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

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

Robert Farago - comments No comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOSg2GsF_nc

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?

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “Question of the Day: Yay or Nay on the Manchin-Toomey Compromise?”

  1. To hell with compromise. Our rights are non-negotiable. Scrap the bill with the anti-2A junk, introduce a bill with only the good stuff. See how easy it is?

    Reply
  2. Why do we care who he is or whether or not he is/was a true gun owner before IMAG (Illegal Mayors Against Guns) enlisted him? He’s still just ONE gun owner speaking for himself (but I haven’t seen the ad played out here in the mid-west) and not the spokesman for the entire community (I picked that technique up from Jesse Jackson, makes it sound like we’re organized, doesn’t it?).
    Just stick to your guns and keep hammering on your congressmen, even they know most of Bloomberg’s crew are criminals.

    Reply
  3. 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.

    Reply
  4. 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.)

    Reply
    • 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.

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

        Reply
        • 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.

          Reply
        • 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.

          Reply
  5. 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.

    Reply
  6. 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?

    Reply
  7. Gottleib is usually right, but this time he’s got it all wrong. There is nothing solid in this bill for us… Well, nothing that is a net gain.

    Reply
  8. 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

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

    Reply
  10. 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.

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

    Reply
  12. 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.

    Reply
  13. 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.

    Reply
  14. 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…………….

    Reply
  15. Idk. For $180 you can get the Grizzly Reactive Auto-Reset reviewed by TTAG, and be done for a long, long time. It should save $$$ in the long run.

    Reply
  16. 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.

    Reply
  17. “But it gives us a chance to make gains we couldn’t make in ten years. Maybe not ever.”

    I’m sorry, I can’t seem to grasp how stepping towards more gun control lets us make headway in the opposite direction.

    Reply
  18. This is awesome, I made myself a paper target holder but it is wearing out and I was looking for an alternative. Next time I go to Wally World I will be looking for those varmint targets.

    Reply
  19. 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.

    Reply
  20. Fun fact: My secretary at work thought it was a sex toy. Really.

    I once brought a blow-up doll to a party as a practical joke, and my secretary thought it was a target.

    Okay, not really.

    Reply
  21. Is big gun grabbing government going to be bigger or smaller after the “deal”. If it’s bigger we lose & with holder prosecuting the copiers, well, thats one for Leno. They are a cancer that is trying to expand their safe zones & government oversight & we need to stop them, Randy

    Reply
  22. CC holders didn’t do this yet all roads lead to gun confiscation. We are dealing with the mentally ill, people who would harm themselves & others by leaving helpless in the face of crime. One day I hope to see where it is a serious crime to not protect your family. There is no duty for a state to protect, they help if they can. It won’t happen till smooth criminal lover gets out of office though, Randy

    Reply
  23. With the rare exception of actually reasonable regulation (e.g. you cannot discharge a gun in an urban area except for self-defense), the only good compromise is one where the other side takes one step forward, but two steps back. I am willing to compromise if that means we come out ahead, rather than just agreeing to more restrictions that just happen to be less than what the other side wanted.

    A universal background check would be acceptable only if we got more in return (e.g. national reciprocity, disconnecting it from de facto registration through a change in how they are done, etc). Problem with this compromise, that I see, is that even the supposedly good provisions are not very good. And the current climate is not one for compromise, as rather than one step forward, two steps backs for gun control, it is one inch and they take a mile.

    Reply
  24. 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.

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

      Reply
  25. Apply for clearance and have my info fowarded to some fed data base?
    All Rem products can FOAD as far as I’m concerned

    Reply
  26. 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.

    Reply
  27. BTW, IMO Cerberus won’t actually sell Freedom Group. They’ll pretend like they are selling it and several months from now when no one cares anyway, they’ll say they couldn’t get an adequate offer.

    Reply
  28. 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.

    Reply
  29. At least the girl has her finger off the trigger. Although they made the mistake of leaving the action closed. So basically she has a loaded firearm. Stupidity abounds.

    Reply
  30. I’ve been using a retired scuba bottle for my reactive target. It doesnt move much but does make a nice ringing sound when hit. Of course, i emptied it first…….no way i had the stones to shoot it under pressure. I might not have ever been able to find it if i did.

    Reply
    • I once spent some time at a place called Ft Knox in Kentucky where some gentlemen explained to me the exact value of sympathy and emotion in the wake of a tragedy. Want to guess their opinion as to how useful it is to accomplishing anything?

      This situation is unfortunate. Now buck up and Charlie Mike.

      Reply
  31. Suggested Primary Arms Red dot Foghorn likes ( cost 118.00 ) just does not seem to be available. any other comparable scopes. Also inespensive supressors. Even quality homemade.
    Keeping it real. Old Tom , HooRah

    Reply
  32. I’ll make judgments at least five or six days from now when all the hysterical hearsay the media is currently running on gives way to something resembling facts.

    Reply
  33. There was a time when folks in their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and older defended the actions of “law enforcement” folks nearly without exception.
    Today, too many in the LE community have grasped onto the “steroid super cop” mentality, and they look for nothing less than complete submission. They treat older folks as “potential threats” at every encounter.

    Some wonder why TTAG seems to be anti-cop. That’s not really the case.
    It’s more that cops have, oftentimes, become anti-citizen. We would love to support LE, but too often they won’t let us.

    To the LE community that are steroid infested scum looking for submission, you’re the reason I keep a video camera.

    To the LE community that serves the community, thank you.

    Reply
  34. Wait, what? So they’re bidding on it not as Cerberus execs but as a separate group they made minus the responsibility to shareholders? If I’m reading that right, isn’t that a giant conflict of interest?

    Reply

Leave a Comment