SB 649/ manchin toomey universal background checks bill - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > SB 649/ manchin toomey universal background checks bill

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-15-2013, 08:11 PM   #21
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,454
Liked 753 Times on 437 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
You're right, FMJ. You understand the political process and how it works.

Our allies in congress are turning this around on the libs. But you'll never convince the fanatics that think any compromise measure is evil. The people working the hardest on our behalf are being called sell-outs and whores.

Since they don't even understand the process, they don't trust our friends and allies, and the paranoid silly bullsh!t just keeps flowing.
I dunno my brother, after scanning the actual language in the bill a couple of times (i cant read it without getting a headache. I read at a VERY high level but must admit legaleze is NOT my forte') It really seems to me that old Gottlieb (executive vice president of the second amendment foundation)is peddling snake oil in that podcast.
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 08:17 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6563 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Smoke and mirrors!


http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

Quote:
The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular:

1. The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry.

2. The provision which is supposed to strengthen existing federal law protecting the interstate transportation of personal firearms in fact cripples that protection.

Let’s start with registration. Here’s the Machin-Toomey text.


(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
“(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
“(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
“(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.

The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.

Under current law, retired FFLs must send their sales records to BATFE. 18 USC 923(g)(4); 27 CFR 478.127. During the Clinton administration, a program was begun to put these records into a consolidated gun registry. The program was controversial and (as far as we know) was eventually stopped. Manchin-Toomey provides it with legal legitimacy.

The vast majority of FFLs are small businesses, often single proprietorships. Only a tiny fraction of FFLs are enduring corporate entities (e.g., Bass Pro Shops) which will never surrender their FFL. By consolidating and centralizing the records of all out-of-business FFLs, BATFE will be able to build a list of most people in the U.S. who have bought a gun from a store. The list will not be fully up-to-date for every gun owned by every individual, but the list will identify the very large majority of gun owners.

(The maxim discussed above is sometimes rendered as Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.)

Now for transportation. The 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act immunizes from state law prosecution the transportation of an unloaded and inaccessible (e.g., in the trunk of your car) firearm through a state. 18 USC 926A. So if you are driving from Pennsylvania to Vermont to go hunting there, you can travel through New York State without needing to acquire a NY pistol permit. (Which NY won’t issue anyway, since NY only issues to residents.) Toomey-Manchin includes some explicit language to make clear what was already implicit in FOPA, that such travel can include situations in which, while traveling, you stop to eat, refuel, or rest:


SEC. 128. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION.
(a) In General.-Section 926A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
“926A. Interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition
“(a) Definition.-In this section, the term ‘transport’-
“(1) includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental to the transport; and
“(2) does not include transportation-
“(A) with the intent to commit a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year that involves a firearm; or
“(B) with knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe, that a crime described in subparagraph (A) is to be committed in the course of, or arising from, the transportation.

But notice part (2) of the new definition: a new exclusion for any firearms crime punishable by more than year of imprisonment. In some states, such a crime includes merely not having a state-issued gun permit. So now let’s suppose that the Pennsylvanian is going to Maine. On the way, he travels through Massachusetts. Under current law, FOPA protects him. Under Manchin-Toomey, Massachusetts can arrest and imprison him, and he will have no federal defense. In Massachusetts, possession of a firearm without a state permit is punishable by imprisonment up to to 2 years. Possession outside one’s home or business is a sentence of 2.5 to 5 years, with a mandatory minimum of 18 months. New Jersey and New York City also have penalties of over one year for simple possession without a local permit.

Maybe the Pennsylvanian might qualify for some exemption under the laws of Mass., NYC, or NJ. Or perhaps not. What we know for sure is that today the Pennsylvanian is protected by FOPA, and if Manchin-Toomey passes, he will not be.

There are several other states where the relevant penalty is up to one year. Every one of them can exempt itself from FOPA by simply increasing the penalty to 367 days.

The 1986 FOPA is also known as Volkmer-McClure, for its prime sponsors, Democratic Rep. Harold Volkmer of Missouri, and Republican Sen. James McClure of Idaho. Michael E. Hammond was McClure’s manager for the bill. Hammand has identified a variety of other potential problems in Manchin-Toomey.

There are fairly small number of attorneys with serious expertise on federal firearms laws. Senator Charles Schumer, who works closely with Michael Bloomberg’s lobby, is likely to have had the full legal resources of that very well-funded organization. Conversely, based on off-the-record inquiry, I have not found any indication that Senator Toomey had any specialist expertise on his own side.

