|
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 12, 2013, 12:20 PM | #26 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 12, 2013, 12:26 PM | #27 |
Junior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2013
Posts: 8
|
18 USC 922(s) Transfers
You said:
"Paragraph 2 does not cover all other sales. It describes when Paragraph 1 does not apply. Other transfers are covered by 18 USC 922(s) (which is currently 18 USC 922(t))." I hope that you are correct - but does this bill specifically state that or is it implied or to be inferred or is that existing case law or??? |
April 12, 2013, 12:34 PM | #28 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
It is very common statutory construction. And of course, the first sentence of Paragraph 2 is "Paragraph 1 shall not apply if".
|
April 12, 2013, 12:40 PM | #29 |
Junior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2013
Posts: 8
|
Good
I am glad you could clear that up - now - what does "publication" mean and why didn't they include a definition - as is common in other laws?
|
April 12, 2013, 12:55 PM | #30 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Follow up...
In my earlier post, when I wrote...
Quote:
One particular provision in the "Exemptions" caught my attention... Quote:
Thoughts? If this is the case, then the only missing piece in most states with CHLs is some sort of in-state process for verifying whether the permit or license is valid.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
April 12, 2013, 01:02 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
The section cited refers to state requirements equivalent to the federal requirements of going through a dealer, with a 4473, and with a NICS check or equivalent. You did not think that Schumer was really going to give up on getting some type of records of as many private sales as possible, did you? |
|
April 12, 2013, 01:02 PM | #32 | ||
Member
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Albion, PA
Posts: 93
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 12, 2013, 01:04 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
cgc, the more we dig into this, the more confusing and self-contradictory it becomes. Whenever a law becomes this difficult to follow, it lends itself to selective prosecution.
|
April 12, 2013, 01:04 PM | #34 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I spent a little time this morning, going through 18 usc 922 and making the changes that the T-M amendment proposes. I know that it's much easier for me to see what an amendment will do if I actually make the changes that are proposed. I did not go through the other sections to make the changes, as my focus right now is on what sorts of transfers are covered.
This is only a draft, and if I've made any mistakes, just let me know.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 12, 2013, 02:30 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Toomey-Manchin Amendment
I still do not see the change. When you buy on the Internet you firearm is shipped to an FFL who does a background check when you pick up.
When you buy stagy show from an FFL they do a background check. All this does is make private sales illegal at a gunshow. |
April 12, 2013, 02:37 PM | #36 | |
Member
Join Date: May 11, 2009
Location: Putnam County, NY
Posts: 96
|
Nice work, Spatts...
This gem jumped out at me: From the 922(b)(3)(A): (bold indicates new wording) Quote:
|
|
April 12, 2013, 02:40 PM | #37 | |
Member
Join Date: May 11, 2009
Location: Putnam County, NY
Posts: 96
|
Quote:
The new law would include, for example, a firearm is that is sold through an online classified ad or auction within the same state and a face-to-face pickup could occur. |
|
April 12, 2013, 02:43 PM | #38 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
No, DaveTrig, you're not nuts. That's the carrot right there.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 12, 2013, 02:48 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 12, 2013, 02:52 PM | #40 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
First pass through the amendment
I finally got throgh my first run through the amendment, and here are my impressions:
Quote:
1) It shall be unlawful for a person to unlawfully take?!? I’m pretty sure it’s always unlawful to do something unlawful. Kinda goes with the territory. 2) Was there some reason to think that theft was somehow legal when it came to firearms? Now, on to the amendment issues: Quote:
Bob: Nice rifle, Frank.Now on to Paragraph 2: Quote:
Quote:
Hmmm . . . “generally equivalent.” I really, really don’t like the use of that phrase here. First of all, what does that mean? Identical? Extremely close to identical? What are the relevant features and requirements of a law, necessary to such a degree and in such a way as to make a State law “generally equivalent?” Second, what happens if the AG does not so certify? Is there any incentive for him to do so? If not, why would he certify any State as having such laws? Third, why should he have to certify a State like that? Due to the Supremacy Clause, we already have to abide by State and Federal law. This looks like an end run that allows the fed gov’t to indirectly regulate intrastate commerce, if’n you ask me. Quote:
Also note that we might talk about “sales,” but the law actually refers to “transfers.” While I might personally find this a little disconcerting, in all honesty, I don’t see any changes to the definition of “transfer,” in this amendment. However, I am bothered by this: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||
April 12, 2013, 08:04 PM | #41 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
April 12, 2013, 08:35 PM | #42 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
Also note that we might talk about “sales,” but the law actually refers to “transfers.” While I might personally find this a little disconcerting, in all honesty, I don’t see any changes to the definition of “transfer,” in this
Quote:
Although the amendment has some plus's such as making handguns equal to long guns in interstate commerce, the background check extensions are useless. What percent of sales to bad guys really involve the internet or ads and how many are just guys saying "Do you know were I can get a gun" and Joe saying "Yes, see Phil"? No background check required for that. Under federal law you cannot lend a buddy out-of-state a gun for personal protection without it going through a FFL, this law does not change that. If in state it does not change it either as you are unlikely to give you buddy the gun at a gun show. |
||
April 12, 2013, 10:05 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Toomey-Manchin Amendment
Ah. Thanks Dave.
