S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

If you are in CALIF

If I read the law correctly, here in California, all transfers except between a parent and their biological child are required to go through an FFL, get a background check, and wait for 10 days.

This is irritating since I want to transfer a handgun to my Son-in-Law. In order for this to happen he must pass his handgun safety test, then we take the gun to the FFL and fill out the paperwork for the background check, pay the fees, and then he waits 10 days before he can pick up the gun. If I transfer it to my daughter, I just hand her the gun and it is done.

This smells of California law being pushed on the nation.

So, should I contact my senators (Feinstein and Boxer) and ask them to vote no? Like that will ever happen. :mad:
 
So if I am a gang banger and want to go hose down a street corner will I still be able to buy a stolen handgun from my homey without having to get a background check?


:D

Thought so, suckas!
 
gc70 said:
I am not encouraged about the potential definition of "internet sale" or "online sale" by the following statement in Manchin's Fact Sheet about the proposal:
You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm not encouraged by it, either. You can post a gun for sale, but can you sell it? :suspicious:
 
This is the Summary from Toomey himself

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.
Click to expand...

Theoretically there is already a legal process for ATF to reverse denials. Congress just hasn't funded it in 20 years so you'll never get reversed. So our protection is to add another legal process funded by Congress to make up for the previous one?

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.
Click to expand...

Again, by any reasonable interpretation of the 1986 FOPA, this should already be the law. To my mind, this is no different from stealing my TV and then offering to sell it back to me at half the market price.

I won't even get into the concerns raised by the HIPAA provision, the tracking of sales, or the potential to become a prohibited person based on a doctor's call with no due process.

Schumer, Bloomberg and Biden all support this bill.
The NRA opposes this bill. I think that is enough for me to make a decision.
 
So, with all the back and forth between these Senators, and their hand wringing and 'compromises', doesn't this still have to get passed in the House? And what are the chances of that happening?
 
Yes, it still has to pass the Senate and the House. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd just like to stop it as early as possible in the process.
 
I agree, I would prefer it get's stopped in the Senate and never makes it to the house. It's just one more step in the wrong direction. The sad thing is I have talked to several gun owners and because they are not paying close attention they think this bill "makes sense".
 
Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
(Already that way in Arizona and many other states, again, State Business)
Click to expand...
I can already tell you right now that New York, Illinois, Connecticut, California, and many other restrictive states will be hostile to this.

Of course, to reassure us of his benevolence, Manchin closes with this:

WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO
The bill will not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.
Click to expand...
...which is pretty much Biden's mantra the last three months. The trick is to make sure our representatives know it's bunk.
 
The irony of this new background check law, that many seem to be losing sight of, is the violations of the current background check law (lying on the ATF 4473) isn't being enforced and prosecuted. And their answer is more background checks that can't be enforced for the 300,000,000+/- (or some number that I don't feel like looking up right now) firearms already in circulation. Why should any Senator or Congressman, or any of us agree to more laws when the current ones aren't being enforced? How is that any kind of compromise?

And although some new feel-good clarifications may make something permissive at the federal level, unless there's specific language in this new law that makes it trump state laws, the draconian states can still impose stiffer restrictions.
 
"I can already tell you right now that New York, Illinois, Connecticut, California, and many other restrictive states will be hostile to this."


It authorizes this as a manner of compliance, if a state chooses to allow it. It does not mandate that a state do so. Hostile states will ignore it.


Willie

.
 
As long as they are considering exceptions, why not exempt those who can readily prove they are legally allowed to own a gun, such as those licensed to carry, or those in possession of FOIDs or their equivalent?

There is not even a rational basis for those people to do a background check. If they are going to misuse a firearm, they can misuse the one they already have.
 
2ndsojourn said:
…doesn't this still have to get passed in the House? And what are the chances of that happening?
Click to expand...

Chances might be pretty good if Obama offers major tax and spending cuts to get it done. That's why we need it to die as soon as possible. If anyone needs a vote on this to know where their Senator's stand, they haven't been paying attention.
 
I agree with it needs to die as soon as possile. There is no reason to "compromise" yet again. I like the point made by maestro pistolero:

There is not even a rational basis for those people to do a background check. If they are going to misuse a firearm, they can misuse the one they already have.
Click to expand...

...except that I believe this reasoning applies to ALL gun owners, not just FOID/CCW permittee. If I have a gun now by whatever means, then what good will a background check do when I buy gun #2, #5, #10?

Since the law makes no sense, and will not prevent any crimes, then why "compromise" at all? It is just feel good, and at worst it gives a toehold for future changes in verbiage to make it much more invasive and "universal".
 
gun control

i personally am tired of compromise. every time we do WE lose something. when will the yo-yos out there quit.they always holler for more than they want then we compromise and we lose a little more.:mad:
 
Gun Bill

I heard this is going to be a compromise so maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons." Universal background checks, while unrealistic and it won't happen or change a thing might finally end the gun craze and put some ammo and guns back on the shelves. The only thing that will really help, besides mental health care is educating the public about firearms at a young age, so they don't grow up scared of them, and maybe will respect them more.
 
maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons."
Click to expand...

We have been doing that since the beginning and they still come back and demand more "feel good" regulations that do nothing more than infringe on our 2A rights.

Look at the FBI stats, they show that handguns are used far more than long guns (assault weapons) and yet the govt.s wants to ban the AW's.... They are going after the easy target, the target that they can get the most support for because they (in their words) are "weapons of war and serve no purpose in civilian hands". Its an easy sell to the uninformed public.
 
Debate has already started. Mike Lee is up pointing out that nobody has read the text of key components of the bill and that it is perfectly reasonable to delay debate on this until they have.

Vote on motion to proceed scheduled for 11am Eastern. Senate starting their day now.

Reid up. Time between parties to be divided equally and controlled by leaders. Asks the Senate to forego the 30 hour delay after motion vote so they can begin debate of the bill immediately. Says the first bill to be offered will be the Toomey-Manchin Amendment (that not even other Senators have seen yet - big surprise).

Reid says bill will be open to all related amendments. McConnell up now explaining why he opposes the motion to proceed.

Blumenthal up now. Babbling. Blumenthal supports Toomey-Manchin Amendment. Promises to spearhead magazine ban and AWB amendments.

Sen. Murphy talking about dead children to advance various bans.

Blumenthal now claiming gun lobby is trying to create a registry of all the mentally ill people in the United States?
 
Last edited:
maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons."
Click to expand...
They won't. Next time there's an exploitable tragedy, bans will be back on the table. We've made that mistake before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top