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.
__________________

Last edited by texaswoodworker; 04-15-2013 at 08:21 PM.
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 09:23 PM   #23
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Daoust_Nat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando,Florida
Posts: 2,105
Liked 1227 Times on 600 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
One of my big concerns with this bill is that it seems to provide "incentive" for folks to get a CCW.

Gun registration might well be banned but millions of us CCW holders are "registered gun owners" by the fact that our CCW's are on record.

Anytime the government offers something, there is always a catch... HMM... wonder why the Government would be interested in a program that provides "incentive" for EVERY American gun owner to apply for a CCW?

What on EARTH could they have in mind?

Yea, Yea, Loc... I know... My tinfoil hat strap is a bit too tight.

Tack
Tack, millions of us are now.
__________________

A bad day at the range is better then a good day on the job!

Daoust_Nat is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 09:48 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 5,988
Liked 4784 Times on 2313 Posts
Likes Given: 1474

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daoust_Nat View Post
Tack, millions of us are now.
Exactly... but no where near the "100 Million" estimated gun owners.

I'm sure Odumbo and Uncle Ho... oops, I meant Uncle Joe would love to have the names and address of ALL 100 Million...

Sure... they've got my info... but personally I like that fact that a dozen of my close friends don't currently have a CCW specifically because they don't want to be on anyone's list.

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 09:51 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2057 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

I really don't care if they know who I am, they need to be quicker and a better aim then I. If they don't know who I am just from this board they need to be fired from their jobs.

__________________
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 11:17 PM   #26
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Daoust_Nat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando,Florida
Posts: 2,105
Liked 1227 Times on 600 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Okay, I may have been a little naive last night when I first saw this, and then read the summary on Toomer's web site. After reading what was written on this forum at lunch today, I started looking more. Listened to NRA News, read a couple of blogs, particularly Dave Kopel's.

I have switched sides. I do not think this will work. You know some poor bastard will be driving through Mass. or NJ, get pulled over for speeding, and wind up in jail because he was driving to Vermont, NH or Maine to hunt. Bad stuff.

I see now how the registration will be circumvented. I can also see AG Holder arresting himself and sentencing himself to 15 years in jail. Just like prosecutions happened out of fast & furious.

This is a bad idea. Stay on your legislaters.

__________________

A bad day at the range is better then a good day on the job!

Daoust_Nat is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 11:32 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 615
Liked 325 Times on 194 Posts
Likes Given: 517

Default

Everyone knows that I believe that we should fight ANY infringements on our rights. But after reading the proposed bill I'm not that worried any longer about it even if it passes. It lets the antis think that they won something while not harming us and possibly helping us is some areas. Just my opinion.

__________________
Warrior1256 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 11:39 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6563 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior1256 View Post
Everyone knows that I believe that we should fight ANY infringements on our rights. But after reading the proposed bill I'm not that worried any longer about it even if it passes. It lets the antis think that they won something while not harming us and possibly helping us is some areas. Just my opinion.
You might want to read a lawyers take on the amendments. I posted it above.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 11:47 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
downsouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,009
Liked 1414 Times on 844 Posts
Likes Given: 146

Default

With the terrible Boston bombing that has all the media attention, watch the other hand. Gun control and immigration start debate this week. The two biggest issues of the session and now all eyes look toward Boston. Anybody smell what I stepped in ?

__________________

NEVER FORGET

downsouth is offline  
opaww Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 12:11 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 759
Liked 489 Times on 296 Posts
Likes Given: 228

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downsouth View Post
With the terrible Boston bombing that has all the media attention, watch the other hand. Gun control and immigration start debate this week. The two biggest issues of the session and now all eyes look toward Boston. Anybody smell what I stepped in ?
Absolutely! Doesn't it always seem to happen when something that's of any importance to us, like Benghazi as an example, is in the news and then all of a sudden all eyes are taken off the ball and become focused on some other stuff. While the media is discussing terrorism and Boston all eyes will not be watching the gun and immigration debates, while something putrid is passed that's below the radar. This truly is an OBAMANATION!!!!!!!
__________________
gunsmoke11 is offline  
opaww Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish? Tackleberry1 Legal and Activism 163 04-15-2013 10:08 AM
thoughts on universal background checks mountainman13 Politics, Religion and Controversy 110 04-13-2013 09:47 PM
I'm 100% for universal background checks! What about you? kirbinster Legal and Activism 3 04-12-2013 06:40 PM
HB 77 for NM - Bill for expanded background checks for gun buyers dies in committee Bigcountry02 Legal and Activism 0 01-29-2013 04:40 AM
Universal Background Checks? Tackleberry1 Legal and Activism 6 01-12-2013 12:09 AM