The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 14, 2013, 09:29 AM   #1
jeepstrapped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Location: SD
Posts: 141
What Amendments would we like to see on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment?

There is a thread discussing the amendment itself already.

The purpose of this thread is to think of amendments we would like to see added to this amendment/bill http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 , that is come up with things to write our congressmen and senators.

It is my understanding, someone correct me if I am wrong, that Democrats and Republicans have agreed to limit the number of amendments and have established a quid-pro-quo, for every one Republican amendment there will be one Democrat amendment.

Again, the purpose of this thread should be to distill into cogent ideas a list of "Carrots" we would like to see added to the bill/amendment. This is somewhat self-serving because I am a little reactionary and want to take advantage of the wealth of knowledge and exertise here on this forum for the end-result of e-mailing senators and congressman what amendments I would like to see made.

On the Toomey-Manchin Amendment http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=522340 thread it has been pointed out that the amendment does allow the "Carrot" of being able to buy firearms in states other than the one you live in.

My ideas, which are probably over-the-top, are:
1: Repeal the NFA, make all NFA items now fall under the purview of this amendments' background check.
Pro: I think this would be an expansion of gun rights. It would likely keep the bill/amendment from being signed into law.
Con: Is there a Senator or Congressman that would offer this amendment?

1a. Remove sound suppressors from NFA status.
Pro: Watered down idea from 1, but may be more feasible to get a Senator or Congressman to propose the amendment.
Con: The quid-pro-quo Democrat amendment.

2. Since a NICS check in effect checks to see if we are indeed citizens and do not have felonys or other criminal convictions that bars us from enjoying our Second Amendment Rights.
NICS background checks will also be used in all local, state, and federal elections to determine the eligibility of voters.
Pro: I don't know if there is one, I am just tired of losing my rights so I want to give everyone, that votes, a taste of what it feels like to have your rights infringed.
Con: See Pro

EDIT:
3. Require NICS to inform in writing, within 7 days, the reason for any denial as well as the appeals paperwork. Upon finding that any NICS employee has incorrectly denied a purchase a total of 3 times said employee will be relieved of duty and will be barred from any future employment relating to NICS.
Pro: This could reduce the number of improper denials. This would also speed up the process for individuals wrongly denied to regain their rights.
Con: quid-pro-quo amendment.


This is the basic idea. I am sure there are members here that a

re able to offer much better, more well thought out, ideas.

Last edited by jeepstrapped; April 14, 2013 at 09:41 AM.
jeepstrapped is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 11:42 AM   #2
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,686
You have to have 51 Senators to amend anything. You aren't going to get 51 votes in the Senate to repeal NFA with this Senate.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 05:49 PM   #3
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,100
i would like to see the proposed universal background check go away.
thallub is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 06:52 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
I want the national speed limit lowered to 35, and the drinking age lowered to 12. Also, legalize duelling.

Hey, anything that acts as a poison pill works.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 07:03 PM   #5
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
jeepstrapped,

Would be good if they were attatched and included if it passed, but I doubt UBC as some anti's want would pass SCOTUS either. Perhaps I am too hopeful.

If I could, Id tack on something about how all the "hot-air from bloviating by politicians/media in DC would either need to be captured and used to heat the country, or to have a cap on the hot air to help with the global warming farce."

Eh, we can all dream...At least I pray we are able too!
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 07:35 PM   #6
Texshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
Force "Hollywood" to pay a $1000 fine for every act of violence shown in any non
"X" (can't remember the current nomenclature) movie for every ticket sold to such. Can not be passed on to the distributors - theatre owners - or movie buying public.
Texshooter is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 07:51 PM   #7
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,121
I completely agree on NFA items and suppressors.
spacecoast is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 05:16 AM   #8
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,663
There are too many laws and taxes already.If they need another gun law,it means the gun laws we have are ill conceived,ineffective,and unjustifiable.
Repeal the old ones before any new ones.
Each new law criminalizes more,each new tax..well,you get my point.
If the GCA 68 does not work,scrap it..First.
HiBC is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 05:58 AM   #9
jeepstrapped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Location: SD
Posts: 141
There are other off-topic items I would like added as well. But this one might be germane to the topic of the bill.

A provision that requires prosecution of media and news people or politicians breaking the law while doing stories, exposes on firearms. Here I am thinking about the CNN thread http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=522451.

Or, some cleverly written amendment that abolishes the NFA gun registry.
jeepstrapped is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 09:34 AM   #10
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
Replace every (or almost every in case I missed it) instance of "transfer" to "Transfer of title".
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 04:33 PM   #11
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
The answer is SO obvious...

Add an amendment requiring members of Joe Biden's Secret Service detail to be armed only with double-barreled shotguns.

I don't know how he could feel safe otherwise...
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:57 PM   #12
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Quote:
1a. Remove sound suppressors from NFA status.
This idea has always boggled my mind.
What could you possibly need a suppressor for?
Kochman is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 03:22 PM   #13
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
I've seen some justifications that are... statistically rare, and stretchy, but reasonably viable...

For example the folks who live rural enough to shoot in their backyard, but urban enough to have neighbors close enough to call the cops about shots fired and/or get annoyed at the noise. It's certainly not a common set of circumstances, but I can understand the rationale behind it.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 03:25 PM   #14
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Quote:
1a. Remove sound suppressors from NFA status.
This idea has always boggled my mind.
What could you possibly need a suppressor for?
To protect my hearing.

