The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 10, 2013, 11:50 AM   #151
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,842
Got to see the bill. My problem is that if you add a restriction, you should get something in return. I suggested previously (and to buddies at the NRA) that if this does happen - the bill should not be passed unless it adds to gun rights.

For example, let NICS be the law of the land and no state can have checks or waiting periods on top of NICS. Let no state ban guns, mags, clips, phasers, etc. - federal law will determine such. That would wipe out NY, CT and CO horrors.

But just to give in on this - it will be seen as a good but small, first step. Having a NICS on private sales at shows but wiping out the state laws would be fun - now wouldn't it - Chuck, Mike and Diane?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:50 AM   #152
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
That summary still has some jaw droppers in it.
Fixing the vagueness of the interstate travel protections? From the summary, it sounds like you could go from Florida to Maine, and stop for the night IN NEW YORK, get a hotel room, and still be protected- when we weren't even sure you could stop for gas or food.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:52 AM   #153
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,791
If the Camel gets his nose under the tent his body will soon follow.

I have feared from the beginning that this is something that has a good chance of passing simply because most people are so uninformed about the current process. They seem to understand banning certain types of guns and for the most part opposed those actions. However, they just do not understand how much regulation currently exist and how much of a burden this will be on law abiding citizens with little impact on crime.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:59 AM   #154
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Got to see which Bill Glenn? There's a new one I and Bartholomew Roberts have reported which got merged into this thread a little early, as it's not part of 649 yet. Just announced this morning.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:03 PM   #155
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,842
Whatever is the version that will be proposed to be voted on.

If there is a link, it would be appreciated.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:08 PM   #156
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
"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."

So if a private sale is made, you can't keep a record of who you sold it to?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:09 PM   #157
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Only if you illegally retain those records. Once the gov't makes them mandatory, it won't be illegal any more.
__________________
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, 12:13 PM   #158
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Glenn there's something like a line by line summary but not actual bill text here.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:21 PM   #159
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
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).
That is it in a nutshell. We have senators on both sides playing their political games of intrigue and goat polo using the 2A as the goat.

And to think MCain was the R presidential candidate!! He has been obsessed with back door gun registration for years. That's all this UBC is and for any senator to pretend any compromise does not lead to it is disingenuous.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:30 PM   #160
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,497
Although still second-hand information, the Washington Post reports:

Quote:
A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.
The New York Daily News has an interesting story on what was in play during the negotiations, but left out in the final deal.
gc70 is online now  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:31 PM   #161
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,627
Quote:
Toomey admits he has absolutely no idea if there’s any other Republican who supports this.
This leads me to believe Toomey's about to find out how far off the reservation he is.

Now, what we've got so far is just a series of suggestions. S. 649 is still just the draconian Fix Gun Checks Act, with some addendi on school safety and trafficking.

The weird thing about Toomey's suggestions is that they seem to be over-reaching reactions to Schumer's. For example, telling NICS to place a higher priority on checks from gun shows than from licensed dealers. Furthermore, I'm not sure how the law would distinguish between family members and other buyers at the point of sale.

This whole thing is still a mess, and I think Toomey's just casting about while trying to appease his base.

It really looks like they're trying to throw us a few bones with national reciprocity and out-of-state sales. Of course, those things can easily be taken away later, leaving the most restrictive provisions in place.

(How are guys like Schumer expected to vote for nationwide CCW, just to get a really watered-down version of what they originally wanted?)
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:34 PM   #162
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Oh he may be off the reservation, but in the other direction. And not in a way that the control advocates can point to as unreasonable in the same way as the ACLU did with the "criminal justice traps" in the Schumer version.

edit: Interested in the text of

- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.

Could be nice if it's mean enough to be effective.

Also wonder about the strategy on this one. Offer it up as an amendment toget rid of Schumer's part of 649, or risk letting 649 pass, so that if it doesn't, the people jumping overboard when it fails have this as a life raft.

Last edited by JimDandy; April 10, 2013 at 01:03 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:07 PM   #163
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
BG Checks and Internet sales

Over the last two days I have seen something I guess I didn't spot before. Along with talking about requiring checks for sales at gun shows I see a reference to checks on internet sales.

I have bought two handguns through GunBroker, both were from FFLs, and both were received by the same local FFL for my pick up. In both cases I had to do a background check with this local FFL.

My question is "under what conditions is it possible to purchase a firearm and not be required to go through a background check?" (With the exception of those who are exempted because the have a CCW or something like that).
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:10 PM   #164
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
That's a great question.
eldermike is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:15 PM   #165
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,923
Until the bill text is actually released there's no way to know. You can't trust summaries reported by the news, they have no idea what checks are required now.

I almost wonder if there will be very little ultimate change to when background checks are required but with higher penalties in the unlikely event they are skipped, discovered, and charged.
Technosavant is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:27 PM   #166
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
they have no idea what checks are required now.
Technosavant, I understand the reporter is often clueless, that's why I am asking here.

I am wondering if a private sale in-state is the exception or has my FFL just been overly cautious requiring the background check when the law doesn't actually require it?
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:29 PM   #167
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcpiper
My question is "under what conditions is it possible to purchase a firearm and not be required to go through a background check?"
What are internet sales that do not require background checks under the current law? Go to the Classifieds section of this forum (internet advertising), find a gun offered in your home state, PM the seller to arrange a deal (using the internet to conclude the purchase agreement), meet the seller face to face and exchange money for the gun.
gc70 is online now  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:32 PM   #168
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
What are internet sales that do not require background checks under the current law? Go to the Classifieds section of this forum (internet advertising), find a gun offered in your home state, PM the seller to arrange a deal (using the internet to conclude the purchase agreement), meet the seller face to face and exchange money for the gun.

Negative, this is not an internet sale, this is a private sale face to face. The only thing that happened across the internet was advertising and arranging the meeting for the purpose of conducting a private sale.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:33 PM   #169
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Politico has a report on details of the bill that are disconcerting:

Quote:
Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2Q5QBqkNk
How are they going to know how many Internet sales you did in any given year if they aren't keeping records on that? The story goes on to say that Toomey's amendment is supported by Schumer, Biden, Bloomberg and opposed by the NRA. That seems like quite a rogues' gallery in support of this bill.

If you haven't called your Senators yet to discuss these concerns, now might be a good time. They could be voting on this bill we still haven't seen as early as tomorrow.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:34 PM   #170
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
Quote:
Go to the Classifieds section of this forum (internet advertising), find a gun offered in your home state, PM the seller to arrange a deal (using the internet to conclude the purchase agreement), meet the seller face to face and exchange money for the gun.
But that describes a private sale of private property. Same is true for the so called gun show loop hole, there is no such thing. However people do sell guns at gun shows as private sales.

So why not call the bill the private sales control law.?
eldermike is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 01:39 PM   #171
bobcob
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2009
Posts: 8
Bad guys will just break into homes and steal guns. Kill cops for theirs
bobcob is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 02:01 PM   #172
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
lcpiper, the reason for the checks was that you did business via the FFL, and he is required as a federal licensee to do checks for all his transactions.

If you had bought directly from a private seller in your state, Federal law would not come into play, and a check would only be necessary if your state required it.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 02:02 PM   #173
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
This is what was posted on NBC News;
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...e-passage?lite

Quote:
The background check deal made several tweaks to the prior Democratic proposal, namely by striking a provision requiring states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states, and eliminating another measure exempting sellers who sell five guns per year or fewer from the background check requirement.
Which is very different from what B. Roberts posted.

Quote:
Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially.

Besides allowing for sloppy reporting, I do not understand the disparity of these reports.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 02:04 PM   #174
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
If you had bought directly from a private seller in your state, Federal law would not come into play, and a check would only be necessary if your state required it.
MLeake, so you are saying that I can buy a gun online from a private seller in my state, who advertises however he advertises, pay for it via Paypal or say a check in the mail. He can send me the gun via FEDEX maybe, and I don't need an FFL for this?

If this is the case, and this is what they want to regulate. Then this is a State Issue and the Federal Government needs to back off.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 02:09 PM   #175
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Bad guys will just break into homes and steal guns. Kill cops for theirs
That argument is correct, misleading, and not in our best interests. Aside from more of the Bad guys break the laws anyway, why do anything rhetoric it spawns, Crime Guns usually start out legal. Extending the NICS check to private sales via FFL AND extending protection to the seller who uses the FFL NICS check from lawsuits is a good thing. We get the protection, and the peace of mind. We also get a dwindling of the supply of crime guns as Bob can't buy one from Bill, then funnel it into street sales. Arrests of criminals with guns will slowly dwindle the supply as they're only replaced with the stolen guns.

Quote:
Besides allowing for sloppy reporting, I do not understand the disparity of these reports.
The 24 hour news cycle, and a press conference less than 24 hours ago counts for the disparity.
JimDandy 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 02:37 PM.


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 0.17833 seconds with 8 queries