has any text for the amendment yet.

...

These are the sorts of antics that really infuriate me. Voting on anything based on rumor and innuendo never ends well.

 

[JRH6856]

It's a bushwhack. A page right of of Cuomo's book.

These are the sorts of antics that really infuriate me. Voting on anything based on rumor and innuendo never ends well.

They voted to begin DEBATE!!! not vote to accept an amendment or pass the bill. Sheesh! Talk about rumor and innuendo. :banghead:

Reid said this morning that there won't be a vote on a final bill for several weeks.

 

[dragon813gt]

Being able to buy a gun in any state by showing my CCW Permit is better for me than the way it is now. Gun shows are irrelevant to me. I would like to see the text of the bill regarding what qualifies as "advertising" and "on-line sales" before I pass final judgement.

And the highlighted part is where the problem lies. Instead of everyone sticking together they only care about themselves. Gun shows may not effect you but they definetley effect others. Think beyond your own needs when it comes to these type of issues. It's selfishness like this that has us in this position. Gun shows don't effect me as well. But I still won't accept anymore laws when there is no need for anymore.



Brought to you by TapaTalk

 

[Bubba613]

If you could buy handguns across state lines, use your carry permit instead of doing a background check, and have the dealer able to transfer if he hasn't gotten a response in 48 hours vs. the current 72 hours would you agree that anyone buying at a gun show needs to go through a BG check? Because that seems to be the compromise offered.
Me, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

 

[CLP]

What an ineffective and wasteful effort on the part of our government.

 

[morcey2]

If you could buy handguns across state lines, use your carry permit instead of doing a background check, and have the dealer able to transfer if he hasn't gotten a response in 48 hours vs. the current 72 hours would you agree that anyone buying at a gun show needs to go through a BG check? Because that seems to be the compromise offered.
Me, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

Problem is that the deal at this point is totally theoretical. I don't know if anyone has seen the text of the amendment, let alone been able to read and understand it.

Matt

 

[Bubba613]

Problem is that the deal at this point is totally theoretical. I don't know if anyone has seen the text of the amendment, let alone been able to read and understand it.

That hasn't prevented people from declaring they'll die before they submit to it.

 

[JRH6856]

What an ineffective and wasteful effort on the part of our government.

Just think how much government could do if the process were more efficient.

 

[ngnrd]

If you could ... use your carry permit instead of doing a background check ... I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

And what of those of us that live in a free state that has no requirement to petition the government for permission to exercise our natural right to keep and bear arms (i.e., there is no requirement for a carry permit)? Would you throw us under the bus and force us to "take that deal" as well?

 

[Shadow 7D]

Originally Posted by mrvco
Being able to buy a gun in any state by showing my CCW Permit is better for me than the way it is now. Gun shows are irrelevant to me. I would like to see the text of the bill regarding what qualifies as "advertising" and "on-line sales" before I pass final judgement.

And the highlighted part is where the problem lies. Instead of everyone sticking together they only care about themselves. Gun shows may not effect you but they definetley effect others. Think beyond your own needs when it comes to these type of issues. It's selfishness like this that has us in this position. Gun shows don't effect me as well. But I still won't accept anymore laws when there is no need for anymore.



Brought to you by TapaTalk

It's not just the gunshows
to say that a gunshow 'loophole' isn't important to you...
SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE (ie. I'm agreeing with you Dragon)
because, that means you are OK with no private transaction, saying you have to have a FFL to work a gunshow ISN'T what this is about.

the 'loophole' IS private transactions,which is what this is about, banning private sales of firearms... and registering everything....

to claim otherwise is flying in the face of history.

Lets not even TOUCH the HIPAA issues with what they want via the mental health parts of these bills

 

[Cosmoline]

They voted to begin DEBATE!!! not vote to accept an amendment or pass the bill. Sheesh! Talk about rumor and innuendo

The fact that it's proceeding to debate is a victory for them, a victory they achieved by waving around a bill nobody else was allowed to read. That's a bushwhack. And they won this round. Hopefully our side will be able to throw enough counter-amendments into the mix to bog the whole thing into a confused muddle. We DO NOT WANT an up or down vote on a single unified UBC bill unless it's truly one that's been vetted and approved by our side. Ideally none of these measures will ever come to a floor vote. But the really dangerous one would be a UBC proposal. First because it might pass and second because if it fails it will be great fodder for them next year.

