BREAKING: Toomey-Manchin Background Check Deal Unveiled

Everyone’s favorite A-rated Senate Democrat, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin has arrived at a compromise background check deal with Pennsy Republican Pat Toomey. Think of it as a modified semi almost partially universal background check system. As the two lawmakers announced this morning, under their plan all transactions through gun stores, on line or at gun shows would be required to pass through the NICS system. Sales between individuals, though, would remain off the books . . .

“Candidly, I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control. I think it’s just common sense,” Toomey said.

Though the deal’s specific language hasn’t been revealed, the two compromise-minded lawmakers tried to assure the nation’s gun owners that sales cleared by the FBI’s instant background check system would not lead to national registration. As Toomey intoned:

“The worries that we hear sometimes about background checks leading to an erosion of our second amendment rights – that simply hasn’t happened. And we’ve got to make sure that it doesn’t.”

It remains an open question as to whether the deal will be incorporated into whatever artfully crafted gun control bill Harry Reid manages to bring to the floor (assuming it’s not filibustered), or voted on separately as an amendment to the bill some time next week. Does that work for you?

177 Responses to BREAKING: Toomey-Manchin Background Check Deal Unveiled

  1. avatarDwight says:

    So basically they’re try to pass a law that is in effect a duplicate of existing law.

    • avatarNate says:

      Ya that sounds about right……..gotta make it look like they are doing something.

      • avatarSD3 says:

        Government that does *nothing* is the best, Jerry! The BEST!

        Let’s hear it for gridlock!

        • avatarRoscoe says:

          I say “no” to ALL these latest congressional attempts to further diminish and erode our constitutionally protected rights to keep and bear arms. All of them; no compromises.

          There are already statutes in place that satisfactorily protect against unlawful exchanges and violent gun use both at the federal and state levels.

          I say get to work enforcing what is already on the books against actual law breakers. Leave law abiding firearms owners alone! None of the new proposals will do anything to prevent another mass shooting that current laws don’t already address.

    • avatarIndyEric says:

      +1

      “Closing the gun show loophole”

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      No machinegun sales at Walmart anymore, awe shucks. Next thing you know felons won’t be able to CC firearms, Randy

      • avatarMichael says:

        You do know machine guns have been banned since May of 1986 right? I couldn’t tell if you were joking or not.

        • avatarDerrick says:

          Ya he’s just showing a bit or sarcasm. So many of our wonderful uninformed politicians, muck-raking journalists and just plain uninformed(ill call them lazy because they don’t want to take the time to learn)citizens have been making wild accusations and ignorant statements about guns. They either want to spread false information to trump up the charges against us law abiding citizens, or they really are just so dumb as not realize that you can’t walk into your average gun store and pick up and fully automatic ak47. But the comment about felons not being able to cc is just good old fashioned humor at its best.

    • avatarCBDemented says:

      From what I’ve been able to find about it, that seems to be it. It seems that what they are adding is that any transaction in a gun show require NCIS check…but no change on private sales. So if you are on the show floor, private or not, the sale would require a check, but if you step outside, old rules apply?

      The other change is that internet sales will have to do what gunbroker does.

      It also sounds like they might expand it to include more than just handguns from some sources too, but there isn’t any confirmation on that I’ve seen.

      • avatarRenfen says:

        If that is all (and it is never all) I don’t really have a problem with the internet part of it. I bought my first rifle through gunbroker and it made perfect sense that since I had to pick it up from an FFL that I do a NICS check through that FFL. The problem is making private sellers go through it. How do they get access to NICS at a gun show? Can anybody call in? Fees? Would they be forced to go through an FFL? Ooops, forced commerce again. Or will SCOTUS call it a “tax” again.

        • avatarernest p whipple says:

          Well, it will be _slightly_ different, because the other party to the forced commerce will be a government agency, not a private insurance corporation.

      • avatarHillCountryDog says:

        “…but if you step outside, old rules apply?”

        What a waste of time and effort the politicians have gone through – again. Just a dog-and-pony show. If that is all the damage done…but I still don’t like it.

    • #commentwin

      +1000

      You may pass Go; you may collect 200 dollars. Brilliant.

    • avatarjbarr says:

      My wife and I were just saying the same thing.

      Here in South Carolina, if I want to buy a gun from a dealer, I have to get a background check. if I want to buy a gun over the Internet, I have to have it sent through an FFL (my local dealer) who does a background check. When I buy a gun a t a gun show, I have to…wait for it…have a background check. NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

      As for person-to-person purchases, there are no restrictions within the state of South Carolina requiring background checks. So again, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      It happens DOZENS OF TIMES EVERY YEAR. Just ask my senator, Senator Facade…

    • avatark4R-15 says:

      The Gun Owners of America have a more scathing interpretation of this bill:

      http://gunowners.org/a04102013.htm

  2. avatarIndyEric says:

    So….what about sales between individuals at gun shows?

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      Take it to the parking lot, and you’re probably okay.

    • avatarJim says:

      My predictions:

      (1) Any sale that will occur on the grounds of a gun show will have to go through the NICS.
      (2) Internet sales will not mean buying a firearm from someone and having it shipped to your FFL, which already requires an NICS check. It will mean any two private parties that connect online to do a sale will have to meet at an FFL to conclude the sale.

      All of these erosions are attempts at diminishing the culture that gives rise to the enjoyment of firearms. That’s what they’re really after. Pass the art to your kids, grandkids, and your friends and family members. That is our most effective counter-attack measure.

      • avatarTim U says:

        “(1) Any sale that will occur on the grounds of a gun show will have to go through the NICS.
        (2) Internet sales will not mean buying a firearm from someone and having it shipped to your FFL, which already requires an NICS check. It will mean any two private parties that connect online to do a sale will have to meet at an FFL to conclude the sale.”

        1. Walk out to parking lot, problem solved.
        2. Good luck enforcing that one. Who’s going to voluntarily comply with that if there is no way to prove that any part of the transaction was online?

        • avatarStinkeye says:

          I envision the “internet sales” portion leading to a bunch of overhyped ATF “stings”, to scare people into compliance.

