Compromise reached on Gun Control Bill?

Apparently a compromise between Joe Manchin, (D), and Patrick J. Toomey, (R) on their version of Universal Background checks. Rumors go that:

  1. All internet sales must go thru FFL
  2. All Gun Show sales must go thru FFL
  3. Private sales remain private.
  4. No Dianne Feinstein AWB or Hi Cap mag BS attached to the bill.
  5. Federal funding for the states to improve data entry for NCIS.
  6. Transfer remains as sale of firearm and no as change of possession of firearm.

If this is the bill that will be brought to the floor of Congress, we can call it a MAJOR win.

But the proof is in the pudding…. we shall see later today. My guess is that barring some last-minute treachery, this may pass without many objections. The White House is desperate for a “win” (yes they would call this a win) and stop bleeding political favors as they had with this issue.

21 Replies to “Compromise reached on Gun Control Bill?”

  1. But the question is why? There was no reason to reach a compromise, at least based on the publicly available information. Everything pointed to a complete failure of passing anything, and then suddenly Toomey gives it life? Stupid.




    0



    0
  2. I generally agree that if something like this outline is all we’re getting after everything that has happened, we definitely have a victory.

    OTOH, I am not counting my chickens before they hatch. The last time Bloomberg helped with gun show language, it was billed as just requiring the private sales on site to go through an FFL. Instead, it created a system so onerous that it would effectively shut down almost every gun show and turned just about any gathering of gun owners where someone might talk about selling a gun into a “gun show.” Since Toomey’s staff was reportedly defending a deal with Bloomberg’s language, he may be working with MAIG already.




    0



    0
  3. Seems like the outline is what we already have. What’s really in this? Registration? Hidden “lend to your buddy, go to jail” traps?




    0



    0
    1. Let us count the ways, shall we?
      1) If the bill covers the points mentioned, it is not anti gun. It is basically NOTHING. The antis achieved nothing. I call that a win.
      2) The Media onslaught against guns & gun owners gets to stop. We can get back to dominate the conversation while they go back to talk about Britney Spears.
      3) It is a powerful message to State pols: We beat you again at federal level even with Obama, Biden and the rest of the combo pushing hard. Colorado & Connecticut were shoved down because they were feeling cocky thinking we don’t matter, only the Prez.
      4) Now we get to counterattack. At a federal level we can retake Nationwide Carry and other bills long overdue. It also will help with Illinois and its carry bill due in 3 month or so?
      5) Possibly stop on its tracks more State-level attack and hopefully reverse what has already happened. I believe that Colorado is reversible via ballot box. CT and NY will have to die via courts.
      6) Possibly most important: We shut down a battle front. Maybe you guys love multitasking stupidly, but the least fronts we get to fight on, the better we get to use our resources.

      Again: They can call it Green papayas surfing on top of unicorns anti gun bill: if it achieves nothing against guns, they got nothing. Don’t get stuck on stupid and don’t let Perfection be the enemy of Great. When we start with an ALL OR NOTHING attitude, we usually get the NOTHING.

      That is kind of dumb IMHO.




      0



      0
  4. This is effectively how it was in Colorado before the socialist House and Governer decided to shout “Heil Biden!”

    If the law as written matches the summary without any funny language, I’d just be curious about point #2. Right now in Colorado, if two individuals happen to be attending a gun show, they can still perform a private transfer. All dealers with tables who intend to sell guns must be licensed. As long as THAT doesn’t change, I don’t see a huge issue.

    What I WOULD like to see is a setup where you can use a single background check to clear you for multiple transfers from the same dealer. For example, you could get one background check and be clear for a week. Pass several weekly background checks, get the option to take a monthly, pass 12 montly checks in a row, and you can get a check that’s good for a full year. Also, if you go to a gun show, you can take a background check at the front door and receive a card or an arm band that clears you for all purchases made within the show. Finally(fantastic suggestion by Bluesun), if you have a valid CCW license, you can simply show that ID to get automatically cleared, since CCW license holders have a lower crime rate than the false positive OR false negative rates on background checks.

    This would massively reduce the burdens on the system, reducing delays, running costs, and background noise, resulting in fewer mistakes in the background check system overall, and making it more likely to catch the odd criminal who does try to go through the system.

    Now THAT would be common sense legislation.




    0



    0
  5. No. Absolutely not. Not one more god-damned inch.

    Compromise? Really? What the hell do we get in return? That’s right, NOTHING.

    This is a sellout and nothing more. This is NOT a victory. Not even close.




    0



    0
  6. Do you honestly think that the anti’s will stop going after our guns with this legislation? They won’t stop until they get a complete ban and confiscation. They think if they get rid of all guns we will all get to live in a world filled with unicorns and rainbows. They don’t have the ability to think beyond that. They can’t grasp reality because they’ve never studied human nature and history.
    I say no compromise. The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be messed with anymore. We’ve given up enough rights already.




    0



    0
    1. They are not gonna stop, that is certain. But this is the best shot they ever got and if the bill is this much nullified into nothingness from the original bills, we have kicked their asses and they will know it.
      Again and as Sebastian said: We need to wait for the final language, but I feel there us the urgency from the Dems to sign something and call it a win to get off this wild bucking horse which is not giving them any “profits.”




      0



      0
  7. I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a win, and we don’t have language yet to know what’s really in it. But I’ll agree we’ve whittled it down to the point where it’s a minor setback rather than a disaster. It also looks like they’ll throw us a bone or two.




    0



    0
  8. internet sales? What about if you put an ad on an online classifieds for a firearm and you two meet in person? Does that count as a online sale or private sale?




    0



    0
    1. That would be a face to face and as far as I know, not covered by the bill. The Opposition made believe that there is a this huge market of unregulated sales….such as gunbroker and the like. We know the truth, but if they want to regulate what it is already regulated and waste time, so be it.




      0



      0
      1. There in lies the rub, I am not willing to trust that such a sale would not be considered and internet sale. They will define it as broadly as possible in order to end as many private sales as possible. Manchin and Toomey have been working with Schumer on this which means they have already screwed up by giving the other side the possibility of success and helping their momentum when they were headed for a clear and decisive loss.




        0



        0
  9. “3.Private sales remain private.”

    I don’t trust that this will be part of the final language at all. I don’t trust these slimy bastards one bit……..and with the new Democrat way of doing things being backroom deals and quick, midnight votes to ram things down our throats there’s no way in hell I’m calling this a win.

    Hell, that snake Schumer is involved in this….




    0



    0
    1. Of course I don’t trust them, they are politicos but as Milto Friedman said “The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”




      0



      0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .