Author Topic: Senators strike deal on background checks (Read 17330 times)

Balog · « **Reply #50 on:** April 11, 2013, 03:40:16 PM »

http://www.primarymycongressman.com/why-primarymycongressman-com/

birdman · « **Reply #51 on:** April 11, 2013, 04:38:40 PM »

Told ya. FTF will be NICS check required.

Ask yourself this now.
1. Lets say this passes.
2. It is now illegal to purchase a firearm without a NICS check in a FTF transfer w/o a FFL.
3. How is that "crime" detected?
4. How is it proved?
5. Does it out the burden of proof in the accused?

Think about it, especially 3,4,5. Now ask yourself how serious this "compromise" is.

Because as I see it, such a law is 100% unenforceable, UNLESS there is a registry, or putting the burden of proof in the accused ("papers {for your gun} please")

lupinus · « **Reply #52 on:** April 11, 2013, 04:57:57 PM »

Quote from: birdman on April 11, 2013, 04:38:40 PM

Told ya. FTF will be NICS check required.

Ask yourself this now.
1. Lets say this passes.
2. It is now illegal to purchase a firearm without a NICS check in a FTF transfer w/o a FFL.
3. How is that "crime" detected?
4. How is it proved?
5. Does it out the burden of proof in the accused?

Think about it, especially 3,4,5. Now ask yourself how serious this "compromise" is.

Because as I see it, such a law is 100% unenforceable, UNLESS there is a registry, or putting the burden of proof in the accused ("papers {for your gun} please")

Its a move on the giant gun debate chess board. "Oh, we just can't enforce this. See we NEED a registry to make it really work!"

birdman · « **Reply #53 on:** April 11, 2013, 05:17:49 PM »

Quote from: lupinus on April 11, 2013, 04:57:57 PM

Its a move on the giant gun debate chess board. "Oh, we just can't enforce this. See we NEED a registry to make it really work!"

That's my point.

Waitone · « **Reply #54 on:** April 11, 2013, 05:32:41 PM »

Yeah, looks like a classic spinelessrepublican cave. One other factor may be at work here. Spinelessrepublicans may well have just grown a brain. By going to a vote certain red state senators will be forced to support gun control while representing a gun supporting state; bad karma this day and time.

lee n. field · « **Reply #55 on:** April 11, 2013, 05:37:36 PM »

Quote from: birdman on April 11, 2013, 04:38:40 PM

Told ya. FTF will be NICS check required.

Ask yourself this now.
1. Lets say this passes.
2. It is now illegal to purchase a firearm without a NICS check in a FTF transfer w/o a FFL.
3. How is that "crime" detected?
4. How is it proved?
5. Does it out the burden of proof in the accused?

Watch for entrapment. Joe Gunbuyer from the YourStateCarry.com board meeting your for a face to face, is a fed looking for an arrest, or under the thrall of one such.

It's like here in Ill-i-noise. I won't sell to anyone without the FOID, despite what I might think of it.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #56 on:** April 11, 2013, 06:19:08 PM »

Quote from: lee n. field on April 11, 2013, 05:37:36 PM

Watch for entrapment. Joe Gunbuyer from the YourStateCarry.com board meeting your for a face to face, is a fed looking for an arrest, or under the thrall of one such.

It's like here in Ill-i-noise. I won't sell to anyone without the FOID, despite what I might think of it.

Also, if CCW allows to bypass NICS at a FFL, does CCW allow to bypass NICS in a FTF transaction? Records-keeping requirements or burden of proof on buyer/seller in FTF transactions involving CCW permitees?

Waitone · « **Reply #57 on:** April 11, 2013, 06:23:36 PM »

http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/04/republican-senators-drop-gun-bill-filibuster-is-a-trap-being-set/

Interesting comments with one bothersome point.

Quote

Republicans have plotted to fill the legislation—whatever it turns out to be—with “poison pill amendments” that will either force Harry Reid to pull the bill, or force Democrats to vote against it, OR put enough pro-gun legislation in there to more than offset any background check compromise.

Background checks is the purpose of the current flap. Our Betters must have registration before confiscation begins. Everything else is a smokescreen.

Balog · « **Reply #58 on:** April 11, 2013, 06:30:08 PM »

Yeah, I'm not buying it. If they said "We don't think this has the votes so let's see it get shot down" or "We know this won't pass but we want to get red state D's a worse NRA grade" or something I'd support it. But they're all "Yay background checks, I <3 gun owner registration!"

Tallpine · « **Reply #59 on:** April 11, 2013, 07:15:16 PM »

Once again, the Stupid Party snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

Balog · « **Reply #60 on:** April 11, 2013, 07:17:49 PM »

But they're compromising!!! So now the media will finally love them, right?!?!?!

birdman · « **Reply #61 on:** April 11, 2013, 07:39:56 PM »

Quote from: lee n. field on April 11, 2013, 05:37:36 PM

Watch for entrapment. Joe Gunbuyer from the YourStateCarry.com board meeting your for a face to face, is a fed looking for an arrest, or under the thrall of one such.

It's like here in Ill-i-noise. I won't sell to anyone without the FOID, despite what I might think of it.

I was thinking a worse case.
I hve firearms I bought in a FTF. No background check was performed.
So how could the powers that be determine that those were legal sales, but a FTF performed "illegally" (after this abortion passes) was not?

zxcvbob · « **Reply #62 on:** April 11, 2013, 08:24:42 PM »

Quote from: birdman on April 11, 2013, 07:39:56 PM

I was thinking a worse case.
I hve firearms I bought in a FTF. No background check was performed.
So how could the powers that be determine that those were legal sales, but a FTF performed "illegally" (after this abortion passes) was not?

