Utah Guns Forum banner

Senate Reaches Bipartisan Compromise on Gun Control

6K views 32 replies 18 participants last post by  David Nelson 
#1 ·
Breaking: Senate Reaches Bipartisan Compromise on Gun Control
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/46013-b ... n-control/
IJ review said:
A deal has been reached to expand gun background checks to all commercial sales.

This will take place for sales at gun shows, sales via the internet, or in any circumstance in which paid advertising is involved…

The proposed agreement would be more stringent than current law, which requires checks only when purchases are made through a licensed dealer, but less than originally sought by President Obama and congressional Democrats, who were seeking to expand background checks to nearly every kind of sale.

The deal would "expand background checks, make gun trafficking a federal crime for the first time and bolster federal funding for school security plans." Notably, this does not include creating a national gun registry. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Chuck Schumer (NY) teamed up with Republican Senators Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Patrick Toomey (Pa.) to strike this agreement. A more formal announcement should be made later this morning.

It seems like this is the best deal that could possibly be made …that could actually pass through Congress. According to a CNN poll that also matches results from a variety of other polls, a clear majority of Americans (86%) support strengthening background checks for guns in some way. At the same time, 55% of Americans would oppose the creation of a federal gun registry. According to these statistics, Americans would be getting exactly what they want from this bipartisan agreement: tougher background checks, no bans on any weapons or magazines, and no federal gun registry. [emphasis mine]
The video in the link says there is not enough opposition to this bill for a filibuster.
 
#2 ·
FROM the GOA (Gun Owners of America):

Gun Owners of America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sellout is worse than the Feinstein gun ban!

Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the "See a Shrink, Lose your Guns" sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) - but which also has Chuck Schumer's fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.

See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun "ranters" have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can't filibuster Harry Reid's gun control bill; that they can't cut off debate to a bill they haven't seen yet. "Let the bill come up," they say. "We need to see the bill" before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.

Well, we've seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it's worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an "amendment tree."

Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers "gun show sales" and Internet sales. But if you've ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you'd like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you're covered.

The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

And for those Republicans who think they're going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an "amendment tree"). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn't give "unanimous consent" to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

So if you live in a rural area, you're effectively barred from selling or buying a gun - or it at least becomes very, very difficult.

Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer "national registry" language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

But that's not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you're "dangerous" and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.

Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they'd seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it's going to happen to the rest of the population ... by the millions!

And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don't send every single patient's name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don't send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.

The bottom line: "See a shrink; lose your guns."

All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazine bans.

Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act - the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to "demonstrate" to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don't do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.

Please keep in mind, nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.

Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally acquiring guns, but there's plenty that will threaten our gun rights!
If the GOA is to be believed (and I believe them a lot more than the NRA or the sometimes over-the-top NAGR), this would essentially make all private sales, except for word-of-mouth sales, illegal without a background check). Hopefully this gets defeated.
 
#3 ·
An interesting twist!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/sena ... ction.html
yahoo said:
Pat Toomey, R-PA, said he added some provisions to strengthen gun rights in the bill, including allowing a legal gun owner to take his or her concealed weapon over state lines, even if that state does not allow concealed carry.
Still, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, et. all threaten to filibuster. I wonder if reps from CA and OR would vote against it because it supersedes their state laws of not recognizing out-of-state permits?
Edit: nevermind...the GOA statement clarified this, Toomey's addition doesn't mean CFP reciprocity (maybe I had a pipe dream there for a second), it just means transport. :roll:
Filibuster on! :bat:
 
#6 ·
#11 ·
Hawk87 said:
They have enough votes to get past a filibuster, thanks to the republican turncoats.
They had enough votes to get past the first filibuster. Several of the republicans that voted Yea on beginning debate have said that they would very much support the filibuster to end debate and vote if the final bill is unacceptable. At least one of them has said that the current bill is unacceptable, but they wanted to get some of the Democrats on the record in debate going against RKBA. I'm reserving final judgement until that time. Not that I'm happy that it made it to the floor.

Matt
 
#12 ·
Ruminus said:
About the only good thing that might come out of this is Toomey outing himself. Manchin, well, I think we knew where he stood. Filibuster away!
In skimming the text of the bill, I don't see too much problem with the part about forming a commission to investigate mass violence. Before any laws restricting any freedoms are even considered, there should be some significant proof that the proposed changes would have a positive effect on mass violence. If they can find that proof then we can put it to a vote. Heck, if they had a competent commission to investigate this and they found proof that me losing some of my gun rights would have some significant effect on people dying, I would have to consider going along with it. I know that won't happen so I'm all for someone actually studying the situation to see what kinds of things may actually be effective, and maybe finally putting to rest, with proven facts, that more gun laws won't help a bit.

Whether this should be a priority for government funding is a whole other topic.
 
#13 ·
To be honest, even if it gets out of the senate, I think it is very unlikely to pass the house. I have to say though, I have been impressed with the fight a handful of senators has given them. It gives me the warm and fuzzies that Mike Lee has been one of the ring leaders- right there with Rand Paul.
 
