Toomey bucks gun owners in background check deal

[gejoslin]

Toomey bucks gun owners in background check deal

• Link Removed
• APRIL 10, 2013
• BY: Link Removed
• Link Removed

Link Removed

​

​

Republican Senator Link Removed of Pennsylvania joined today at a U.S. Capitol press conference with Democrat Senator Link Removed of West Virginia to announce their agreement to extend background checks to end private sales at gun shows and via private transfers arranged online,Link Removed revealed.



"The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)." the press release claims. "The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales."
Why Toomey felt compelled to take this stance, particularly noting the slim margin he was elected to office by and the likelihood that angry gun owners will remember at the polls if he decides to seek office again, remain unclear. While the bill is far short of what President Obama wants to sign into law, if it passes, it will be used as the plateau from which the next series of demands will be issued.
That Toomey and Manchin both had been given "A" ratings by the National Rifle Association adds to the puzzlement among right to keep and bear arms advocates, many of whom will also be keeping a close eye on how the Link Removed will grade them in response.
Another question that might be asked: Why did NRA not issue a very public warning that any caving would result in an automatic downgrading and a commitment to deny future support to defectors abandoning their gun-owning core constituents in time of greatest need?
UPDATE: The NRA's statement in response.
------------
My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is now online. Link Removed to read "A Right Delayed,” discussing yet another dangerous drawback of so-called “Link Removed.”
If you're a regular Link Removed reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Link Removed

 

[Chief1297]

Hey, PA. How about you all hold these two accountable next election. Thanks.

 

[dustoffuh1]

Lets pray for the filibuster

 

[boarderx]

Hey, PA. How about you all hold these two accountable next election. Thanks.

I don't understand what's so bad about this. You already need to undergo a background check at gun shows in PA. I had one done when I bought my AR last year. This law doesn't look like it adds a whole lot and it even exempts private transfers amongst family members and friends. I'm pro-gun and have been following the whole issue since late last year. If you, or someone, could explain why this specific bill is bad for us gun owners, I would be grateful!

 

[CRAZYISH]

I also read that they want states to recognize ones home state. If thats true will it apply to places like NYC, CA , etc.....

 

[Andrew49417]

This bill, as I understand it, will change almost nothing. Online purchases already go through a FFL Dealer, who does a background check. Gun shows requiring background checks? OK. Maybe we'll stop hearing all the bitching about the imaginary "loophole."

 

[rifleshooter474]

All I want to hear is how these new laws if enacted, will effect buying Ammo. from on line sellers.

 

[AndeyHall]

This bill, as I understand it, will change almost nothing. Online purchases already go through a FFL Dealer, who does a background check. Gun shows requiring background checks? OK. Maybe we'll stop hearing all the bitching about the imaginary "loophole."

Not ALL Internet sales go through an FFL. I listed a PF9 on armslist this past weekend and a local guy called and I met him and sold it. Under this new legislation, if a gun that was registered in your name is no longer in your possession, and they find evidence that it was listed on the Internet, you must provide documentation showing that you did a background check and who you sold it to. Basically what it will do is make "word-of-mouth" sales the only thing that doesn't apply to background checks. Therefore even if you listed it on the Internet but wound up selling it to a friend of a friend by word of mouth, they're still going to expect you to provide proof of a background check because they have proof that it was listed on the Internet.

 

[JoeH]

I also read that they want states to recognize ones home state. If thats true will it apply to places like NYC, CA , etc.....

From another group:

While the proposed legislation
contains limited exceptions for transfers, such as between family
members, a little digging shows that you would be committing a
federal felony if you:
* Leave town for more than 7 days, and leave someone else at home with your firearms;
* Lend a firearm to a friend to take shooting or to go hunting;
* Loan a firearm to a family member if they live at a different residence;
* Hand a firearm to someone at a gun club which is not a shooting range;
* Teach someone to shoot on your own land, if you hand them the firearm; or
* Fail to report a firearm as lost or stolen within 24 hours.

 

[gejoslin]

It's not so much Universal Background Checks. it's Universal Gun Registration. Every time a gun is transferred it's serial number is transferred to the next owner. They're checking out the next owner alright but tagging the owner with the gun. Two birds with one stone, they will be keeping the records. Even though they are not supposed to right now. At least that's my understanding. If I' m wrong please correct me, I would love to be wrong on this!

 

[jameshd]

This bill, as I understand it, will change almost nothing. Online purchases already go through a FFL Dealer, who does a background check. Gun shows requiring background checks? OK. Maybe we'll stop hearing all the bitching about the imaginary "loophole."

