Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck

[Sam1911]

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.

Or you could mail the gun and he could mail the money. Don't even have to meet!

 

[BullfrogKen]

Sure, if you were that trusting, I reckon you could.


Sam, I like you . . . perhaps I might be persuaded to trust you that much. Then again, we know where each other lives, don't we.

 

[gc70]

Sometimes, it is informative to compare provisions across a bill. At other times, it is interesting to look at the progression of a provision over time - as in the case of transfer fees.

Schumer's 2011 bill S.436 - 18 USC 932(h)

PROCESSING FEES. A licensed dealer or law enforcement agency that processes the transfer of a firearm under this section may assess and collect a fee, in an amount not to exceed $15, with respect to each firearm transfer processed.​

Schumer's 2013 bill S.374 - 18 USC 922(t)(4)(B)

Regulations promulgated under this paragraph - (i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1);​

Manchin-Toomey SA.715 - 18 USC 922(t)(4)(D)

Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (2)(A).​

Was Schumer offering the carrot of a low, fixed transfer fee to attract gun owners in 2011, only to largely take it away in 2013, and then turn it into a lump of coal to punish gun owners for other concessions in the Manchin-Toomey amendment?

Or is the prohibition against a fee cap in the Manchin-Toomey amendment a carrot to attract gun dealers? And who would dangle such a carrot - Schumer, Manchin, Toomey ... or Gottlieb?

 

[mrvco]

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.

Yeah, I understand the concept in broad terms, I've had numerous firearms transferred in from out of state and completed multiple local face-to-face transfers facilitated via RMGO's Colorado Gun Market site... I'm still wondering more specifically where they would draw the line between text, email, voice call, FaceTime, Twitter, etc., etc. and "On-line Sales".

 

[BullfrogKen]

Good point. Who knows?


But I'll bet they won't fall in our favor.

 

[morcey2]

So.

If the Toomey-manchin amendment gets voted down, doesn't that mean that the Schumer bill is what will be up for a vote in the Senate? If so, that's both good and bad. With the bombing in Boston, I don't think the gun debate will be on the news for a while and it might make it out of the Senate before anyone notices. That's the bad news. The good news is that it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing the Senate, and even less of a chance in the House.

Matt

 

[mrvco]

Sadly some of the News-Entertainment outlets are already trying to work the "home-grown" angle, with a little help of course from their politician friends.

 

[gc70]

If the Toomey-manchin amendment gets voted down, doesn't that mean that the Schumer bill is what will be up for a vote in the Senate?

Manchin-Toomey is one amendment that will be offered to replace Schumer's text; Graham and Coburn have also announced that they would propose amendments to replace Schumer's text. And whatever basic text ends up in the final bill is subject to secondary amendments.