TexasCHLforum.com

TexasCajun wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/sena ... ction.html

Looks like this IS the bill they've been talking about: requiring an FFL transfer for private sales & new requirements for record keeping. Looks like it's time to break out the checkbook again & send some support to NRA-ILA. Although it sounds like we could be in for a second act of the Ted Cruz-Rand Paul show.

The telltale sign that this is really only their first step in the national disarmament plan is the "It's just common sense." line from Toomey.

Anyone have a link to the actual text??
So far all I can find are sound bites like this...

jimlongley wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: . . .
What do we "get"?
1. We get a recorded vote to use against anyone that voted for the bill.
2. We get legislation that impacts gun owners "minimally". Not as minimal as zero, but far, Far, FAR less than the Feinstein Bill.
3. We get to tout our willingness to "compromise" (see #2)

The first thing the NRA needs to say once we're done with background checks is "So now what are we going to do about school security and the fantasy of "gun-free-zones" that will actually improve school safety?" The next mass shooting is only a question of "when", not "if". We need to get out in front and demand action be taken that actually addresses the root problems. This way, WHEN it happens again, we can say... "See... this is what we've been telling you."

Just like the discussion about "bomb throwers" killing HB700 (OC), this is about Statesmanship.
If we can effectively use this deal against anyone that voted for it.....

1. A recorded vote is of limited utility in this case because of (#2) when they can say they impacted gun owners minimally.
2. Feinstein was not going to pass, which is why we get this "minimal" legislation, when it should be LESS than zero. (in other words after all of the compromises and concessions, it's time for gun owners to gain something)
3. See #2, we have "compromised" numerous times, but only in the sense of meaning #2 in my previous post, we should already get credit for that rather than starting fresh with ever negotiation.

While I agree with you that zero is better than something useless, if they're going to pass new gun control laws, I'd prefer them to focus on outlawing things that are already illegal, as seems to be the case here.... Pending reading the actual bill. So far it's all hearsay.

Poldark wrote:NRA response

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news- ... s=&st=&ps=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Succinct and on point...

Poldark wrote: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/10/m ... nd-checks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought this article made two good points...

1.

One quick note about Internet sales. While current law technically doesn’t require a background check for sales over the Internet, it does require a federally-licensed firearms dealer to broker the sale — and that means a background check for the purchaser. At least to my understanding, all this changes is that the background check will be explicitly required. That’s also been my understanding about gun-show sales, although I believe that area is a little grayer.

In a sense, a Manchin-Toomey proposal along these lines would kneecap the current push from Senate Democrats, and merely firm up the status quo. Maybe that’s why the filibuster threat seems to be fading:

and

2.

At this point, Republicans may figure they won’t lose much in a floor vote anyway, so why take a big political hit in a filibuster? Let Democrats go on record voting for gun control and assault-weapons bans, as long as the background-check “expansion” that ends up passing doesn’t intrude on private sales and transfers, and doesn’t result in gun registries.

I'll refrain from piling on until I've read the bill.... but.. if it doesn't create a registry and it doesn't impede FTF private transfers...

What do we "get"?
1. We get a recorded vote to use against anyone that voted for the bill.
2. We get legislation that impacts gun owners "minimally". Not as minimal as zero, but far, Far, FAR less than the Feinstein Bill.
3. We get to tout our willingness to "compromise" (see #2)

The first thing the NRA needs to say once we're done with background checks is "So now what are we going to do about school security and the fantasy of "gun-free-zones" that will actually improve school safety?" The next mass shooting is only a question of "when", not "if". We need to get out in front and demand action be taken that actually addresses the root problems. This way, WHEN it happens again, we can say... "See... this is what we've been telling you."

Just like the discussion about "bomb throwers" killing HB700 (OC), this is about Statesmanship.
If we can effectively use this deal against anyone that voted for it.....