Question of the Day: Yay or Nay on the Manchin-Toomey Compromise?

Click here to read the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act, the background check bill looking for Senate approval on the Hill. If you don’t have the time, inclination, patience or expertise needed to parse the parcel, know this: the NSSF, NRA, GOA, Virginia Citizens Defense LeagueVolkh Conspiracy and other gun rights types point to serious flaws in the compromise—and reject it wholesale. On the other side, the Second Amendment Foundation and its sister org the Citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms have rubber-stamped the bill (as it was originally written, with jefe Gottleib’s help). As huffingtonpost.com reports, this one’s going to be a real nail-biter; the Dems promise to wheel in Frank Lautenberg from death’s door for the vote. What’s your opinion: yay or nay?

comments

  1. avatar Tony says:

    NAY. No more infringing on our RKBA

    1. avatar Not Your Mother says:

      No thanks.

      Tell me again what’s wrong with our current system? No national reciprocity? Boo-hoo to all of you who live in Blue States (or at least purple ones) who cry for reciprocity from the Fed.gov because you can’t get it from your state. I can go to every state I want to go to and legally carry. We don’t need ATF involvement in our CCW laws.

  2. avatar Human Being says:

    Nay.

  3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    NO MUTHERF**KING WAY!!!!

    1. avatar JC79 says:

      Soooo…… your vote is Nay? 🙂

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        subtle, huh?

      2. avatar Gyufygy says:

        I think he votes “Present”.

  4. avatar Bryan P says:

    Nay as it stands. Possible Yay if National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is added.

    1. avatar Sertorius says:

      This is my position as well.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Same here.

      Throw in a 15 year prison sentence for the ATF / AG regarding F&F and I’m all in!

      1. avatar Not Your Mother says:

        You’re foolish to believe that would ever be enforced.

        1. avatar Peter says:

          Bingo! Buy that man a beer! It is just useless wording. Nobody will ever be prosecuted for starting to register guns. NAY or in layman’s terms…NO Pucking way!

    3. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

      Tag on the loss of immunity for federal employees and I say yay.

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        Tag on the abolition of the EPA, HUD, DHS, FTC, and Dept of Education, and I’m in.

    4. avatar DisThunder says:

      I’ll drink to that.
      Also, it would be damn decent if we could either get suppressors of the NFA list, or at least bring it up to 1990’s tech with an online process.

  5. avatar Avid Reader says:

    I think pretty highly of Alan Gottlieb, but I have to agree with Dave Kopel on this one. No. Of course, my senators (CO) will vote for anything that smells like gun control.

  6. avatar P. Hogan says:

    N-O spells no.

  7. avatar Jake says:

    Not even in the face of Armageddon.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      In fact, ESPECIALLY not in the face of Armageddon.

  8. avatar CentralIL says:

    NAY!!!

  9. avatar Lemming says:

    As important as the Gottlieb/Kopel debate is, I saw something today that over-rides it.

    CTD is for the bill. Therefore, I oppose it to by dying breath. Nay.

    1. avatar AM says:

      It helps their business if no one can buy used.

  10. avatar Dustin says:

    No, there has been enough compromise to our rights already. No more.

  11. avatar MothaLova says:

    Will Toomey suffer for this if he runs for president? Or are memories too short? Romney got away with all sorts of liberal nonsense in his record during the primaries, but I have a feeling the GOP base might be a little less understanding in 2015-16.

    (I think Toomey will not suffer in the next PA senate primary, because he’s already conservative enough on the other questions to satisfy PA Republicans. So his senate seat is his, so long as he can defeat the Democrat.)

    1. avatar Ed Ranger says:

      He is worried about the LT. Gov{dem/female} running against him next time. He is trying to become the re-incarnation of Arlen Specter.

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        He’s completely wrong here, but he’s about a million miles away from Specter. Have you looked at Toomey’s other positions?

