Manchin / Toomey Part II

BarryLee · June 24, 2015, 11:56 AM

Looks like Senators Manhcin and Toomey are planning to revive their gun control efforts. Right now they’re apparently strategizing to see what kind of bill they could gain support for.

The article in the Washington Post states, “Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) are considering ways to renew their failed push to expand meaningful background checks on gun purchases”. Senator Harry Reid said, “Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill, people who are criminals from purchasing guns?
We haven’t seen anything specific yet and may not, but the sad thing is most of their proposals would do little if anything to prevent acts of violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

So, has anything changed? Do you see any new regulation that might pass? Any new regulation that would actually be beneficial?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...-control-push/

2ndsojourn · June 24, 2015, 12:45 PM

"Do you see any new regulation that might pass?"

A renewed push for 'UBCs' is likely. If I remember correctly, the last time they voted on it, they selected some senate rule that required a 60% majority to pass. It didn't get the 60% but I think it did have a majority in favor. If it goes to vote by simple majority next time it might pass.

"Any new regulation that would actually be beneficial?"

If UBCs pass, it'll be only marginally beneficial, if that, and only for new(er) guns. Remember, estimates of up to 200,000,000 guns (maybe more) are currently in circulation. There's no way any new background check laws will be enforceable for guns made prior to the date of any new law enacted. But then, the Brady campaign believes that over a million purchases by prohibited persons were stopped by the existing background check law so you'll have those that believe it will be beneficial.

You know... we have to do something. It's for the children.

carguychris · June 24, 2015, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarryLee

Any new regulation that would actually be beneficial?

Repeal of the pointless and annoying in-state FFL transfer requirement for handgun purchases. IIRC this was included in the previous Manchin-Toomey effort. Of course, there are indications that the federal courts will throw this out regardless, although I can't put my finger on the court case at the moment.

Allow return of firearms to the owner from hock or consignment at a FFL without a 4473 and NICS check. The only current exception is for "repair or customizing".

Allow nonlicensees to send handguns to a FFL via US Mail, and delist suppressors from the NFA. OK, I'm probably dreaming on these two.

Wait! I just listed existing regulations that I want to go away, rather than new ones. Oh well.

steve4102 · June 24, 2015, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Manchin specifically mentioned an effort aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people diagnosed with mental illness.

How can they "Legally" accomplish this?

Wouldn't the NICS and other Government agencies need to have access to our Medical records, or require physicians to inform on their Patients for this to work?

Wouldn't this access to our Medical records be in conflict with our HIPPA laws?

rebs · June 24, 2015, 04:36 PM

The safe act in NY State already gives a Dr, nurse and other professionals the right to notify the state if they feel you might be a danger to yourself or others. Then the state will take your guns and you will have to prove you are not a danger before you have a chance to get them back. In most cases it will cost a lot of money for courts and lawyers fees.

BarryLee · June 24, 2015, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Wouldn't the NICS and other Government agencies need to have access to our Medical records, or require physicians to inform on their Patients for this to work?

That’s one of my concerns. They start off talking about keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, but eventually the reality of somehow really doing that will sink in. Then just to say they “did something” they’ll pass legislation that just makes things more onerous for the legal gun owner.

BarryLee · June 24, 2015, 04:54 PM

Quote:

The safe act in NY State already gives a Dr, nurse and other professionals the right to notify the state if they feel you might be a danger to yourself or others

After the incident in Connecticut I heard a Doctor on NPR state that many people may exhibit theoretical violent tendencies, but never commit an actual act. So, what do we do go back to mass institutionalization of anyone who is just a little off center? I doubt the courts would ever allow that or that most Americans want to see that happen. If they really want to do something the best option is to focus on improving the performance of the existing system. If I remember right the Virginia Tech shooter had been ruled a danger by a Court and should not have been allowed to buy a gun, but the government dropped the ball. Also, I think the Colorado movie theater shooter had been reported by a Doctor as a danger to himself and others, but the Police never did anything.

**Tom Servo** · June 24, 2015, 04:57 PM

I'm surprised they're still sticking their necks out for this.

Beretta sent out a solicitation when they decided to move their operations out of Maryland. West Virginia threw their hat in the ring. Beretta responded that they would not be considering the state because of Manchin's decision to push the 2013 UBC bill. They were unambiguous and clear on that.

Toomey's up for reelection next year, and the NRA is going to savage him on this.

