Stunning news regarding the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment

[optiksguy]

I hope the Bill is debated; I hope the Bill is passed.

The bill will be debated, but the 68 senators who voted for cloture voted to limit the amount of debate allowed without having even seen the text of the legislation.

 

[Grapeshot]

Interesting point and a very good reason this bill should not be rushed into law. I haven't read it word-for-word, but I don't recall anyone addressing this. Technically if a FFL is doing a background check for a private sale, does it count as a sale BY the FFL? I would think not. But this is not clear at all.

By the way, this tidbit isn't getting much airplay, but what incentive does an FFL have to DO these background checks? I'm guessing NONE.

TFred

Here is the text of the bill:

http://tinyurl.com/c4r6pdo

 

[Aknazer]

Remember the secret deals made with the health care bill?

Oh don't think that I trust any of them. I would NOT be surprised if it managed to pass the senate sadly.

 

[ron73440]

Oh don't think that I trust any of them. I would NOT be surprised if it managed to pass the senate sadly.

At this point, I think I'll be surprised if it doesn't pass the Senate, unfortunately.:banghead::banghead:

 

[Silvertongue]

Why do we need background checks at all? I know I'll catch flak for this, but let's look at it from a practical way.

There are practically only three places a person cannot legally or illegally buy a gun: Prison, mental health institutions, and the grave. Of the three, only one is absolutely guaranteed.

 

[marshaul]

Why do we need background checks at all? I know I'll catch flak for this, but let's look at it from a practical way.

There are practically only three places a person cannot legally or illegally buy a gun: Prison, mental health institutions, and the grave. Of the three, only one is absolutely guaranteed.

Flak for what? Pointing out the obvious and inherent futility of prohibitionism?

 

[F350]

I hope the Bill is debated; I hope the Bill is passed.

You would.

 

[F350]

OK; the bill says any firearm that has been in any way published for sale has to have a background check. Question: who (and how many whos) are going to read every every web site, newspaper classified ad, church/club bulletin...... and then follow-up if a sale took place and if so was the sale run through an FFL????

Hell the Feds can't even tell us how many illegals...(oops sorry un-PC word) foreign invaders are in this country with an agency with a budget bigger than several other federal agencies combined. How the hell are they going to track every non-FFL firearm transfer?????????????

 

[WalkingWolf]

OK; the bill says any firearm that has been in any way published for sale has to have a background check. Question: who (and how many whos) are going to read every every web site, newspaper classified ad, church/club bulletin...... and then follow-up if a sale took place and if so was the sale run through an FFL????

Hell the Feds can't even tell us how many illegals...(oops sorry un-PC word) foreign invaders are in this country with an agency with a budget bigger than several other federal agencies combined. How the hell are they going to track every non-FFL firearm transfer?????????????

There are only two ways to enforce this, a gun registry, and or entrapment.

 

[mpguy]

There are only two ways to enforce this, a gun registry, and or entrapment.

I think they will try entrapment, then when that's not working, registration.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[rushcreek2]

Thanks to Dave Kopel's micro-inspection of this Toomey/Manchin/ SCHUMER FARCE my initial support for this so-callled 2nd Amendment protection booby-trap is rescinded.

This attempt to B.S. the " gun lobby" .......uh... as In WE THE PEOPLE has failed, and I suspect that the session time for "Les Miserables" to obscenely exploit the Sandy Hook surving family members has now expired.

 

[eye95]

OK; the bill says any firearm that has been in any way published for sale has to have a background check. Question: who (and how many whos) are going to read every every web site, newspaper classified ad, church/club bulletin...... and then follow-up if a sale took place and if so was the sale run through an FFL????

Hell the Feds can't even tell us how many illegals...(oops sorry un-PC word) foreign invaders are in this country with an agency with a budget bigger than several other federal agencies combined. How the hell are they going to track every non-FFL firearm transfer?????????????

Not supporting this law, but it is the kind that gets enforced when another, more obvious, law is broken. For example, a firearm is used in a school shooting. Using FFL records, they trace the firearm to A. It turns out that A sold it to B via a private sale, and B used it for the shooting. Under interrogation, B reveals that he bought it from A after reading an ad on buymygun.com. The police discover that no BC was done. A is now charged with a crime and castigated by the media as being partially responsible for the deaths of 14 children. (The media ignore the real reason that 14 kids are dead: B chose to do a school shooting because he knew that no one could shoot back.)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[nonameisgood]

It is unlawful for the Feds to keep records of background checks. There is no way to identify which, if any, dealer ran a check and has the form. In fact, anyone can fill out the form, and say that a call was made, and there can be no contradicting evidence. And running the check doesn't even mandate that a 4473 be completed. The dealer isn't selling it from their inventory, so there is no tracking mechanism and no requirement for the form.

 

[Neplusultra]

The ultimate problem with the bill is that it still is putting the Right in the hands of legislators to determine what it is and how we can exercise it.