        1. avatar Ed Ranger says:

          No, I have not kept up with him, but did read an article this morning in the American Spectator about how Pa. conservatives have been disappointed in his move to the middle to block Attny Gen Kane..I recommend it to you. He seems to follow a pattern I have become more and more familiar with, running to the right in the primary and then to the middle after elected…my two Senators from Georgia are text book examples.

        2. avatar MothaLova says:

          Thanks, I’ll take a look at that on the AmSpec’s website. I hope he doesn’t move any further to the left, and you can bet I’ll be watching. But the man has a very solid record in support of cutting back government, protecting the unborn, etc. http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=issues

        3. avatar Ed Ranger says:

          I was happy he won, just discouraged when I see he is following {perhaps} the same pattern as too many before him…I hope not, for Pennsylvania and our Country, I hope that there will be a few who will stand on principle.

          p.s. I read the article on the internet, so it must be true.

      2. avatar theaton says:

        Maybe he could become the current incarnation of Arlen Specter 😉

  12. avatar k4R-15 says:

    OPPOSE!
    And yet again I ask the TTAG community to please keep the pressure on our Senators – Here is the phone directory for the Senate

    here is the list of Seantors up for 2014 re-election

    At best they listen and we win this round…at worst they feel enough pressure to avoid any underhanded amendments.

  13. avatar JB says:

    HELL NO!!!

  14. avatar NB says:

    Thanks for posting the text. This confirms all the badness, and I’m STUNNED that a lawyer didn’t notice how poorly written this is. I’m a bloody college dropout and I noticed:

    Transportation is illegal if possession of a firearm illegally constitutes an offense for which you can be imprisoned for up to a year. Also specifies you may only transport by motor vehicle.

    Only bans the AG from creating a registry. There are TONS of other departments more than happy to compile one.

    Uses the dreaded “affects interstate commerce” gotcha in an attempt to reach all firearms sales, and if either the buyer or the seller advertises the sale or their intent to buy in any way it requires a 4473, so if I post in these comments that I want to buy an AR15, and then buy an AR15 in private sale God help me.

    I’m not seeing any positives to this bill. The things being touted as positives are in fact negatives, plus the negatives built into it by intention means this bill is a total debacle and needs to die a swift death. The only “positive” I see is that a CHP/CCW/FOID/whatever acronym your state uses exempts you from the check, but that’s not really a huge deal as at least in VA the check takes 30 minutes typically.

  15. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

    NEGATIVE! No more inches.

  16. avatar Pulatso says:

    Nay. Just sent an e-mail 2AF, voicing my concern with their support of it.

  17. avatar bluezdood says:

    Nay!

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    No. There are too many unresolved issues. Kudos to SAF for trying. But YAY on Lautenberg being at death’s door. Somebody, please, open it wide.

    1. avatar My Name Is Bob says:

      Ralph, lol, you’ve been on fire recently, you gotta start a 2A comedy hour or something, haha!

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Maybe Satan?

    3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      DiFi is up there in age, too. I so look forward to visiting N.Cal, going to the cemetery with a 40 oz of Malt Liquor, pounding the beer and then pissing on her grave. twice.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I’m very impressed with your ability to retain fluids, DD. If you had my prostate, a 40 oz would be good for at least a half dozen whizzes.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        San Francisco isn’t in “northern California.” North California starts at about Ukiah or Sacramento and goes up past Medford.

      3. avatar Leo338 says:

        I was thinking of taking a dump on her grave but I guess a piss may work just as good.

      4. avatar Ropingdown says:

        Better make that two 40 oz’ers, ’cause you’re going to have to wait in line.

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Funny stuff right there. Reminds me of 4 months ago around here. Too much dagger, not enough joke has been necessary lately, which is a shame.

      5. avatar benny says:

        careful, senator palpatine…Feinstein, might be watching…

  19. avatar Eric_in_NOLA says:

    nay.

