CCRKBA Endorses Manchin-Toomey Background Check Deal

courtesy ccrkba.org

Looks like the Second Amendment Foundation’s not the only gun rights org who sees the Manchin-Toomey deal as a net plus for gun owners. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has officially endorsed the compromise. From WaPo: “’We decided to back it because we believe it is the right thing to do,’ said Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which counts 650,000 members and supporters among its ranks. In explaining the decision, Versnel cited the value of a strong background check system for most gun sales and provisions that would prohibit establishment of a gun owner registry by the federal government.” In addition to enabling a vote that “does something” about handgun violence, the amendment also includes, in Alan Gottlieb’s words, “interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, and most important of all, the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry.”

131 Responses to CCRKBA Endorses Manchin-Toomey Background Check Deal

  1. CCRKBA is not exactly wholly separate and independent of the SAF.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      They are liberals in disguise.

      All that sounds great and all about 15 years for feds trying to set up a gun registry and others listed. But how about you grasp the words “shall not be infringed” and just let it go. The feds will do whatever they want ( and do it behind your back). And criminals will still get their guns regardless of the background check. Its a waste of time and money (my money, your money, his money, her money and that other guys money over there).

  2. avatarLC Judas says:

    It appears that oversight isn’t in anyone’s crosshairs. Does that mean that all these same organizations will demand repercussions when oversight and overreaching occurs? If that’s what it means, I would love to see the federal govt toe the line proposed.

  3. avatarJohn says:

    And I’m sure the Federal Government and the DOJ will be happy to criminally try those in the Federal Government who break the laws (ie Eric Holder – Contempt of Congress) /sarcasm off – and I’m sure they’ll be equally happy, dare I say ecstatic to throw any and every criminal law and statute on a civilian in order to make a statement that they’re doing their job and making an example.

    • avatargreat unknown says:

      And assuming that no blanket Presidential Pardons are issued.

      The better protection would be stripping any federal or focal LEO, prosecutor, and/or government official of any [including qualified] immunity for violating this act, thus opening them up to civil lawsuits. Which are not subject to pardon.

  4. avatarENRDV says:

    We should try to be thoughtful and rational in reacting to gun-related developments, both because it’s the right thing to do, and because it creates a huge contrast with the gun control crowd. If we use that approach, the only major objection I see to the Toomey bill is the absolutist one that there should be no background checks of any kind, ever. While that is a theoretically defensible position under the Second Amendment, I’m not sure it’s what we should want.

    Do we want convicted violent criminals and clearly dangerous people to be able to buy guns legally?

    Do we really think that we can/should get rid of ALL background checks? If not, then let’s support those with the connections, energy, and intelligence to use this kind of legislation to give up virtually nothing additional substantively, while getting meaningful additional protections for gun owners. Nothing is going to be perfect, but this bill sounds pretty good for the real world, and, additionally, might have the benefit of “doing something about guns” so that all of the other, much worse, proposals go away.

    • avatarLC Judas says:

      I like that line of thinking. However, nothing in politics is black or white and seldom goes as initially envisioned, planned or showcased.

      My problem is that no matter what proposals come up that you can read something or several between the lines as setbacks. I mean on the surface it sounds good but any additional legislation has potential for misuse. However, expecting no additional legislation is rather hopeful. I would use this, see how well it goes then cite the heck out of it when the legal battles over firearms commence. If the system wants to tangle itself with excessive litigation then let’s do that till the Constitution is used to determine which of these laws is actually just.

      What else can we do?

    • avatarMina says:

      Agreed. Thank you.

    • avatarPatrick H says:

      If you don’t think we’ve thought about this bill thoughtfully, then you haven’t been paying attention. This bill is terrible. Yes there are some sops for gun owners, but they aren’t strong enough to override the problems with the bill.

      No, gun owners aren’t against background checks in general- especially if voluntary. But here is the thing- once they have internet sales, they’ll come for private sales after the next mass shooting. Just giving in now isn’t a solution. They’ve shown we’ve caved on this, and they’ll try to get us to cave on the next thing as soon as they think they can.

      I suggest starting here and after reading that, check out the other posts there for more problems.

    • avatarJared says:

      “”Do we want convicted violent criminals and clearly dangerous people to be able to buy guns legally?

      Do we really think that we can/should get rid of ALL background checks? “”

      I do.
      Liberty is dangerous by its very nature. Where people are free, there is danger, where they are oppressed there is calm. Every time you sell something or buy something you are investing in a potentially dangerous act. You can not be both truly free and safe. They are mutually exclusive principles and I would surely rather Live Free or Die.

      A government which has a gun ownership restriction, based on certain historical attributes or classifications about a person, will seek to do what to a person or persons they don’t want to own firearms?

      The answer is, they will seek to attribute those classifications to those persons. What they’ve done in eliminating private sales is create a system that could enable mass incremental confiscation. Ever heard of MIAC? Patriot Act? NDAA?

      If you think this compromise of our fundamental rights, will make the AWB’s or GCA’s of the future go away, with all due respect, you are a fool.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        I suspect these supposed gun rights groups are simply attempting to gain relevance, and therefore gain ground on, the NRA. Mo money for them. No thanks.

