The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 9, 2013, 07:42 PM   #126
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,661
S.649 (Base Gun Control Bill) Scheduled for Thursday Vote

Currently, there are 14 Republican Senators who are filibustering the motion to proceed with debate on S.649 (the base Senate gun control bill from the Dems). Senator Reid has filed a motion for cloture (end the filibuster and start debate). He needs 60 votes to succeed. Realistically, it will probably succeed because many Republicans want to see Dem Senators forced to make a tough vote and they will vote for cloture.

If Sen. Reid is successful, then S.649 will be opened to the floor for debate and additional amendments - anything that can get 51 votes can get amended to S.649 at that point. There will be lots of gun votes.

Once all the amendments have been offered, we will have one more chance to filibuster the entire amended bill (the motion to end debate). We need 41 votes to pull that off.

Mods, should we start an official thread to follow the debate on Thursday?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:09 PM   #127
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Call me crazy, but this sounds an awful like a situation in which the politicians don't have the vote, but they try to convince as many people as they can that they actually do in order to convince more folks to vote their way. My guess is they don't actually have the votes they need and Reid will be forced to pull the bill. I just can't imagine him putting his "red state" or rural democratic senators at risk with a vote for a bill that will probably not pass the senate, much less the house.

This is just a guess and I could be very wrong. Also, my guess will not stop me from making my weekly call to my senators and representative tomorrow morning.
overhead is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:22 PM   #128
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,661
Reid already has the votes to override the filibuster of the motion to proceed. Corker, McCain, Flake, Chambliss, Coburn, Ayotte, and two or three more I can't remember have already indicated they want debate to go forward (which is a great strategy for the Republican party if you don't mind using the Second Amendment as the staked down goat for your tiger hunt).
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:24 PM   #129
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
That maybe true, but I won't believe he has the votes until I see them. There is no reason for them to "float" all these stories over the past couple of days plus the calls from the President to key senators if they believed they had the votes nailed down. But, like I said, I could be wrong.
overhead is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:34 PM   #130
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,661
Votes on the motion to proceed with S.649 are a much different thing than votes for specific amendments or the actual base bill. However, I'd guess the fix has been in for a while on the sudden "deal."

Toomey announces his amendment tomorrow, S.649 goes to the floor on Thursday before the proposed amendment can even hit Thomas. That is probably not an accident. They are trying to minimize the amount of time people have to read the amendment. I imagine Toomey didn't come alone to this party. McCain will jump onboard. Coburn already supports UBC with some caveats. Two more Senators (Ayotte or Collins?) and you've got 51 if no Dems break ranks.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:35 PM   #131
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Reid was quoted in the article saying that he though he might lose some Democrats when the vote comes up. We will see.
overhead is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:44 PM   #132
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
Emailed the one Arkansas senator who concerns me, Mark Pryor.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:53 PM   #133
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
if you have not right now start hitting the phones and the email. Dont forget about Rugers nifty petition portal. Dont stop till friday. Call all day every day, on the way to work, and on your lunch break. Get to know the girls who work the phones so they recognize you when you call.

Let them all know what their future will look like if they betray us.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 07:38 AM   #134
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,661
Re: the Toomey Amendment to S. 649

There is a press conference at 11:00am Eastern today to explain this "deal.". The very little press I've seen on it says it will extend background checks to "gun shows" and "internet sales" though how those two are defined was not discussed. In the past we have seen "gun shows" defined so broadly they would catch most private sales.

Edited to correct conference time

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 10, 2013 at 08:46 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 07:42 AM   #135
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
If they can explain to me where it is in the constitution the federal government is granted the power to regulate the interstate, private sales of firearms between two individuals they might get my support.


Yes, yes, I know, the giant black hole of Federal govt. power, thecommerce clause blah blah blah. I wouldn't support it either way.
overhead is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 08:35 AM   #136
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
They may tell the press that it extends background checks to "gun shows" and "internet sales," but: (1) we all know that those are already included in background check requirements; and (2) the text of the bill goes much further than that.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 08:55 AM   #137
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
I was wondering about that myself. It certainly does not seem likely the background checks would only apply to gun shows. If it did there would be nothing to stop me from stepping off the gun show property to complete the transaction. Dealers could not do this, but as we all know dealers selling at gun shows are already required to run background checks. I also read that checks would apply to internet sales. Which, as far as I know, already require a background check. The record keeping requirement for any FFL running the check is maintained. It appears this is just an effort to wrap the same bill up in a new box.
overhead is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 09:03 AM   #138
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 622
If the Armslist website is included in the definition of internet sales, then internet sales is not totally regulated. A lot of the sales there wind up being FTF private sales unless the seller is a dealer. I don't know how that's going to be stopped unless you shut down all the sites like that.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 09:08 AM   #139
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
Armslist is nothing more than a collection of classified ads. If that's included in "internet sales," then your local paper's ads are next.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 09:41 AM   #140
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Internet sales are as "regulated" as any other type of sale. I don't understand the difference. The laws that apply to a gun store or to a FTF sale also apply to an internet sale. Am I missing something?
overhead is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 09:44 AM   #141
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Yeah. That many of the people making the laws, haven't participated in what they're regulating. Go stop 50 people on the street and ask them about buying a gun on the internet. Bet a bunch of em think that gun ships to your house.

For the life of me, I don't understand what is so difficult about copying and pasting the already approved and 20+ year old laws applying NICS checks to store sales to any private transfer of title?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 10:44 AM   #142
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,661
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/10/...ss-conference/

Short version:

Manchin and Toomey proposal still not accepted by Schumer
They claim it will extend checks to "gun shows" and "online sales" but refused to define either term
They claim it will make the travelling protections in FOPA extra double-serious and NY will have to stop imprisoning people trapped at LaGuardia during connecting flights
They claim it will allow service members to buy a gun in their home state as well as the state they are based in.
Manchin claims this is a "first step" in "nationwide CCW reciprocity" that would give us "more control"; Toomey pointedly declined to go along with that but said he supports CCW reciprocity.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 10:57 AM   #143
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
While I will reserve final judgement until I can read the actual text of the proposal, I am concerned that "extending background checks to gun shows and internet sales" will entail far more than many people might envision.

With respect to gun shows, Lautenberg's S.22 provides an example of how to lock down sales at guns shows ("If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show" and "exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges").

I suspect that "internet sales" will not be limited to interstate sales as they currently exist, but will encompass any sales involving advertisement or communication over the internet, and probably other forms of electronic communication.

At least the press release says that the bill provides for "exempting temporary transfers."
gc70 is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:13 AM   #144
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
I suspect that "internet sales" will not be limited to interstate sales as they currently exist, but will encompass any sales involving advertisement or communication over the internet, and probably other forms of electronic communication.
I agree. I don't think the target is great big prominent auction websites like GB; I think the target is classified ads like the one on this forum- i.e. 'Net-based ads seeking an in-state FTF transfer.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:27 AM   #145
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,661
Here is Toomey's press release:
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

"- Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members."
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:37 AM   #146
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
From the link in Bart's post:
Quote:
- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
So, umm, some private transfers (family, friends, neighbors, and other invidividuals . . . ) are exempt. I just can't WAIT to see how they worded this one.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:41 AM   #147
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act

Not the actual bill text, but the Press release from Senator Toomey, with a more than usually detailed summary of the sections and points in the bil is located here.

Some highlights...
- 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.
- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:43 AM   #148
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,683
Quote:
With respect to gun shows, Lautenberg's S.22 provides an example of how to lock down sales at guns shows ("If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show" and "exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges").

I suspect that "internet sales" will not be limited to interstate sales as they currently exist, but will encompass any sales involving advertisement or communication over the internet, and probably other forms of electronic communication.
To my understanding based on what I've read so far, this is exactly what they are doing. Private FTF transfers will need to go through an FFL for a NICS check if the sale occurs at a gun show or was advertised on the Internet. Gun show NICs checks would also get priority over other checks, and the sale will be able to proceed after a two day delay, instead of three days like the current system (it will go down to 24 hours after four years).
ATW525 is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:45 AM   #149
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
So they want us to believe they are going to be willing to break the chain of information???

So I buy a gun under form 4473 and sell/give it to my son who sells it to a friend who trades it to a neighbor who sells it under 4473???

Where did the gun go after hogdogs bought it???

Seems like they are trying to make themselves look neutered in favor of a passing vote and then then this little GOTCHA MOMENT...

Whoops, we seem to have a flaw in our system, we need a BGC on all transactions to protect Mr.hogdogs from being wrongly accused of a crime he didn't commit since he sold the gun without a 4473 involved...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:47 AM   #150
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 472
There is some good stuff in the Toomey bill:

Quotes from Toomey's site (emphasis is mine):

Quote:
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.

- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment. Good start. "Sportsmen" needs to be replaced by "gun owners".

- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. Very good

Of course, the devil is in the details.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA
motorhead0922 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17780 seconds with 8 queries