        • stinkeye,

          You are definitely onto something, there.

        • avatarSIGCDR says:

          Stinkeye is right. Just imagine the stings at gun show, Bloomberg will have his boys doing double time outside of NYC like he did before patrolling the gun shows looking to say see we need more regulation. Taking it to the parking lot is going to end up with folks spending some serious time in a federal pen for trafficking and the giving the gun grabbers more ammo. GOA is right this thing needs killed now.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      If it is private party, i.e. neither of you are FFL dealers, and it is done in the parking lot as it were, my guess would be it would be off the books.

  3. avatarJustsomeguy says:

    I think I oppose it, but spoken words are cheap. Show me what’s in writing.

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      From the presser on Yahoo, language was removed allowing National Reciprocity, so what did the other side compromise?

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      Okay, now a new Yahoo press release has this…..Both Toomey and Manchin are gun owners and have an A rating from the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun lobby group. Toomey said he added some provisions to strengthen gun rights in the bill, including allowing a legal gun owner to take his or her concealed weapon over state lines, even if that state does not allow concealed carry.

      • avatarjbarr says:

        Hmm. This seems like a big deal to me. Would this trump state laws? For example, South Carolina and Georgia do not have reciprocity. Would that remove that restriction?

        • avatarTaurus609 says:

          From what I understand, if National Reciprocity were to pass, if you had a CC permit you could even go to NYS or any other very restrictive state and carry legally. But, and that’s a big but, you would still have to abide by their gun laws. I could be wrong….anybody know better?

          I think what would make National Reciprocity even better, would be, that if your state has no restrictions on magazine capacity or type of weapon you’re good to go anywhere….but I’m only dreaming here!

  4. avatarken kish says:

    What’s different in that than what we already have?

    • avatarstateisevil says:

      This is a bad bill. A “gun control” bill. It eliminates the “gun show loophole”. Either it’s a right or it’s not. And of course, background checks can at best inconvenience a violent person. This bill would have done nothing at Newtown.

      • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

        It would have not prevented Columbine which was an illegal strawman sale nor woulf it have prevented Aurora because their wax no mandated reporting despite clear and high level mental expert and LEO awareness nor would it have saved Giffords as thrre was no mental health update. We already know that most states dont put info into the system now and what they do is late or subjrct tonmisinterpretation ie vers w aPTSD losing guns. So how is the updat and intervene going to work post sale when records are supposedly detroyrd (and we are asked to asume ATF is competent and trusteorthy when wd KNOW other Fed LEOs view them as ou of contro cowboys and that was before F&F! Sorry for run on typing fatfingrred on Kindle.
        Heres the bottom line: trust once lost takes time and proof to regain. That will only happen whrn this Chicago-style Marxist leadersip is gone. Wake me in 2016 before asking again.

        • avatarnutz says:

          leadership won’t be gone in 2006, will be declared permanent for the county’s good.

  5. avatarquestionableprovenance says:

    Forgive my ignorance, but other than optics, how does this change the current situation?

    • avatarRobert M says:

      It will require all sales done at a gun show to go though a background check and it doesn’t mater if the seller is an FFL or a private person dumping one of there old 10/22 also have heard reference to it effect inet gun sales as well. Depending on the language of the bill it could open back up inet retailer shipping direct to your door again. But it all comes down to the actual language in the bill. It could be a huge step forward in gun registrations or it could actually allow us to bypass local FFL (depending on the state of curse).

      Thanks
      Robert

  6. avatarBilly says:

    It’s mind blowing that these people don’t even seem to know the current laws.

    • avatarCody says:

      I think it sounds encouraging, really. Most people don’t know that there’s a current law altogether and fewer yet understand what those laws are. It seems like the gun grabbing contingent has been frustrated with BO’s lack of ability to get anything passed on the matter (and he himself has seemed frustrated as well), so if they pass something like this that will really change nothing, they can pass it off as a win…they’re doing “something”.

  7. That law already exist in South Carolina. I thought that was the way all across the country.

  8. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    All transactions through an FFL already go through a NICS check, that’s pretty much all gun shop, gun show and Internet sales. Not sure what this bill actually does.

    • avatarfull.tang.halo says:

      In theory you could buy a gun off gunbroker from a local state resident and meet them to complete the transaction. As it would be a FTF sale to same state residents there would be no BG check in some states.

    • avatarJim says:

      Our local gun shows, once you get out of the cities, have a majority of their tables filled with private sellers. Our people know this, and will travel great distances to attend these shows and avoid the watchful eye of Uncle Sam… Not anymore if this passes!

    • avatarLarry says:

      It only closes gun show sales as many of those do not require a NIC’s check. In my state gun show sales are considered private to private.

      So I guess you go across the street now and complete the sale with no NIC’s check?

      Also I think private to private Internet sales will require a NIC’s check? Cant imagine that happens a lot but I guess it does.

      One possible good outcome would be Internet sales direct to your house. Today if you buy a gun on the Internet you must ship it to your local FFL to then get a NIC’s check. It sounds like the remote seller can now perform the NIC’s check at the time of the Internet sale….then ship to your house?

      • avatarMark N. says:

        No. The NICS check under federal law must be performed in the state of the buyer’s residence. This comes from the law that prohibits interstate sales of firearms–you can only have a firearm transferred to you in your state of residence. Your local FFL is the one who assures that the transaction complies with state and local law.

        You’d think that one check is the same as any other, but that’s not true. California has its own system operated by the CDOJ, with all handgun sales (and next year all sales) reported to the DOJ. Colorado also has its own system. I don’t know about other states, but I would suspect that Illinois, NY and NJ are certainly candidates.

        • avatarcsmallo says:

          You could buy a longarm across state lines from an FFL. But this did depend on the state. Kentucky only allowed out of state buyers of longarms to be residents of the bordering states. So if you were from Tennessee you could, but if you were from Texas you couldn’t. I did notice a sign in the WallyWorld today saying they could not sell to residents of Illinois or Missouri effective 4/2. Not sure what law changed for that.
          Private interstate sales were prohibited.