      • avatarSilver says:

        +1

        Funny how nobody demands background checks for things like cars or gasoline or chainsaws. “Do we really want violent criminals being able to buy gasoline or fertilizer?”

        But we’re oh so quick to call background checks on a basic human right “common sense.”

    • avatarCleophus says:

      Are you actually that gullible? Have you actually READ the bill, or are you just blindly accepting what the mass media/indoctrination machine is telling you? Are you related to Vidkun Quisling?
      As for whether or not we should “get rid of ALL background checks,” I don’t have a single problem with that, after all, we got along for 200 and some odd years without “background checks” of any kind, and I don’t recall any riots, mayhem, or gangs of wanton thugs lining up to buying guns at the local gun store and shooting up the town because we lacked “background checks.”
      Either you have forgotten, or, more likely, never knew, that “background checks” came into being through another media dog and pony show associated with the shooting of President Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady. That circus was almost a mirror image of the one going on right now, with the gun control vultures and the liberal media taking advantage of a senseless act in order to convince the useful idiots of that time to go along with yet another step along the path to the total elimination of our 2nd Amendment rights. Hell, even the rhetoric was identical. If I heard the phrase “common sense” once, I bet I heard it a billion times! In the end, the NRA made a backroom deal, compromised with the devil, and another step was taken.
      Make no mistake, the gun control vultures don’t care how long it takes, or how many tiny, incremental, seemingly innocuous steps they have to make in order to reach their goal of total gun prohibition. Every time we let our guard down they’ll be there. Every time a tragedy happens they can capitalize on, they’ll be there. Every time they can convince someone like you, or the sell outs at the Second Amendment (crumbling) Foundation that what they’re selling is just “common sense,” they’ll be right there, preaching their poison; and, unfortunately, there will be someone there, like you, ready to drink it.

  5. avataruncommon_sense says:

    I thought I heard this bill was supposed to include national concealed carry license reciprocity … did I hear correctly?

    If national reciprocity becomes law, I think the first thing I am going to do is go to New York and drive over the speed limit until a cop pulls me over — then watch his head explode when I tell him I have a concealed carry license from out of state and he has to honor it!

    After I finish with that, I will go to Hawaii and repeat the same procedure — probably to much greater effect. (My understanding is that Hawaii will not even issue a concealed carry license to retired law enforcement officers — although recent federal law makes that a moot point.)

    • avatarimrambi says:

      Not that I see (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968). For transporting firearms across state line you still have to have it unloaded, locked, and inaccessible.

      On the other hand, it does allow concealed carry permits to be used instead of a background check.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        On the other hand, it does allow concealed carry permits to be used instead of a background check.

        Yea, that 2 minutes of waiting for the NICS to go through is really worth losing the right to private sales.

    • avatarModernEzra says:

      The original submission DID contain a provision on reciprocity. Apparently, that was what conservatives had to give up for leftists to accept NEAR-universal background checks instead of absolute-universal background checks (sarc)

      I am honestly bothered by the language about travelling with firearms. While it gives protection against the gun nazis in DC, I fear it being used against CCP owners.

  6. avatarAPBTFan says:

    So the local FFL will be saddled with sitting on the gun for 10 days to check with local PD to make sure it isn’t hot, come up with some sort of release form so he won’t be liable for anything that happens to the gun while in his possession and have his backroom filled with other people’s guns instead of the normal stock he makes his living off of.

    Any guesses as to what he’ll have to charge to make it worth his while?

  7. avatarWR2A says:

    No. No. No. No. NO!

    What the f, people? Did I wake up in some kind of Bizarro world this morning?

    We have the SAF and now the CCRKBA playing footsie under the table with fascism, and we have jacka$$es like Karl Denninger threatening the whole of CT due to the draconian gun laws forced down our throats.

    http://wr2a.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/open-letter-to-karl-denninger-reel-it-in/

    The statists are loving this. I guarantee it. Well, then. It seems there’s only one recourse here, only one solution. It’s time to cull the herd, isn’t it?

    Brace yourselves, you who would gain temporary peace by compromising with those who despise liberty. We have been taking notes. And you have been warned.

    • avatarPascal says:

      First off, I could care less whoever Karl Denninger happens to be. As far as I am concerned he can go FOAD because unless he was up in Hartford fighting with gun owners who outnumbers the anti’s 20 to 1, really he can FOAD. What possible benefit can boycotting CT do? We are a damn Blue state with no gun loving majority in either house. What happened in CT could have been worse. He should be doing the opposite and helping fight.

      As far as the bill. Did you read it? Did you see all the provisions? Do you know that SAF took a sh!t Schumer bill and made acceptable? Do you realize something was going to get passed and we are getting better than we had? Do you see it makes the FOPA travel provisions better?

      This is strategic because unless you have the votes, you are screwed. Unless we have a pro-gun house and Senate in 2014/2016 we are screwed. Passing something takes the focus off.

      Look at the bigger picture.

  8. “Brace yourselves, you who would gain temporary peace by compromising with those who despise liberty. We have been taking notes. And you have been warned.”