    No unintended consequences from laws not passed

  20. avatar jwm says:

    Back to back postings on this same subject? Is it a slow day? When I get back from work today will there be a further dozen on this Manchin-Toomey thing?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      You must have READ it. Which no one FORCED you to do.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Yes we did. ‘Memba those eyelid-hold-open things from “A Clockwork Orange?” We used ’em.

      2. avatar Gyufygy says:

        He’s joking around. Touchy?

  21. avatar Rich Schlittler says:

    We don’t have what we want now, this doesn’t really give it to us, plus it has problems of its own. So, no. Or I suppose to keep with the theme here, Nay. (Shouldn’t it be Nea?)

  22. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE!

  23. avatar Matt in SD says:

    Nay. Pass reciprocity on its own.

    1. avatar Ed Ranger says:

      There is no way reciprocity will pass on its own. There may be enough votes to barely defeat this bill, but there are no where enough votes to affirmatively pass anything.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        And even if it passed on its own, it wouldn’t last past an Obama veto.

  24. avatar Pwrserge says:

    If there was some actual compromise in there… Maybe. Sadly it looks like “compromise” now means giving the other side 90% of what they want with nothin in exchange. Compromise, they keep using that word. I don’t think it meanst what they think it does.

  25. avatar RKBA says:

    Not just No.

    But, F#@K NO!

    “Shall Not Be Infringed”

    VOTE THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE.

    NO MORE COMPROMISE.

    RESTORE THE 2A!

  26. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    SAF member, love Gottlieb, but NAY. (I was a YEA on Saturday. Kopel talked me off the ledge.) Too much room for mischief.

    We don’t need more gun laws, we need more people with guns.

  27. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    No. It’s too poorly written, the gains are small and not strong enough.

  28. avatar My Name Is Bob says:

    NAY! Unless national carry reciprocity was a 100% A-ok. And even then, this bill SUCKS!

  29. avatar Totenglocke says:

    Absolutely not.

  30. avatar rosignol says:

    If the drafting is cleaned up, and the criticisms Dave Kopel @ Volokh makes are addressed, maybe.

    As is, hell no.

  31. avatar William Burke says:

    NAY and HELL NAY!!! I ain’t sittin’ with my back to the door, and I ain’t backin’ up any more.

  32. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    Nay.

  33. avatar CJ says:

    Nay. Good thing SAF is self funded through lawsuit wins. I don’t see donations increasing with this stance.

  34. avatar Hill Country Dog says:

    The word of the day is “Nay”. I will work to defeat anyone who votes other than nay on any legislation restricting any of my rights from now on.

    Not one inch more of “compromise.” I don’t trust anybody in the Senate (except maybe, cautiously Ted Cruz and Rand Paul) .

    Definition of NAY

    1
    : denial, refusal
    2
    a : a negative reply or vote
    b : one who votes no

  35. avatar Blehtastic says:

    Given it’s just the senate version, and the house would have a chance to add more liberty, tentative yay.

  36. avatar stateisevil says:

    Per the 2nd and 10th amendments, the Federal government can make no laws regarding the purchase or possession of firearms.

    NAY.

    Repealing the garbage on the books is the way to go.

  37. avatar Armchair Command'oh says:

    Yay, IF they fix the language to address Kopel’s concerns AND we get something else, like national right to carry. Otherwise, nay.

  38. avatar SubZ says:

    Nay. Anything that gives the grabbers a way to spin this as victory only emboldens them.

  39. avatar Gunracer1958 says:

    NAY

    I read the bill and feel like I have lost IQ points in the process. Did anyone else notice that “Instant” now means variably between 24 hours to 180 days if you get mistakenly prohibited while you run through the appeals process? In addition, the “Secretary” can arbitrarily change what constitutes “mentally incompetent” without restriction.

    Since the other side likes “compromise” I suggest that we ask for the repeal on silencers, SBRs/SBSs and AOWs in addition to national reciprocity.

  40. avatar Brian says:

    Nay, but I think you could turn something like this into a net positive with the right modifications, additions, and subtractions.