    • avatarcsmallo says:

      Some states allow a CWL to substitute for the phone in check. I imagine that will be going away if this passes.

      • avatarjbarr says:

        It might, but honestly, why should it? I had to have a background check to get my license, so I’m already “clear”.

      • avatarJay Dunn says:

        In Ky. my CCDW card eliminates the need for the NICS check at the gun store. However, that’s because if you have a CCDW card the state computers run a check on you once a month.

  9. avatarimrambi says:

    Seeing the news conference Toomey stated that the mentally ill and insane should not have guns, and that he has never meet someone that disagrees with him. He also stated that the question is how to prevent those mentally ill and insane from getting guns.

    I believe that is the wrong question. The question is what should define mentally ill? Does a judge have to say you are mentally ill? If so, that is already the law. If not, who can say it? Can my neighbor? How about an anti gunner? How about a democrat calling a republican insane? How about a doctor? What if the doctor is wrong?

    • avatarDyspeptic says:

      “Toomey stated that the mentally ill and insane should not have guns”

      Then we must disarm the political class.

    • avatarDJC1012 says:

      ^^^This is the crux of the issue ^^^^
      Determining who is a “credible danger to themselves and others” (to which all mass shooter profiles would fit) is the problem.
      How that gets done so that it is effective in preventing a truly dangerous person from getting a gun and yet doesn’t step on the rights of a sane person who is merely on anxiety meds is the only thing I can determine is new here.

    • avatarHillCountryDog says:

      If liberals had their way, the answer would be the old Catch 22.

      “If you want a gun, you are obviously insane, and since you are insane we cannot let you have a gun.”

  10. avatarKnife Collector says:

    It seems the politicians keep pushing this country closer and closer to a point where the people start pushing back.

    • avatarMecha75 says:

      We already have. That is how we dwindled the bill down to this. The question is on the states that are now squeezing tighter on their citizens rights. How close is it to boiling over into an armed confrontation?

  11. avataruser3369 says:

    http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

    TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

    Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.

    - Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.

    - Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.

    - Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).

    - Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

    TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES

    Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

    - Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.

    - Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term “transport” includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.

    - Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.

    - Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.

    - Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.

    - Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.

    - Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

    - Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

    - Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.

    - Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

    TITLE THREE: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE

    Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.

    The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.

    WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO

    The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.

    The bill will not ban any type of firearm.

    The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.

    The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.

    The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

    ___
    Room for cautious optimism, at least until we see the actual text of the bill

    And it will be voted on as an amendment , supplanting Schumer’s bill.

    • avatarfull.tang.halo says:

      “- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term “transport” includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.”

      How is this not what the FOPA demands and that NYC and NJ shit on every chance they get?

      • avatarLemming says:

        Actually, if I read it right, this is hugely important. Get delayed at a NYC airport, take your luggage to a hotel to spend the night and currently you’re a felon.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Bingo. Some states try to construe FOPA (NY, NJ, and Chicago) as prohibiting stopovers, because once you’ve stopped, you are no longer in transit between places where you are allowed to possess the firearm. The judges know the charges are BS, but you are still compelled to plead to a misdemeanor and lose your gun(s) if you want to avoid a felony trial.

        • avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

          Also, there are loopholes. The law protects firearms. We need to make it clear that it also protects ammo and magazines.

      • avatarRobert M says:

        FOPA isn’t clear about staying at a hotel, or stopping for dinner, or any of the other things listed.

        Thanks
        Robert

      • avatarHillCountryDog says:

        I think I just became a “Sportsman.”

    • avatarPulatso says:

      Still processing, but some of that actually seems better than what we have now. I have a FL CCL, and while it exempts me from a waiting period, I still have to pony up and wait on the background check (an hour long wait occasionally).

    • avatarGC says:

      Reading the summary, the thing that sticks out the most to me is it looks like they are simply implementing a 48 hour waiting period.

      I mean, NICS is already overwhelmed, so with the additional background checks that will be required the chance of them getting them all done within the 48 hour window are pretty slim.

      So, with this, after 48 hours with no response the sale proceeds. The way I see it, you buy a gun, get the check, NCIS sits on it (unless you are a flat out denial), and everyone waits 2 days because of the “backlog”.

      • avatarcsmallo says:

        NICS is overwhelmed? I have bought 6 firearms from FFL dealers over the past 3 months. None of the phone calls to do the background check took more than 15 minutes. Most were under 5, but one Sunday afternoon I did have a 15 minute wait.

        • avatarTaurus609 says:

          I just bought a new handgun last month, it took longer for the dealer to input my info then it did for him to have an answer back. Has been this way for at least the last five years, so I don’t know why folks are waiting so long!

      • avatarRobert M says:

        I think you are getting your state system confused with the NCIS system. In Maryland we have two systems one for Cash and Carry Weapons and one for Regulated. In general the Cash and Carry system takes just a few min the only time it was an issue was in Dec 2012 when the phone lines at NCIS system were so clogs my FFL was batching them up and calling at like 11:00 PM at night when they could get though. On the other hand the Maryland system makes you wait 7 Days no mater what but right now they are backed up over 30 days last report I saw was 45 days and it wont get any better with the state passing a new law to ban AWB and other weapons.

        Thanks
        Robert

      • avatarPeterZ in West Tennessee says:

        I bought two guns so far this year, 0ne in January, the other in February. In both cases the NICS check took about 15 minutes. The system was overloaded before Christmas, but it is not any more.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      “Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).”

      ???

    • avatarIng says:

      Hmmm… I actually see some good things in this. (Although I’m pretty sure this won’t be the whole bill.)

      Interstate handgun sales from dealers would be a good thing. The biggest/best gun dealer within 50 miles is only a 15-minute drive away from me…and across state lines, which means FFL fees and delays waiting for transfer. If a background check anywhere is a background check everywhere, that’s better than what we’ve got now.

      Allowing state-issued concealed permit holders to bypass the background check is a good thing. My home state does that (plus waiving the handgun waiting period), and it’s much appreciated.

      Protecting sellers from lawsuits if buyer clears the check is good.

      A process for veterans to contest placement in the NICS list is good. But is there a process for everyone else? Mistakes will happen, and there should be a way for Joe Citizen to get them corrected.

