|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 14, 2013, 11:57 AM | #51 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Heritage Foundation says that due to sloppy drafting, Toomey-Manchin will allow federal registry at the discretion of the Attorney-General:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/11/...-gun-registry/ They discuss the specific language problems and underlying law at the link. |
April 14, 2013, 01:25 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Re: Toomey-Manchin Amendment
I just saw an article in the washington post (responding from my phone, will add link when I get home) that stated a well regarded 2A organization voiced support for the amendment. Has anyone heard of the citizens commitee for the right to keep amd bear arms?
|
April 14, 2013, 01:33 PM | #53 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Both the SAF and the CCRKBA are headed by the same man - Alan Gottlieb.
|
April 14, 2013, 02:07 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Interesting, this position he and by extension his organizations have taken is certainly a odd circumstance. I wonder if this will end up being similar to the earlier NRA gaff of supporting UBCs in the '90s.
Article referenced. |
April 14, 2013, 03:02 PM | #55 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Sigcurious, you might give this link a read:
http://m.factcheck.org/2013/04/biden...ground-checks/ It goes into the NRA's "support" for background checks in some detail. The brief summary is the NRA has never supported anything like universal background checks or even Toomey-Manchin. |
April 14, 2013, 03:11 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Thanks for the link, I had never seen the full transcript of his(LaPierre) '99 statement.
|
April 14, 2013, 03:27 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
|
I am starting to see articles that this amendment will pave the way for full state to state reciprocity, and that Schumer is furious. Is this just wishful reading/thinking or is this an actual possibility?
|
April 14, 2013, 03:37 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Toomey-Manchin Amendment
rob. I have seen similar posts that the SAF had some role in writing Machin-Toomey and that somehow there are hidden items that gun grabbers may have overlooked or did not read. Not sure how real this is.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-...heck-amendment |
April 14, 2013, 03:38 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,108
|
Slippery slope when connecting the right to use or own something to health care, pilots for years have battled with seeking care mental and physical due to keeping there license. Once health care is used in this manner it can and will spread to other agencies, home insurance, car insurance, in the end it prevents people from obtaining the help they need. Once our health care records become an open book and I believe they will under Obama care it will affect more then guns.
|
April 14, 2013, 03:47 PM | #60 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I think there are probably as many hidden items that SAF missed as there are hidden items that Schumer missed. The Heritage Foundation article talking about how the use of the word "notwithstanding" weakens existing FOPA protections against a federal registry is one example.
The part where CHLs are now required to transfer through FFLs at gun show/ internet sales is another. |
April 14, 2013, 08:01 PM | #61 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Heritage Foundation analysis
Heritage says this:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|||
April 14, 2013, 08:44 PM | #62 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
The part that says: "notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations."
Literally read, that means "No matter what any other provision of this chapter says, the Attorney General may create regulations to enforce this subsection." There is case law where courts have construed "notwithstanding" language so broadly as to allow the authorized officer to violate other parts of the law in order to "implement regulation.". Most importantly, the D.C. Circuit, which is often a shortcut to SCOTUS takes a view along those lines. I would certainly hope that is a case we would win; but I tend to think that is a case we would end up having to fight eventually. All the AG would need is some reason why a "database" was necessary to "implement the regulation.". And realistically, the damage would be done long before we ever got a result through the court system. I also have serious doubts the 15 year penalty means anything. Selling guns to Mexican drug cartels in the thousands is a felony already - nobody from DOJ is being indicted over that. |
April 14, 2013, 10:07 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
Proposed Act - Sec. 103 of the Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.Sec. 103 is a statement of the intent of the Act, but not statutory language that would be included in the United States Code. Proposed law - United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 922(t)(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.In making regulations for 922(t), the AG could disregard any other provisions in Chapter 44, except for the provisions of 923(m). Proposed law - United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 923(m) (m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-The AG many not "consolidate or centralize" records or parts of records. Existing law - United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 926(a) ... No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. ...The AG many not require records or parts of records to be "recorded at or transferred to" government entities. Putting the above together, the AG can make regulations for gun show and online sales under 922(t), disregarding the restrictions in 926(a) and subject only to the restrictions in 923(m). With respect to gun show and online sales (let's go ahead and call them private transactions), the current prohibition against records being "recorded at or transferred to" government entities could be ignored and there would only be a prohibition to "consolidate and centralize" records. Why would the government need to "consolidate and centralize" records of private transactions in a massive government database when the information could be maintained in databases at each FFL and accessed on demand by the government since the "transferred to" restriction could be ignored? Would the courts view a distributed database query system as a registry? |
|
April 15, 2013, 06:48 AM | #64 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
VCDL http://vcdl.org/ says they aren't only choosing to support it, they wrote it. Email excerpt from VCDL: Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
April 15, 2013, 07:08 AM | #65 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...-in-the-senate
The Hill reports that the amendment is inching closer to 60 votes and that Republicans Mark Kirk, Pat Toomey, Susan Collins, and John McCain are onboard. The article goes on to list Republicans and Democrats who have not yet committed or who are opposed. Wobbly: Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Bob Corker (R-TN) Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Heidi Heitkamp (D-SD) Max Baucus (D-MT) Mark Pryor (D-AR) Mark Begich (D-AK) Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Opposed: Lindsay Graham (R-SC) Johnny Isaakson (R-GA) Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Tom Coburn (R-OK) Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Richard Burr (R-NC) John Hoeven (R-ND) UPDATE: According to the NYT, the following "wobbly" Senators are now voting against Schumer-Toomey-Manchin: Bob Corker (R-TN) Mark Begich (D-AK) Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) Two unnamed Dem Senators Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 15, 2013 at 03:29 PM. |
April 15, 2013, 08:39 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Any time I see the phrase "Attorney General may" and know that our sitting Attorney General is Eric Holder, I know I'm looking at a bad bill.
