Bipartisan agreements?

P

psyfly

New member
Can someone smarter than I am please 'splain how:

From the National Journal today:
"Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin’s deal with GOP Sen. Pat Toomey greatly improves the chances that the Senate will debate—and perhaps pass—the most sweeping gun legislation in 20 years."
Click to expand...

I can't quite understand how an agreement between these two guys (described later in the article as a "...bipartisan group of senators...") "...greatly improves the chances..." of some pertinent number of senators suddently deciding they've been mistaken in standing up against the Powerful Gun-Control Lobby.

Best,

Will
 
On the (hopefully correct) assumption that this is related to the S.649/Toomey stuff, I'm going to attach this to the appropriate thread. OP, if it's not so related, let me know and I'll move it back, OK?
 
I can't quite understand how an agreement between these two guys (described later in the article as a "...bipartisan group of senators...") "...greatly improves the chances..." of some pertinent number of senators suddently deciding they've been mistaken in standing up against the Powerful Gun-Control Lobby.
Click to expand...

Because:
A) it would look bad to filibuster your own party member's bill. I'm operating under the assumption they'll have Toomey Sponsor, and Manchin co-sponsor.
B) Depending on the text matching the reported summary by Toomey, it's not that bad of a bill, and gives gun owners a lot of what they wanted too.
C) It's not the nightmare submitted by Chuck Schumer of NY.
 
Upon further discussion of this thread, it appears that the OP has questions of a more general nature. Accordingly, I've moved it back out on its own.

My apologies for nay inconvenience caused by my premature merging of threads.
 
From the other thread, on the things we get from this bill that don't suck...
Summary from Toomey's press release

Here's one we want-
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

and another -
- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.

and another -
- Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.

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

and one more -
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

So no, as a private interstate instead of intra-state you'll probably have to go through NICS (There is a family exemption written into this one that MAY contradict this IF it passes so it's a ways off from happening IF it's gonna)

But if you go to a gun shop while visiting Dear Old Dad, and see a handgun you like, and have a state issued concealed carry permit, you can walk out with it that day, drive up through California/NewYork, stop off at a motel when it gets late, have dinner, get your ingrown toenail excised, and fill up the tank all before leaving NY/CA and not have to worry about their laws. (much)

So there's a fair amount of the bill that's pro-rights making it even harder for the ones sticking up for us to object to. It's real] hard to win reelection when you annoy the pro-gun, and pro-control advocates both.
 
Be careful what (we) wish for.

Once this "basic" bill hits the floor, it becomes the vehicle for any number of "improving" amendments.
With enough quid pro quo candy, the AWB/magazine bans are far, far, far from dead.
 
This is simply an attempt to soften those who have chosen to filibuster. Once they can push one bill past procedural blockage the other stuff will follow. Also none of the carrots in the latest bill will give us anything we don't already have.

When the NRA sponsored law was passed barring PTSD suffering veterans from owning guns they also added in a way ( a legal nightmare) to get their guns back.

States like Kentucky already allow their ccwp holders to purchase guns using their permits without a background check.

This is not a time to compromise. Better to tell your senators to back those who are planning to filibuster.

Even if all that was passed was a closing of the gun show loophole and online sales loopholes in a few more years or sooner the other "loopholes" will be closed.
 
I don't know, I think about compromises differently.

I would add an amendment to the bill:
Repealing the NFA entirely.

Requiring NICS to inform every denied person in writing within 7 days the reason they were denied as well as the forms needed to appeal the decision. And, making NICS open to lawsuits over infingements of civil liberties. For example, people that have their social security number filled out and then get denied because some other yahoo with a record and a different social security number but a similar name pops up on the search.

Allow interstate gun sales now that we have background checks. That is, I live in SD and if I buy a pistol in Minnesota it has to be transferred to a SD FFL. Do away with that, if I pass the background check in Minn. I get possession of it then.

The same with internet sales, gunsamerica, etc... if I pass the background check the firearm is sent to my address not to a local FFL first.

I am sure I could think of more but my main point is that no one is fighting to expand, re-establish, our rights. It seems to be one long winnowing of our rights over time, one group asking for a mile and the other group compromising with 1/4 mile. There is no quid pro quo. There are days when I think, with respect to losing our rights as firearms owners, that the only difference between the two parties is the amount of time that will pass before we lose all of our rights, a few decades or a generation.
 
Re-read the summary Jeep. Interstate handgun sales are in it.

I'm not one for mailing the internet sale to your house. You should still have to go to an FFL to pick it up, so they can verify that you really are 5'10", 180lbs, white, with brown hair etc.
 
I will re-read it, I think I got caught up in my own rhetoric. But, I would still be asking for more.

I just bothers me that it seems that the only time guns rights are fought for are when they are being attacked. Nobody comes out of their own accord to increase gun rights. It is like there is a "hunker down" mentality going on with respect to politicians.

And I see your point about online sales, maybe a face-to-face transaction is needed.
 
Even if all that was passed was a closing of the gun show loophole and online sales loopholes in a few more years or sooner the other "loopholes" will be closed.
Click to expand...
What is this "online sales loophole"? I've never seen a clear definition of what exactly is to be prohibited or what the "loophole" is.
I'm not one for mailing the internet sale to your house. You should still have to go to an FFL to pick it up, so they can verify that you really are 5'10", 180lbs, white, with brown hair etc.
Click to expand...
Already illegal unless, perhaps, within the same state. Then, how often is the transaction not carried out face to face? Is the scenario described really a significant problem? I've never heard of it being a real problem. How is the "internet" boogieman any different from a "for sale" ad posted in the newspaper or on the local grocery bulletin board?
 
