View Single Post
Old April 20, 2013, 06:25 PM   #2
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,496
Coburn's amendment has some very good points, but shares some problems with Manchin-Toomey, probably because Manchin-Toomey was derived from it, sans the consumer portal and no records provisions that would be loathsome to Schumer.

(t)(1)(A) contains a specific definition of a "covered transfer" which clearly rules out temporary transfers. The scope of covered transfers as defined in (t)(1)(A) is broader (maybe) than in M-T because there is no exclusion for face-to-face transactions.

However, (t)(8)(D) supplements the definition of a "covered transfer" as a transfer that occurs at a gun show or online (in language nearly identical to M-T). Therefore, the Coburn amendment may have a broader scope than M-T, or it may have the same scope.

Whatever degree of background check expansion is involved in the Coburn amendment, that expansion is more than offset by the ability of individuals to use a consumer portal to self-generate a 30-day permit.

(t)(2)(D)(ii) allows individuals in different states to do transfers if both states have laws that comply with subsection (s) and the states have entered into a reciprocal agreement. In short, this provision appears to allow interstate transfer reciprocity.

(t)(4)(A) contains the same registry trap that Kopel and the Heritage Foundation criticized in M-T, the primary difference being that far fewer records would be produced and held by FFLs to potentially be within the government's reach in the future.

Quote:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.
(t)(4)(B) and (t)(4)(d) mirror M-T in prohibiting regulations to require FFLs to do transfers or place a cap on transfer fees.

(t)(7) waives the background check requirements of section (t) while the consumer portal is temporary shut down for more than 7 days or if the consumer portal is permanently shut down or defunded.

Possibly most importantly, Sec. 202(e) provides a 5-year sunset on the entire Sec. 202 on background checks.
gc70 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04458 seconds with 7 queries