The Manchin-Toomey deal
Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey rolled out their compromise a few minutes ago. The Washington Post writes about the deal;
The law would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.
[…]
Background checks would need to be completed within three days, except at gun shows, where they would have to be completed within two days for the next four years, and then within 24 hours. In order to avoid processing delays, the FBI would be required to complete background checks requested at gun shows before those requested elsewhere.
Of course, the compromise included records-keeping in regards to the background checks;
Under the Manchin-Toomey deal, records of the newly covered transactions would be kept by federally licensed arms dealers, according to a person familiar with the agreement. Currently, licensed arms dealers keep records of gun sales that take place in gun stores.
And there a provision for active duty troops;
Members of the military would be permitted to purchase firearms in their home states and anywhere they are based, said the aides, who were not authorized to speak publicly about details of the agreement.
So, the bill isn’t so bad that folks who are selling guns out of their trunks in dark parking lots won’t begin complying. Of course, I’m being facetious. Senators are going to be allowed to introduce amendments, so it’s probably not going to be the same bill that we read about today. And Feinstein has promised to reintroduce her scary black gun ban.
Since the Democrats were so head-strong about “doing something”, this is probably the best we could hope for, since Republicans have begun to fold like a cheap lawn chair on gun control (surprise), if they’re going to collapse, I guess this is the thing we’d hope they’d collapse on.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
I wonder how long it’ll be before we have to have a license to breathe?
Out of curiousity, are any of you old enough to remember when cities didn’t charge for water, because that’s what your TAXES were for? Yeah. Me neither.
They just keep piling it on.
Just a WAG but that’s probably in there so the law passes Constitutional muster under the Commerce clause. Congress has no power to regulate in-state private commercial activity, but if that activity employs something that can travel across state lines (like the internet or advertising) then Congress can reach in.
As for the record keeping requirement, I can understand why you’re suspicious but I don’t see any other way the law could work. If there were no records, how could the law be enforced? Without a record how could you prove that someone failed to get a required BG check?
FWIW, I oppose the law, as I don’t think the Feds need to stick their grubby hands into my personal affairs.
@1 – OFF SUBJECT: Speaking about taxing water, Maryland is considering to pass a tax on “rain”.
The jist of the story is that property owners own roofs, garages, concrete decks, etc., which are considered “impervious surfaces”, and contribute to excessive water run off.
http://marylandreporter.com/2013/04/09/rain-tax-on-property-owners-for-bay-cleanup-survives-attempt-to-delay-it/
So if there is an exception for active duty personnel to buy where they are deployed, does this mean everybody else has to buy in our home state? What happens if we buy in the next state and cross state lines with it?
@4 I guess ‘stationed’ would be more correct than ‘deployed.’ I’m pretty sure we already have rules regulating the other one…
Mother Fuckers.
I’ve been saying since the begining that the danger was never in Senator Crazy-Scary-Black-Gun-Obsessed ban getting passed. The danger was in the compromise crap like this that was going to make it though because “something must be done”, “for the children!”, and in the “spirit of compromise”.
When I was stationed in Alaska, as long as I showed my orders that stated I was stationed there I could purchase. It would be great if we could do that nation wide. It would help out a lot of businesses. Course New Jersey would still require me to go through their retarded Purchasing Identification Card process, on top of a second and third background check before purchasing anything.
@3 I believe it. Now that it’s non-PC to believe in “Acts of God,” we’ll get blamed — and taxed — for “Acts of Nature.”
There’s a very easy way to handle the background check situation: Universal Concealed Carry Permit. Everybody that wants guns gets a UCC, and they all get a background check for it. Voila! Done and done. Go down to buy a weapon, whip out ye olde UCC, and away you go with your new purchase.
Sounds good to me, ’cause that’s what I have to do now, anyway.
#8 post (about a “UCC”) was a bit of sarcasm, just so everyone knows. I have a mental picture of trying to pass something like that, don’t you? 😉
since Republicans have begun to fold like a cheap lawn chair on gun control
Another reason why I no longer consider myself a Republican. All they’ve become is “Dem-Lite.”
The fascists have to start somewhere. How, exactly, does one compromise a right without giving up something, thereby reducing that right? One doesn’t, of course. And those of us who aren’t directly touched by this compromise–if it is accepted–just haven’t seen our turn yet. It’s coming. It must, because the compromise will do nothing except bother people and increase transaction costs. Joe ‘One Term’ Manchin has just screwed up. Heis office doesn’t respond to me any longer. And that’s a good thing. Last time I wrote to him (months ago), I told his office to save their boiler plate bullshit response letter since it would be worthless to me and needlessly spend taxpayer money.
Toomey and Manchin both said they supported National Concealed Carry Reciprocity but didn’t put it in the bill.
I “heard” that it was there but Schumer made them take it out because they are little girls with no balls or something.
Also, note that it lets your doctor put you into the NICS and get you banned without telling you. Good luck with those PTSD counseling sessions. Be careful you don’t say the wrong thing.
