Toomey-Manchin Text Released Embrace the Suck
- Thread starter gfanikf
- Start date
- Status
Squeaky Wheel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 157
I might have to start living in van down by the river.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
morcey2 said:
Actually, you have heard from a lawyer - more than one in this thread alone, though I am not sure how many are still practicing.
HA, LOL, dream on, or did you forget the sarcasm tag?
Just emailed all my fed reps
Went through the entire document and found about 7 items I strongly disagree with and put together a polite but strong email and sent it to all my federal representatives. I also stated why I objected to the specific items.
Luckily most of our reps are very much on our side. I am sure that enough emails, letters and phone calls will prod our local guys to oppose the sections of the bill we find objectionable. Common sense will hopefully prevail.
Lets stay on top of this and if we are going to have to give an inch, ( a foregone conclusion) lets make it palatable!
Come on guys and gals, Posting here and bitching wont do a thing, get on the phone. email or write to your reps/ We can get this changed but wasting lots of hot air on a forum wont get it done!
Went through the entire document and found about 7 items I strongly disagree with and put together a polite but strong email and sent it to all my federal representatives. I also stated why I objected to the specific items.
Luckily most of our reps are very much on our side. I am sure that enough emails, letters and phone calls will prod our local guys to oppose the sections of the bill we find objectionable. Common sense will hopefully prevail.
Lets stay on top of this and if we are going to have to give an inch, ( a foregone conclusion) lets make it palatable!
Come on guys and gals, Posting here and bitching wont do a thing, get on the phone. email or write to your reps/ We can get this changed but wasting lots of hot air on a forum wont get it done!
But lets suppose I also posted info on my church bulletin board, the local telephone pole, and the grocery store bulletin board. I really have no idea where the buyer saw my advertisement. Or, if I simply posted that I have a gunxxx for sale and you can find my ad on the telephone pole at 5th and Vine. Or , someone sets up a physical bulletin board, and points a webcam at it. If folks happen to post their advertisements on the bulletin board... you get the drift. There are about a thousand ways I can think of to remove the direct email/personal message/internet forum connection to the sale such that I, as the seller, don't know the source of the buyer.
Just like a FTF transaction now, if I have no reason to believe that the purchaser is not from my state, the transaction (for me) is legal. Similarly, if I have no reason to believe that the purchaser saw my ad online or in some other digital domain (i.e. "Internet sale"), then it would still appear to be legal to do a face-to-face.
Instead of snarky remarks, how about an honest discussion. Why would this not be legal?
Last edited:
DeadMoneyDrew
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 265
Gah. After reading this post I wandered over to that Million Moms for Nobody Ever Having a Gun Herpderpderp site. The comments on that site make my brain hurt.
EDIT: except for this post which made me LOL.
Last edited:
"The Manchin-Toomey amendment would require gun show and internet-related transfers (and that is all that the amendment covers) to go through dealers.
Existing law already requires a background check for any transfer through a dealer.
Existing law also already requires filling out a Form 4473 for any transfer through a dealer."
as quoted earlier. So what exactly is the big deal? As stated - private party sales are OK as long as you do not sell to strangers you advertise to on the internet. The MAIN THING they are going after is the guy at gun shows with the "no background checks" sign on his table who hands over a Glock to anyone with enough cash who walks up to his table. I hardly feel sorry for those guys who give gun shows and licensed dealers a bad name. But maybe it's just me who prefers that a guy freshly released from prison does not drive to the next gun shows and buys a pistol no questions asked.... because obviously licensed dealers or ANYONE with a background check won't work and buying a stolen gun off the streets is a tad risky for someone fresh out of the slammer.
Existing law already requires a background check for any transfer through a dealer.
Existing law also already requires filling out a Form 4473 for any transfer through a dealer."
as quoted earlier. So what exactly is the big deal? As stated - private party sales are OK as long as you do not sell to strangers you advertise to on the internet. The MAIN THING they are going after is the guy at gun shows with the "no background checks" sign on his table who hands over a Glock to anyone with enough cash who walks up to his table. I hardly feel sorry for those guys who give gun shows and licensed dealers a bad name. But maybe it's just me who prefers that a guy freshly released from prison does not drive to the next gun shows and buys a pistol no questions asked.... because obviously licensed dealers or ANYONE with a background check won't work and buying a stolen gun off the streets is a tad risky for someone fresh out of the slammer.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
What's the big deal? 