#14 ·
Crash said:
Ruminus said:
About the only good thing that might come out of this is Toomey outing himself. Manchin, well, I think we knew where he stood. Filibuster away!
In skimming the text of the bill, I don't see too much problem with the part about forming a commission to investigate mass violence. Before any laws restricting any freedoms are even considered, there should be some significant proof that the proposed changes would have a positive effect on mass violence. If they can find that proof then we can put it to a vote. Heck, if they had a competent commission to investigate this and they found proof that me losing some of my gun rights would have some significant effect on people dying, I would have to consider going along with it. I know that won't happen so I'm all for someone actually studying the situation to see what kinds of things may actually be effective, and maybe finally putting to rest, with proven facts, that more gun laws won't help a bit.

Whether this should be a priority for government funding is a whole other topic.
I don't know mate. I think it depends on who they pick to run the investigation on mass violence. So often, these type of studies have a tendency to support the views of the people running it. If you let Obama run the investigation, it will almost certainly focus on areas he believes support his view.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 
#15 ·
Doctor Jenks said:
Crash said:
Ruminus said:
About the only good thing that might come out of this is Toomey outing himself. Manchin, well, I think we knew where he stood. Filibuster away!
In skimming the text of the bill, I don't see too much problem with the part about forming a commission to investigate mass violence. Before any laws restricting any freedoms are even considered, there should be some significant proof that the proposed changes would have a positive effect on mass violence. If they can find that proof then we can put it to a vote. Heck, if they had a competent commission to investigate this and they found proof that me losing some of my gun rights would have some significant effect on people dying, I would have to consider going along with it. I know that won't happen so I'm all for someone actually studying the situation to see what kinds of things may actually be effective, and maybe finally putting to rest, with proven facts, that more gun laws won't help a bit.

Whether this should be a priority for government funding is a whole other topic.
I don't know mate. I think it depends on who they pick to run the investigation on mass violence. So often, these type of studies have a tendency to support the views of the people running it. If you let Obama run the investigation, it will almost certainly focus on areas he believes support his view.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
It's a commission on GUN violence. No good can come from this; it's just using our tax dollars to find more ways to restrict that which shall not be infringed.
 
#16 ·
Sam Fidler said:
Doctor Jenks said:
In skimming the text of the bill, I don't see too much problem with the part about forming a commission to investigate mass violence. ...
It's a commission on GUN violence. No good can come from this; it's just using our tax dollars to find more ways to restrict that which shall not be infringed.
+1

Imagine a commission on violence committed by blacks. Or pedophilia committed by homosexuals.

You generally find what you are looking for and there is a big difference between looking for the truth and looking to advance a preconceived agenda. Looking for solutions to CRIMINAL violence, or even crime generally is very different than looking for scientific sounding "evidence" that crimes are caused by guns or by some unpopular minority group.

Charles
 
#17 ·
Doctor Jenks said:
I don't know mate. I think it depends on who they pick to run the investigation on mass violence. So often, these type of studies have a tendency to support the views of the people running it. If you let Obama run the investigation, it will almost certainly focus on areas he believes support his view.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
The bill defines very specifically who will be on the commission, and it seems to be a fairly divided group.
 
#18 ·
Sam Fidler said:
It's a commission on GUN violence. No good can come from this; it's just using our tax dollars to find more ways to restrict that which shall not be infringed.
Well, as it is laid out, the bill specifically defines it as mass violence and states that it is not just about gun violence. Of course, how it would play out when it comes down to it, you are probably right. I'm all for a good investigation into how we can end some crime and violence, but whether or not such a thing could be really pulled off in a sane and just manner is probably pretty questionable considering how the government has managed to run the rest of the country.
 
#19 ·
It is interesting, in a very sad way, that we are paying so much attention to a very small problem while tens of thousands die from causes that we virtually couldn't care less about. Ironically, I suspect that the rarity of mass murder is the very reason the problem SEEMS so serious. The death of thousands from problems we ignore is so common that we have become blind to them. The rare death is the one that we notice. Then we make things even worse by ignoring the cause and focusing on the symptom. Treating symptoms never reduces the cause but it is easier and thus much more popular. And that is a good thing for those in government that lust for more power.

Worst of all is the fact that most people really don't care about real safety, they are actually happier with the illusion of safety. Fantasies are easier to achieve and prettier than reality and a lot less work. People will vote for fantasy solutions more often than for real solutions and the politicians promoting the fantasy solutions know that fantasy is the quick way to get more power.

Nick
 
#20 ·
Nicksp said:
It is interesting, in a very sad way, that we are paying so much attention to a very small problem while tens of thousands die from causes that we virtually couldn't care less about. Ironically, I suspect that the rarity of mass murder is the very reason the problem SEEMS so serious. The death of thousands from problems we ignore is so common that we have become blind to them. The rare death is the one that we notice. Then we make things even worse by ignoring the cause and focusing on the symptom. Treating symptoms never reduces the cause but it is easier and thus much more popular. And that is a good thing for those in government that lust for more power.