      Specifically prohibiting a national registry is good.

      Having sales go through if the NICS check isn’t final w/in 48 hours is good. Prevents bureaucratic obstruction.

      A commission to study the causes (all causes) of mass violence — probably not going to solve anything or tell us anything we don’t already know, but it might be worth a try. I mean, if you want to solve a problem you should probably try to find out why it happens, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know neither the president nor his blue-ribbon committee have proposed doing this, which is a damning omission.

      So… Is is possible they’re actually getting this right? Or at least not totally screwing us over?

      • avataruser3369 says:

        That is my cautious optimism as well. I still want to read the full text of the actual bill/amendment. This IS coming from two A+ rated Senators, so I have a lot more faith in this than anything out there.

        I’m gathering “hey, we know this background check thing is annoying, but here’s the deal. Unless these idiots pass SOMETHING, they won’t shut up. So we will give them their “gun show loophole” and “internet sale loophole”, neither of which will really affect any of you anyway. They will look like they got something done. And in return for supporting it, we’ll hook you guys up with a few little perks to make your lives a little easier”

        I very much support no background checks if you have a state CCW permit. Now, make those nationally reciprocal, and you got a deal!

    • avatarRick C says:

      right “make it illegal to start a registry”…yeah the government has never done anything illegal!!!….EVER!!!fast and furious…hmmmm

  12. avatarCrazed Java says:

    Our the gun grabbers really this clueless? I know a lot of people think it is an act to cover their malfeasance, but then I see this proposal that appears to be more “doing something”.

    I don’t know of any way I can purchase a brand new firearm without a background check. The real “gun show loophole” has been closed for awhile. The last firearm I purchased at a show from a dealer I had to *gasp* pass an NCIS check.

    • avatarThe Original Brad says:

      Shhh – let them think they’ve done something and go away. Although, I am under no illusion that this will end their gun grabbing, this just shows how clueless they are. However, if I can get one liberal gun grabber to declare, “The gun show loop hole is now closed” I consider that a victory, since it was already closed.

  13. avatarfull.tang.halo says:

    What is “At a gunshow” is it within the confines of exhibition hall? Halls of the venue? Bathrooms? Snack lines? Does it extend to common areas of a convention center? Sidewalks of the venue? Parking lot of the venue? Parking lots adjacent to the venue? Inside people’s vehicles?

    This compromise reeks of more ways to hound and abuse law abiding gun owners with no real chance of doing anything to stop criminals, well other than make LAGO’s criminals.

    Also, how exactly are the Feds gonna shoehorn sales that take place at a state level gun show, under the commerce clause?

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      They have tortured the poor commerce clause out of all recognition. I don’t think there is much that they cannot regulate with it.

      • avatarRalph says:

        ^^^^^This.

        There are Justices of SCOTUS who would like to rectify this. Thomas is the leader.

        • avatarEd Ranger says:

          But are there 5 of them? God Bless Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia for standing firm in their beliefs, but Chief Justice Roberts caved into public pressure and cobbled together a mishmash of justification for Obamacare, if it came down to it, the pressure might even be greater on this issue once before the Supremes.

        • avatarandarm16 says:

          Even without the commerce thing, they still have the “general welfare” clause. They’d just argue that it can’t be good for the general welfare of the citizens to have guns with no background checks. (Besides, the Supreme Court is essentially a conservative organization. Can you imagine them putting 90% of civilian government employees out of a job?)

    • avatarTom says:

      Look up the definition of “Curtilage” for an answer…
      I believe it would cover the property that the building is on.
      At the portland expo center for instance, it’s a large chunk of property. Denny’s restaurant across I-5 is NOT part of the expo center, therfore, not at the “gun show”.

      • avatarShaky Dave says:

        A “gun show” is going to be whatever they say it is in the “Definitions” section of the Act. They could define it – as a ridiculous example – as “anywhere within a ten-mile radius of two or more individuals engaged in offering firearms or ammunition for sale.” In all these discussions about the “gun show loophole” I’ve wondered just how the grabbers intend to define a gun show. Also, what’s the definition of “mentally ill” be? Anybody who has been to a mental health professional? Anybody who has been prescribed a psychotropic drug within the preceding ten years? I just smell a rat.

        Also, I see the current gun control frenzy the same way I look at self-defense: draw a mental line on the road that, if crossed, initiates the use of deadly force. The grabbers are already at that line with the assault weapons ban. At some point we gunners have to say no mas, even if it’s a feel-good piece of smack. Passing a “common-sense compromise” is the equivalent of giving your dog a cookie when he shits on your carpet; it rewards bad behavior.

        I suspect that nothing good will come from this proposal, if enacted, and resistance is in order.

        • avatarRick C says:

          AMEN brother,tired of this crap!

        • avatarSIGCDR says:

          The criminals at ATF, gun grabbing DAs, and their enablers on the bench will torture the law to create havoc for gun owners. The corrupt courts will ignore legislative intent to abet their interpretation. The big government lovers are in the gun grabbing business for the long haul. This is one more tactical win to notch on their belt and they will back for more next week. It needs to die now.

          Toomey is a traitor to conservatives just like Snarlin Arlen Spector. He is just trying to get some breathing room for his next election. He fits right in with that other senator from PA – Casey “I was pro-life before I was for Obamacare.”

  14. avatarAccur81 says:

    I opposing it without reading it just as good as blindly supporting it? I’ll oppose it for now, and I’ll likely oppose it more when I get the details.

    I just left a message with Feinstein’s DC office to oppose the AWB and Background check bill. I told the clerk that if standard capacity magazines can protect politicians than they can protect everyone else. I also opposed the background check bill because I don’t want my neighbor and I to be instant felons if he watches my house for more than 7 days while I’m in vacation. Hey, it’s a waste of time, but its still nice to tie up staff.

    • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

      Thanks for stepping up Accur8. I’d do same if I felt it would make any diiference but sadly Boxer and Feinstein the SF limo liberals have really nevrr paid much attention to conservative concerns despite most of the state citizens outside the Bay Area and LA are moderate to conservative in rural areas.
      aCall me paranoid but I’d rather NOT end up on their radar screen. After F&F, the EPA emails, DOJ racialist hiring policy (blatenty illegal) and Benghazi with no intervention or protest bt Chairwoman of thr Intelligenc Committee Feinstein combined wih Obamas UNDER THE RADAR comments I simply dont trust this Administration or Congress to balace powers.

    • avatarPantera Vazquez says:

      Acurr81-While I support and encourage ALL to contact their legislators concerning pending legislation, I (hoping that I am wrong) believe that Pro-2A people who contact certain* legislators are running a fool’s errand. While I believe that many of the offices will keep a count as to the positions of their respective callers, I am hard pressed to accept those who are on the record as being anti-2a will bother keeping count of any calls other than those from constituents that are in lockstep with the respective officeholder.

      * DiFi amongst others…………..

  15. avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

    Without applying to all sales and without requiring that you report lost or stolen guns, the program can’t serve as a complete registry. The tragic boating accident defense still works. We need to see the language of the bill to know for sure.

    Having a bill like this does present some opportunities. If it is allowed to come to the floor, that gives us a chance to tack on a bunch of pro-gun amendments. Nationwide recognition of concealed carry permits and strengthening of the interstate transport protection would be nice. Also, making its easier to buy suppressors (long shot), or at least funding for more NFA examiners would be nice.

    • avatarfull.tang.halo says:

      section 922(r) and 922(o) are hereby repealed…

      • avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

        Yes! I forgot about that one.

        There are 21,000ish gun laws. If they want “reasonable compromise,” then they should have no problem getting rid of totally pointless laws that make ordinary people felons.

  16. avatarOldLawman says:

    Agreed – we need to see the actual words of the legislation, not statements/summaries/etc. before we can be sure of what it is.
    One thing that puzzles me. The talk of regulating online sales (of guns, I assume, not ammunition). Any transfer of a firearm, from the resident of one state to the resident of another state , presuming neither holds an FFL, has to go through to go through an FFL at the receiving end already. Other than the fact that a buyer can make the arrangements of the sale, such as order or agreement to buy, and payment online, the physical transfer remains the same. So basically, it sounds as though the only change involves gun show sales. The appearance of doing something, while not doing much at all.

    • avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

      I was wondering about teh definition of online sales as well. For a website that follows the Ebay model, that would seem like an obvious online sale. For sites that follow the Craig’s List model, the transaction is still face to face. That type of sale is no different from a newspaper classified (assuming those still exist).

      I would imagine that this would be addressed in regulations, which kinda sucks. I would expect that if you advertise online and the sale comes from a response to that posting, it would need to go through an FFL.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Just remember that these folks think that you can buy a gun off of Craig’s list and have it shipped–legally–to you directly. There is a current lawsuit pending where exactly that happened, and the buyer used the gun to murder his ex-girlfriend. Just because they are wrong on the law doesn’t mean we can’t write a new law that says what the old law was, so that they can claim “victory.”

    • avatarJim says:

      Oh no, just wait. There is a reason they are skittish and unwilling to share the language of the actual bill. I predict that people who meet online for a sale (armslist/gunbroker) will now have to go to an FFL to seal the deal.

  17. avatarWatchmen lewis says:

    asshates

  18. avatarDFF says:

    I get it now.. So when I go to the local gun show or FFL dealer to buy a fire arm and go through the typical background check.. Now, with this new law, when I want to purchase a fire arm at the local gun show or FFL dealer I have to get a background check.

    Makes sense to me.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      That just about sums it up overall, but as you know the devil is in the details.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        It won’t change anything for those of us in California–we still have the dreaded Roster of Safe Handguns. And I don’t think California would look too kindly upon us being able to drive over to Nevada , Oregon or Arizona to pick up something the roster does not allow–particularly as the Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit transfer of non-roster firearms to non-exempt (i.e. non-LEO) transferees.

      • avatarDFF says:

        Yeah, there’s always something they try to sneak in.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      NICS at gunshows is state law.
      This deal includes (adds) private sales that use online (possibly other) advertizing.
      Or so I’ve heard…nothing offical yet.

      • avatarJim says:

        Maybe where you’re from. No NICS required here. It just depends if the table is an FFL or a private party with a large collection

    • avatarEd Ranger says:

      See how much safer the children are?

  19. avatarDave says:

    A compromise is not when rights are infringed halfway. It’s when they are also enhanced. What this bill needs is a strong national carry amendment.

    • avatarMecha75 says:

      While its not a strong carry amendment, it is said to exclude those who have a conceal and carry license from a background check. That is a step In the right direction. Pun intended.

      • avatarDave says:

        This may not eliminate the record-keeping requirement, only having to call in the background check.

  20. avatarbeanfield says:

    “under their plan all transactions through gun stores, on line or at gun shows would be required to pass through the NICS system. Sales between individuals, though, would remain off the books . . .”

    The two quoted sentences are at odds with each other. What about private sales between individuals at gun shows? How will the additional FBI NICS calls be funded? It’s already overwhelmed.

    • avatarfull.tang.halo says:

      Come down to FL, it costs $5 per check but we run our own shit down here through the FDLE. BG checks, even during the height of the post SH panic never went over 30 minutes. Big dealers use a secure web-form to do them now, cutting down on the number of calls and increasing speed even more.

      • avatarcsmallo says:

        You have to pay for a check? We pay for dealer transfers, but buying from the dealer I have never paid for a background check.

        • avatarfull.tang.halo says:

          Yes, $5 is added to the purchase price of a gun($5 per 4473 not per gun) to cover the cost of the FDLE running it’s own system. It’s a small enough amount and it’s highly effective in keeping approval times under 10 minutes even on the busiest of gun show weekends that I’m more than willing to pay it.

      • avatarMecha75 says:

        Yup. In early February I bought my wife a Sig for valentines day and my background check was approved in less than a minute. The person running the check was surprised at how fast it was.

    • avatarRobert M says:

      Personal guess every gun show would now have to have a both for Background checks. For the people with a larger collection that decides to sell some. The FFL would continue how they are now. But like everything it really comes down to how the bill is written.

