Toomey And Manchin Reach Deal On Background Checks

[XinTX]

Some problems with this proposal (no one has actually seen a bill as of yet):

Background checks - No clear definition of when a NICS check is required. Right now it states it will exempt ​some​ private sales. Given how bureaucrats broadly stretch definitions, I'd bet that the exemptions would become so narrow as to become non-existent. Once almost all 'transfers' have to go through an FFL, what's to stop ATF from revoking licenses and thereby prohibiting sales? Anyone think someone like OZero wouldn't try this via EO?

Mental Health - What's to stop some doctor with an anti-gun agenda from putting anyone he speaks to on the 'no buy' list? Or, what's to prevent HHS from forcing (via ObamaCare) EVERY doctor to ask "Do you own a gun or do you want to?" and then adding every positive respondent to the list?

 

[Shorts]

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I read in Shorts posting, I don't see where this changes anything.

I didn't mean to give the impression the bill doesn't change anything, because it does. I believe their ultimate goal is to take away FTF private sales. I point out the bill is redundant. Those are the jingly shiny objects to distract the general public & gun owners. Politicians are saying that certain transaction aren't regulated (gun shows and "internet sales"), however 4473s are done for those transactions.

The ONLY firearm sales and transfers that are not regulated on a Fed level is the FTF private sale. As it stands currently, that is regulated by the state, in our case, Texas. It is regulated by PC 46.06 & 46.07. Texas gives the guidelines on who can't have/buy. They leave the rest to our discretion and privacy. The politicians & Feds want to take this away from us because they feel this is a way which criminals get guns.

Sig_Fiend described it very well.

XinTX, you're right. No bill text yet so definitions are hard to pinpoint.

 

[Shorts]

What I read was "Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks"

Would this not include us?

Without actual bill text, we are only speculating at this point how much it will affect us. Personally, requiring a 4473 for a firearms deal I do with a stranger is not acceptable. It is not their business. The caveat of course is that all due diligence is done per state laws. Again Sig_Fiend described the process of this very well. That is what I subscribe to for methods, and it is state law.

 

[warmachine77]

Watching the press conference and Manchin just said we are not touching private sales. Gun show, online and dealers only. Maybe i'm mistaken but isn't that how it is now.

Live Video - C-SPAN2 | C-SPAN

 

[warmachine77]

Live debate going on now. Reid is spewing bs about automatic weapons at this time.

 

[Shorts]

Thanks, flipped to it now.

Bill is S. 649 according to McConnell who is up now. Going to find text...
Got it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s649pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s649pcs.pdf

 

[Southpaw]

Nvrmnd

 

[Shorts]

Well, read most of it, right off we get the specific text of eligibility:

‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.


‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

‘(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

Our initial inklings were exactly right. All face to face private sales are the target.

Compare this law to Texas laws and current Fed laws (ATF/Brady/GCA'68) and the language is exactly the same, EXCEPT for:
SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Yessir....and there WILL be more to follow if this passes. BET on it.

 

[XinTX]

Well, look at MO. In violation of MO state law, their Dept of Revenue sent the Feds a comprehensive list of all CCW holders.
Missouri Secretly Shares Entire CCW List With Feds Against State Law | RedState

Also, look at how NY is confiscating firearms from people, with no trial, nothing. No due process.
SAFE Act Mistake Leads to Pistol Permit Seizure | wgrz.com

All it will take is some hoplophobic doctor turning in any patient he thinks has access to any gun.

 

[XinTX]

A list of betrayal.
Senators who split with their party on guns - John Bresnahan and Dan Berman - POLITICO.com

 

[ROGER4314]

Liberals have stated long & loud that "This is only the beginning" and that their ultimate goal is to register, then confiscate personally owned firearms. Then they saunter up and offer a "compromise" to end the issue. That won't end a damned thing! We may as well fight from the beginning and not back up because they won't stop bashing the Second Amendment no matter what we do!

This isn't tinfoil hat stuff or paranoia. Liberals have been been VERY clear as to their intentions.

I just Emailed Ted Cruz and left a voice mail of thanks and encouragement on his site. I asked him to hang tough and not to back off.

Regarding folks who bargain with Liberals......The friend of my enemy is my enemy. Never forget. Never forgive.

Flash

 

[Shorts]

A list of betrayal.
Senators who split with their party on guns - John Bresnahan and Dan Berman - POLITICO.com

Right on. I stuck a full list of votes HERE too

 

[XinTX]

Also a crime to fail to report a loss to the AG ​and​ to "appropriate authorities" (whoever that is).

14 ‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully
15 possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or
16 transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, inter-
17 state or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or
18 loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person dis-
19 covers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to
20 the appropriate local authorities.’’

 

[Younggun]

And how will this be enforced with out knowing who owns what?

Just because it is "supposed" to ban any type of registration doesn't mean they won't have another law next year to change this one to allow registration and begin the registration process.

 

[XinTX]

My initial scan through this bill doesn't reveal anything which prohibits 'registration' or any .gov databases from being established.

Maybe I missed it.

 

[Younggun]

I haven't read through the whole thing. I believe I got that from a post giving an overview of the bill.

 

[Shorts]

My initial scan through this bill doesn't reveal anything which prohibits 'registration' or any .gov databases from being established.

Maybe I missed it.

You're right. I read through it again and I don't see any specifics prohibiting record keeping. In fact, I see the opposite here: (It is my assumption the current practice of keeping 447es will stay in place)

Sec 122.
....
‘(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

‘(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph--

• ‘(i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and
  
  ‘(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).’.

That tells me those details haven't been added yet. More than likely they will be noose-like in how they fit us.

Incidentally it looks like here is where they say they won't make the sequel Too Fast Too Furious
SEC. 207. LIMITATION ON OPERATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

• The Department of Justice, and any of its law enforcement coordinate agencies, shall not conduct any operation where a Federal firearms licensee is directed, instructed, enticed, or otherwise encouraged by the Department of Justice to sell a firearm to an individual if the Department of Justice, or a coordinate agency, knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such an individual is purchasing on behalf of another for an illegal purpose unless the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division personally reviews and approves the operation, in writing, and determines that the agency has prepared an operational plan that includes sufficient safeguards to prevent firearms from being transferred to third parties without law enforcement taking reasonable steps to lawfully interdict those firearms.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

The Manchin Toomey part is an amendment they agreed upon that will be debated later. Not part of the bill yet.

 

[Shorts]

The Manchin Toomey part is an amendment they agreed upon that will be debated later. Not part of the bill yet.

Any text out on that yet or they being strategic about when it comes out?