  41. avatar NS says:

    Yea – I’m with Tom Gresham and Gottlieb

    1. avatar Christopher says:

      Someone has their heads on straight.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Waffling. For Californians, it would mean the death of the hated Safe Handgun Roster (for Massachusetts too) since it allows handgun purchases outside one’s state of residence. That alone would be HUGE.
      It would also eliminate the residency requirements imposed for purchases, and may mean the end of the Handgun Safety Certificate (which isn’t terribly onerous, but is a pain in the ass–although it is true that our Legislature is trying to “fix” that too). Other than that, the bill offers nothing except maybe for vets. California has its own version of FOPA. And we have universal registration already that is more inclusive than that in this bill.
      The future of this bill is clouded. DiFi will move to attach her AR ban. Toomey will move to add reciprocity. DiFi’s amendment will likely be voted down, reciprocity unknown. But without reciprocity, I think this bill is a non-starter in the House.

  42. avatar Bob says:

    As is NO.

  43. avatar miserylovescompany says:

    No, a thousand times, NO!

    If I get off work Saturday morning and come to find that this morass of legislation came to pass in the middle of the night I’ll see to it to my dying day that my Senator never finds gainful employment again, and is never welcome in my State again. He (and she) can go live in NY with the Clintons and all the rest of their kind for all I care. It may be terribly unfair for him because he wasn’t one of the 16 turncoats, but without liberty and freedom, democracy just doesn’t mean a damn thing.

  44. avatar blue_bleeder says:

    NAY

  45. avatar Christopher says:

    Tack on CCW reciprocity, then YAY.

    1. avatar jim says:

      Yay and if a reciprocity amendment is added…all the better.

      1. avatar theaton says:

        Holy God! If you are willing to give up liberty for a little perceived security, you deserve neither. -Ben Franklin. I can’t believe so many gun owners are willing to give up their liberty. I guess there could just be a bunch of HuffPo progressives here pretending to be gun owners.

  46. avatar Dave says:

    I’ve been of the opinion that without some kind of background checks bill passing this year, 2014 and 2016 will be nothing but trouble. But then, no-compromise has worked for many years, so one has to be careful any time one feels that maybe now is the time when it has become counterproductive.

    So, I remain hopelessly confused. One thing for sure, if some bill does pass, those who know how to scour bills for unintended consequences better be satisfied with it first.

  47. avatar DrewR55 says:

    No thank you, I’ll pass on it. I think we’ve compromised enough with them (too much, even). Obviously, they want to make the entire country resemble Chicago and their laws don’t even work in that horrible city so I say we resist them at every turn. I see no reason to let the camel’s nose into the tent.

    The SAF.may honestly believe that this compromise will be the end of it, “if we give them this then surely Schumer and Feinstein will be satisfied, right?” But it doesn’t work like that and they won’t be satisfied because it is not in their nature. The Schumers and Feinsteins of the world will ask for something more, “we must close the family-exemption loophole.” Because that’ll prevent junior from accidentally shooting his sister or the neighbor’s kid. They’ll demand handguns with only the capacity to hold five rounds because who needs six? They’ll demand that HOAs pass by-laws banning firearms in order to keep their LEO patrols (for officer safety). There will always be something more, one more law or compromise, for them to crusade for.

    Give them nothing because they’ll want everything!

  48. avatar Dan says:

    There should NEVER be a compromise! If we start expect to compromise on every other right we have.

  49. avatar Moose says:

    Absolutely not. No compromise. I will only accept the status quo or less restrictions, never any compromise.

    1. avatar theaton says:

      Accepting the status quo is compromise.

  50. avatar Proverbs says:

    Nay.

  51. avatar Carl says:

    No.

    Putting more laws on the books and more power in the hands of the ATF is lunacy.

  52. avatar MothaLova says:

    Still no (in case anyone was wondering if I’d changed my mind in the last 20 minutes).