My problem with this is that it's just a tiny step. The next step also will be just a tiny step. So will the next step. And the next one. But they end up with total gun registration, maybe a total gun ban. Just a step at a time. Each step will "...change almost nothing." But they will total to changing almost everything. Ask the survivers of the Nazi's.

 

[Oldgrunt]

I don't understand what's so bad about this. You already need to undergo a background check at gun shows in PA. I had one done when I bought my AR last year. This law doesn't look like it adds a whole lot and it even exempts private transfers amongst family members and friends. I'm pro-gun and have been following the whole issue since late last year. If you, or someone, could explain why this specific bill is bad for us gun owners, I would be grateful!

It is bad for gun owners because it lets the government get more involved with our lives and also gives another data base for them to monitor us with. What I have, buy, or sell is none of the government's business. Regardless of what the anti-gunners are saying, this measure will not stop crime, only limit the freedoms of gun owners. Next, we'll be like England, blunt the sharp points on knives since all the major chefs there said a sharp point wasn't needed on knives. Without sharp points on knives, the crime level will decrease? Same principal, the government is getting into private lives of citizens using the most inane of excuses. My guns are mine, don't try to tell me you don't like how they look. My knives are sharp and very sharp pointed, don't tell me to blunt them. In other words, leave me the hell alone!

Link Removed

 

[JCliff]

From another group:

While the proposed legislation
contains limited exceptions for transfers, such as between family
members, a little digging shows that you would be committing a
federal felony if you:
* Leave town for more than 7 days, and leave someone else at home with your firearms;
* Lend a firearm to a friend to take shooting or to go hunting;
* Loan a firearm to a family member if they live at a different residence;
* Hand a firearm to someone at a gun club which is not a shooting range;
* Teach someone to shoot on your own land, if you hand them the firearm; or
* Fail to report a firearm as lost or stolen within 24 hours.

.
Not saying it isn't so, but where is this particular language documented? I can't find it in S. 480, at least what I've been able to pull up on line.

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't understand what's so bad about this. You already need to undergo a background check at gun shows in PA. I had one done when I bought my AR last year. This law doesn't look like it adds a whole lot and it even exempts private transfers amongst family members and friends. I'm pro-gun and have been following the whole issue since late last year. If you, or someone, could explain why this specific bill is bad for us gun owners, I would be grateful!

Please, please, PLEASE read all of this link to find out what this "compromise" really does. Don't fall for another "compromise" that is no compromise at all. A compromise is a give-and-take proposition. What do we as gun owners have to give? Only our God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights. What do we get in return for agreeing to such a "compromise?" Just our rights being weaker than they were the day before.

Not one more inch!

Blues

 

[JCliff]

From another group:

While the proposed legislation
contains limited exceptions for transfers, such as between family
members, a little digging shows that you would be committing a
federal felony if you:
* Leave town for more than 7 days, and leave someone else at home with your firearms;
* Lend a firearm to a friend to take shooting or to go hunting;
* Loan a firearm to a family member if they live at a different residence;
* Hand a firearm to someone at a gun club which is not a shooting range;
* Teach someone to shoot on your own land, if you hand them the firearm; or
* Fail to report a firearm as lost or stolen within 24 hours.

.
Found it in Schumer's proposal, S 374. Here's a link:
.
Text of S. 374: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us

 

[S&W645]

I don't understand what's so bad about this. You already need to undergo a background check at gun shows in PA. I had one done when I bought my AR last year. This law doesn't look like it adds a whole lot and it even exempts private transfers amongst family members and friends. I'm pro-gun and have been following the whole issue since late last year. If you, or someone, could explain why this specific bill is bad for us gun owners, I would be grateful!

Just because you in PA may have to does not mean that that is true in the rest of the US. Florida doesn't require guns to be listed on our license but NY does. Do you want NY's laws in PA?

 

[JoeH]

.
Not saying it isn't so, but where is this particular language documented? I can't find it in S. 480, at least what I've been able to pull up on line.

It was compiled by the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL)

 

[Bighouse Doc]

The purpose of this is to build a future database for confiscation!

-Doc

 

[blarg]

you can always tell what a bill is intended to do by its name - it's always the opposite of whatever the name suggests.

 

[missoak]

.
Found it in Schumer's proposal, S 374. Here's a link:
.
Text of S. 374: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us

I heard on the radio this afternoon, that all of Schumer's language would be sticken by Toomey's ammendment.