|
April 12, 2013, 10:59 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
Toomey-Manchin Amendment
These bills are presumably written by attorneys. If they wanted to be clear they would use precise language. The fact it is so muddled and open to executive interpretation so tell us A LOT about the intentions.
It is worded to allow us to be optimistic and assume it would never be applied in ridiculous or oppressive manner, while leaving open that very opportunity. |
April 13, 2013, 05:05 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,461
|
I have a feeling that the questions asked and points made here are far more detailed and perceptive than those asked before the next vote.
|
April 13, 2013, 05:52 AM | #46 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
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, 10:16 AM | #47 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Breaking News!
I think we all need to take a step back. The politics of gun-control just turned a leaf.
It appears that Alan Gottlieb (SAF, CCRKBA) has just admitted to helping to write the Manchin-Toomey compromise bill/amendment. He was caught on video last Friday. This was discovered over at CGN. That article is here: http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch...cks-amendment/. After doing some checking, I found the original article by Dan Santini (Daylight Disinfectant Blog): DAYLIGHT DISINFECTANT | SHOCK VIDEO: GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE’S STAFF HELPED WRITE BACKGROUND CHECK BILL. Both of the articles contain the flash video of Mr. Gottliebs statements to a country club dinner, last Friday. The standalone video at YouTube is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...=E9UMox1WoTw#! |
April 14, 2013, 10:33 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
My mind boggles, at how that guy doesn't see that even with his good intent,(giving him the benefit of the doubt) what came out on paper is dangerous and the few "protections" and "ornaments" as he would call them, are not a good trade for the language being wide open to interpretation to mean things other than he intended.
|
April 14, 2013, 11:02 AM | #49 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Watch the video, it contains some interesting inside info on pro-RKBA amendments to be offered Tuesday. I have some big concerns still.
1. Why are CHLs being forced to transfer through an FFL for Internet/Gun show sales when they have already been background checked and are exempt from NICS? 2. I think Mr. Gottlieb is overly optimistic about how he is "getting over" on the antis. Chuck Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden disn't sign off on that deal because they are stupid. They think they are getting something too - and there is a lot of gray area to justify their thoughts. The whole reason FOPA needs strengthening is because a combination of judges and bureaucrats have twisted the language and ignored the intent of the drafters. I don't know why Mr. Gottlieb doesn't think that is going to happen again if the language allows for more than one interpretation. |
April 14, 2013, 11:43 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
It is also the case that the bill will be seen as a first step and breakthrough towards more draconian gun control. Minor tweaks will not be seen as a compromise that treats both sides equally.
Perhaps the discussion about national reciprocity (if that happened in a manner that a state can't reject it) would be a step forward. If you do the net sum of public views, the current bill will be a step toward what must be done to control guns. The meta is a changing mood away from gun rights and minor tweaks will not avoid the big crunch. I'm afraid only a definitive SCOTUS set of new decisions will do that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|