Federal background check "compromise"

[VMI77]

It will increase the cost by a lot more than $20. It will on the average also increase the time it takes to find a buyer or seller. If I want to find someone with a 1911 for sale and don't want my purchase registered the leg work required to find a seller will have both an opportunity cost and a real cost. But these aspects still are not as important as how the Bill defines a transfer. If it has the original language defining a transfer it is a horrendous assault on law abiding citizens.

[mamabearCali]

I am very cautious here. We don't know what is in here it could be nothing but restatement of current law. One does not want to cut off a nose to spite your face, but anything that makes a senator from N.y happy, makes me very sick inside.

[Poldark]

I am very cautious here. We don't know what is in here it could be nothing but restatement of current law. One does not want to cut off a nose to spite your face, but anything that makes a senator from N.y happy, makes me very sick inside.

The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/10/the- ... t-to-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


.......wasn't Toomey a Tea Party candidate ?:banghead:


http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/04 ... stupidity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[XinTX]

Some of this wording is scary:

A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

So, if you post on a web board, and that board has any 'paid' (and they could REALLY stretch the meaning of that) advertising, or the web site is paid in any way, it could fall under this?

I HOPE the NRA comes out and revokes the A rating of Manchin and Toomey for this. I really do.

[jimlongley]

. . .
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.

[Poldark]

I HOPE the NRA comes out and revokes the A rating of Manchin and Toomey for this. I really do.

These two Quislings need to be tarred and feathered, more like.

[Poldark]

NRA response

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

[mamabearCali]

I HOPE the NRA comes out and revokes the A rating of Manchin and Toomey for this. I really do.

These two Quislings need to be tarred and feathered, more like.

Grrrrrrrr! Lock and load! Politically speaking (of course). These two need to go.

[RoyGBiv]

NRA response

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

Succinct and on point...

[RoyGBiv]

. . .
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.

[TexasCajun]

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.

[XinTX]

NRA response

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

Succinct and on point...

[ Image ]

Should have added:

"Based on their actions, we can no longer give an "A" rating to Senators Manchin or Toomey."

[howdy]

Are not FFL holders required NOW to keep records of all transactions? What would stop the Feds in the future from requiring the FFL to turn over their records.

There are 300 million plus guns already out in circulation. How will anyone know WHEN I sold my guns (if I have any left after the boating accident) or who I sold them to. I'm not required to keep any records. If you don't know where the guns are, how can you control the sales? This to me is a prelude to universal registration. This "compromise" will not work. Bad guys will still get guns, Newtown's will happen, and the liberals will come back and say we need more "common sense" laws because what we have are not working.

There has been absolutely NOTHING done to prevent another Newtown. Some nut in Houston just hurt 14 people with an exacto knife. Where were the Police to protect the students. Students had to risk their lives by tackling this guy. It would have been easier if a CHL student had just shot the jerk.

From Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" The copying of this article is legal.

This covers the majority of sheeple:

"It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers."

See the whole article here: http://jim.com/cowards.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ....old but apropos.

[AEA]

So all sales a gun shows requiring background checks seems clear, but the "Internet sales" makes no sense.

It's not supposed to make sense to us. Just sound good to the general public for the moment. Then, after the vote and if passed, it will be revealed that the "internet" part includes AMMO purchases online!