What does need have to do with it? I want one, and removing the $200 tax stamp requirement would make it easier to get.
__________________
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 18, 2013, 03:27 PM   #15
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
Quote:
What does need have to do with it? I want one, and removing the $200 tax stamp requirement would make it easier to get.
Especially in those states with a blanket ban on NFA items.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 03:29 PM   #16
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
And while I'm busy today hitting the silly Submit Button too early AGAIN - we're missing an important question for you Kochman-

What could you possibly need to place a suppressor on the NFA list for?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 04:32 PM   #17
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
While we're on the topic...

In addition to protecting your hearing, suppressors can be useful for hunting near civilized areas, where local NIMBYs may object to the sound of high-powered rifle fire interrupting their idyllic suburban utopia. In fact, suppressors are REQUIRED for legal rifle hunting in some European and British jurisdictions, largely for this reason.

Some anti-suppressor factions like to point out that suppressors somehow encourage poaching by masking the source of gunfire, but I regard this argument as somewhat specious, as there is more than one way to silently bag game animals (e.g. archery or traps).
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 04:36 PM   #18
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
And there are people who will pay for one because it looks cool, just like there are people who put aftermarket flare thing-a-ma-bobs on their EBR to LOOK like an auxiliary grenade launcher, or a spoiler on their Japanese Import to LOOK like a race car.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 05:10 PM   #19
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,686
Not to mention that anyone who has shot with a suppressor will tell you, it still sounds pretty much like a gunshot. No Hollywood "Pfffft!"
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 06:04 PM   #20
Mr X
Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 33
When I was more nervous about the momentum of these bills and the potential for the national registration of semi-autos in the NFA registry I was real excited for the prospect of some Senator (NOT MINE!) to introduce a little innocuous amendment to reopen the MG registry that closed in 1986. Fine, I'll register my semi's and I will happily apply for 5 stamps to cover NEW production full-autos at actual real-world retail prices e.g. $2K for an M16A3/4 NOT 20K for a 1970's vintage M16/A1. And a replica BAR... and something beltfed...

Wouldn't that be their nightmare? You get national registration of semi-autos but the number of transferable full-autos will quintuple in a week! Then we could continue to demonstrate that NFA items are so exquisitely rarely used in criminal acts.

I find this to me more realistic than outright repeal of NFA. Also, NO ONE give them ideas RE indexing tax stamps to or adjusting for past inflation. Please.
Mr X is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 06:48 PM   #21
SVO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 681
Term limits, & mandatory retirement age for members of congress.
SVO is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 10:19 PM   #22
jeepstrapped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Location: SD
Posts: 141
Suppressors make sense for helping to save hearing, as has been mentioned before, and I have seen them used to by fathers at the range with their kids teaching them to shoot. The larger point is though, why are they classified as NFA and what is the grounds for the reluctance to remove them from being listed as NFA items?

I heard, read, that the reason they were added was that because they were used during the Great Depression by poachers trying to feed their families. (Note: I totally accept that this may be an "Old wives tale" and would appreciate it if anyone knows the real reason to post it.)

Maybe not a repeal of the NFA, but reduce it somewhat.
Re-open the registry, remove suppressors as NFA items, remove the $200 tax stamp, and replace the FBI background check with the NICS background check. Maybe it is just me but I don't see the logic in a differentiated background check system. If NICS verifies that you meet the necessary conditions for practicing your Second Amendment rights then further background checks serve no purpose other than to discourage citizens and unnecessarily delay the process.

And the Tax Stamp, I keep hoping that the day arrives that the Supreme Court changes enough, replacing Justices; that a new court will revisit, or look anew, at an argument that a tax on constitutional rights in unconstitutional on the same, or similar, grounds that a poll tax in unconstituional.

I will admit I was a little surprised that Manchin-Toomey did not pass, I watched the vote on C-Span. But, even if it did I did not expect it to make it through the House.
jeepstrapped is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 10:20 PM   #23
Culhnd
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Posts: 3
- sunset provision (I think this should be standard on pretty much all legislation, forces reconsideration of unintended consequences)
- NFA items legal for cc permit holders (incremental step)
- LEO and govt agencies must fully abide by local firearm laws, including bans, registration, mag limits, etc. (police, SWAT, National Guard, Border Patrol, Secret Service, all of them). what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
- path to restoration of 2A rights for non violent felons
- loan a buddy a gun for as long as I want with written permission granted, he can travel/hunt/shoot with it as he pleases, it's not a transfer (ideally with protection from lawsuit if he breaks bad)
Culhnd is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:10 AM   #24
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Quote:
To protect my hearing.
Aren't earplugs way cheaper, lighter, and more effective?

The reason for a suppressor is so that OTHER people don't hear it. Let's not beat around the bush here.

So, other than assassination, and night time poaching/hunting (because guns are typically more reliable than snares or archery), why would one need that?

JD brought up a rare, but still kind of silly reason... as there are generally noise ordnances based on time of day.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:18 AM   #25
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Aren't earplugs way cheaper, lighter, and more effective?
No. Earplugs only protect the individual wearing them. A suppressor, like a car muffler, helps everyone within earshot.

Quote:
The reason for a suppressor is so that OTHER people don't hear it. Let's not beat around the bush here.
That is a reason, not the reason.

Quote:
So, other than assassination, and night time poaching/hunting (because guns are typically more reliable than snares or archery), why would one need that?
As noted, your verb choice is problematic. However, as a general matter one would need a suppressor to suppress the loudest and most obnoxious sounds a firearm makes. This is much the same reason states mandate the use of mufflers on cars.
zukiphile is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:27 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 0.12745 seconds with 9 queries