You're not thinking long-term. Wait 25 years -- even with no more laws passed -- and it gets more interesting. If either you or the gun was born after the law goes into effect, and there is no record of a background check, go directly to jail.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #63 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:34:29 PM »

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/11/we-have-language-on-the-toomey-manchin-amendment/

The amendment is not a universal background check amendment.

makattak · « **Reply #64 on:** April 11, 2013, 11:05:20 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on April 11, 2013, 10:34:29 PM

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/11/we-have-language-on-the-toomey-manchin-amendment/

The amendment is not a universal background check amendment.

No, it's just as close as they can possibly get it.

This will shut down all local/state gun sale forums. But, hey, in exchange we get... oh, absolutely nothing. How nice.

That's right, because "compromise" to the Republicans means they give up more of our rights, just less than the Democrats wanted... until next time where they give up "just a little more" and the next time and the next time...

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #65 on:** April 12, 2013, 12:52:58 AM »

And CCW exemptions from NICS.

And interstate gun sales.

TechMan · « **Reply #66 on:** April 12, 2013, 03:53:36 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on April 12, 2013, 12:52:58 AM

And CCW exemptions from NICS.

And interstate gun sales.

Not *expletive deleted*ing worth it. Kill it with fire.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #67 on:** April 12, 2013, 04:21:05 AM »

Oh I'd prefer to kill it with fire.

But the facts are simple: we have a Democrat President and Senate, after the largest shooting in a decade. The entire country - conservatives, liberals, anti-gunners and the NRA board of directors - believe that the inevitable circle of events is that after every large shooting, the legislature imposes new gun laws. Even the people who oppose this regard it as inevitable - turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That, despite these facts, we have a bill that does not achieve the primary goals of the gun control movement - universal background checks and an AWB -- and that even enhances gun rights in some respects - is nothing short of amazing, especially as this bill will likely suffer further 'compromise' before it passes.

seeker_two · « **Reply #68 on:** April 12, 2013, 06:23:40 AM »

Only good thing in yesterday's vote is that we now know who the 68 traitors in the Senate are.....

....and can act accordingly....

MechAg94 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 12, 2013, 07:06:50 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on April 12, 2013, 04:21:05 AM

Oh I'd prefer to kill it with fire.

But the facts are simple: we have a Democrat President and Senate, after the largest shooting in a decade. The entire country - conservatives, liberals, anti-gunners and the NRA board of directors - believe that the inevitable circle of events is that after every large shooting, the legislature imposes new gun laws. Even the people who oppose this regard it as inevitable - turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That, despite these facts, we have a bill that does not achieve the primary goals of the gun control movement - universal background checks and an AWB -- and that even enhances gun rights in some respects - is nothing short of amazing, especially as this bill will likely suffer further 'compromise' before it passes.

I don't think rolling over and declaring victory is the best option right now.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #70 on:** April 12, 2013, 07:07:16 AM »

Who said anything about rolling over?

birdman · « **Reply #71 on:** April 12, 2013, 08:41:32 AM »

Quote from: makattak on April 11, 2013, 11:05:20 PM

No, it's just as close as they can possibly get it.

This will shut down all local/state gun sale forums. But, hey, in exchange we get... oh, absolutely nothing. How nice.

That's right, because "compromise" to the Republicans means they give up more of our rights, just less than the Democrats wanted... until next time where they give up "just a little more" and the next time and the next time...

Its -really- close.
See this analysis:
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/04/text-to-manchin-toomey-amendment-is-now.html

The definition of Internet could easily mean THIS board is included, as is FB, an email, etc.
More importantly, it includes the RECIPIENT posting that they intend to acquire.
So if I call fitz, and say I'm selling my AR, and he posts on FB w/o my knowledge that he intends to buy it, I can be prosecuted.

Also, HIPAA doesn't apply to mental health for NICS.

The commission being created is going to be dominated by anti's. Reid gets to pick 6, boehner, 6. But no more than 6 may be from any one party. Meaning, Reid can pick 5 traitor RINO's and thus force boehner to pick at least 5 dems. Oh, and the chairman is picked by Reid.

This amendment sucks.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #72 on:** April 12, 2013, 08:56:40 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on April 12, 2013, 04:21:05 AM

Oh I'd prefer to kill it with fire.

But the facts are simple: we have a Democrat President and Senate, after the largest shooting in a decade. The entire country - conservatives, liberals, anti-gunners and the NRA board of directors - believe that the inevitable circle of events is that after every large shooting, the legislature imposes new gun laws. Even the people who oppose this regard it as inevitable - turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That, despite these facts, we have a bill that does not achieve the primary goals of the gun control movement - universal background checks and an AWB -- and that even enhances gun rights in some respects - is nothing short of amazing, especially as this bill will likely suffer further 'compromise' before it passes.

It is amazing, and all the more reason for this to die. To come through this with no significant federal gun legislation would really let the bad guys know that the dream is dead. Then, we pillage their cities and salt their fields, just to rub it in.

roo_ster · « **Reply #73 on:** April 12, 2013, 10:16:34 AM »

Quote from: adively on April 12, 2013, 03:53:36 AM

Not *expletive deleted* worth it. Kill it with fire.

Indeed.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #74 on:** April 12, 2013, 10:22:00 AM »

Frankly I worry about "backpage.com" the most.

I love that place. Craigslist without the San Francisco kink and anti-gun sentiment.

It's my first-tier gun store nowadays.

News:

Author Topic: Senators strike deal on background checks (Read 17330 times)