    Are you going to start shooting people????

    LOL.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      As I seem to recall, that method worked out pretty well for this guy named George and his pals.

      • avatarjwm says:

        How did it work out for Davis and Lee?

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          You win some, you lose some. It’s better to try to win than to be like France and use preemptive surrender as your one and only strategy.

        • avatarjwm says:

          Tote, it’s a non starter. No state, including Texas is going to try to leave the Union based on gun rights.

          America is simply too well fed and comfortable to start a shooting war over gun rights.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Which is why we might as well just go for a full ban now. Americans are too pathetic to stand up for their rights, thus they don’t deserve any rights.

      • avatarSilver says:

        Right on, Tote.

        Modern Americans are pathetic by and large, and the willingness of so many “gun guys” on TTAG to compromise and sell themselves out, once again going on the retreat, is reprehensible. I want nothing more than for Americans to lose every single one of their rights. They don’t fight for them, they don’t deserve them. Maybe once they’re gone, people will understand.

        • avatarNate X NW says:

          HA spat my drink out at “want nothing more than Americans to lose their rights”. Enjoy that pal. I want nothing more than to just be left the hell alone and stop the trampling of my rights by these low-info drones. BTW just because 300+ mil Americans aren’t asserting their rights every chance they get doesn’t mean many of us don’t enjoy the benefits.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Nate, there’s a difference between “not asserting” your rights and actively participating in eliminating those rights.

    • avatarCleophus says:

      -1

    • avatarWR2A says:

      Am I going to start shooting people? That was an idiotic question.

      I will shoot only if shot at. Simple.

  9. avatarJoe says:

    And this is how it goes… “First they came for the Communists”… And it ends with “there was no one left to speak for me”.

    Do we not have enough laws on the books? For all those saying this is reasonable, that’s what they said when they passed the machine gun regstry, the NFA, the original background checks etc… it’s always reasonable, then proves to be ineffective and then we have to enact more reasonable laws. This will not stop crime, just create criminals, and make it more difficult and expensive for the average citizen to buy a gun. We need to say “No!” across the board. No, we don’t need new laws, no we don’t need universal background checks, no we don’t need any more reasonable laws. We need leaders who fix the economy, who enforce the laws we already have, even when their friends are the ones breaking them, and who don’t focus on the new shiny object of the month and ignore the problems that are creating these situations. This is how we lose our freedom, one reasonable law enacted after another… for the children.

    • avatark4R-15 says:

      ^^^this. Why should law-abiding citizens have to lose something? These proposals would not have prevented Sandy Hook. Shouldn’t we try to hold our CongressCritters to stopping any new laws from passing?

  10. avatarShenandoah says:

    I’m skeptical of any individual or group with self-proclaimed common sense. Those who possess it don’t need to broadcast it in order for it to be apparent.

  11. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    What’s suddenly making everyone think that the administration defending the Mexican Guns ‘R Us program is going to police the ATF with any degree of severity because “making ubc into a registry will be a felony under this law”? This is not a “major win for us” this is an opportunity for the antis to flood us with more of their defective “compromise” and they’ll use the “failure” of this bill as an excuse to demand more.

  12. avatarraincrow says:

    Make a deal with a devil and the Devil you’ll pay.

  13. avatarSkyler says:

    How much will I have to pay to sell my gun? Or buy it?

    Who’s to say the government won’t use this background check as a way to limit gun sales, much as they originally used a draconian tax to limit suppressors sales?

    We are still going the wrong direction. The role of progressives is to move government to the left. The role of “conservatives” is to keep things from moving to the left too quickly.

    Who will drive our society towards more freedom again?

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      There is a reason I am an NRA Life Member, and have never given a penny to any other “gun rights organization.”

    • avatarCleophus says:

      Skyler says:
      “The role of progressives is to move government to the left. The role of ‘conservatives’ is to keep things from moving to the left too quickly.”

      WRONG. The role of Conservatives is to stomp the political life out of anyone extolling communistic ideals. By the way, they’re not “progressive,” they are communists, marxists, trotskyites…..garbage. There’s nothing “progressive” or “liberal” about communism. Language matters. If we allow them to set the terms and then define them, the debate is lost before it’s begun.

  14. avatarChristopher says:

    People MUST realize this is more than a net plus for gun owners, it is a BOON for the future of interstate sales, carry, and competition in the gun industry and with prices. If you can go to NH to buy a handgun, why would you spend 25% more in Massachusetts? Remove thine head from thine hindquarters, and get behind this bill.

    • avatarJoe says:

      how about we have universal constitutional carry and sales without all the other parts of this bill? Stop smelling the roses and realize you are standing in a pile of manure…

      • avatarChristopher says:

        Hardly. The only people they are restricting are the bozo private sellers at gun shows selling Yugo SKS’s and mosin nagants to pure strangers. I.E. the shadiest sector of the private sale market. I’m A-OK sacrificing them so I can carry across state lines when I drive between FL and MA 3x annually. If they wanna sell their guns, they solicit people outside of gun shows.

        • avatarJoe says:

          What am I missing? Why should wesacrifice anyone? this is such a slippery slope!

