The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 10, 2013, 06:46 PM   #201
WW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 194
If you are in CALIF

If I read the law correctly, here in California, all transfers except between a parent and their biological child are required to go through an FFL, get a background check, and wait for 10 days.

This is irritating since I want to transfer a handgun to my Son-in-Law. In order for this to happen he must pass his handgun safety test, then we take the gun to the FFL and fill out the paperwork for the background check, pay the fees, and then he waits 10 days before he can pick up the gun. If I transfer it to my daughter, I just hand her the gun and it is done.

This smells of California law being pushed on the nation.

So, should I contact my senators (Feinstein and Boxer) and ask them to vote no? Like that will ever happen.
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 06:47 PM   #202
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
So if I am a gang banger and want to go hose down a street corner will I still be able to buy a stolen handgun from my homey without having to get a background check?




Thought so, suckas!
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 06:51 PM   #203
Truth Addict
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2013
Posts: 11
At face value, this is a reasonable bill but I cannot support it knowing that it's just a foothold towards the next restriction.
Truth Addict is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 06:58 PM   #204
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
I am not encouraged about the potential definition of "internet sale" or "online sale" by the following statement in Manchin's Fact Sheet about the proposal:
Quote:
You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check
I'm not encouraged by it, either. You can post a gun for sale, but can you sell it? :suspicious:
__________________
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, 07:05 PM   #205
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
This is the Summary from Toomey himself

Here's one we want-
- 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.
Theoretically there is already a legal process for ATF to reverse denials. Congress just hasn't funded it in 20 years so you'll never get reversed. So our protection is to add another legal process funded by Congress to make up for the previous one?

Quote:
and another -
- 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.
Again, by any reasonable interpretation of the 1986 FOPA, this should already be the law. To my mind, this is no different from stealing my TV and then offering to sell it back to me at half the market price.

I won't even get into the concerns raised by the HIPAA provision, the tracking of sales, or the potential to become a prohibited person based on a doctor's call with no due process.

Schumer, Bloomberg and Biden all support this bill.
The NRA opposes this bill. I think that is enough for me to make a decision.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 08:42 PM   #206
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 622
So, with all the back and forth between these Senators, and their hand wringing and 'compromises', doesn't this still have to get passed in the House? And what are the chances of that happening?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 08:44 PM   #207
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,037
Yes, it still has to pass the Senate and the House. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd just like to stop it as early as possible in the process.
__________________
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, 09:21 PM   #208
FYN409
Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 23
I agree, I would prefer it get's stopped in the Senate and never makes it to the house. It's just one more step in the wrong direction. The sad thing is I have talked to several gun owners and because they are not paying close attention they think this bill "makes sense".
FYN409 is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 09:23 PM   #209
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
(Already that way in Arizona and many other states, again, State Business)
I can already tell you right now that New York, Illinois, Connecticut, California, and many other restrictive states will be hostile to this.

Of course, to reassure us of his benevolence, Manchin closes with this:

Quote:
WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO
The bill will not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.
...which is pretty much Biden's mantra the last three months. The trick is to make sure our representatives know it's bunk.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 09:53 PM   #210
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 622
The irony of this new background check law, that many seem to be losing sight of, is the violations of the current background check law (lying on the ATF 4473) isn't being enforced and prosecuted. And their answer is more background checks that can't be enforced for the 300,000,000+/- (or some number that I don't feel like looking up right now) firearms already in circulation. Why should any Senator or Congressman, or any of us agree to more laws when the current ones aren't being enforced? How is that any kind of compromise?

And although some new feel-good clarifications may make something permissive at the federal level, unless there's specific language in this new law that makes it trump state laws, the draconian states can still impose stiffer restrictions.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:56 PM   #211
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
"I can already tell you right now that New York, Illinois, Connecticut, California, and many other restrictive states will be hostile to this."


It authorizes this as a manner of compliance, if a state chooses to allow it. It does not mandate that a state do so. Hostile states will ignore it.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 11:58 PM   #212
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,487
Senator Coburn released a very interesting statement about the Manchin-Toomey proposal. The intriguing parts of the statement are:

Quote:
The proposal will impose new taxes and unreasonable burdens on law-abiding citizens.
Quote:
Instead of paying a gun show tax, gun owners will simply handle those transactions elsewhere.
gc70 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 01:05 AM   #213
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,078
As long as they are considering exceptions, why not exempt those who can readily prove they are legally allowed to own a gun, such as those licensed to carry, or those in possession of FOIDs or their equivalent?

There is not even a rational basis for those people to do a background check. If they are going to misuse a firearm, they can misuse the one they already have.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 02:38 AM   #214
JRH6856
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndsojourn
…doesn't this still have to get passed in the House? And what are the chances of that happening?
Chances might be pretty good if Obama offers major tax and spending cuts to get it done. That's why we need it to die as soon as possible. If anyone needs a vote on this to know where their Senator's stand, they haven't been paying attention.
__________________
NRA Life Member
All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others.
JRH6856 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 03:25 AM   #215
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
I agree with it needs to die as soon as possile. There is no reason to "compromise" yet again. I like the point made by maestro pistolero:

Quote:
There is not even a rational basis for those people to do a background check. If they are going to misuse a firearm, they can misuse the one they already have.
...except that I believe this reasoning applies to ALL gun owners, not just FOID/CCW permittee. If I have a gun now by whatever means, then what good will a background check do when I buy gun #2, #5, #10?