  53. avatar WA_2A says:

    Unless they add national constitutional carry and repeal the NFA, nay.

    1. avatar Pro-Liberty says:

      Exactly right. This is a must read for all those thinking that this compromise is a good deal for gun owners.

  54. avatar Noah Yetter says:

    Nay. “Compromise” implies we get something in return, but Manchin-Toomey gives us nothing.

  55. Nay.

    If they absolutely MUST have something akin to universal background checks then they should put forward a purchase permit system like Minnesota has for handguns.

    No registration, no record-keeping, and no trying to force all firearm sales to go thru FFL dealers that must answer to the ATF.

  56. avatar Sammy says:

    I’ll take the risk of going against “Common Sense” and vote:
    No.
    Het
    Nu
    Not
    Nein
    Oxi
    Ne
    Nem
    Non
    don’t know how many more ways to say it…………….

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Ixnay. Nix. Nyet. Geddafuk outta here (that’s Brooklynese).

      1. avatar Sammy says:

        Da gun ting, just fagetabahet,

        Thanks for the assist,Ralph.

  57. avatar Ed Ranger says:

    From the Heritage Foundation article @ The Foundry: ” The Schumer-Toomey-Manchin (STM) bill facilitates undercover sting operations at gun shows to arrest people for conduct they have no reason to believe is against the law. The STM bill lets the Justice Department send people at gun shows to jail for up to five years for a crime they did not even know was a crime…..Congress has made gun laws so complex that even the well-meaning, law-abiding citizen who owns firearms will have a hard time learning about and complying with every firearms law and regulation on the books…..Prosecutors love this kind of statute, because it makes their lives easy. They don’t have to prove you knew you were breaking the law.”

    Ahhh, I vote no.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      What’s so hard to understand about “no background check, no sale.” An ffl will run the checks, not the hoi polio.

  58. avatar J in OR says:

    What’s Obummer’s stance on it?

    That should tell you all you need to know.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      He says that we can still keep our doctors if we like them and the rest is George Bush’s fault.

      1. avatar Ed Ranger says:

        +1

      2. avatar J in OR says:

        Well played, sir!

  59. avatar Greg Williams says:

    Nope.

  60. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    NAY! Lets compromise their agenda instead of my rights, just this once.

  61. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Before jumping completely on the Nay Wagon remember that what we got now is not so good either. This gives us a chance to gain both the Travel and Ban on a Registry items among some others BUT – as I’ve said previously – the bill is only acceptable with some changes and thanks to Kopel for pointing them out. If it doesn’t get these changes than it’s definitely no. Take care of it in the House? – I dunno.

    It may fail anyway if the Reciprocal Rider is tacked on. As desirable as it would be, there is simply no way that’s gonna pass a Democrat Senate at this time and even if it somehow gets through Obama will veto it.

  62. avatar GlennF says:

    Nay – shall not be infringed.

  63. avatar Mike in NC says:

    Nay. The one change to firearms law which could effect situations like Newtown isn’t even being considered: repeal of the GFSZA.

    I am also tired of all this ‘gang’ activity in our Senate rushing error-filled bills to the floor. We used to have a nice, painfully slow system of hearings at multiple committee and sub-committee levels.

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      Is gang voting part of gang violence?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Yes. DiFi is a Crip.

      2. avatar Mike in NC says:

        Gyufygy… I think the ‘gang’ deals struck in back rooms do great violence to the Republic and to the Constitution.

  64. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Remember, citizen disarmament is their ultimate goal. Their strategy is to drive a wedge between different pro-gun interests to enable further laws, bans, restrictions. I say no, I’m not going to drink their koolaid no matter how much sugar you put in it or what color it is.

  65. avatar dwb says:

    tentative yay. while i am generally opposed to further erosion, I am even more opposed to giving Bloomberg an issue to exploit in 2014. He will campaign on universal background checks (and its hard to defend unfettered access to guns by the felons and mentally ill) and then use that victory to claim a mandate and push for even further, more onerous provisions. let him campaign on the far less popular stuff like rifle bans. Complete obstruction is a losers game, the dems may pick up some anti-gun seats as a result, which is an even worse outcome.