        • avatarHowdy says:

          There’s more to it than that. There are other laws they reference that are changed whose text is not listed. They do not go into the details of the implementation of the system by which veterans may be adjudicated unfit for ownership. They mention a Secretary, not by state, how many and by which rules they are bound. Too many parts of this bill are nebulous.
          What ground work is this laying for the next massacre?

        • avatarSkyler says:

          First they came for the “bozo private sellers at gun shows.” What’s wrong with being a private seller? What have you got against affordable weapons so that all citizens can exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

        • avatarShenandoah says:

          “The only people they are restricting are the bozo private sellers at gun shows selling Yugo SKS’s and mosin nagants to pure strangers.”

          Elitist much? You must belong to that gun club that Biden hangs out at.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          No, they’re also banning private sales / trades that aren’t between family members. Read the text of the bill – anyone that’s not a family member (and by family, the farthest out they’ll go is first cousin) must go to an FFL (and pay!) for selling / trading guns.

      • avatarChristopher says:

        A slippery slope to conceal carry reciprocity and free commerce of firearms between state lines. Sign me up.

      • avatarChristopher says:

        I have nothing against private sellers. But if we remove the bogus “gun show loophole” from the liberal lexicon, while also getting CCW reciprocity, then I’m all for it. 95% of gun shows are FFL dealers, perhaps more. This is not a sacrafice, it is a bargaining chip. Liberals have been chanting gun show loophole for the past 10 years, they’ll sacrifice their first born to get rid of the “loophole”. I suggest we take that first born.

        • avatarNate says:

          Christopher,
          I too would love to never again hear the bleet of “gun show loophole”. HOWEVER:

          Are you kidding that there is some epidemic of mosins being used to commit crimes?

          “shadiest sector of the private party market” Really? more so than the ~80% of guns obtained by criminals through the black market or straw purchases?

          The grabbers “first born” is the ability to travel with an unloaded gun across state lines? Are you sure? BTW unless you define carry as an unloaded gun in your trunk, the text of this bill does NOT allow CCW across state lines where otherwise currently prohibited.

          MAYBE if they adopted the Coburn amendment (opening NICS to the public for free), passed 50 state reciprocity, out of state handgun purchases OK based solely on the legality in the state of purchase, delisting silencers and requiring the 4473 to be destroyed w/in 24 hours, this may be an somewhat alright deal. Also maybe granting attorney fees for bringing suit for establishment of registry violations and online sales shipped to residence after BG check. To say that carrying an unloaded gun in your trunk is the grabbers first born is just plain BS. And that’s assuming that localities won’t still flaunt the law and attempt prosecution anyway – which they obviously will. NTM unless the text has changed magazines are NOT covered by this.

        • avatarChristopher says:

          @Nate. I make no illusions that Mosins or SKS’s are being used in crime. I simply state that it is my direct observation that it is the private seller at the gun show that is the least common denominator of the private sale world. I don’t care for them, they gouge prices, they sell shoddy wares, and I’ve never met one I would trust to buy a firearm from.

          As for the CCW reciprocity, it IS their first born, short of allowing us to own permitless class III items. The ability to wander the entire 50 states with a concealed firearm? It would do the most good of any single piece of legislation for our cause.

          Do you seriously consider the handful of private sellers at your local gouge show to be worth that? I don’t. If you wanna sell a gun at a gun show, say “hey I have such and such, meet me here.” Totally worth the ability to walk through Washington DC with my wheelgun, in my opinion. I’m all for it, in its current form.

        • avatarNate says:

          HA gouge show indeed. Last show I attended had $800 Rem 870s and $1000+ 80% (at best) condition 629s w/ lock. Previous show I was able to snap up a $5 Benchmade and narrowly missed out on a minty fresh $800 AR10 w/ mags and scope so meh.

          CCW reciprocity would be huge, but rumor on the streets is that Schumer nixed that portion before the text went public – nothing in the current bill reads as allowing CCW reciprocity. Maybe I missed it during my reading of the bill, but the only travel restrictions being loosened is transport THROUGH a state – i.e. if MA is your final destination you are not protected. Strengthened FOPA if you will. CCW reciprocity is off the table for this bill if I read the Senate right. If you can paste the text that allows CCW reciprocity I will happily stand corrected.

          I do consider PP sales to be worth a great deal. At many/most shows I attend over 50% of sales are private party. I also frequent ArmsList and read the newspaper classifieds in their online postings, both of which would be verboten w/o FFL check/transfer fees/4473s. Depending on how the final deal defines ‘publication’ even the hard copy newspaper would require FFL transfer. If the political winds are such that a BG check bill WILL be passed, we should fight like hell to extract every pound of flesh we can, even if that means some beneficial proposed amendments are shot down.

          I think our main disagreement is based on the actual text of the bill. It sounds like you may have read it, as have I. I would be very happy to be shown the error of my ways and admit I need to slow down when reading congressional gobbelty gok if you can show me where CCW reciprocity is allowed. As I understand it in its current form, the bill only allows for travel through a state with an unloaded gun, and does not exempt magazines. That is certainly not worth trading for the private party sales.

