S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

The only way it will work is with registration. From my experience, a lot of people who have bought guns at their local store thought the form was registration. Those people won't think twice about supporting real, national registration. When registration starts, those people won't register their guns because they think they already have. More accidental felons.
 
2ndsojourn said:
If Grandpa's & Grandma's rifles and shotguns were made before the date of the law, how can the law be enforced?
Click to expand...
This problem is particularly acute if you consider the millions of pre-GCA rifles and shotguns that were produced without serial numbers.
patrickmn said:
From my experience, a lot of people who have bought guns at their local store thought the form was registration. Those people won't think twice about supporting real, national registration. When registration starts, those people won't register their guns because they think they already have. More accidental felons.
Click to expand...
I hadn't considered that, but IMHO you're right- that's a very serious potential problem.

Other potential and similar issues with registration, 2A issues aside:
  • People may confuse state registration with federal registration. (Do NOT assume that states will readily hand their registries over to the Feds, even the vehemently anti-gun states.)
  • The registry will inevitably wind up rife with errors. There will be registry entries for a Ruger model "253-654xx" rifle with serial number "10-22", and for a S&W model ".38 S&W SPECIAL CTG." revolver with serial number "MOD 10-6". :rolleyes:
  • People may assume that a deceased relative "registered" the firearm, and that this registration (magically) carries over to them because their relative's will was recorded at the county courthouse.
  • Con artists may begin fraudulent "registration services" to scam people out of their money and/or find out where the desirable firearms are located so they can burglarize owners' homes. :eek:
 
TOOMEY FOLDS ON UBC, JOINS SCHUMER, MANCHIN AND KIRK IN COMPROMISE BILL

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/harry-reid-joe-manchin-pat-toomey-89806.html

Apparently, there will be a press release tomorrow announcing the compromise deal. Currently, 14 Republicans are filibustering any debate on S.649 (the base gun control bil by opposing the motion to proceedl). Reid will have a cloture vote on Thursday. If he gets 60 votes, he will open the bill to amendments from the floor and they will debate and vote on amendments (including this one from Toomey). Once they have voted on all amendments we will have one more chance to filibuster (the motion to end debate) the entire amended bill.
 
S.649 (Base Gun Control Bill) Scheduled for Thursday Vote

Currently, there are 14 Republican Senators who are filibustering the motion to proceed with debate on S.649 (the base Senate gun control bill from the Dems). Senator Reid has filed a motion for cloture (end the filibuster and start debate). He needs 60 votes to succeed. Realistically, it will probably succeed because many Republicans want to see Dem Senators forced to make a tough vote and they will vote for cloture.

If Sen. Reid is successful, then S.649 will be opened to the floor for debate and additional amendments - anything that can get 51 votes can get amended to S.649 at that point. There will be lots of gun votes.

Once all the amendments have been offered, we will have one more chance to filibuster the entire amended bill (the motion to end debate). We need 41 votes to pull that off.

Mods, should we start an official thread to follow the debate on Thursday?
 
Call me crazy, but this sounds an awful like a situation in which the politicians don't have the vote, but they try to convince as many people as they can that they actually do in order to convince more folks to vote their way. My guess is they don't actually have the votes they need and Reid will be forced to pull the bill. I just can't imagine him putting his "red state" or rural democratic senators at risk with a vote for a bill that will probably not pass the senate, much less the house.

This is just a guess and I could be very wrong. Also, my guess will not stop me from making my weekly call to my senators and representative tomorrow morning.
 
Reid already has the votes to override the filibuster of the motion to proceed. Corker, McCain, Flake, Chambliss, Coburn, Ayotte, and two or three more I can't remember have already indicated they want debate to go forward (which is a great strategy for the Republican party if you don't mind using the Second Amendment as the staked down goat for your tiger hunt).
 
That maybe true, but I won't believe he has the votes until I see them. There is no reason for them to "float" all these stories over the past couple of days plus the calls from the President to key senators if they believed they had the votes nailed down. But, like I said, I could be wrong.
 
Votes on the motion to proceed with S.649 are a much different thing than votes for specific amendments or the actual base bill. However, I'd guess the fix has been in for a while on the sudden "deal."

Toomey announces his amendment tomorrow, S.649 goes to the floor on Thursday before the proposed amendment can even hit Thomas. That is probably not an accident. They are trying to minimize the amount of time people have to read the amendment. I imagine Toomey didn't come alone to this party. McCain will jump onboard. Coburn already supports UBC with some caveats. Two more Senators (Ayotte or Collins?) and you've got 51 if no Dems break ranks.
 
Reid was quoted in the article saying that he though he might lose some Democrats when the vote comes up. We will see.
 
if you have not right now start hitting the phones and the email. Dont forget about Rugers nifty petition portal. Dont stop till friday. Call all day every day, on the way to work, and on your lunch break. Get to know the girls who work the phones so they recognize you when you call.

Let them all know what their future will look like if they betray us.
 
Re: the Toomey Amendment to S. 649

There is a press conference at 11:00am Eastern today to explain this "deal.". The very little press I've seen on it says it will extend background checks to "gun shows" and "internet sales" though how those two are defined was not discussed. In the past we have seen "gun shows" defined so broadly they would catch most private sales.

Edited to correct conference time
 
Last edited:
If they can explain to me where it is in the constitution the federal government is granted the power to regulate the interstate, private sales of firearms between two individuals they might get my support.


Yes, yes, I know, the giant black hole of Federal govt. power, thecommerce clause blah blah blah. I wouldn't support it either way.
 
They may tell the press that it extends background checks to "gun shows" and "internet sales," but: (1) we all know that those are already included in background check requirements; and (2) the text of the bill goes much further than that.
 
I was wondering about that myself. It certainly does not seem likely the background checks would only apply to gun shows. If it did there would be nothing to stop me from stepping off the gun show property to complete the transaction. Dealers could not do this, but as we all know dealers selling at gun shows are already required to run background checks. I also read that checks would apply to internet sales. Which, as far as I know, already require a background check. The record keeping requirement for any FFL running the check is maintained. It appears this is just an effort to wrap the same bill up in a new box.
 
If the Armslist website is included in the definition of internet sales, then internet sales is not totally regulated. A lot of the sales there wind up being FTF private sales unless the seller is a dealer. I don't know how that's going to be stopped unless you shut down all the sites like that.
 
Armslist is nothing more than a collection of classified ads. If that's included in "internet sales," then your local paper's ads are next.
 
Internet sales are as "regulated" as any other type of sale. I don't understand the difference. The laws that apply to a gun store or to a FTF sale also apply to an internet sale. Am I missing something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top