The issue simply doesn't have the impetus it had in 2013. If it didn't pass then, it's sure as heck not going to pass in this session.

raimius · June 24, 2015, 06:47 PM

I'm a bit concerned.
UBC bills are, in my opinion, some of the easiest to "sell" to the public. Many, even most, people don't have strong objections to an instant background check for purchasing firearms. If you buy new, it is the "normal" thing. Additionally, the rhetoric about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane sells pretty well...heck, even most posters here agree with that premise.

The devil is in the details. Most of these bills are impractical and serve more as an annoyance/legal trap for gun buyers than a way to meaningfully reduce unlawful purchase/possession. Our problem is that most people don't get past the sound bytes and think about the actual application of the proposed law.

Pahoo · June 24, 2015, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Any new regulation that would actually be beneficial?

When you only focus on the firearm or the bullet, you lose sight of where to start to really find any benefit. Senators Manhcin has lied to the folks of WV in order to stay in power and continues to present himself as a moderate gun-owner. He took an oath to protect "Our" constitution and like to many others of his persuasion breaks his oath. ......

Remember back when he said that most W.V. gun owners are in favor of expanded background checks. Seriously ??? .....

Be Free and;
Be Safe !!!

rebs · June 25, 2015, 06:08 AM

Another thing I find strange is that none of the politicians mention that nearly if not all mass shootings occur in gun free zones. Schools, theaters, shopping places and restaurants, even the military base shooting happened in a gun free part of the base. This seems to be never mentioned, why not ? almost if not all people that have committed a mass shooting or attempted to do so have been found to be mentally challenged in some form or another, mentally ill. The mentally ill and the criminal will never obey gun laws, so what good is being done by passing laws and restrictions that only law abiding citizens will obey ?

steve4102 · June 25, 2015, 07:10 AM

Common sense and facts do not fit the narrative.

**Aguila Blanca** · June 25, 2015, 09:15 AM

Any such legislation will have to be checked VERY carefully for language, or we'll get some nasty surprises. I read an article just yesterday reporting that the new Oregon law on transfers not only means (like in Washington) that you can't (legally) let a buddy try your gun, and an instructor can't (legally) hand a gun to a student, BUT ... the definition of "firearm" is anything that propels a projectile by the action of a powder-fired cartridge (not an exact quote). This definition encompasses contractors' powder-actuated nail guns (the typical Ramset or Hilti guns used to nail 2x4s to concrete floors).

So now every carpenter needs a background check to buy a Hilti gun, and the company can't just have one in the truck because every time a different carpenter picks it up it's a "transfer." Presumeably, every Lowe's and Home Depot in Oregon will have to get an FFL if they want to sell Hilti powder-actuated nail guns.

Unintended consequences ... This is what happens when people who don't live in the real world set out to solve problems that can't be solved with (more) laws.

bandaid1 · June 25, 2015, 10:35 AM

In looking at the question about whether the Government has access to private heath records to assess if someone should face adjudication of mental health, to put it simply, the answer is YES they can. (https://www.aclu.org/faq-government-...edical-records)

In many ways the medical staff did see this coming and had their hands tied by regulation to force them to give access to the government to our health records. They have no choice. If people want their privacy back then they need to require that their health records go back to hand written hard documents. As long as our records are accessable electronically, the Gov. will have it.

The UBC's will lead to REGISTRATION. It has no other purpose other than that, because it will not work without it. In passing registration it will likely be called/or sold to the American people as, a fix to a "loop hole" for UBC in order to pass Registration.

2ndsojourn · June 25, 2015, 10:59 AM

"In passing registration it will likely be called/or sold to the American people as, a fix to a "loop hole" for UBC in order to pass Registration. "

More likely it'll be called some form of 'Gun Safety Act'. You know....to make us all safer.

SamNavy · June 25, 2015, 02:33 PM

Quote:

even the military base shooting happened in a gun free part of the base.

