My initial and uneducated first review of the text of Toomey Manchin

Warning: Not only I am not a lawyer or play one on TV or stayed at some hotel chain last night, but I had little sleep thanks to an argument between by stomach and overabundant use of Tabasco last night. You get what you pay for reading the following.

The first part is one of those that my eyes just end up glazing over after 5 minutes. If I am corrects, it mostly deals with issuing money to improve NCIS at state level & Indian Nations; if there is something else it should be pointed out, please let me know.

SEC 115, the protection for Veterans: Vets are being treated shoddily and actually are the group of Citizens that can get in the Mental Defective list by plain action of a paper pusher and not a certification by a doctor or panel and it is hell to get off that list. This has a double negative action: Obviously Veterans that are in the list but do not belong there are being denied their Second Amendment rights. But also that Veterans that may need help are avoiding it because they fear some secretary may decide their faith. From what I read, it gives veteran a fair chance to contest their adjudication. Again, too much legalese and I am not one, but I also feel there is room for improvement there.

SEC 122 Firearms Transfers: First coming out is the 48 hour time-frame. My fear here is that there are no provisions in case the FBI starts playing loosey and instead of allowing the transfer to go on, they just issue a denial and now is up to you to prove them wrong.

Then we jump to no private transfer without NCIS “at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof.”  There goes the parking lot scheme unless you were to find an open lot next door. This would pass much easier down my throat if the word curtilage is removed.

Now here is a funny weird thing regarding internet sales:
“(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his
intent to acquire, the firearm.
“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
“(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
“(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements
of this section; and
“(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

So if there is no state law that acts like the Federal law then what? You cannot transfer privately? That is what appears to say and that is a poison pill right there for our side…..still we have this in subsection C
“(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of
siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses
and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is
prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law;
All of the sudden that looks like yes, you can have transfers between private individuals. I need a lawyer to make sure we are not blowing bubbles inside the microwave.

The next part is protection from liability to FFL holders. My amateur reading seems to indicate no traps and no protection if the FFL is indeed knowing and willfully breaking established law.

Now the definition of Gun Show:
“(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event‘-
“(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or
transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and
“(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private
residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923.”. Ship & Transport: Is that from another state or from your home to the location? Why do I ask? Because it may mean you can actually create an “event” of only non-FFL people (regular gun owners) with a limit of 74 weapons and you’d be golden. If you belong to a shooting club, it is not unusual to see a gun belonging to a club member with a For Sale tag on some table. I am probably reading way too much into it, but I think you can have a “Gun Hoedown” or “Local Gun Enthusiast BBQ”  where private individuals meet to exercise “the right to peaceably to assemble” and sale or trade personal firearms as long as the number of guns present is 74 or under. I know, it is a suckable alternative to having no restrictions as it should be but it is an alternative unless the definition of Gun Show or Event in this bill gets changed and includes the elimination of the curtilage proviso.

Next is the Prohibition of National Gun Registry.(923) “(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-…”
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-“Any person who knowingly violates section 923(m) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years” This one is golden IMHO and should be fought to keep or be introduced somewhere else if this bill’s final version fails to get through. Nothing says “Keep your mitts off” that a stretch in a federal pen with Bubba Jamal Perez as roomie. That goes double when you consider the lack of loyalty in the chains of federal command and their knack for throwing underlings under the bus.

Gonna stop it here for now and see if I can gather better info on analysis from my betters. One thing, the bill sucks, but it is baby-suck compared to what’s waiting in the sidelines which is maelstrom-type suck. So far indicators are that something has to be passed so the congresscritters and other politicos have something to show to the electorate on the upcoming re-election. I rather be a bill that achieves almost nothing for both sides (I still think the 15 year Federal Correction Facility Spa Treatment should be saved) than playing hard to get and getting the original Feinstein/Schummer bills shoved down our collective gullets.

If the political flux changes more and there is no danger to go balls to the wall, then I can see this bill sent to the shredder filled with poison pills to make it unpalatable to the Dems. Speaking of poison pills, one item that was on the original talk of the bill that is no longer attached is National Reciprocity. If push comes to a shove, this is the one of the venomous items we must demand to be put in the bill before final voting as Scummer, Reid, Feinstein and the rest simply HATE the idea of the uncouth and unenlightened citizens of the United States traipsing their fiefdoms legally carrying a concealed weapon. They much rather see more kids die in Gun Free Zone schools.

All (somewhat smart & enlightening) comments welcome. Say your piece.And yes, I expect to be wrong in my assessments, just explain why.

19 Replies to “My initial and uneducated first review of the text of Toomey Manchin”

  1. You’re right, the bill sucks. However, I disagree with the notion that the ‘something must be done’ gods must be appeased.

    If I may, here are a few links to some of my own “betters” that may provide additional insight.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-gun-bill-discriminates-against-key-progressive-constituency
    http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-senate-bill-apparently-intended-to-close-advertising-loophole
    http://www.examiner.com/article/toomey-bucks-gun-owners-background-check-deal
    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2013/04/11/the-coming-federal-gun-registry/




    0



    0
    1. If the bill can be dumped safely, then yes. If we are just pissed off at the bill because the namecalling against Toomey was the loudest shit we heard instead of actually pondering what could happen otherwise, then we are being idiots.




      0



      0
      1. I still think a bill palatable for both sides that includes more background checks AND still allowing private sales, no registry, etc, would be to allow every day people get FFLs.

        Like not needing a place of business beyond a house that you have lived in for at least 6 months. (Or apartment, etc)

        Basically the majority of the guys who buy and sell guns as a hobby would probably get one just so they can buy guns online and not have to pay for a background check that is padded a bit by a FFL who wants to make money on the phone call.