Worst of all is the fact that most people really don't care about real safety, they are actually happier with the illusion of safety. Fantasies are easier to achieve and prettier than reality and a lot less work. People will vote for fantasy solutions more often than for real solutions and the politicians promoting the fantasy solutions know that fantasy is the quick way to get more power.

Nick
Because its not really about safety at all. It's about power, control, and things that scare them.
 
#21 ·
It is about visibility. It is about fear, and the expectation that 'the government ought to do something about it!' 'there ought to be a law!' and the fact that people look to leaders to lead. Leaders need to be seen DOING something. That calms the people.
That some use this tendency of others to look for leadership as a means of consolidating power is despicable.
The thought that keeps me up at night is the realization that for any one of us, our life can be dictated by another person. To want to do one thing, but be forced to do another would make life not worth living. And yet it happens every day, to the innocent and the guilty.
 
#22 ·
Don't know if anybody listens to guntalk on knrs Sunday afternoons at 3pm,
But they covered a lot of this yesterday.

Alan Gotlieb from 2A foundation was on explaining how they influenced the bill, and it doesn't sound so bad in this form.

Listen in, part A, though the entire program is great.

Sun, 14 April 2013
Guntalk 2013-04-14 Part A

Hour One - Guest Alan Gottlieb, CCKRBA and Kyle Coplen, Armed Citizens Project

Direct download: 130414guntalkA.mp3
Category:podcasts -- posted at: 7:31 PM

Rest is here
http://guntalk.libsyn.com/
 
#24 ·
^^^reflecting what you said^^^

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/15/gun- ... formation/

Gun Advocate Alan Gottlieb Supports Toomey-Manchin Based on Bad Information [updated]
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | April 15th, 2013 at 10:33 AM | 20

A prominent gun rights activist and board member of the American Conservative Union said this weekend he supports the Manchin-Toomey compromise, even telling associates that he believed "the gun grabbers have stepped into our trap."

Alan Gottlieb, the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a power player within the conservative ACU, emailed nearly four dozen gun activists on Sunday with an explanation of the proposed legislation. His email address, incidentally, begins with "AkaGUNNUT".

"If you read the bill you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection if you sell a gun plus more," he wrote in the email. (The email, with the "to" field redacted, is posted below.)

Gottleib claimed that if a gun owner has a concealed weapons permit they will not be required to submit to a background check every time they purchase an additional firearm, instead they would merely fill out a form that will be held by the dealer as a record of sale. Now, either he's confused, or lying, especially where background checks are concerned.

"If you have any kind of current state permit to own, use or carry no check is done just the Form 4473 to stay with a dealer," he said.

Wrong. The compromise bill contains no CCW (concealed carry of a weapon) exemption, despite his protestations.

[update: turns out that Mr. Gottlieb's assertion is correct and that the provisions of the bill, despite mine and several others' first readings, will allow CCW holders to avoid further background checks. But there is an additional problem therein raised by Dave Kopel. Many of the provisions in favor of gun rights, on further analysis, are anti-gun.

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.

I apologize to Mr. Gottleib for the initial error, but he might want to read Dave Koppel too.

----

From: AkaGUNNUT
Date: April 14, 2013, 8:54:01 AM MST
To:
Subject: FYI

Just so you all know. I am in support on the Manchin-Tooney substitute bill to knock out the bad Schumer Background Check bill. I and our CCRKBA attorney lobbyist had a hand in influencing and writing parts of it.

The bill bans any federal gun registry and carries a 15 year prison term for anyone who violates it. We protect and expand a good number of pro-gun rights measures as well.

We also have an agreement that an additional amendment supported by Manchin and Toonry will be offered to even make it better by making it possible to get federal firearms rights restored negating the current Schumer legislation that blocks it.

If you read the bill you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection if you sell a gun plus more. It also exempts the sale or transfer of firearms between family members and friends as well as sales outside a commercial venue from a background check. If you have any kind of current state permit to own, use or carry no check is done just the Form 4473 to stay with a dealer..

These advances for gun rights can not be made unless we win the Senate vote on Tuesday to substitute it for the current Schumer draconian background check that is in the bill at this time.

The gun grabbers have stepped into our trap.

It will be fun to see Obama forced to sign it!

Alan Gottlieb

Tags: Alan Gottlieb, American Conservative Union, Second Amendment, Toomey-Manchin
 
#25 ·
Gottlieb is an idiot if he believes this is any kind of trap. This bill offers us nothing that we do not already have. It is already illegal for them to register our guns. Someone with a CFP is already exempt from the background check and a gun seller is already exempt from liability unless they can prove negligence. This bill is nothing but more gun control that offers to concede what we already have.
 
#26 ·
Sam Fidler said:
Gottlieb is an idiot if he believes this is any kind of trap. This bill offers us nothing that we do not already have. It is already illegal for them to register our guns. Someone with a CFP is already exempt from the background check and a gun seller is already exempt from liability unless they can prove negligence. This bill is nothing but more gun control that offers to concede what we already have.
I hadn't heard of this. Just to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying that since I am a CFP holder, I do NOT have to do the background check, etc. in order to purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top