There have been several recent shootings on military bases... the thing to note here is that EVERY part of a military base is "gun free" in the same sense that a theater/school/church usually is. On a military base, the only place you will find personnel with guns is at a checkpoint, such as a gate or quarterdeck. Those places are few and far between. Most locations, such as hangars, office buildings, Commissary, parks, garages, common areas, streets, etc... you have to call the police and wait for the good guys to arrive just like any other place.

horselips · June 25, 2015, 03:12 PM

Like any sane person, I don't want to see firearms made available to mental cases and criminals. That said, I cannot support universal background checks for several reasons. (1) I do not trust the federal government. At all. Especially with this administration, and potentially under a Hillary administration. It lies, it steals, it is corrupt through and through. I do not trust it not to use UBC to create a gun registry, I do not believe them when they say they do not retain records that should have been destroyed. (2) The cost of UBC will be passed on to the citizens as a direct expense. Under no circumstances should any price be attached to the lawful exercise of any civil right. I don't pay a poll tax when I vote, and the plate they pass at church isn't going to the government. I pay no fee nor do I obtain any license to speak freely - here or anywhere else. Any fee attached to my free exercise of my RKBA is unacceptable. (3) The gun show - private sale loophole doesn't exist in the context of criminals obtaining weapons. Less than 1%, much less, of the guns used in crimes are obtained this way. If they want to reduce "gun violence" the best way is to remove from circulation the people who do that sort of thing.

Bartholomew Roberts · June 27, 2015, 05:39 PM

Schumer/Manchin/Toomey 2 is extremely unlikely to happen. We replaced numerous anti-gun Senators in 2014 (11 newly-elected pro-2A Senators, 3 newly elected anti-2A Senators). Then of course, they'd need the Republican Senate leadership to go along with it - and all of that would be pointless unless they got the House and House leadership onboard as well - and right before an election year where every single Republican candidate (save one) attended the NRA convention.

All that is happening here is the President no longer has to get reelected or cut any deals with Congress so he is free to speak his mind - which not surprisingly for a former Chairman of the Joyce Foundation, is anti-gun.

June 24, 2015, 11:56 AM	#1
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	Manchin / Toomey Part II Looks like Senators Manhcin and Toomey are planning to revive their gun control efforts. Right now they’re apparently strategizing to see what kind of bill they could gain support for. The article in the Washington Post states, “Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) are considering ways to renew their failed push to expand meaningful background checks on gun purchases”. Senator Harry Reid said, “Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill, people who are criminals from purchasing guns? We haven’t seen anything specific yet and may not, but the sad thing is most of their proposals would do little if anything to prevent acts of violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill. So, has anything changed? Do you see any new regulation that might pass? Any new regulation that would actually be beneficial? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...-control-push/ __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

June 24, 2015, 04:57 PM	#8
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	I'm surprised they're still sticking their necks out for this. Beretta sent out a solicitation when they decided to move their operations out of Maryland. West Virginia threw their hat in the ring. Beretta responded that they would not be considering the state because of Manchin's decision to push the 2013 UBC bill. They were unambiguous and clear on that. Toomey's up for reelection next year, and the NRA is going to savage him on this. The issue simply doesn't have the impetus it had in 2013. If it didn't pass then, it's sure as heck not going to pass in this session. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

June 24, 2015, 12:45 PM	#2
2ndsojourn Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2013 Location: South Jersey Posts: 1,416	"Do you see any new regulation that might pass?" A renewed push for 'UBCs' is likely. If I remember correctly, the last time they voted on it, they selected some senate rule that required a 60% majority to pass. It didn't get the 60% but I think it did have a majority in favor. If it goes to vote by simple majority next time it might pass. "Any new regulation that would actually be beneficial?" If UBCs pass, it'll be only marginally beneficial, if that, and only for new(er) guns. Remember, estimates of up to 200,000,000 guns (maybe more) are currently in circulation. There's no way any new background check laws will be enforceable for guns made prior to the date of any new law enacted. But then, the Brady campaign believes that over a million purchases by prohibited persons were stopped by the existing background check law so you'll have those that believe it will be beneficial. You know... we have to do something. It's for the children.

June 24, 2015, 04:36 PM	#5
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	The safe act in NY State already gives a Dr, nurse and other professionals the right to notify the state if they feel you might be a danger to yourself or others. Then the state will take your guns and you will have to prove you are not a danger before you have a chance to get them back. In most cases it will cost a lot of money for courts and lawyers fees.

June 24, 2015, 06:47 PM	#9
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	I'm a bit concerned. UBC bills are, in my opinion, some of the easiest to "sell" to the public. Many, even most, people don't have strong objections to an instant background check for purchasing firearms. If you buy new, it is the "normal" thing. Additionally, the rhetoric about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane sells pretty well...heck, even most posters here agree with that premise. The devil is in the details. Most of these bills are impractical and serve more as an annoyance/legal trap for gun buyers than a way to meaningfully reduce unlawful purchase/possession. Our problem is that most people don't get past the sound bytes and think about the actual application of the proposed law.