        It also allows for them to give background checks on all the guns they sell, and it allows groups of gun owners to get together and buy direct from distributors at a cheaper price.




        0



        0
        1. On the background check, I cannot fathom why not change the law to make NCIS available for private sales without the gun having to go into anybody’s bound books




          0



          0
          1. Because it could be abused. Your daughter is dating a guy you don’t like. Why not use this as a means to check his background just a little bit? Or the new guy you’re interviewing for a position. Or your neighbor. Just think of the fun you could have.




            0



            0
          2. @Jeff,

            You can easily do it online cheaply. With a google search you can find any and all crimes a person has committed if you are willing to spend the time. A trip to the local library if the boyfriend/employee is local can help you find every single thing they have done in public, everything their families have done, and in some cases you can track their entire family line back at least 3 or 4 generations, and have information on THOSE people.

            Your life ain’t secret anymore, nothing on the internet goes away.




            0



            0
  2. I like the 15 years as Bubba’s roomie if one sets up a gun registry, but who’s going to enforce it? The very same government that would set up the registry in the first place? Fox guarding the henhouse, if you ask me.




    0



    0
    1. Is it federal registry only? or do state ones count too?

      Would be awesome to see all the congress people who voted for registries in their anti-gun states going to jail.




      0



      0
      1. You talkin’ about the People’s Demokratik Republik of Kollyvornia? I believe that’s independent of fed law. Someone would have to enforce the 2A thru the 14A to get rid of it, and I don’t see that happening in this communist state wannabe.




        0



        0
  3. NOPE, I’ve changed my mind. They tried to sneak in too many things alongside the bill.

    A doctor should never be authorized to remove someone’s access to firearms. That violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments and the “innocent until proven guilty” ideal.

    A secretary should never be authorized to remove someone’s access to firearms, for the same reason.

    The ONLY time someone should be put in the system for a background check to remove their right to bear arms should be if this person has been convicted and imprisoned as a felon for a violent crime(and I’m aware several other readers will argue “not even then”). Anything else is basically applying felony charges to a person without a fair trial by jury.

    I don’t like way they decided to seal the gun show “loophole.” A hunting trip could now be considered a “gun show,” if one of the hunters traveled across state lines and offers to sell one of his friends one of his guns. Private transfers shouldn’t require background checks anyway. That’s as unenforceable as sales tax on private sales.(which you are supposed to report, by the way, but nobody ever does, and it’s not enforced.)




    0



    0
  4. “A hunting trip could now be considered a “gun show,” if one of the hunters traveled across state lines and offers to sell one of his friends one of his guns.”

    Now that is a question to ponder right there…….




    0



    0
    1. Isn’t it already illegal to cross state lines and sell a gun? Don’t you have to be a resident of the state (both parties) to buy a gun from someone? Or you know, go through an FFL and mail it back if its a handgun.




      0



      0
  5. Lawyer here. This is the private sale killer, renamed the “internet sale” prohibition. This bill definitely destroys most of the common ways a private sale can be conducted. If you advertise online or in a publication, you cannot sell it to someone without going through an FFL. Having a CCW only enables you to bypass the background check part, but the 4473 still has to be filled out and it must be kept in the dealer’s bound book, which will be downloaded into the federal contractor database whenever the ATF shows up to copy it. There are still some holes, whereby if you don’t advertise online or in a publication, then you can maybe get around the background check requirement. But it’s not a given, and aggressive places like NYC and Chicago will up their undercover stings of firearms buyers and sellers. It’s already happening in both those places.

    The whole point of this steaming pile of excrement is to create confusion and make the ownership of firearms fraught with traps that can land you in jail. You should all be very offended that a Republican senator decided to make felons out of ordinary Americans exercising their constitutional rights. We need to let our senators that this is a non starters.

    Republicans are playing checkers while Democrats are playing chess. This has NOTHING to do with security. 28 people died, the majority of them children, and the Democrats are using their deaths to pass their wish list of disarmement laws. This Toomey/Manchin/Schumer deal gives us NOTHING in return. You can that negotiations? Are we that stupid? They have made it clear that they will be back for more the next time a tragedy strikes. If we let them outlaw private sales, we will never get them back. You all need to contact your senators and congressmen, since two House republicans are now going to propose a mirror bill on Monday. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/12/peter-king-promises-house-version-of-manchin-toomey-by-tuesday/

    If we don’t push back hard and prevent all of these bills, we will lose big and gain absolutely nothing. It is just one more step in their long game. It’s Hegelian Dialectic 101. Alinsky Rules for Radical 101. We are better than that. Voting some new morons in next year won’t change what happens this year.




    0



    0
      1. The other side pushed us into this box. They’ve been looking for a civil war since before OWS started.

        No take-backsies when someone gives you what you asked for.




        0



        0
    1. The whole point of this steaming pile of excrement is to create confusion and make the ownership of firearms fraught with traps that can land you in jail. Bingo. Society as a make work program for lawyers.

      We need to tell our representatives and senators that background checks do nothing. This law will have no positive effect on crime.

      Everybody is all hell-bent on background checks, but in the last year with stats, out of about 14 million NICS background checks, only about 15 thousand were rejected and of those, only 44 prosecuted. People expecting to be rejected don’t even try! Criminals buy guns from other criminals, or steal them outright. We all know that.




      0



      0
  6. Just want to highlight your last comment, “They much rather see more kids die in Gun Free Zone schools.” Bulls-eye!

    These Democrat politicians proposing this stuff do not give a damn about the children. The proof: their proposals would do nothing to stop any mass shooting. So, only crass political power motives are in play, and they are truly despicable.




    0



    0

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