How about the fact that if you and I live in the same state and you go on THR's Trading Post and see that I've got a neat-o rifle for sale we cannot simply get together and make the deal. We'll have to go to a dealer and put that gun and your name on paper just like folks selling across state lines or buying from a dealer to begin with.
How about the fact that if I head off to the local gun show and walk the aisles with a "For Sale" sign on my FAL or 870, I cannot simply sell that gun to another resident of my state. Again, we've got to go to one of the dealers and pay them to do a transfer -- put that gun and the new owner's name on paper.
You "hardly feel sorry..."? Well ain't that grand? Just another bit of anti-gun brainwashing we've all had our heads filled with. The idea that we all SHOULD be "background checked" and firearms SHOULD be "papered" somewhere. RUBBISH.
How about the fact that if you and I live in the same state and you go on THR's Trading Post and see that I've got a neat-o rifle for sale we cannot simply get together and make the deal. We'll have to go to a dealer and put that gun and your name on paper just like folks selling across state lines or buying from a dealer to begin with.How about the fact that if I head off to the local gun show and walk the aisles with a "For Sale" sign on my FAL or 870, I cannot simply sell that gun to another resident of my state. Again, we've got to go to one of the dealers and pay them to do a transfer -- put that gun and the new owner's name on paper.
You "hardly feel sorry..."? Well ain't that grand? Just another bit of anti-gun brainwashing we've all had our heads filled with. The idea that we all SHOULD be "background checked" and firearms SHOULD be "papered" somewhere. RUBBISH.
Want to buy or sell a gun from a friend or your brother-in-law? Well, the seller will be required to submit buyer to a background check, and pay for it. Oh, the antis will say no, no such thing, but the devil is always concealed in the legalese details, to be interpreted by faceless bureaucrats enforcing the law.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions by naive and ignorant people.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
If that is what they are after, why do they force CHLs to transfer through an FFL when they have already had a background check and are exempt from the NICS check? What does that accomplish except to generate a 4473 for a private sale to someone we already know can legally own a gun?
morcey2
Member
Regardless of anything else, the only way to enforce it even with lots of exemptions is going to be universal registration. If this somehow gets passed (and I doubt it will), you'll start hearing complaining about how the new laws haven't been as effective as the-smartest-guys-in-the-room thought they would be. Thus, we need registration to be able to enforce the already passed laws.
"But there's a law prohibiting any kind of federal gun registration!"
Yep. And it can be repealed by the same collection of political weasels that passed it in the first place.
I like the idea of being able to buy a gun anywhere in the country without having to ship it to an FFL here and I like some parts of the transporting proposals, but I'm not willing to accept the semi-Universal background check to get those. I can go to a different state and buy food, cars, lumber, squid entrails, land, fishin' poles, really bad toupe's, and shoes. Last time I checked, none of those were mentioned in the constitution. Except for fishing poles. The whole pursuit of happiness thing.
Matt
"But there's a law prohibiting any kind of federal gun registration!"
Yep. And it can be repealed by the same collection of political weasels that passed it in the first place.
I like the idea of being able to buy a gun anywhere in the country without having to ship it to an FFL here and I like some parts of the transporting proposals, but I'm not willing to accept the semi-Universal background check to get those. I can go to a different state and buy food, cars, lumber, squid entrails, land, fishin' poles, really bad toupe's, and shoes. Last time I checked, none of those were mentioned in the constitution. Except for fishing poles. The whole pursuit of happiness thing.
Matt
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
I already have a handgun carry permit, why should I have to run to a dealer to swap with someone who is a TN who may even have a handgun carry permit, with an ad in the newspaper, gunbroker, armslist? That is completely stupid. It is nothing but to get records of people swapping guns.
ngnrd
Member
You figured that out, did you?
If private party guy A, sells to private party guy B, who will know unless someone says something?
Just about everyone will be a crook when DC is done doing what they want.
Do criminals care about getting caught?
I suppose only the ones that get caught.
I'm just glad I don't make a living buying, selling, or trading guns.
Just about everyone will be a crook when DC is done doing what they want.
Do criminals care about getting caught?
I suppose only the ones that get caught.
I'm just glad I don't make a living buying, selling, or trading guns.
If person A or B in an undercover agent then you are in trouble. Unfortunately we have to follow the law. That is why keeping unfair laws off the books is so important
sonick808
Member
if passed, this would lead to multiple felonies and people in prison because they had no idea of this requirement. We've been able to sell our goods in classifieds (paper or electronic) for...... centuries ?