    While Kopel raises some good points, the protections in the M-T amendment do not exist now. Sure, there are some potential loopholes, but those issues exist now even without the bill. Kopel’s complaint comes down to allowing the perfect be the enemy of the good. Perhaps with some wordsmithing and some additional clarification, the draft can be tightened up. And – we always have the house which will amend this further.

    1. avatar Nor'Easter says:

      Well put, dwb. I like the yay, kinda where I am also.

      1. avatar Nor'Easter says:

        Sorry, ment a combination of Yea and Nay = Yay. Too clever for my own good.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      I too think that some form of universal background check is pretty much inevitable. Yes the House can probably block it, but legislative obstructionism will not go over very well. I think that the Republican leadership in the Senate has already determined that a bill will have to get an up or down vote, which is why they crushed the Paul insurrectionist filibuster movement.

    3. avatar rosignol says:

      I think you are greatly oveestimating Bloomers’ appeal outside of NYC.

    4. avatar theaton says:

      “and its hard to defend unfettered access to guns by the felons and mentally ill”

      You find it hard to defend free markets to free people? Do you find it hard to defend unfettered access to knives and clubs to felons and mentally ill? Shit, we might as well give up now! Everyday I see the further erosion of our country by those who’ve attended the public education system.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I’m in favor of arming felons as long as they live next to you.

        1. avatar theaton says:

          I don’t care if felons, who have served their time, are living next to me with firearms. How would I know if they are or not? All I need to worry about is my freedom. As long as I have the freedom to defend my life, I don’t really care who has what. “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is of no matter to me.” -Thomas Jefferson

      2. avatar dwb says:

        why would anyone be in favor of giving felons unfettered access to guns, especially if they live in my neighborhood ?

        seems to me that the NRA is trapped by its own rhetoric here. If there are not that many private sales and the 40% number is grossly exaggerated, then UBC is but a minor inconvenience for a handful of people. Sounds like they will make an exception for people who live in remote areas. The gun-grabber comeback will be “well if people are not doing it, there is no harm in closing this exception for private sales.”

        On the other hand, if there are LOTS of private sales and the 40% number is correct, then lots of people will want to tighten this up. Very few people support felons with guns. Personally, if i see a felon with a gun i either turn them in or if they are threatening me, shoot them. The polling on this is 95+% for making sure felons dont get guns, and i am pretty sure that the 5% are, well, the felons.

  66. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    Nay. Zero compromise.

  67. avatar John McPherson says:

    Just another attempt at useless harassment of the law abiding citizen and another step to limiting the rights under the 2nd Amendment.

  68. avatar Michael B. says:

    Test. Uh oh, I think the site ate my comment.

  69. avatar Glen says:

    Toomey/Manchin, along with all other so-called universal background check proposals, makes it a federal felony to transfer a firearm to anyone other than a federally licensed dealer. Toomey/Manchin also specifically prohibits “any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers,” which means that dealers can charge whatever their local market will bear. In areas without dense concentrations of FFLs, these fees could easily be higher than the value of the firearm transferred.

    Yes, there are some exclusions for family members and for face-to-face transfers between close friends. But the combined effects of the Toomey/Manchin amendment are clear: the secondary firearms market as we know it today will cease to exist.

    Federal gun dealer licenses are privileges granted by the ATF. As such, the President and the Attorney General can directly control the population of licensees in any particular geographical area. Also, many states and localities have successfully employed restrictive zoning regulations to prohibit gun dealers from locating anywhere in their major metropolitan areas. So few areas remain today where a true free market in licensed dealers exists.

    If Toomey/Manchin or similar passes, federally licensed gun dealers will become the only legal buyers for almost all guns. Because they will be free to charge whatever fees their local market will bear, gun dealers will obtain cartel pricing power over the secondary gun market.