      Thanks
      Robert

  21. avatarthe last Marine out says:

    And WATCH out for the back door screws these RATS will try!, they will get more controls , WATCH OUT ,,, the RATS are here!

  22. avatarRalph says:

    What about online purchases of C&R firearms by 03 Licensees?

  23. avatarKCK says:

    Reid, talks about UBC’s then says, 90% of Americans want something done to reduce Gun violence. Implying that the 90% are for UBC. Listen to his quotes.
    My bet is that 100% want something . But THAT something is nothing if THAT something is a laws that does nothing. (I know, you gotta read it twice).
    The children deserve a vote? If you stop and think about it, Adam Lanza is the one who is getting the vote. His vote was for a law that says, “because I am an insane criminal, every one else should be assumed to be the same as me and treated accordingly”.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      90% of people wanting something that has no effect on the problem is exactly why we live in a republic…if we can keep it.

  24. avatarcz82mak says:

    So it sounds like this does nothing? What is the point?

    Present something that “reasonable people” will agreee are “common sense solutions”, and then vilify those who point out that there are already existing laws covering this stuff as “unreasonable” & “fear-mongers”?

    Fear & ignorance rules.

    We pay for this crap.

  25. avatarTX Gun Gal says:

    Am I the only one who thinks the criminal element does not buy guns, they steal them. Or buy stolen guns?

    Gave my CHL sister-in-law my Bersa .22 when at our ranch, suspect where I live, (Texas) that happens a lot.

  26. avatarSol says:

    I hate it. I haven’t read it but if Manchin and Toomey are behind it then its not in Gun Guys best interest.

    Additionally though and you all will hate me for it but I’ve seen the warm up act for this to happen and our side was silent while the Gun Grabbers filled the airways with there propaganda. We need better leadership than what the NRA is providing. Maybe GOA is the answer but the NRA isn’t. They wait till this morning to come out against this? Really? SORRY BUT THAT”S BULLSHIT!

  27. avatarPascal says:

    Is there any way to peak at the language of the bill?

  28. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Not buying this for second. It’s all BS until we see the actual language of the law.

  29. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    BTW, none of this would have done anything to stop the Newtown or Aurora shootings.

    Lanza failed every background check the FFLs gave him and Aurora passed the background check when he purchased his guns.

    It’s all a smoke screen for their real agenda, total civilian disarmament.

  30. avatarPascal says:

    Also, realize that CT – Blumenthal is looking to put an amendment to that bill that would require background checks on ALL ammo sales and require those who sell ammo to keep records to whom they sold it too. So, while the main bill may be junk, watch out for the amendments

  31. avatarBlehtastic says:

    Online gun sales have to go through NICS…

    So I can have a firearm from Impact Guns shipped directly to my house?

    Could be awesome…

    This is all a sham.

  32. avatarSteven02 says:

    So how is this enforced? I mean, if 2 people meet online, and decided to sell guns to each other, how is it going to be tracked down? What defines an online sale? Lots here that I think is unenforceable.

    • avatarSD3 says:

      C’mon, Steve-O. We’re doing this for the CHILDREN. Does your wife know you don’t care? Why do you hate children? Where does that hatred come from? Pleeeez, don’t be a H8er.

      • avatarSD3 says:

        Oh, almost forgot why I was here.

        I’ve got a slightly used Ruger mk III competition for sale. Interested?

        • avatarLC Judas says:

          I am. My sights have been set on one for a while now but I lost out when they heated up. But…that could be called an…INTERNET SALE!

  33. avatarIn Memphis says:

    “… would be required to pass through the NICS system.”

    So will states still have the right to use their own methods? For instance we use TBI (Tennessee Bearu of Investigations). Will all states be required to use the NICS instead?

  34. avatarShenandoah says:

    And reading the fine print we’ll probably see this bill includes $50 million to support the budding Pennsylvania tuna fisheries and $30 million for a study on the future of a WV subway system.

  35. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    I would like to see a no waiting period attached to this. that way it would trump state waiting periods no? We already have a 10 day wait that they want to extend to 15. All sales whether private or FFL go through a back ground check. If this bill is done the right way it might actually help Californians!
    Of course it is going to be in a package of garbage that no one wants to pass so all this is BS anyways.

  36. avatarcrndl says:

    toomey’s phrase “…and we’ve GOT TO MAKE SURE that it doesn’t [lead to erosion of 2A rights, yada yada]…” means it isn’t sewn up tight enough yet to make sure that won’t happen…there’s their out :(

  37. avatarChuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: The Fools!

    Background checks amount to registration. And registration always leads to confiscation.

    The only reason they aren’t talking about person-to-person transfers being covered is because it’s impossible to track such.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out.....]

  38. avatarPatriot says:

    I’m so tired of politicians saying you can buy guns online without a background check, show me where this is happening, show me where I can order guns and have them shipped to my house, because I would really like to know. I buy guns only online, mainly because it is cheaper but mostly so I don’t have to deal with d!ck head comic-book guy behind the counter at EVERY gun store known to man and everytime I have had to have it shipped to an FFL, so please enlighten me of this fabulous nonexistent place.

    • avatarOldLawman says:

      Agreed ! I want to know where that it too.

    • avatarPascal says:

      Online sales is them saying “face-to-face” sales. It is the same sham as the “Affordable care act” where nothing is really affordable

    • avatarBach says:

      I’m sorry to inform you that is just an unreasonable expectation on your part. Very few of the words that come out of a politician’s mouth for public consumption have any real meaning.

  39. avatarcarsonthebrain64 says:

    Even if the legislation, in its current form, is not dangerous,watch out for the amendments that we probably won’t see til after it is voted on. From my understanding, the 1986 federal legislation was considered a good thing until the addition of the Hughes Amendment in the last few minutes.

    Also, walking into the parking lot of he gun show may not save you from ATF harassment. If the buyer turns out to be an undercover ATF agent or LEO, they may try to charge you anyway for an illegal sale or at least confiscate the gun and cash even if charges are never brought.

