Senators strike deal on background checks

[Angel Eyes]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/congress-gun-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

In a breakthrough on gun legislation, two U.S. senators -- a Democrat and a Republican -- announced on Wednesday they worked out a compromise on expanding background checks on firearms buyers to include gun shows and Internet sales.

The deal reached by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, sets up the likelihood of a major Senate debate on gun legislation starting as soon as Thursday, when the chamber is expected to overcome a GOP filibuster attempt to block the proposals.
....

Manchin noted that the proposal meant that firearms buyers at gun shows and on the Internet would face the same background check currently required in sales by federally licensed gun dealers.

He addressed a concern of the NRA that expanding background checks would burden law-abiding gun owners seeking to trade or gift weapons in a personal transfer, saying "personal transfers are not touched whatsoever."

It's not clear to me how this would be iimplemented.  Apparently all sales at gun shows would require background checks (and, I presume, form 4473 to be filled out for each).   What is an "internet sale"?  If someone posts on ad on craigslist, for example, and the seller and buyer live in the same state, would this "compromise" require a background check?  And how would that requirement be met?

Your thoughts?

[AZRedhawk44]

This is a "no big deal" right now kind of thing.

It's going to affect the non-ffl'ed tables at gun shows, and that's about it.

But once it is established, some other omnibus 5000 page piece of legislation can append this stuff on the sly.  And it's merely a "minor modification" rather than brand new legislation.

[TechMan]

Kill it with fire.

[lupinus]

Kill it with fire.

Then piss on it, hit it with gasoline, and burn it some more.

[MicroBalrog]

It also exempts people from NICS if they have a CCW.

And makes it legal for dealers to sell guns outside theirr home state.

[AZRedhawk44]

It also exempts people from NICS if they have a CCW.

And makes it legal for dealers to sell guns outside theirr home state.

Easily taken away.  Not worth the encroachment.

Just another '86 FOPA.

[T.O.M.]

I would like to read the actual language.  Can't wrap my mind around the theory that checks are required, but personal transfers won't be impacted.

[Tallpine]

I would like to read the actual language.  Can't wrap my mind around the theory that checks are required, but personal transfers won't be impacted.

Maybe they are making something that is already illegal, illegal 

[MicroBalrog]

Easily taken away.  Not worth the encroachment.

Just another '86 FOPA.

 How would you like filling out a yellow form for every ammo purchase?

[Perd Hapley]

I would like to read the actual language.  Can't wrap my mind around the theory that checks are required, but personal transfers won't be impacted.

If a friend comes over, and you sell him your Glock, no check required. If you advertise your Glock in a classified ad - surprise! Background chex!!

[bedlamite]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/senators-to-unveil-proposed-compromise-on-gun-background-checks-as-vote-looms/

The proposal, which would be voted on as an amendment,

That means this is only part of it, and we don't have a clue what the rest of the bill is or whether it will pass or not.

[lee n. field]

How would you like filling out a yellow form for every ammo purchase?

There was a time, that I can remember, when every ammo purchase was logged.

[drewtam]

There was a time, that I can remember, when every ammo purchase was logged.

I think that is MB's point, FOPA was a true compromise where some good things were surrendered, and some bad things were removed.

The counter point is that this proposal hasn't named any compromise component, its all surrender and no return.

[bedlamite]

This is just the summary, we still need to see the actual bill:

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

Still way more take than give, but it does loosen interstate sales.

[Tallpine]

Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

Hmmm, we're all friends - right    

And remember what Jesus said about neighbors 

[birdman]

This is just the summary, we still need to see the actual bill:

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

Still way more take than give, but it does loosen interstate sales.

Bans private sales.
Kill it with fire.

[lupinus]

Bans private sales.
Kill it with fire.

My above statement stands

[vaskidmark]

Somebody please tell me how a FFL is going to be able to run a background check through NICS and complete the 4473 on merchandise that has never gone through his bound book.

Are all FFLs going to have to provide this service upon request?  Upon demand?

Suppose there is a "designated FFL" at gun shows to cover the otherwise formerly private sales.  Will they be precluded from offering any other FFL work during the gunshow?  Who sets up the rotation sachedule if there is not going to be a single designated FFL?  Can a FFL refuse to participate in the rotation schedule?  Wouldn't a "dedicated" gunshow FFL be a kitchen table licensee as opposed to one with a B&M presence?

I have so many questions.

And I have not yet gotten around to the 4473s.

stay safe.

[Gewehr98]

Somebody please tell me how a FFL is going to be able to run a background check through NICS and complete the 4473 on merchandise that has never gone through his bound book.

Guess you haven't been to Kalifornia since about, oh, 1999?

All firearm sales, including personal transactions, require an FFL with background check out there.

Wanna sell a buddy your gun?  You both head to an FFL dealer, the seller surrenders the gun to the FFL, who then runs the check, does the 4473, and initiates the waiting period.

When the NICS check comes back ok and the waiting period has completed, the buyer is free to retrieve his new firearm from the FFL holder.

IIRC, the FFL charges a nominal fee for the service.    

(Of course, that's what the residents who choose to abide by that law do. I can't speak for those who still buy/sell the old-fashioned way...)

[roo_ster]

Kill it with fire.

Indeed.  That is what I will tell my senators.  Hopefully Cruz & the white haired guy will KIWF, jump on the hot ashes, and then whip out their jimmies & piss it down into the gutter.

[freakazoid]

CNN was playing all gun related stuff today I believe.

[MicroBalrog]

I think that is MB's point, FOPA was a true compromise where some good things were surrendered, and some bad things were removed.

The counter point is that this proposal hasn't named any compromise component, its all surrender and no return.

- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

As  far as I understand, the bill's main drawback is requiring checks for online and gun show sales - other personal transfers are exempt.

[birdman]

As  far as I understand, the bill's main drawback is requiring checks for online and gun show sales - other personal transfers are exempt.

Bzzzzt.  Do not pass go.

It says FAMILY and "temporary" transfers are exempt.  It DOES say "closing the 'gun show' and 'other' loopholes" meaning PRIVATE (but non-family, non temporary) transfers.

[kgbsquirrel]

Then piss on it, hit it with gasoline, and burn it some more.

This calls for something a little more extreme. Take it down to the National Ignition Laboratories and use it for target practice in the fusion chamber.

[MicroBalrog]

Bzzzzt.  Do not pass go.

It says FAMILY and "temporary" transfers are exempt.  It DOES say "closing the 'gun show' and 'other' loopholes" meaning PRIVATE (but non-family, non temporary) transfers.

I've heard different interpretations of this phrasing. We'll have to see the bill, I guess.