Background Checks Compromise

[grousemaster]

Sounds like it passed the Senate today. And 16 Republican voted for it...

It did not pass the Senate. It passed a procedure that allows them to debate on it. It still has to come up for a vote.

Those republicans didn't vote for the bill. They voted to allow them to vote on it.

Heffay is correct

[Heffay]

The republicans who vote for it will be from safe districts or not up for election

Those safe Senatorial districts??

[sansooshooter]

The republicans who vote for it will be from safe districts or not up for election

Those safe Senatorial districts??

Sorry Seats. Ok now?

[whiteox]

Here's the full text of the Toomey-Manchin Amendment.

http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8134649f-6d23-4ef2-882f-6a4555ff4889&SK=BDEA0DD2B0F4D93F905B5BC8DF6F76B6

Basically if you are selling it at a gun show, or by advertising it on the internet or through a commercial publication, and you aren't related by blood or marriage to the buyer, the transaction has to go through an FFL.

There are some other provisions to like. They beefed up the interstate transportation of firearms so you can get arrested going through New York City, which is nice.

Immunity from suit if you sell a gun in compliance with the statute.

Show your carry permit and they don't call in NICS. I expect it would still require a 4473.

If this is all it was, I'm ok with that. I'd prefer that we get something more, like carry reciprocity or taking suppressors off the NFA, but I can live with this.

I have a feeling it will become an amendment Christmas tree. That is not ok.

[DoxaPar]

Are you prepared to support the government when it says "you may do something wrong therefore we are taking your constitutional right from you"? That's what this bill is.

The reason that this needs to upset the American public so much is because it is the deprivation of the constitutional rights of individuals on the basis of a chance that they may someday (however remotely) commit a crime. It undermines due process and the principle that all people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

It is wildly unfortunate to me that, by and large, the American public doesn't see this for what it is. It sets a horrible precedence for our future.

Are people really prepared to accept a state that says "You could do X wrong and therefore you cannot do Y"?

Not "has done something wrong" but "has the capacity to do something wrong."

If that's the road we go down there is no end in sight to the forfeiture of our liberty.

Frankly, this bill scares the crap outta me.

[XDM45]

Are you prepared to support the government when it says "you may do something wrong therefore we are taking your constitutional right from you"? That's what this bill is.

The reason that this needs to upset the American public so much is because it is the deprivation of the constitutional rights of individuals on the basis of a chance that they may someday (however remotely) commit a crime. It undermines due process and the principle that all people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

It is wildly unfortunate to me that, by and large, the American public doesn't see this for what it is. It sets a horrible precedence for our future.

Are people really prepared to accept a state that says "You could do X wrong and therefore you cannot do Y"?

Not "has done something wrong" but "has the capacity to do something wrong."

If that's the road we go down there is no end in sight to the forfeiture of our liberty.

Frankly, this bill scares the crap outta me.

100% agreed.

[Heffay]

Are you prepared to support the government when it says "you may do something wrong therefore we are taking your constitutional right from you"? That's what this bill is.

I missed the part of the bill where this is happening. Can you elaborate?

[DoxaPar]

Are you prepared to support the government when it says "you may do something wrong therefore we are taking your constitutional right from you"? That's what this bill is.

I missed the part of the bill where this is happening. Can you elaborate?

The proposed bill strikes all of section 103 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 and replaces it. Check out that portion of the original NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 and the Sec. 113 of the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.

And pretty much all of Sec. 117.

[whiteox]

Should convicted felons, violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?

If the answer is no, then how do you prevent it from happening?

[oldhunter]

This is only part as to what is going on now in the Senate. This is in an email from Gun Owners of America

So, here's where we are. Right after the Senate proceeded to the gun control bill, Harry Reid used his privileged recognition to put a bunch of amendments in place. In Senate parlance, they are referred to as an "amendment tree;" and they contain the universal registry bill, the Feinstein gun ban, and the magazine ban. These will be voted on in upcoming days.
As for the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer universal registry bill, don't believe the press' efforts to sugar-coat it. If you have ever had an "Internet ... posting" on (or related to) your gun, you can sell it only by going to a dealer and filling out a 4473 and getting the government's approval. Only a cave man would be exempt.
And once you have a 4473? Well, the ATF is going from dealer to dealer, copying the information on these forms, and feeding it into a database. But, says Toomey, he's against universal registries. This is where it would have helped if Toomey had consulted someone who knew something about guns.

[DoxaPar]

Should convicted felons, violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?

If the answer is no, then how do you prevent it from happening?

If only it was limited to that. Did you read the section I mentioned?

[Holland&Holland]

Should convicted felons, violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?

If the answer is no, then how do you prevent it from happening?

Thought that was already illeagle is it not?

[jdege]

Should convicted felons, violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?

If the answer is no, then how do you prevent it from happening?

You can't.

No matter what you do, no matter what draconian the laws you put in place, or how strictly you enforce them, you will never stop those who are willing to violate the law from obtaining firearms. In fact, you won't even significantly inconvenience them.

[photogpat]

Should convicted felons, violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?

If the answer is no, then how do you prevent it from happening?

You can't.

No matter what you do, no matter what draconian the laws you put in place, or how strictly you enforce them, you will never stop those who are willing to violate the law from obtaining firearms. In fact, you won't even significantly inconvenience them.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding FTW

There are >300 million firearms in the US alone...not to mention a large source of illegal material and a porous border just south of us.

[whiteox]

I know that locking the doors on my house and car won't stop a determined thief. Nothing will.

I still lock my doors, because I'll be damned if I'm just going to let them walk in and take things off the shelf without making them work for it.

Same thing with gun background checks. I am under no illusions about the ability of crooks to get guns. We ought to make them work for it though.

There is historical precedent for criminalizing gun sales to prohibited classes of people going back to colonial times. If you sold guns to Indians you were in a heap of trouble, and for good reason. Those folks were more likely to use the guns against the colonists.

Same deal today. There are classes of people who we, as a society, have determined should not have firearms. Trouble is that class of people are harder to identify.

It should be illegal to sell a gun to one of those people, and the seller should not be able to plead ignorance of the fact that the buyer was prohibited unless they do some minimal amount if due diligence. (No, asking the guy if he's a felon does not qualify as due diligence, because criminals lie)

A background check where the NICS search is destroyed and the government doesn't keep either a paper or electronic record of the sale seems to me the least onerous, least intrusive way to achieve that.