          Furthermore, with FFLs being the ‘weak link’, what’s to stop the government from raising the FFL fee (again) from IIRC ~2k to 10k and de facto shutting down many dealers? Or defunding NICS and forcing everyone w/o a CCW permit to wait the [proposed] ~2 biz days for the FFL to release the firearm – effectively killing traveling to shows? Also in my opinion 4473s amount to a distributed registry and should be used as sparingly as possible, ideally not at all. As has been stated elsewhere, the ATF is NOT just storing boxes of retired dealer records in the basement, they are digitizing the information. Private sales w/o record keeping, as well as not mandating reporting of stolen or lost firearms, are what keep the government from being able to have a VERY detailed picture of who owns what.

        • avatarRick C says:

          yeah bargain away til they come knockin on your door pal!take another drink of that yummy koolaid!!!im all in screw all the cheap gun buyers you know they are all scumbags and shouldnt be allowed to buy a gun in the parkinglot….WOW,who would wanna buy a gun outside anyways!!!yukky

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          What useful idiots. Line up now with the political liberal elite. Hang with them tomorrow when us non-bullshitter show up.

        • avatarNate says:

          Not sure if you guys are directing your comments my way. Joke the whole reason we are in this position is the “non-bullshitters” didn’t show up during the last election. Don’t know if I somehow gave the impression I signed onto supporting the bill or would if it included CCW reciprocity, but that is not my position. I was trying to let Christopher know that his support is misplaced as the bill doesn’t do what he thinks it does and as Ralph points out, almost certainly would not if it passes the Senate. Even in the most pro 2a states, the “non-bullshitters” haven’t shown up in great enough numbers to pass the laundry list of needs. Look at how difficult it’s been to pass campus carry in many states, constitutional carry, etc. BTW great link to the scorpion and the frog situation.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      This is government & it is garbage. When the bill reads that the people(CC holders) are responsible for keeping the peace I’ll like it. This is an obamabortion, we may have to swallow this crap. The end game is saving minority criminals at the expense of good citizens, if you think I’m wrong look at Chicago. The “people” can clean up that shithole in 2 days, “problem?” lots of criminal pricks will die. This bill does not address that, Randy

      • avatarChristopher says:

        “LOL crap, stupid dumb Obamanation Chicago criminals”. Seriously, did you read the bill. Either you haven’t, or you’re so hopped up on “Don’t tread on me” that you are blind to the opportunity we have here. I don’t know which is worse.

    • avatarCleophus says:

      How about you extricating your head from your posterior and “get behind” the 2nd Amendment? What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do you not understand?

  15. avatarJeff Sabelko says:

    “interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, and most important of all, the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry.”

    …unless Eric Holder decides otherwise.

    • avatarLaw2001 says:

      Exactly, selective enforcement is the problem, the law is meaningless. It is used to disarm the populace, not to remove those committing violent crimes or committing other crimes violating the inherent rights of others. I sent an e-mail to CCRKBA that I shall no longer provide financial support.

  16. avatarLance says:

    Well I say its not the worse bill but if remains clean i.e. no Gun and Mag amendments attached its not as bad as Schumer’s bill is.

    • avatarHowdy says:

      You know they are going to sneak in amendments on this. We have people in congress that don’t know how a magazine works who have supposedly been for gun control for years.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      I, for one, am very appreciative that we’ll be given the option of broken ribs, instead of being beaten about the face.

  17. avatarRalph says:

    I’ve gone over this proposal a dozen times, and the good outweighs the bad BY FAR. Imagine Mayor Bloombastic allowing people who are transporting arms to stay overnight in NYC? No? Well, this bill permits it and overrides any local laws to the contrary. Private sellers are immunized against lawsuits when they sell pursuant to a background check. You can sell a gun to your neighbor with no check, just as always. You can transfer a gun to a family member without a check, just as always. There’s a lot of goodies here. The biggest one — RKBA is recognized as an individual, fundamental right.

    If the courts follow the lead and recognize RKBA as fundamental, it almost guarantees strict scrutiny of future “gun control” laws. Strict scrutiny, people. It’s the Holy Grail of 2A.

    The fact is, I can’t imagine any true gungrabber voting for Manchin-Toomey as currently written. Look for the bill to be gutted like a fish, because it’s too good for us.

    • avatarEagleScout87 says:

      “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it….”

      they might pass it before they can gut it….

      • avatarRick C says:

        this is bizarroworld,im shooting blood out of my eyes all over the screen!!

      • avatarLaw2001 says:

        Also, law enforcement, prosecutors, and others in government just seem to make-it-up as they go and get away with it. What does CCRKBA understand about no more gun control laws? This is bill a trap. I told CCRKBA in no uncertain terms I will no longer provide financial support.

    • avatar16V says:

      ‘Peaceable journey’ was supposed to be covered in FOPA and we saw how well that went. As an attorney you of all people know that there’s always a way to arrest someone. And I guarantee Bloomburgers will find one. Meanwhile, unless one has serious funds, one will be rotting in jail with your bail set at $1MM because you’re charged with a gun felony.

      Not to mention the all important wiggle-words in the language of M-T. Especially notwithstanding.