|
April 15, 2013, 09:07 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Our 4473's have been sitting in dealer's files for years, and haven't spontaneously flown into a federal registry. This bill won't change that.
The only issue on a registry is the exact interpretation of "notwithstanding". Edit: Since I am an SAF member, I emailed them for comment on the "notwithstanding" issue. Awaiting reply.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. Last edited by motorhead0922; April 15, 2013 at 09:24 AM. |
April 15, 2013, 10:29 AM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
|
I might be posting this in the wrong place, and if I am, I apologize. But either way, it relates to the Gun bill and the possible amendments. I read somewhere that there was an amendment that appeared to have wide spread support that would effectively give nationwide CCW reciprocity. Did I read correctly? If so, where can I find more info on it. This seems like it might be a good thing. The only problem I can see with it is a quid pro quo amendment from democrats. Thanks guys for keeping track of these things, and helping us who aren't as good at this kind of stuff informed.
EDIT: Nevermind, found it. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1316458 Reading that, Schumer is an idiot. He thinks that a criminal (who won't be able to pass a background check to get a permit, by the way) will just go through the trouble of getting a permit in another state just to carry in NYC and turn Times Square into the "OK Corral." Or, they'll just do what they do anyway...not care about what a piece of plastic (the permit) says they can do, and just carry anyway... ANOTHER EDIT: Quote from Schumer that makes me sick to my stomach (emphasis mine)... Quote:
Last edited by Gaerek; April 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM. |
|
April 15, 2013, 10:49 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
While the article says that Joe Donnelly (D-IN) is expected to vote for it, I could see him wavering if enough pressure is applied. Donnelly has not, as far as I know, publicly committed to UBC's one way or the other aside from his vote to proceed on debating the bill. Donnelly very narrowly won election last year largely because his opponent, Richard Mourdock, had a very public gaffe about rape and abortion.
Indiana is a very conservative and gun-friendly state and a vote for gun control would very likely hurt Donnelly's chances of re-election (his seat was previously occupied by Republican Dick Lugar who lost the 2012 Republican primary due to his lack of conservatism). It is also worthy of note that Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) who is a well-known moderate that, in years past, would have likely supported this bill, has come under enough political pressure to oppose it and vote with the Republican filibuster against it. I've written Donnelly several times since Sandy Hook and after about two months, he finally sent me a reply stating that he opposed an AWB. This leaves me with the impression that Donnelly is hesitant to commit to anything until he a gauge which way the political wind is blowing. Because of this, Indiana residents need to make sure that the political wind blows against S.649 and the Toomey-Manchin amendment. |
April 15, 2013, 10:56 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Alan Gottilieb of SAF has been quoted as saying the Amendment has been made pro-self-defense.
Dave Koppel begs to differ: "The result of the disparity is “pro-gun” provisions which are actually very strong anti-gun provisions: The supposed ban on federal firearms registration authorizes federal gun registration. The supposed strengthening of FOPA’s interstate transportation protection exempts two of the worst states (the reason why FOPA was needed in the first place), and provides any easy path for every other abusive state to make FOPA inapplicable." http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the...f-gun-control/
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
April 15, 2013, 12:42 PM | #71 | |
Member
Join Date: April 15, 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 12:47 PM | #72 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
I'm just waiting for some sort of phone based classified to pop up. You call in and it describes all the guns for sale in your state. Be more expensive than armslist(I expect they will be out of business if this passes), but wouldn't be that expensive.
|
April 15, 2013, 01:37 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 4,556
|
To me, the fact that the current Bill seems to "prohibit" the creation of a Federal Registry is about as absolute as a ten-year Federal Budget...
Subject to change, at the whim of the next Congress. Laws can be changed. Do any of us not think for one second that, if there were a large majority Democratic Senate, and House today, that we'd be having the fight of our lives against a Federal Registry? Once the information is there, it's there forever... A "ban" on a Federal Registry can- and I fear would- be changed if another perfect storm of tragedy and opportunity presented itself to the gun-grabbers.
__________________
Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com |
April 15, 2013, 05:50 PM | #74 |
Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Posts: 58
|
Gottlieb audio interview....he sounds confident.
|
April 17, 2013, 06:17 AM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Toomey-Manchin Amendment
Confusing. NRA says vote against it. SAF and CCKBA say they helped write it and there are great pro gun measures in it.
Last edited by mayosligo; April 17, 2013 at 10:09 AM. |
|
|