 

[Shadow 7D]

NOTE the procedural request to waive the 30 hour delay...
IE, no reading the bill, look how well it turned out for Obama care....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

NRA scored the procedural vote for its 2013 ratings. So every Senator who voted "Yes" this morning just took a hit to their NRA grade.

Also Reid is going to demand that any future filibusters on this bill meet the rules exactly and he is going to sweat them out.

 

[JRH6856]

The fact that it's proceeding to debate is a victory for them, a victory they achieved by waving around a bill nobody else was allowed to read. That's a bushwhack. And they won this round. Hopefully our side will be able to throw enough counter-amendments into the mix to bog the whole thing into a confused muddle. We DO NOT WANT an up or down vote on a single unified UBC bill unless it's truly one that's been vetted and approved by our side. Ideally none of these measures will ever come to a floor vote. But the really dangerous one would be a UBC proposal. First because it might pass and second because if it fails it will be great fodder for them next year.

Some of the senators on "our side" see it as a victory for our side as well. Both sides have other concerns than just this single bill, such as strategy for winning more seats in 2014. Getting Senator's statements for or against on record is is part of that strategy and in this case, there are enough on both sides that want the debate to make it happen.

This is politics and it isn't always neat and tidy. As Bismarck once said, "Laws are like sausages: it's better not to see them being made."

But if we all had this much concern for everything else Congress does, we might have fewer complaints about the results.

 

[Boostedtwo]

Supposedly indiana isn't going to listen to federal laws, hopefully this is true.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The only way a Universal Background Check law could have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre would have been if, after Adam Lanza murderered his mother in her sleep to steal her guns, he would have been blocked from taking possession of the guns by failing a UBC.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^Unless Nancy Lanza had been blocked from acquiring the guns because a UBC disclosed a mentally ill member of her household that might have access to them.

 

[mrvco]

It's not just the gunshows
to say that a gunshow 'loophole' isn't important to you...
SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE (ie. I'm agreeing with you Dragon)
because, that means you are OK with no private transaction, saying you have to have a FFL to work a gunshow ISN'T what this is about.

the 'loophole' IS private transactions,which is what this is about, banning private sales of firearms... and registering everything....

to claim otherwise is flying in the face of history.

Lets not even TOUCH the HIPAA issues with what they want via the mental health parts of these bills

Obviously we haven't seen the text of the legislation, but supposedly it delineates between "gun shows" (basically FFL-holders selling to individuals without having to run a background check) and sales between individuals (albeit we'll need to better understand what "on-line sales" means exactly).

Now here in Colorado all gun show firearm transactions have required a background check since Columbine and the shows are still packed with people buying guns.

Call me crazy, but all other things being equal (which they are not), I would trade being able to circumvent a background check by buying at a gunshow with being able to buy a gun at any FFL Dealer in the US with no background check just by showing my CCW Permit, all the while still being able to complete a private-party sale without a background check.

 

[ngnrd]

^^^Unless Nancy Lanza had been blocked from acquiring the guns because a UBC disclosed a mentally ill member of her household that might have access to them.

Which it probably wouldn't have, because Adam's diagnoses didn't include conditions typically associated with violent behavior.

 

[vito]

Don't be fooled by what might seem like a sensible or reasonable "compromise". Background checks are for one purpose supposedly, to keep those banned from owning guns from buying a gun. It is a felony for a felon to even apply for a background check, but the Federal government essentially does not prosecute such felons. The reason for this is obvious, background checks are not really intended to do anything except ultimately form a national gun registry to ease the task of confiscating our guns at some future date (a goal sometimes openly admitted by leaders of the anti-gun faction) and to give the appearance to the public that the government is trying to protect them. The left, and the media are giving absolutely no positive attention to measures that could actually reduce the likelihood of another Newtown tragedy like increasing school security. This is about control and not about preventing crime. To acquiesce to those who mean to destroy the 2nd Amendment is to participate in that destruction. I don't hunt, I don't go to guy shows, I don't even own a rifle or shotgun, but I am aware enough to know that if I don't stand up for those interests, ultimately my interests will be affected as well. With "friends" like those on this website who say "I don't buy at gun shows, so who cares what happens to them?" we don't need enemies to do us in. Wake up before it is too late.

 

[Grmlin]

Looks like Richard Burr (R) North Carolina joined that group.

 

[JRH6856]

Which it probably wouldn't have, because Adam's diagnoses didn't include conditions typically associated with violent behavior.

Well, they don't now at at least.