      It looks good now. Like that job painting the phosphorescent numbers on watch faces, or working for the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory.

      • avatarRalph says:

        So peaceable journey is impossible? Is that what you’re saying?

        • avatar16V says:

          I don’t know about “impossible”, I’m just reading facts on the ground.

          18 USC 926A hasn’t stopped NY, NJ and DC from arresting, charging and (sometimes) convicting those who are on a ‘peaceable journey’.

          I’m just reading the language in the bill and seeing legal holes I could drive a truck through as a prosecutor. (No I’m not one, but I do occasionally consort with the devils and have already heard their legal theories on working around M-T if so inclined.)

    • avatarjwm says:

      Ralp, under current California law I cannot buy or sell a gun to a friend or neighber without going to an ffl. Does this law override state law and make it legal for me to do private transactions without the ffl? That in itself would be a win in the constitution free zone of California.

      • avatarRalph says:

        I doubt that this will override such state restrictions. But if those restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny, they might fail under 2A.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Who stole your login info Ralph? The Dems are going to start granting us non-liberals favors? This would be a first.

          Like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Ain’t Gonna Happen.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Having finally had time to read it, I believe this legislation is a net positive in ways which are worth the mild compromise. The moderate constraints it includes are likely to pass constitutional muster, and are partnered with prohibitions against exactly the kind of “registration through the backdoor” which I abhor. The freedoms it clarifies against the predations of local barons are welcome. If it proceeds from a Dem-controlled Senate it will, through its legislative history and its terms yield a welcome path forward that is undeniably bi-partisan. For the courts that is not a small fact.

    • avatarSilver says:

      “RKBA is recognized as an individual, fundamental right.”

      Pretty sure the founding fathers already did that with the 2nd Amendment. What makes you think the domestic enemies of this country will respect this version any more than that one?

  18. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    Haven’t the gun rights proponents been fighting all along that criminals don’t obey the law? So what exactly is a felony for creating a gun registry going to do it 1. they don’t get caught 2. those who commit such crimes rely on presidential pardon/powerful string pulling to make the charges disappear? Once the registry is created, it’s created, it’s like the internet, once it’s out there, it’s never coming off.

    we already HAVE background checks at the state level!!

  19. avatarHuman Being says:

    “the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry.”

    Well golly, what’s the penalty for voter intimidation? And do the existing one in the Southwest, complete list of MO CCW holders given over for “Social Security fraud prevention”, and the 4473 binder-canvasing in Alaska count as ex post facto for enforcement?

    • avatarRick C says:

      hell why didnt anyone go to jail for fast and furious then???it was illegal to do what they did….i thought so anyway

  20. avatarHarold says:

    The problem with gun legislation (ANY gun legislation) is that during the sausage making, it often comes out tasting a little funky. Ex. FOPA also gave us the Hughes Amendment. When deals get cut, you don’t know what you are going to end up with. High risk game…

    • avatarNor'Easter says:

      You said it. I’m totally torn about this and the Hughes Amendment is a good example. I happened to see it live on TV and well remember my disgust .

  21. avatarDr. Michael S. Brown says:

    Whatever happens, I believe we are going to come out OK this time. I’m really going to enjoy watching the grabbers squirm in the next few days. They certainly enjoyed kicking us around for the last three months. Time for some payback.

    It will also be fun to see what the NRA and GOA do. Where’s my popcorn?

  22. avatarCJ says:

    And of course none of these bills will stop another Sandy Hook. It merely allows politicians, on both side of the isle, to have their cake and eat it too. Until the next shooting spree for which this will have paved the road to an all out ban. I will not support this shit, I don’t care how many cherries and sprinkles have been thrown on it.

    • avatarHowdy says:

      What will they take when the next massacre happens? What ground work is laid in preparation for that? There are laws that are referenced but not spelled out in this legislation. What are we missing?

    • avatarHowdy says:

      @CJ
      Agreed!

    • avatarBob says:

      There absolutely will be another mass shooting. The main stream media government propaganda arm has ensured it will make the next guy just as infamous as all the others.

  23. avatarSteve says:

    And everyone was worried about the NRA cutting a deal…….

  24. avatarmpow66m says:

    I will not support this and will end my memebership with SAF.This just a feel good attempted bi partisan(comprimise) to keep the Dems in office in 2014 that are up for reelection.

  25. avatarCCDWGuy says:

    Here is a reverse logic comment. They are throwing their support behind the bill with the belief the liberals will believe if gun owners like it so much it has to be bad for them and will vote against it and put it away for good.

    The other issue is how many amendments get attached….so the libs attach the Feinstein bill, magazine bill, and does SAF still like it. Hope not.

  26. avatarNelson says:

    Never trust grown assholes wearing bowties and Himmler glasses, even if his last name is the very non-Nazi “Gottlieb.”

    CCRKBA = SAF = Alan Gottlieb = Toomy-Manchin Universal Gun Registry

    Hilarious how they all act as if the bill puffed out of no where, when Alan admits publicly that SAF basically wrote the bill, and act as if each party involved endorsing it, is a wholly independent act worthy of ‘see third parties approve of us’ propaganda.

