Federal background check "compromise"

[A-R]

Placing this here so we have a spot to discuss the specifics of this US Senate background check "compromise" being discussed. Of course, in typical Democrat style NO ONE know the details of the bill - they apparently need to start voting on it before they're allowed to read it.

This is most detail I could find from an AP story:

The emerging deal would expand required background checks for sales at gun shows and online but exempt transactions like face-to-face, noncommercial purchases, said Senate staffers and lobbyists, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. Currently, the checks are required only for sales handled through licensed gun dealers.

And these tidbits from Politico:

Manchin is trying to persuade Toomey - a former Pennsylvania House member and president of the Club for Growth - to sign on to a proposal that would require checks and records of sales in commercial settings, including gun shows and online. Private sales would not be covered.

Schumer and Manchin held talks for several weeks with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) about a bipartisan agreement, but those discussions fell apart over Coburn's concerns on what records would be kept from the background checks and for how long. Coburn is now floating his own proposal on the issue.

So all sales a gun shows requiring background checks seems clear, but the "Internet sales" makes no sense. Out of state online sales (like Gunbroker) already require FFL transfer/background checks. Does this now also mean that in-state sales (like Texas Gun Trader) would be required? But it specifically mentions exempting face-to-face sales. So what if you advertise on TGT (or here on TexasCHLForum) but then do the transfer FTF? What if you email each other to set up a FTF deal?

The devil is in the details here and since the media and most of the politicians don't even understand the details of CURRENT gun transfer law, seems we can't get coherent details of what is involved in this "compromise" either.

[A-R]

Everything I"m finding online is a typical "process" story, reviewing in painstaking detail the rumors of backroom deals, who is siding with who, and what it all means politically. But NOTHING at all about the actual substance of any bill.

CNN had a big "BREAKING NEWS" banner on their web site touting "deal reached on background checks" ... but the resulting story is just rumors and process, no details on what is agreed to.

My guess: the "deal" is a series of quid pro quo mutual back scratching that has nothing to do with what the bill will actually say.

[A-R]

apparently there will be a press conference later this morning about the "compromise", so stay tuned I guess ...

[anygunanywhere]

In my world, if chucky schumer is not screaming in anger about the legislation then we are screwed. In other words, his stated optimism about breakthroughs leaves me with a sinking feeling.

The GOP will save us.

Anygunanywhere

[Poldark]

I never left the Republican party, they left me ! .

Progressives leftists progress assisted by progressive Republicans

Deal Reached.

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

[K.Mooneyham]

The whole thing seems pretty watered down from where BHO and the hardcore leftwingers started...the thing I am most concerned with is amendments being offered to the bill...watch for these bums to pull a "Hughes Amendment" in reverse...it almost killed the FOPA of 1986, which was a good bill otherwise. However, this time, they'll try to slip in something outrageous like the AWB at the last minute, knowing that BHO would sign it in a heartbeat. Sounds like the Demos ain't getting much on the face of this thing except to be able to say they did something, but I don't trust those bums any further than I could pick 'em up and throw 'em, either...too many weak RINO types helping them.

[Beiruty]

We should repeal Heughes Amendment just to punish the gun-grabber. It is lawful to own a NFA Class 3 item, so why not allow new manufactured items?!!!

[Poldark]

The whole thing seems pretty watered down from where BHO and the hardcore leftwingers started...the thing I am most concerned with is amendments being offered to the bill...watch for these bums to pull a "Hughes Amendment" in reverse...it almost killed the FOPA of 1986, which was a good bill otherwise. However, this time, they'll try to slip in something outrageous like the AWB at the last minute, knowing that BHO would sign it in a heartbeat. Sounds like the Demos ain't getting much on the face of this thing except to be able to say they did something, but I don't trust those bums any further than I could pick 'em up and throw 'em, either...too many weak RINO types helping them.

Just called the NRA and spoke to a rep in the legislative section, I was informed Joe Machin allegedly will not be getting an A rating again and the NRA does not support the Toomey compromise . I requested they make a public statement soonest on the Toomey/Manchin surrender bill.

[Superman]

Manchin is trying to persuade Toomey - a former Pennsylvania House member and president of the Club for Growth - to sign on to a proposal that would require checks and records of sales in commercial settings, including gun shows and online. Private sales would not be covered.

So all sales a gun shows requiring background checks seems clear, but the "Internet sales" makes no sense. Out of state online sales (like Gunbroker) already require FFL transfer/background checks. Does this now also mean that in-state sales (like Texas Gun Trader) would be required? But it specifically mentions exempting face-to-face sales. So what if you advertise on TGT (or here on TexasCHLForum) but then do the transfer FTF? What if you email each other to set up a FTF deal?

I have no confidence in their compromise. I see this wording everywhere that talks about it: "but exempt other transactions like some face-to-face exchanges among family members."

The exemptions are going to be very narrow...unofficial database is on it's way. Who cares about family member transactions when they are a small sliver of the number of transactions. A database with 90% of legal transactions is better than 0%...really any % is better than 0% because then you grow that % in the future.

[jimlongley]

All this time I have been wondering why they could call something like this a "compromise" when the only side that was gaining anything was the anti-rights group. I apparently forgot the other meaning of compromise.

Noun

compromise (plural compromises)

1 The settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.
2 A committal to something derogatory or objectionable; a prejudicial concession; a surrender; as, a compromise of character or right.

So in this case, and all others involving the anti-gun nuts, the second meaning is what holds. This is not an agreement involving mutual concessions, it is a surrender.

[rentz]

Given the very vague and limited information it sounds like the bill is things already in place!
Background checks are already required for online sales and at gunshows if not a FTF private sale and it mentions this excludes private sales.

Online sales require an ffl anyway, this all seems like a whole lot of nothing which means there's more to this that won't come up till they vote

[cw3van]

Given the very vague and limited information it sounds like the bill is things already in place!
Background checks are already required for online sales and at gunshows if not a FTF private sale and it mentions this excludes private sales.

Online sales require an ffl anyway, this all seems like a whole lot of nothing which means there's more to this that won't come up till they vote

This just doesn't meet the smell test. We had better be careful and alert because seems more to this than what's being said.

[RoyGBiv]

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.....

[baldeagle]

I never left the Republican party, they left me ! .

Progressives leftists progress assisted by progressive Republicans

Deal Reached.

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

the proposal would require background checks for private sales at gun shows and on the Internet, two areas that are currently exempt.

That's dangerous. That means an FTF posting on this forum would require an FFL in the middle. Craigs List, etc. would all require FFLs. So the price of privately selling a firearm, even to a trusted third party, just went up $20. And the bills include a requirement to keep records, which means one step away from a national registry. First you require the FFLs to keep records. Later you require them to hand over those records to the Feds. Voila! A national gun registry.