The only gun law Congress should pass is a repeal of the gun laws that now restrict us. Period.

When I hear Gottlieb talk about what the bill "gives" us. I feel like, as we receive it, someone should pat us on the head and say, "Who's a good boy now? Huh? Who's a good boy? You are! Yes, you are. You're such a good boy."

I ain't a dog. I don't want a bone. I am a man. I expect my Rights. Uninfringed.

Why does this forum NOT have a "like" button???

 

[March Hare]

So, if I put a note in my church bulletin that I have a rifle for sale, and the bulletin is replicated on a the church's publicly viewable website, is this now an internet sale requiring a background check?

This is fixing the 'Gunshow Loophole'?

All I see is the potential for a lot of law abiding Citizens to become felons for not knowing about that 'little detail'.

-MH

 

[notalawyer]

It is unlawful for the Feds to keep records of background checks. There is no way to identify which, if any, dealer ran a check and has the form. In fact, anyone can fill out the form, and say that a call was made, and there can be no contradicting evidence. And running the check doesn't even mandate that a 4473 be completed. The dealer isn't selling it from their inventory, so there is no tracking mechanism and no requirement for the form.

This amendment changes that.

Let’s start with registration. Here’s the Machin-Toomey text.

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
“(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
“(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
“(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.

The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.

Under current law, retired FFLs must send their sales records to BATFE. 18 USC 923(g)(4); 27 CFR 478.127. During the Clinton administration, a program was begun to put these records into a consolidated gun registry. The program was controversial and (as far as we know) was eventually stopped. Manchin-Toomey provides it with legal legitimacy.

The vast majority of FFLs are small businesses, often single proprietorships. Only a tiny fraction of FFLs are enduring corporate entities (e.g., Bass Pro Shops) which will never surrender their FFL. By consolidating and centralizing the records of all out-of-business FFLs, BATFE will be able to build a list of most people in the U.S. who have bought a gun from a store. The list will not be fully up-to-date for every gun owned by every individual, but the list will identify the very large majority of gun owners.
. . .

http://www.volokh.com/page/2/

 

[Grapeshot]

This bill and the amendment may in trouble sources say:
http://www.examiner.com/article/som...n-gun-legislation?CID=examiner_alerts_article

And....

There appears to be a way the House Speaker can "blue slip" or shut down any bill orginating in the Senate that contains fees:
http://www.examiner.com/article/for...stopping-gun-bill?CID=examiner_alerts_article

 

[eye95]

What background check fee is Letchworth talking about???

There is no fee paid to the government to run a background check now. Is there one in the bill?

If this fee does not exist (and I have seen no evidence of it), then the blue-slipping she speaks of is not doable. The speaker has a lot of other options available to him to table the bill apart from blue-slipping. I expect him (and will accept nothing less) to make a statement that this bill violates the rights of law-abiding citizens and will, therefore, never see the light of day in the House.

On edit: I am talking about a government fee, hence the added highlighting. A private fee charged by an FFL does not make it the kind of fee that requires that the bill originate in the House.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What background check fee is Letchworth talking about???

There is no fee paid to the government to run a background check now. Is there one in the bill?

If this fee does not exist (and I have seen no evidence of it), then the blue-slipping she speaks of is not doable. The speaker has a lot of other options available to him to table the bill apart from blue-slipping. I expect him (and will accept nothing less) to make a statement that this bill violates the rights of law-abiding citizens and will, therefore, never see the light of day in the House.

They are stretching it, but I do not know any FFL that does not charge a fee to transfer a weapon, on both ends. They are not going to do it for free. Now that is not a government fee which is what blue slipping is about. But FFL pay taxes on those fees so indeed the government does collect revenue from the transfers. So I believe the House is within their rules to blue slip the bill.

 

[Grapeshot]

What background check fee is Letchworth talking about???

There is no fee paid to the government to run a background check now. Is there one in the bill?

If this fee does not exist (and I have seen no evidence of it), then the blue-slipping she speaks of is not doable. The speaker has a lot of other options available to him to table the bill apart from blue-slipping. I expect him (and will accept nothing less) to make a statement that this bill violates the rights of law-abiding citizens and will, therefore, never see the light of day in the House.

Presume you read the links. It does not say "fee paid to the government". No FFL is going to do the BGC free. Were this bill to pass, the action required would cause a user fee/cost to be incurred by the gun purchaser that is not now paid by private sales. BTW - I am not saying that I agree or disagree with this thinking, only reporting some of the considerations on the table.

Additionally, what happens to a 19 yo person's gun when he wants to sell it, consigns it to an FFL (that's a transfer) and it doesn't sell or not offered enough? To return it to the original owner is impossible as federal rules/law say that only 21 and up can "buy" a gun from an FFL. The FFL has no way to legally get the gun back to the original owner.

This bill has many nicks and cuts in it. I'm inclined to think that Allen's team rushed to try to get some improvements w/o having the time to fully vent the myriad problems (hidden traps) it contains. We all should learn a lesson from this.