Already illegal unless, perhaps, within the same state. Then, how often is the transaction not carried out face to face? Is the scenario described really a significant problem? I've never heard of it being a real problem. How is the "internet" boogieman any different from a "for sale" ad posted in the newspaper or on the local grocery bulletin board?
Click to expand...

That was in response to Jeep's suggestion that now that we have BG Checks, internet based FFL's should be able to send directly to your house.

Edit: Folks, I realize there's no actual Bill text to read, but we're so busy railing against what we're used to we're not paying attention. We're telling people how it is NOW when they're discussing something that COULD BE in the future.

As even Jeep admitted he got caught up in his own rhetoric and demanded a concession that's actually IN the bill summary. When we do this, we don't look good, reasonable, or rational.

So lets all take a deep breath, calm down and SLOW down. Read what we're responding to, instead of what we THINK we're responding to, here and elsewhere.
 
When the NRA sponsored law was passed barring PTSD suffering veterans from owning guns ...
Click to expand...

I have heard this rumor elsewhere, but have ever seen the actual bill/law/text/whatever. Do you have a citation or a link?
 
Ah! thanks. After reading the text, my fears have been somewhat relieved. Mere diagnosis, it appears, cannot trigger a report to NICS, it still must be "Adjudicated."
 
Armorer-at-Law said:
What is this "online sales loophole"? I've never seen a clear definition of what exactly is to be prohibited or what the "loophole" is... Already illegal unless, perhaps, within the same state.
Click to expand...
Although this has been discussed in the S.649 thread, the discussion is spread across several posts, so I feel it's appropriate to summarize it here.

An unlicensed individual can advertise a non-NFA rifle or shotgun, and another unlicensed individual in the same state can have it mailed or shipped to him or her. (The same goes for handguns, although the USPS may not lawfully be used.) This type of transaction is perfectly legal under federal law provided that the seller does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the recipient is a prohibited person. Federal law provides no specific requirements or guidance for the seller and recipient to verify one another's identities, nor does it require any records to be kept, or for the parties to ever meet face-to-face.

(For brevity, I'm purposefully setting aside the questions of state or local laws and/or shipping-related legalities.)
Armorer-at-Law said:
Then, how often is the transaction not carried out face to face? Is the scenario described really a significant problem? I've never heard of it being a real problem.
Click to expand...
These questions, while pertinent, are not easily answered because such transactions are virtually impossible to track. If someone out there has some concrete info, I'd love to see it.
Armorer-at-Law said:
How is the "internet" boogieman any different from a "for sale" ad posted in the newspaper or on the local grocery bulletin board?
Click to expand...
IMHO there is fundamentally no difference. That's why my summary merely says "advertise"- I don't know how 'Net advertisements could be, or would be, treated any different than advertisements using other means.
 
Last edited:
As even Jeep admitted he got caught up in his own rhetoric and demanded a concession that's actually IN the bill summary. When we do this, we don't look good, reasonable, or rational.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Not the way he phrased it. Sure, I can go online and buy a handgun from somebody in Virginia. And then ship it to my FFL and I go pick it up. But that's not the same thing. (Let's just avoid the "ship it to my house" part for now.)

What I think he wants changed is the law that prohibits handgun sales to people from other states "face to face" even at a dealer. I'm on vacation in Arkansas, the wife is looking at some girlie stuff and I end up in a gun store. I see a really nice 1969 S&W K-22 for a good price. I want to buy it. Too bad, Oklahoma resident, can't buy it. I might be down in Arkansas buying guns for a gang in NYC. Those drive by gangs love old revolvers, especially in .22 LR.

I can pay the dealer to ship it to my FFL in OK. So I pay a transfer fee to the AR dealer plus shipping. Then I pay a transfer fee to my FFL in OK. All that adds significantly to my cost. Probably not a great deal anymore. And the whole thing can end up taking weeks to arrange and organize. When I could have just pulled out some ID and bought it right there in the gun store.

But don't worry, I agree with the majority here. I'm not willing to give up any of my rights today just to get concession xxx in return. I'll fight you today and every day to stop restrictions on guns. And I'll come back another day and fight to win back some of our lost rights.

Gregg
 
What I think he wants changed is the law that prohibits handgun sales to people from other states "face to face" even at a dealer. I'm on vacation in Arkansas, the wife is looking at some girlie stuff and I end up in a gun store. I see a really nice 1969 S&W K-22 for a good price. I want to buy it. Too bad, Oklahoma resident, can't buy it. I might be down in Arkansas buying guns for a gang in NYC. Those drive by gangs love old revolvers, especially in .22 LR.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the proposed compromise would change that law.
 
What I think he wants changed is the law that prohibits handgun sales to people from other states "face to face" even at a dealer. I'm on vacation in Arkansas, the wife is looking at some girlie stuff and I end up in a gun store. I see a really nice 1969 S&W K-22 for a good price. I want to buy it. Too bad, Oklahoma resident, can't buy it.
Click to expand...

Yup. That's exactly what he wants changed. And that's exactly what's in the bill. (Again according to the summary, actual text may change this-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top