  40. avatarSkyMan77 says:

    IMHO… Any politician still willing to utter “Common Sense” when talking about gun control should be ran out on a rail for that alone… In every instance I’ve seen it just gets worse from there…

  41. avatarMina says:

    I am officially confused. I bought a gun online recently and it had to go an FFL and I had to visit when it was received to fill out all of the background check forms. There was also a 72hour waiting period.

    Did I not get a background check for my online purchase?

    • avatarJohn Doesky says:

      Yes you did. If the ACTUAL bill comes out like what this prelim looks like than it’s pretty much political flash that does nothing but allows the Dems to say they did something.

      The one exception negatively is if you live in a state that allows private sellers to sell at gun shows without a BGC. But maybe a get around that by negotiating inside building and the actual cash/gun exchange happens outside the building or across the street.

      But there almost sounds like some good stuff about concealed carry that would please some folks here.

      Of coarse everybody knows that we have to be on the look out for backdoor additions at the last minute.

      Also even if this does pass it can get watered down or killed in the House.

  42. avatarIronGiants1973 says:

    Wonder how Bloomturd and Schemer are going to take this ? It’s still crap and doesn’t change anything for me being a NY resident.

  43. avatarTodd says:

    It just hit me. You know what this does right? The Government by doing this just built from the ground up, a black market for firearms. If I am right on that, then this will lead to more regulation and its how they tie it down. You make it like you do drugs…..see where I am going? War on drugs, the War on guns will be next.

  44. avatarOkierim says:

    Proof is in the pudding, or in this case the hot steaming pile of congressional scat….

  45. avatartangledthorns says:

    This is small stuff. What is important is the 2014 election, 2013 for VA and NJ too. The Democrats have forever shown themselves as the anti-2A party and I hope everyone here recognizes that. 2014 and all future elections will be more important than ever as the day the Democrats take total control is the day our 2A rights will be no different from that of a Washington, DC citizen.

    • avatarEd Ranger says:

      Question: I have been voting against the Democratic candidates for years and how am I better off for it? I see my Republican representatives repeatedly cave in and keep in mind I am in Georgia where so called Conservatives rule….I say a pox on both parties. I may never vote for a winning candidate again but I will not vote for a Republican Or a Democrat. They know that voter’s memories are short and over 90% of incumbents are reelected each cycle. Until there is a viable 3rd party, nothing much will change except the pace of our downward slide. I despair.

      • avatartangledthorns says:

        Have you considered voting in the Republican primaries? That is where the most change can happen, we’ve been seeing a lot of it since 2010.

        • avatarEd Ranger says:

          I have not missed an election, including primaries and runoffs, in 25 years or more…

          Look what they say during the campaigns vs. how they vote on in D.C.

          Then look at their net worth before they took office and their net worth after a term or more.

          And once out of office they can go to work lobbying at a high salary so that their buddies will sneak those loopholes and provisions into the bills that you and I will pay for.

          The system has failed for everyone except those with in Washington D.C, whether they are elected or paid to influence the elected.

  46. avatarRick Adams says:

    Wake Up!! Do you really think you can trust these weasels? Go to GOA and see what they are really trying to pass. They want all your guns. Don’t you get it? One bite now. Bigger bite next time. No wonder they’re emboldened. Some of you gullible “gun guys” amaze me. Won’t affect you?? HA HA HA HA HA

  47. avatargunshowloophole says:

    So if i advertise online (arms list or similar website) would i have to go through an ffl even if sold in my state.

  48. avatarmike says:

    NOT ONE MORE INCH!

  49. avatarmpow66m says:

    http://gunowners.org/a04102013.htm

    Heres the real story,this is what the traitors really want to do.As usual its hidden from the public.

  50. avatarmpow66m says:

    Read this carefully,the 2 Senators arent talking about this,theyre trying to slip this by everyone to appese the gun grabbers.Vote them out!!!!

    Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act – the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      Can you share a link please? If that’s accurate that’s a pretty underhanded thing to do.

      EDIT: Just saw the GOA piece… I still want to read the actual section they’re talking about.

  51. avatarBlinkyPete says:

    Here’s my background check bill:

    Background checks between private parties will be conducted at/by FFLs. FFLs will maintain records as they already do for their own sales. Concealed carry holders who have already passed a background check and transfers between family members are exempt.

    Furthermore, this bill overturns the Hughes Amendment of the Firearms Protection act, as this was a punitive and vindictive measure on the part of control control advocates that didn’t solve any problems (there were ZERO murders with legally owned machine guns between 1934 and 1986). This bill modifies the National Firearms Act of 1934 to remove silencers. Going forward silencers are to be treated as firearms – they must be serialed and purchasers must go through a background check, but they no longer need to be registered.

    Lastly, I suggest the added revenue generated by additional background checks be used to actually fix the NICS system. Mandate appeal turnaround times, perfect processes and improve customer service. Oh, and maybe actually prosecute violent felons that try to buy guns. Maybe.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      Throw in full faith and credit CCW reciprocity and that looks like my definition of compromise. I’d still be wary of an eventual registration/confiscation scheme, but the gains might be worth the risks.

  52. avatarRick C says:

    well if the crap they are trying to pass isnt bad enough the flippin phone number to DC arent being answerd!!!these ppl are IDIOTS!!!

  53. avatarMatt in SD says:

    First it was BG checks when buying from dealers, now it’s from private and dealer sales at ‘gun shows’, next it’ll be the parking lot of the gun show, then within a city or town hosting a gun show, and then….

    Not that any of this would have any bearing on me since I live in CA anyway. Some are even speculating that it might help restrict CA law. And even if it were true, I wouldn’t support this, or any, federal do-nothing bill that allows for yet more infringement on our rights.

  54. avatarCharles B says:

    It was my understanding that the constitutional rational for the federal government to be involved with background checks was through the commerce clause. That is since the weapons travelled across state lines the federal government could legislate in this area. They then set up federally licensed firearms (FFL) dealers and if you bought a weapon through an FFL they were required to do a background check. Once you bought the weapon however that was your property and if you wanted to sell it to another citizen from your state that was not under the purview of the federal government. The state government could legislate in this area however. Am I mistaken in this thinking. I’d like to hear Senator Cruz or Rubio address this issue.

