View Single Post
Old April 20, 2013, 06:25 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,698
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.

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 0.03471 seconds with 7 queries