Since the law makes no sense, and will not prevent any crimes, then why "compromise" at all? It is just feel good, and at worst it gives a toehold for future changes in verbiage to make it much more invasive and "universal".
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 05:20 AM   #216
jughead2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2008
Location: tenn.
Posts: 200
gun control

i personally am tired of compromise. every time we do WE lose something. when will the yo-yos out there quit.they always holler for more than they want then we compromise and we lose a little more.
jughead2 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 06:51 AM   #217
Mauser8mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Near Gainesville Fl.
Posts: 224
Gun Bill

I heard this is going to be a compromise so maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons." Universal background checks, while unrealistic and it won't happen or change a thing might finally end the gun craze and put some ammo and guns back on the shelves. The only thing that will really help, besides mental health care is educating the public about firearms at a young age, so they don't grow up scared of them, and maybe will respect them more.
__________________
Criminals obey gun laws in the same way politicians follow their oaths to office - Anonymous

It's better to be silent and called a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt
Mauser8mm is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 07:32 AM   #218
Grizz12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2012
Posts: 286
Quote:
maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons."
We have been doing that since the beginning and they still come back and demand more "feel good" regulations that do nothing more than infringe on our 2A rights.

Look at the FBI stats, they show that handguns are used far more than long guns (assault weapons) and yet the govt.s wants to ban the AW's.... They are going after the easy target, the target that they can get the most support for because they (in their words) are "weapons of war and serve no purpose in civilian hands". Its an easy sell to the uninformed public.
Grizz12 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 08:11 AM   #219
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Debate has already started. Mike Lee is up pointing out that nobody has read the text of key components of the bill and that it is perfectly reasonable to delay debate on this until they have.

Vote on motion to proceed scheduled for 11am Eastern. Senate starting their day now.

Reid up. Time between parties to be divided equally and controlled by leaders. Asks the Senate to forego the 30 hour delay after motion vote so they can begin debate of the bill immediately. Says the first bill to be offered will be the Toomey-Manchin Amendment (that not even other Senators have seen yet - big surprise).

Reid says bill will be open to all related amendments. McConnell up now explaining why he opposes the motion to proceed.

Blumenthal up now. Babbling. Blumenthal supports Toomey-Manchin Amendment. Promises to spearhead magazine ban and AWB amendments.

Sen. Murphy talking about dead children to advance various bans.

Blumenthal now claiming gun lobby is trying to create a registry of all the mentally ill people in the United States?

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 11, 2013 at 09:12 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:11 AM   #220
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons."
They won't. Next time there's an exploitable tragedy, bans will be back on the table. We've made that mistake before.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:14 AM   #221
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauser8mm
I heard this is going to be a compromise so maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons."
I see you are new to the gun rights scene.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:21 AM   #222
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Mike Lee up now. Reading pro-Second Amendment stories from citizens and arguing that the Second Amendment is a core constitutional right that should be subject to 60 votes. Says not a single Senator has yet seen Toomey-Manchin bill.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:23 AM   #223
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
I have been watching some of the senate "debate" this morning on CSPAN2, against my better judgement. Listening to Senators talk usually makes me want to drink heavily. Anyway, I can't help but scream at my computer monitor from time to time each time the word "compromise" is mentioned. I must not understand the definition of the word as they are using it. I thought both parties got something they wanted out of a compromise, yet I can't for the life of me figure out what it is gun owners are getting out of this deal.

Also, surprisingly, one of the Senators from Conn. said "this is a good first step....". Well, there you have it. The reason most gun owners don't agree to any of this nonsense, it is not the end game. It is just the first step.
overhead is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:30 AM   #224
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Also, surprisingly, one of the Senators from Conn. said "this is a good first step....". Well, there you have it. The reason most gun owners don't agree to any of this nonsense, it is not the end game. It is just the first step.
They say that about every gun control bill, like there haven't been 20,000 "first steps" already.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:38 AM   #225
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Leahy babbling now. Coming off slightly senile; but not in a funny Biden way.

Cornyn up talking about mental health issues and reporting. Points out lack of prosecutions for NICS checks. Cornyn supports filibuster making same points as Mike Lee.

Pause. Vote for cloture in 5 minutes.

Vote in progress.

Motion passed. Filibuster is broken on motion to proceed. Still one more chance to filibuster.

Now we are waiting on the end of the vote and to find out what he schedule will be. Hopefully they make Reid wait 30 hours before starting debate so we may have a chance to see the Toomey-Manchin Amendment (first amendment up according to Reid).

Vote on motion to proceed: 68-31


ROLL CALL VOTE

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00095

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---68
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs ---31
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Reid once again pushing to take up the debate immediately after lunch rather than wait the usual 30 hours. Still wants the first amendment to be Toomey-Manchin, although given that Sen. Cornyn said even the Senators still haven't seen any text, I don't know how they are going to pull that off.

Amendment schedule:

Toomey-Manchin
AWB
Magazine ban

After this they will allow the Republicans to catch up and the alternate D/R amendments.

Senate recessed until 2:30 eastern

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts 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 04:09 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 0.15646 seconds with 8 queries