    Read the bill. So no abolition of ATF, or full repeal of NFA, GCA, FOPA, or Brady NICS. Yet the gnome is celebrating CCW reciprocity, when all you need now is a FL or UT CCW, and most real gunnies avoid Commie states like the plague, nor should any of us send or spend our dollars in those Trotskyite statist havens. So Alan wants to pretend creating a separate class of protection when in reality 2A should be enough (yeah, yeah, I ‘get’ we don’t live in an era where public servant maggots actually uphold their oaths, nor do the sheeple populace ‘get’ the rudimentary concept of Common Law, or know the difference between it, and Maritime Admiralty Law where all commercial transactions UnConstitutionally fall under, be that as it may, for the sake of discussion…)

    It’s a matter of philosophy: for all the boosters, members, supporters, and funders of all these disparate 2A organizations, if they all believed in the strict Constructionist adherence to the Constitution, they would ALL accept nothing less than a full abolition of ATF and full repeal of ALL gun laws. Unless that is their end goal, they’ll moronically continue to celebrate a few piecemeal perceived ‘wins’ as victories. Each time they compromise, they’re fundamentally accepting the premise that our God-given/Natural Rights can be legislated away by the vote of a sheeple moron populace who can’t even discern the difference between a “democracy” vs. a Constitutional Republic.

    This is a disastrous gamble; now the confusion and perceived acceptance by gunnies will splinter an already precarious coalition among GOP in both Senate and House. And House GOP majority is already thin, as is. If it took what 15~18 RINOs to defect, expect similar sedition in House of Rats.

    • avatarRalph says:

      The sun will go supernova before the ATF is eliminated.

      • avatarNate says:

        Maybe only a large solar storm if they had to drop the ‘FE’ portion though right?

      • avatar16V says:

        You do remember it almost did (for all intents and purposes) under Reagan? He was going to defund it, and turn most of their firearms work over to the FBI. Partially because the NRA lobbied him hard to do it.

        At the last minute, the NRA decided that it was better to dance with the devil they knew, did a 180, and supported keeping BATF intact and in charge. At the time BATF were a manageable podunk bunch. Of course, let us not forget that it was old Tricky who elevated the ATF to bureau status…

  27. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    Any new gun legislation =’s a BAD IDEA. The only thing they should be doing is REPEALING the bad laws on the books!

  28. avatarRalph says:

    It doesn’t matter whether we like this bill or hate this bill, because it’s not going to pass as-is. Does anyone really think that Bloomberg or Emanuel will allow a permit holder who is passing through their kingdoms to say overnight at the Waldorf or Parker House with his pistol? Not a chance.

    This bill is going to be gutted. And Bloomberg will pay for the knife.

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      I’m thinking that’s what Gottlieb is playing at. I haven’t been able to read the entire thing at work, but from the overviews and the comments, I don’t think there’s any way in hell the Anti’s cabal will let it pass.
      But the beauty of that is, just as you said, Bloomberg and crew will have the blood on their hands, and that’s all the soundbite media will get from it.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      They may gut this bill, but if they do (knife provided) they at the same time thoroughly legitimize a rejection of the neutered bill and all its companions by the House. That’s a plus in my book. Pass it intact, or kiss passage this session of any gun legislation goodbye. As for the “kingdoms,” that’s only a characterization of the past, not the future. They could act that way until they couldn’t.

    • avatarLaw2001 says:

      I don’t believe these bills are DOA. Look at the terrible anti-gun unconstitutional bills passed in NY, CO, and CT. These bills are DOA when they expire (maybe), and preferable there are a super majority of elected 2nd Amendment supporters.

      ObamaCare passed with the use of unconstitutional reconciliation under speaker Pelosi. Will something similar happen with these bills? God forbid speaker Boehner let any of these bills come to a vote. It is going to be a long 2 to 4 years.

  29. avatarDarkEnigma says:

    Alot of hate and discontent flying around…

    I’m more interested to know TTAG’s take on Manchin-Toomey.

  30. avatargastorgrab says:

    Notice how they adopted Obama’s own phrasing? (“Common Sense Solutions”)

    Four years ago Obama used the phrase; “Let me be clear”, and i’m still waiting.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Adopting Obama’s phrase is standard politics. I like it.

      As for Pres. Obama being at some point ‘Clear,’ I think that’s either a reference to Scientology or a veiled mournful expression of his desire to once again rule the Choommobile, at which time everything would seem clear again.

      Once he hits the speaker’s circuit post-2016, he’s going to feel as clear as a tropical lagoon on a calm day: Money may not buy happiness, but it settles the nerves.

  31. avatarJeff G says:

    It is dangerous that the bill waives HIPAA, so if you use certain medications perhaps you would get on the prohibited list.

  32. avatarCleophus says:

    You know, I’ve got a mule here at the house that does the very same thing these “Pro gun” groups have done; I harness him up to an old rotary sugar cane press and dangle an apple in front of him on the end of a cane pole, he’ll pull that press all day long thinking he’s going to get that apple. Yeah, I give him the apple at the end of the day….after I’ve gotten 8 or 10 hours work out of him for the price of an apple and some sweet feed. Schumer gets a MAJOR step closer to legislating away all of our gun rights, and we get an apple. Will the supply of useful idiots never run out????