June 25, 2015, 06:08 AM	#11
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	Another thing I find strange is that none of the politicians mention that nearly if not all mass shootings occur in gun free zones. Schools, theaters, shopping places and restaurants, even the military base shooting happened in a gun free part of the base. This seems to be never mentioned, why not ? almost if not all people that have committed a mass shooting or attempted to do so have been found to be mentally challenged in some form or another, mentally ill. The mentally ill and the criminal will never obey gun laws, so what good is being done by passing laws and restrictions that only law abiding citizens will obey ?

June 25, 2015, 07:10 AM	#12
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,955	Common sense and facts do not fit the narrative.

June 25, 2015, 09:15 AM	#13
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	Any such legislation will have to be checked VERY carefully for language, or we'll get some nasty surprises. I read an article just yesterday reporting that the new Oregon law on transfers not only means (like in Washington) that you can't (legally) let a buddy try your gun, and an instructor can't (legally) hand a gun to a student, BUT ... the definition of "firearm" is anything that propels a projectile by the action of a powder-fired cartridge (not an exact quote). This definition encompasses contractors' powder-actuated nail guns (the typical Ramset or Hilti guns used to nail 2x4s to concrete floors). So now every carpenter needs a background check to buy a Hilti gun, and the company can't just have one in the truck because every time a different carpenter picks it up it's a "transfer." Presumeably, every Lowe's and Home Depot in Oregon will have to get an FFL if they want to sell Hilti powder-actuated nail guns. Unintended consequences ... This is what happens when people who don't live in the real world set out to solve problems that can't be solved with (more) laws.

June 25, 2015, 10:35 AM	#14
bandaid1 Senior Member Join Date: May 9, 2013 Posts: 116	In looking at the question about whether the Government has access to private heath records to assess if someone should face adjudication of mental health, to put it simply, the answer is YES they can. (https://www.aclu.org/faq-government-...edical-records) In many ways the medical staff did see this coming and had their hands tied by regulation to force them to give access to the government to our health records. They have no choice. If people want their privacy back then they need to require that their health records go back to hand written hard documents. As long as our records are accessable electronically, the Gov. will have it. The UBC's will lead to REGISTRATION. It has no other purpose other than that, because it will not work without it. In passing registration it will likely be called/or sold to the American people as, a fix to a "loop hole" for UBC in order to pass Registration.

June 25, 2015, 10:59 AM	#15
2ndsojourn Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2013 Location: South Jersey Posts: 1,416	"In passing registration it will likely be called/or sold to the American people as, a fix to a "loop hole" for UBC in order to pass Registration. " More likely it'll be called some form of 'Gun Safety Act'. You know....to make us all safer.

June 25, 2015, 03:12 PM	#17
horselips Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2013 Posts: 159	Like any sane person, I don't want to see firearms made available to mental cases and criminals. That said, I cannot support universal background checks for several reasons. (1) I do not trust the federal government. At all. Especially with this administration, and potentially under a Hillary administration. It lies, it steals, it is corrupt through and through. I do not trust it not to use UBC to create a gun registry, I do not believe them when they say they do not retain records that should have been destroyed. (2) The cost of UBC will be passed on to the citizens as a direct expense. Under no circumstances should any price be attached to the lawful exercise of any civil right. I don't pay a poll tax when I vote, and the plate they pass at church isn't going to the government. I pay no fee nor do I obtain any license to speak freely - here or anywhere else. Any fee attached to my free exercise of my RKBA is unacceptable. (3) The gun show - private sale loophole doesn't exist in the context of criminals obtaining weapons. Less than 1%, much less, of the guns used in crimes are obtained this way. If they want to reduce "gun violence" the best way is to remove from circulation the people who do that sort of thing.

June 27, 2015, 05:39 PM	#18
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Schumer/Manchin/Toomey 2 is extremely unlikely to happen. We replaced numerous anti-gun Senators in 2014 (11 newly-elected pro-2A Senators, 3 newly elected anti-2A Senators). Then of course, they'd need the Republican Senate leadership to go along with it - and all of that would be pointless unless they got the House and House leadership onboard as well - and right before an election year where every single Republican candidate (save one) attended the NRA convention. All that is happening here is the President no longer has to get reelected or cut any deals with Congress so he is free to speak his mind - which not surprisingly for a former Chairman of the Joyce Foundation, is anti-gun.