Oh, and it adds crap to FOPA 1986 to “protect” traveling gun owners. A law the feds allow NY and NJ to violate all the time anyway.
An informal poll of viewers by Chicago’s WGN this morning showed that 16% of those responding thought a background check would help deter gun violence.
The other 84% thought it would not.
@9 – You refered to having “a mental picture”? I don’t think we’re supposed to use THAT word, lest we offend someone. 🙂
Next we’ll need to get permits to purchase the following items: gasoline, car keys, plastic bags, rope, knives, sticks (and trees), throwing stars, shovels, hand-fulls of dirt, and any other conceivable weapon of opportunity there won’t be much left to the imagination to make a weapon out of.
@12, can you point to a link where we can see that they are going to allow doctors to violate HIPA for patients, who are not committed or deemed a threat to themselves or others to NICS.
@12 – It’s getting to the point that if you can’t get help from using OTC meds, there will be a danger in going to the doctor.
I can see it now:
ME: (Cough! Cough!)
DOC: “So, why are you here today?”
ME: “I have a cough I haven’t been able to shake for about 3 days now.”
DOC: “OK. Do you have any guns at your house, and is this cough giving you suicidal ideations?”
ME: “Um, yes to the first one but they’re locked up. No to the second one.”
DOC: “I’m prescribing Robitussin with Codeine to help you get through it, and the codeine will help you sleep.”
…Then, when I get home, there are cops waiting for me to take my guns because (1) I admitted to having guns and (2) I’ve been prescribed a psychotropic medication.
Nice, huh?
GOA sent out an alert that it’s going to screw with travelling gun owners in a bad way. (They cited that you would have to demonstrate to cop satisfaction where you came from and where you were going.) Does anyone have more details?
I believe the progs ultimate goal is confiscation. Therefore everything they do is geared to getting a list or database of law abiding gun owners. Why can’t the background check be against a database of prohibited persons If you are not on it the sale proceeds with no other record keeping except that kept on paper at the gunshop. The prohibited list would consist of convicted criminals and mentally ill people (determined through due process)
Ok, humor me please, but what is the “Gun Show Loophole?” Does anyone really know? Every gun show I have been to, the dealers have NICS and perform the required background check. Can we see the proposed legislation or is this going to be a secret like the Affordable Care Act?
Bloomberg endorsed this…that alone should kill this.
@19: Not every gun show sale goes through a dealer. If private individual A has a gun to sell and meets private individual B at a gun show, and B agrees to buy a gun from A, there’s no BG check. That’s what the so-called “gun show loophole” is.
Of course, it’s not a “loophole” at all (“loophole” generally means a way to circumvent or evade the law), it’s simply the act of two private individuals exchanging goods, which is absolutely their right to do so, whether those goods are firearms or tiddlywinks. They aren’t avoiding or dodging the law, the law as it exists simply does not regulate their private exchange.
@#19, that’s the non-existent “loophole” that libs invented to shut down gun shows.
@#12, I’m curious too, can you provide a link?
Oh, great, now there will be a run on tiddlywinks.
At the OCGA show (a biggie), all dealers have the NCIS number on speed dial. You do the paperwork and wait for the response. Manchin and Toomey are sell outs.
@21
They always have a sign stating “Private Collection”, you must be a resident of that state and, for handgun, over 21, show your driver’s license and a copy of the USC authorizing the sale.
The devil in the details
http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/10/the-toomey-manchin-proposal-will-allow-doctors-to-block-your-right-to-guns/
Okay, but will this bill exempt the requirements of a background check for single soldiers living in the barracks. I mean, isn’t it a transfer if the soldier stores his firearm in the arms room as required? It does require them to transfer control to someone else for weeks or months at a time.
@26, I read that article. I want to see the proposal itself, and the section that says a patient can automatically be added by a doctor, without his knowledge, to a list of people who are not allowed to purchase gun.
I don’t have any use for rumor, gossip or inuendo. I want to see the document.
martinjmpr – “As for the record keeping requirement, I can understand why you’re suspicious but I don’t see any other way the law could work. If there were no records, how could the law be enforced? Without a record how could you prove that someone failed to get a required BG check?” For instance, give them a secure receipt which shows they did it, say a two part form? One for the seller, one for the buyer? One that does not record the actual transaction itself, but shows on a record they would be obligated to keep that the BG was done? If you leave it on a government database, you are constructing a de facto registration base – buyer A bought a Beretta 92 serial number X from seller B – you now have the information you need when later down the road and some dipstick like Feinstein decides to ban all “military style weapons” to knock on A’s door and say “gimme.” NO government of free men needs that kind of registry.
Here’s a link to the text of the deal itself:
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965
And this is the part relating to background checks:
The bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, and imposes serious criminal penalties (a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.
TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.
– Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
– Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
– Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
– Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
What the bill will not do is in the text of the deal, linked @30.
WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO
The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.