Then, someone who isn't rough enough for prison accidentally becomes a gun felon, and ends up in jail; where they are expose to all kinds of abuse and possibly murdered.
but hey, IF IT SAVES ONE PERSON'S LIFE IT'S WORTH IT to get beat within an inch of your life
Then, someone who isn't rough enough for prison accidentally becomes a gun felon, and ends up in jail; where they are expose to all kinds of abuse and possibly murdered.
but hey, IF IT SAVES ONE PERSON'S LIFE IT'S WORTH IT to get beat within an inch of your life
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
ALAN GOTTLIEB SAYS SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION STAFF WROTE ORIGINAL TOOMEY-MANCHIN AMENDMENT
http://daylightdisinfectant.com/gun-rights-advocate-helped-write-background-check-bill/
Watch the video, it contains some interesting developments. I have some big reservations still:
1. Why are CHLs being forced to transfer through an FFL for Internet/Gun show sales when they have already been background checked and are exempt from NICS
2. I think Mr. Gottlieb is overly optimistic about how he is "getting over" on the antis. Chuck Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden disn't sign off on that deal because they are stupid. They think they are getting something too - and there is a lot of gray area to justify their thoughts. The whole reason FOPA needs strengthening is because a combination of judges and bureaucrats have twisted the language and ignored the intent of the drafters. I don't know why Mr. Gottlieb doesn't think that is going to happen again if the language allows for more than one interpretation.
http://daylightdisinfectant.com/gun-rights-advocate-helped-write-background-check-bill/
Watch the video, it contains some interesting developments. I have some big reservations still:
1. Why are CHLs being forced to transfer through an FFL for Internet/Gun show sales when they have already been background checked and are exempt from NICS
2. I think Mr. Gottlieb is overly optimistic about how he is "getting over" on the antis. Chuck Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden disn't sign off on that deal because they are stupid. They think they are getting something too - and there is a lot of gray area to justify their thoughts. The whole reason FOPA needs strengthening is because a combination of judges and bureaucrats have twisted the language and ignored the intent of the drafters. I don't know why Mr. Gottlieb doesn't think that is going to happen again if the language allows for more than one interpretation.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Heritage Foundation says that due to sloppy drafting, Toomey-Manchin will allow federal registry at the discretion of the Attorney-General:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/11...-legislation-bad-law-on-federal-gun-registry/
They discuss the specific language problems and underlying law at the link.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/11...-legislation-bad-law-on-federal-gun-registry/
They discuss the specific language problems and underlying law at the link.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmmmmmmm...........
... ... well, we'll see, I guess. Not sure I buy the idea completely, but there's a lot of facets which could be read quite badly for us, or not badly at all. And some of Gottlieb's statements would indeed be very positive.
Not quite ready to write Toomey an apology for any of the things I've said to him just yet, though!
........... ... well, we'll see, I guess. Not sure I buy the idea completely, but there's a lot of facets which could be read quite badly for us, or not badly at all. And some of Gottlieb's statements would indeed be very positive.Not quite ready to write Toomey an apology for any of the things I've said to him just yet, though!
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Gottlieb is overly optimist if he thinks making abusing the background checks to form a gun registry will send a single soul to jail. The Justice Dept decides what crimes to prosecute, and which ones it won't. No one is going to prison over Fast and Furious. No one who stood in front of the polling place in Philly with bats and nightsticks 4 years ago is going to prison. That's empty legislation. The only way it would work to provide abuse from Federal misconduct is if a state's Attorney General were empowered to prosecute the crime. The Justice Dept is not going to prosecute itself for crimes it's own people commit.
Furthermore, that restoration of gun rights stuff won't happen. We already have a provision on the books allowing for the restoration of rights. It's been there for decades. Congress specifically refuses to fund that activity. They deny funding for that purpose in every budget they pass. The law can be there on the books, but if Congress refuses to fund the office and employees necessary to do it - like they do now - no one will have any rights restored.
I appreciate his thinking, but he's still under the impression that we can make the Federal government do something because we passed a law making them do it - like restoration or prosecution for abuse of NICS.
Furthermore, that restoration of gun rights stuff won't happen. We already have a provision on the books allowing for the restoration of rights. It's been there for decades. Congress specifically refuses to fund that activity. They deny funding for that purpose in every budget they pass. The law can be there on the books, but if Congress refuses to fund the office and employees necessary to do it - like they do now - no one will have any rights restored.
I appreciate his thinking, but he's still under the impression that we can make the Federal government do something because we passed a law making them do it - like restoration or prosecution for abuse of NICS.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