  55. avatarRalph says:

    Like each of its sponsors, this proposal is a big, steaming pile of sh1t.

  56. avatarEriccartman says:

    NO NEW LAWS
    Give them nothing! Take from them everything

  57. avatarDr Duh says:

    I am suspicious of the government’s motives as always.

    Anyone who actually trusts them is a fool. Look what happened to the 4th amendment. When Stellar Wind goes on line, every single bit of electronic traffic, over the air and the internet will be vacuumed up and stored. Emails older than 180 days are already considered open to warrantless search. National security letters cause the phone companies to rollover without a warrant. Until recently police thought location tracking your car didn’t require a warrant either.

    That said, I’m sensitive to the need to prevent felons from acquiring guns and the need to investigate crimes. I don’t have a problem with requiring NICs between strangers. (Defined as someone you don’t know apart from this transaction, i.e., not family or friends a) Nor do I oppose holding someone responsible for a negligent transfer. I think offering the carrot of indemnifying a NICs compliant sale is a good idea. However, this is contingent on making the NICs record temporary and violations of this temporary status or the establishment of a gun registry a federal crime.

    If a gun is recovered after a crime I think the police should be able to trace it. But it should require a warrant, not a few key strokes. Get the warrant, query the manufacturer, who will point to distributor, who will point to the retailer, who will point to an individual. If that individual sold it then they need to have a bill of sale. People hold onto their taxes for 3-6 years. I think 5 years is a reasonable requirement for a BoS. If that’s the price of freedom, I’ll pay it.

    The police can get an open warrant that allows them to track all the steps of a gun’s progress without knowing the exact identity of each ‘step’, but the warrant has to be specific to that gun. No fishing around through each person/company’s records because of an single link to crime. If there’s actual probable cause that a particular party is criminally involved in straw sales then that’s another matter and with the proper warrant the entire set of books could be opened.

  58. avatarJH says:

    I do like these positive changes to the current laws. Is there anything negative in these changes?

    - Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term “transport” includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.

    - Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

    - Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

    - Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

  59. avatarDr Duh says:

    “- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.”

    If there is no mechanism for non-veterans than this looks like a clear violation of equal protection.

    In my personal experience as a surgeon, the biggest problem in mental health is lack of resources. Inpatient psych is a big money loser and more and more hospitals are dropping it. The lack of beds has raised the threshold for involuntary commitment to the point that people who should have been kept for observation are instead discharged for outpatient followup.

    The current standards for involuntary commitment are too high. A florid psychotic who lives on the streets, communicates with martians, refuses meds and has a history of violence can walk out the door if they deny any CURRENT plans to hurt themselves or others.

    I believe the mental health requirement could be workable if it specifies “high risk of violence”, requires 2 physicians instead of 1, is temporary pending judicial appeal with the burden of proof on the state to show cause and requires renewal every year. Instead of confiscation, there should be an option to turn the guns over to a third party, who would be legally responsible for holding them or selling them.

    Responsible clinicians would try to make a voluntary safety plan. The law needs to give them a safe harbor as well.

    • avatarihatetrees says:

      Is there a state or nation that does anyway close to right?

      This sounds similar to “addiction treatment”. It seems skewed toward those 7 figure wealth or gold-plated health plans. The goal seems to be steady employment for care providers instead of helping addicts.

      An addict can go in and out of treatment, which effectively starts the process at square 1 again, with little or no consequence. It’s a sick, morbid joke, especially given the huge growth in opiate overdose deaths.

  60. avatarJacknine says:

    So in return for all the sturm and drang, the result is a meaningless bill, that eliminates for foreseeable future, barring dem control of congress, any further attempt at gun control. I’ll take it.

  61. avatarNoVa says:

    After reading all the comments in response to this posting, I can’t believe how many people aren’t able to read between the lines in the proposed Toomey-Manchin proposed bill! I am just absolutely shocked! This bill is the slippery slope bill. You need to contact your Senators and tell them to vote NO on the cloture of this bill.

  62. avatarHowdy says:

    Push back hard.

    No more F or E in the BATFE,
    No more NFA restrictions on Short Barreled Anything.
    No more NFA restrictions or background checks for suppressors or AOWs.
    No more 922r restrictions.
    No magazine or ammo restrictions.
    Absolute National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
    Absolutely no registration of firearms. All data, paper, electronic and otherwise must be destroyed within 5 minutes after a result is returned.
    No background check fees, taxes, charges.
    No limits to purchasing body armor.
    Unrestricted purchase of any firearm, anywhere in the US.
    Challenges to ones mental health must be decided in a court of law and during the trial the defendant is free to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights as they were prior to accusations.
    It is punishable by $10 000 000 and mandatory 15 years in prison to create, vote on or pass any compulsory action that infringes on the 2nd amendment.
    And add a 28th Amendment that clears up any imagined ambiguity regarding the second amendment. I think there was something originally when the Constitution was being put together.

    Have I missed anything?

    • avatarNate says:

      It looks like you missed the outright repeal of the GCA and NFA, as well as Hughes amendment to FOPA. Sticking with what you already have as a ‘compromise’ position:
      No more NFA restrictions on full-auto
      Delisting destructive devices
      Nationwide constitutional carry

      Probably a few things I missed as well. Otherwise you have a good start.
      A decent first step that may actually get through is for congress to declare target shooting a sporting purpose. Removing the language would also be OK

  63. avatarPat says:

    The libtards already said that what was passed during this session “was just the beginning” in the gun-grabbing saga and that they would try to get more later.
    That tells you everything you need to know.
    We need to pass laws going the OTHER way, starting with Constitutional carry.
    Any further gun grabbing laws are not needed and a slippery slope.

  64. avatarHeyJax says:

    Understand I am 100% against any new gun control laws (I live in Colorado). The problem I see is the government needs to pass something. Whether it is just a watered down piece of crap that does nothing or god forbid repeals the second amendment. Until they show something was done this current gun grab BS won’t settle down.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.