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Apparently the supply will never run out: Those are the guys who didn’t bother to vote in the last election because “neither candidate is worth it,” or who voted for their benefits or their union instead of their rights. Such is life. I’m tired of all the stay-at-homes who can’t tell the difference between a Romney and an Obama. “Take care of politics or politics will take care of you.”

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        I voted for the only pro-gun, pro-freedom, pro-Constitution candidate. Too bad most gun owners sneered at him and said “He’ll never win”, thus ensuring he had no chance.

        • avatarCleophus says:

          Totenglocke says:
          I voted for the only pro-gun, pro-freedom, pro-Constitution candidate. Too bad most gun owners sneered at him and said “He’ll never win”, thus ensuring he had no chance.

          Amen to that, Brother! When will people learn that the lesser of two evils is still evil???

  33. avatarTotenglocke says:

    I’ve got a “compromise” background check bill for them – all sales at a gun show (in the grounds of the show itself) are either by FFL’s (who must do NICS, as they already do) or must be transferred via an FFL. All other forms of private sales are left as they currently are. In exchange for us “closing the gun show loophole”, the Hughes Amendment is repealed.

    That is the only way I would support any “expanded background check” bill.

    • avatarCleophus says:

      Totenglocke says:
      “I’ve got a “compromise” background check bill for them – all sales at a gun show (in the grounds of the show itself) are either by FFL’s (who must do NICS, as they already do) or must be transferred via an FFL. All other forms of private sales are left as they currently are. In exchange for us “closing the gun show loophole”, the Hughes Amendment is repealed.

      That is the only way I would support any “expanded background check” bill.”

      Were we separated at birth?

    • avatarSilver says:

      +1 again

  34. avatarJonathan says:

    Fifth Columnists, pure and simple. Criminalizing private transfers, aka universal background checks which can only be conducted via FFL’s, is but a ploy to force funnel all firearms transfers through FFL’s. It isn’t to ensure to ensure that criminals are disarmed through attenuated access. It’s simply to channel all transfers through a bottleneck which the government can readily and easily choke off through exorbitant FFL license fees, firearms transfer fees and capricious, arbitrary and abusive ATF regulation; thereby crippling private ownership of firearms altogether.

  35. avatarSilver says:

    Unbelievable how many compromisers there are.

    The anti-rights deluge that’s been pounding on you all over the past months has finally worn you down so much that you actually consider universal background checks and universal registration (stop kidding yourselves, there’s a registry and the in-justice department will never prosecute anyone) to be good things in exchange for table scraps. Pathetic.

    Good thing the men of Lexington and Concord didn’t compromise with the men who came for their powder, or you all wouldn’t be here right now arguing over which slave chains are lightest.

  36. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    Wasn’t the ire with Fudds that “an AWB doesn’t affect me, so why should I care to fight it?” and now everyone is saying “Private sales at gun shows don’t affect me, so why should I care to fight it?” and the response to the Fudds was “because that’s only the first step, eventually they’ll come after you too” yet that reply does not apply here?

    So confusing…

  37. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    From the VCDL:

    “3. While Alan claims that this bill would in no way lead to a registry, the data would be there for the taking, since the sale would be on a form 4473 kept by the dealer. If you didn’t sell through a dealer, the feds would know they only have to look to your family members to find the gun, since they would be the only people really exempt from the background check.”

  38. avatarData McBits says:

    Whatever the Manchin-Toomey deal might be right now, it will be saddled with anti-gun amendments as soon as they can be offered. Feinstein is quietly waiting in the corner to throw in her 2 cents. The bill will never leave the Senate in any shape or form that might resemble positive change for gun owners.

    CCRKBA and SAF are fooling themselves.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      CCRKBA and SAF are also making significant bank off of this whole deal. Follow the money. Google “Alan Gottlieb compensation” and watch the money flow. Dude is worth many, many $Millions.

  39. avatarSteve T. says:

    It seems as though there is a segment of our society that is bound and determined to be an official “Obama Boot Licker”. Any body who can see what this administration is doing to our Country and still support any part of its agenda is someone we need to steer clear of. I just sent in my 2013 dues to the CCRKBA. I have also sent a request to have it fully refunded. What this organization doesn’t understand is that if you support any part of the Obama Plan he and his Band of Thieves look at it as a victory. Toomey at one time was a Conservative. Now he has joined the ranks of the RINOs. The background checks we have now are adequate, it is a failure of a corrupt administration to enforce the laws that we do have. It is the failure of the Liberal courts to sentence gun toting street scum to long terms in prison. It is clear that the only hope for the people of this Country, is The People of This Country.

    As for CCRKBA, they can fall with their ass kissing agenda just like this administration will.

    Where were these folks on Fast and Furious? Where are they on Libya? I would truly like to know if the Border patrol agent who died in F&F and the brave four who died in Libya would have been Black or if they had been women, would there have been a greater effort to bring the bads guys to justice?

    One very pissed American

Leave a Reply

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