The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens
Here’s a link to the article in PolyMic which has the link to the text of the bill:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/34043/gun-control-debate-deal-on-background-checks-revealed-but-can-it-survive-a-filibuster
And here’s a link to a Newsmax article about the part where doctors are not prohibited, but ALSO NOT REQUIRED, from asking you about guns in your home.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-guns-healthcare-doctors/2013/01/16/id/471708
And this is a link to a post on Maggie’s Notebook blog, which tells you that you can tell the doctor to mind his own damned business, especially if he asks your kids about guns at home.
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/01/doctors-not-required-to-ask-about-guns-tell-doc-to-mind-his-own-business/
@27: Does any single soldier really keep his/her weapons in the arms room, though? In 12 years of active duty I never did. When I was overseas they stayed with a family member back home and when I was stationed in CONUS the first stop I made – even before signing in a the Repple Depple – was to the local U-Stor-it franchise where I rented a small storage locker and deposited all the stuff I didn’t want to keep in the barracks, including my firearms. I can’t believe that most other single troopers in the US wouldn’t do the same thing (or even let a trusted friend who lives off-post keep them.)
This wasn’t even against the regs. At every stateside post where I was stationed, the regs stated that POWs (Privately Owned Weapons) only had to be kept in the arms room if they were stored on-post. Store them off-post and you’re golden.
Hi Doc. Before I address your question about guns in my home, I have a few questions, please. Here’s a sheet to help:
1. What was your GPA in medical school?
2. Are you actively gay or bisexual?
3. Have you ever viewed pornography involving minors or animals?
4. Have you ever performed or assisted in the performance of and abortion?
5. What’s your view of mercy killings?
6. Are you a registered Democrat?
@32
A lot of comments but cannot find the text of the bill.
“Trust but verify”
@36, I provided a link to the text of the bill at #30 above. Did you even bother to go to the link?
Will this billkeep guns out of the hands of irresponsible or murderous people? Are there instances on record in which a fellow purchased a gun at a gun show, did not undergo a background check, and then, with his purchased gun, slaughtered people? If so, I’d like to know. And once I know, whatever the answer, I will oppose this bill–just like these fascists–whatever the answer–will support the bill.
Here are some of the organizations in the tactics being tested by the progressives to get legal guns. Doctors, insurance companies, homeowners associations, property management companies, schools/teachers, and churches. The first step, no matter how they accomplish it, will be to marginalize and demonize all gun owners. The word’s being put out and hammered home: we’re dangerous to have around, rent to, sell to, take care of, insure.
The link at #30 appears to be a Press Release of a SUMMARY of the bill. It is not the actual LANGUAGE. That probably won’t show its face until 5 minutes before a vote.
@#40. Wait, are you saying that the actual bill will be crafted behind closed doors, in the middle of the night, with those opposed to the bill barred entry? Like Obamacare was done? We’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it?
Manchin is determined to pass this, from what I saw on the news tonight, because he “cried” when the parents of Newtown came to his office?
Adam Lanza wouldn’t have been stopped, by a background check, because he committed murder to get his guns.
@40 I at least posted SOMETHING. You didn’t. Quite yer whining. Would you rather know nothing, instead?
I noticed the bill won’t bar clips of any size. That’s a relief. Staples and Office Max won’t have sales that I could take advantage until school supply time in July. And I won’t have to worry about the clips in my hair, either. Or clipping my cat’s claws – that could prove disastrous if I had to give that up.
@41-So Joe Manchin “cried”? I guess that makes it ok to rape the constitution.
@43-I guess that does make it OK for them to do just exactly what you described. As long as they did “something”.
Hasty legislation, passed in response to emotion, is worse than doing nothing. But, you’ll never convince a “progressive”, or a RINO, of that.
They are proposing laws which may prove to be unconstitutional, do nothing to accomplish the stated intent, and they seem to brag about it making them feel better?
In reality, all they are doing is adding more confusion to what is almost chaos now. They certainly are nuts!
#42 What would I post? I went to your link My point is that the legislators have NOT released the actual LANGUAGE of their bill just a press release, which is not Legislation. Their old pattern when they don’t want the public to know what they are up to is to hold the ACTUAL bill close until the last minute and spring it on everyone at a midnight session. i.e. Obamacare.
@38: “Are there instances on record in which a fellow purchased a gun at a gun show, did not undergo a background check, and then, with his purchased gun, slaughtered people? If so, I’d like to know.”
The Columbine killers purchased some of the guns they used in their 1999 massacre at a gun show. Because of that, we got our own “Gun show loophole” law in 2002, passed by referendum. Our state legislature just passed a law that will require private transfers to be done thorugh an FFL starting July 1st.
@47. I understood there was a straw purchaser (a female)because the shooters were under 18.
@48 – Robyn Anderson bought the shotguns and the HiPoint carbine for those lunatics during December 1998 from unlicensed sellers. The Tech9 was bought from Marc Maines, a pizza restraunt employee.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/11/gun-bill-passes-senate-cloture-despite-the-fact-that-no-senator-has-actually-seen-it/