    This is not what most gun owners — or most Americans — imagine when told that “90% support universal background checks.” But it is the reality that will face all of us if we do not act soon.

    1. avatar SAS 2008 says:

      Nay – for many of the reasons already expressed. One of my senators agrees, the other (McCain) needs some direction.

  70. avatar Data McBits says:

    Will it have a measurable impact on violent crime?

    Had this law been instated sufficiently prior to Newtown, would it have stopped said tragedy?

    Since we all know the answer to these questions is an unequivocal “NO”, I default to rejecting the Manchin-Toomey compromise on logic and principle. It is a smokescreen. It is a feel-good maneuver meant to placate a gullible populace.

  71. avatar Elephant Rider says:

    NAY!
    SAF got an email from me today and will get a phone call demanding refund of my newly paid lifetime membership.

  72. avatar Jacknine says:

    Not as written, given the loopholes already identified,

    However, if those were fixed, and background checks waived for anyone with a current pistol or CCW permit as well as automatic CCW reciprocity, it would be a reasonable compromise.

  73. avatar WLCE says:

    Unless the universal background checks are “voluntary” meaning private sales can be given NCIS access voluntary, alongside national CCW reciprocity, then nay.

  74. avatar Michael B. says:

    http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6mg3spFQp1qjo39h.jpg

    Replace ‘England’ with ‘Gottlieb’ and that’s essentially my reaction. I’ll break before I bend. This is political war, not a game of chess we can start over. Once we’ve given up some liberty we will never get it back.

  75. avatar Matt in TX says:

    NAY! I do not see the .gov doing anything in our best interest.

  76. avatar Nine says:

    At least it’s the first time Compromise has been put on the table.

    Still Nay, but it’s a step in the right direction.

    1. avatar theaton says:

      A half step forward and five backwards is the right direction?

  77. avatar John Boch says:

    Add Guns Save Life to the “No” camp.

    http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=7058

  78. avatar OkieRim says:

    Nay

  79. avatar conard says:

    “the Dems promise to wheel in Frank Lautenberg from death’s door for the vote. What’s your opinion: yay or nay?”

    That right there should tell you everything you need to know…the Dems are simply not going to support a bill that truly preserves your 2nd amendment rights…full stop. This jacked-up mess of a bill can and will be used against you.

    Big NAY!

  80. avatar Comrade X says:

    Nay to more stinkin background checks and paperwork for the law abiding!

  81. avatar Jay S says:

    As much as I want to say yes.
    I have to say NAY!!!!!!
    Still too much gray area on private sales to make me comfortable.
    Fix it 1st not after the vote………

  82. avatar Mamba says:

    NO more compromise of our rights.
    NAY!

  83. avatar DerryM says:

    NAY! A future COTUS could Amend/Change the Bill for the worse. We already have the Brady Bill and it’s not working. It does nothing to fix “The Mental Health Loophole”. It’s just a gateway to more onerous Legislation. Enforce existing Laws rigorously or repeal the ones the Fed does not want to bother with. Put armed guards at the Public Schools. Our children deserve to be protected more vigorously than even our Money, Court Buildings, Airports, Mayor Bloomberg, Left-tard Movie Stars and all the other people and things we use Armed Force to protect. WHAT the Hell is wrong with the Federal and State Governments that they cannot or will not mandate effective protection for our children?

  84. avatar Colby says:

    NAY! What part of “…shall not be infringed” do we not understand here?

  85. avatar Shenandoah says:

    The nays appear to have it, the nays have it, session adjourned.

  86. NAY !!!

    Gun Control is Unconstitutional

    Shall not be Infringed = Not limited, Not restricted, Not Controlled.

  87. avatar Mark Horning says:

    Not only no but HELL NO.

  88. avatar Hooda Thunkett says:

    Major Negatory, cap’n.

    By now, you’ve seen Alan Korwin’s post on the matter…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email