S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

Toomey admits he has absolutely no idea if there’s any other Republican who supports this.
Click to expand...
This leads me to believe Toomey's about to find out how far off the reservation he is.

Now, what we've got so far is just a series of suggestions. S. 649 is still just the draconian Fix Gun Checks Act, with some addendi on school safety and trafficking.

The weird thing about Toomey's suggestions is that they seem to be over-reaching reactions to Schumer's. For example, telling NICS to place a higher priority on checks from gun shows than from licensed dealers. Furthermore, I'm not sure how the law would distinguish between family members and other buyers at the point of sale.

This whole thing is still a mess, and I think Toomey's just casting about while trying to appease his base.

It really looks like they're trying to throw us a few bones with national reciprocity and out-of-state sales. Of course, those things can easily be taken away later, leaving the most restrictive provisions in place.

(How are guys like Schumer expected to vote for nationwide CCW, just to get a really watered-down version of what they originally wanted?)
 
Oh he may be off the reservation, but in the other direction. And not in a way that the control advocates can point to as unreasonable in the same way as the ACLU did with the "criminal justice traps" in the Schumer version.

edit: Interested in the text of

- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.

Could be nice if it's mean enough to be effective.

Also wonder about the strategy on this one. Offer it up as an amendment toget rid of Schumer's part of 649, or risk letting 649 pass, so that if it doesn't, the people jumping overboard when it fails have this as a life raft.
 
Last edited:
BG Checks and Internet sales

Over the last two days I have seen something I guess I didn't spot before. Along with talking about requiring checks for sales at gun shows I see a reference to checks on internet sales.

I have bought two handguns through GunBroker, both were from FFLs, and both were received by the same local FFL for my pick up. In both cases I had to do a background check with this local FFL.

My question is "under what conditions is it possible to purchase a firearm and not be required to go through a background check?" (With the exception of those who are exempted because the have a CCW or something like that).
 
Until the bill text is actually released there's no way to know. You can't trust summaries reported by the news, they have no idea what checks are required now.

I almost wonder if there will be very little ultimate change to when background checks are required but with higher penalties in the unlikely event they are skipped, discovered, and charged.
 
they have no idea what checks are required now.
Click to expand...

Technosavant, I understand the reporter is often clueless, that's why I am asking here.

I am wondering if a private sale in-state is the exception or has my FFL just been overly cautious requiring the background check when the law doesn't actually require it?
 
lcpiper said:
My question is "under what conditions is it possible to purchase a firearm and not be required to go through a background check?"
Click to expand...

What are internet sales that do not require background checks under the current law? Go to the Classifieds section of this forum (internet advertising), find a gun offered in your home state, PM the seller to arrange a deal (using the internet to conclude the purchase agreement), meet the seller face to face and exchange money for the gun.
 
What are internet sales that do not require background checks under the current law? Go to the Classifieds section of this forum (internet advertising), find a gun offered in your home state, PM the seller to arrange a deal (using the internet to conclude the purchase agreement), meet the seller face to face and exchange money for the gun.
Click to expand...


Negative, this is not an internet sale, this is a private sale face to face. The only thing that happened across the internet was advertising and arranging the meeting for the purpose of conducting a private sale.
 
Politico has a report on details of the bill that are disconcerting:

Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-background-checks-deal-89856.html#ixzz2Q5QBqkNk
Click to expand...

How are they going to know how many Internet sales you did in any given year if they aren't keeping records on that? The story goes on to say that Toomey's amendment is supported by Schumer, Biden, Bloomberg and opposed by the NRA. That seems like quite a rogues' gallery in support of this bill.

If you haven't called your Senators yet to discuss these concerns, now might be a good time. They could be voting on this bill we still haven't seen as early as tomorrow.
 
Go to the Classifieds section of this forum (internet advertising), find a gun offered in your home state, PM the seller to arrange a deal (using the internet to conclude the purchase agreement), meet the seller face to face and exchange money for the gun.
Click to expand...

But that describes a private sale of private property. Same is true for the so called gun show loop hole, there is no such thing. However people do sell guns at gun shows as private sales.

So why not call the bill the private sales control law.?
 
lcpiper, the reason for the checks was that you did business via the FFL, and he is required as a federal licensee to do checks for all his transactions.

If you had bought directly from a private seller in your state, Federal law would not come into play, and a check would only be necessary if your state required it.
 
This is what was posted on NBC News;
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17688832-senators-announce-gun-deal-raising-hopes-of-senate-passage?lite

The background check deal made several tweaks to the prior Democratic proposal, namely by striking a provision requiring states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states, and eliminating another measure exempting sellers who sell five guns per year or fewer from the background check requirement.
Click to expand...

Which is very different from what B. Roberts posted.

Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially.
Click to expand...


Besides allowing for sloppy reporting, I do not understand the disparity of these reports.
 
If you had bought directly from a private seller in your state, Federal law would not come into play, and a check would only be necessary if your state required it.
Click to expand...

MLeake, so you are saying that I can buy a gun online from a private seller in my state, who advertises however he advertises, pay for it via Paypal or say a check in the mail. He can send me the gun via FEDEX maybe, and I don't need an FFL for this?

If this is the case, and this is what they want to regulate. Then this is a State Issue and the Federal Government needs to back off.
 
Bad guys will just break into homes and steal guns. Kill cops for theirs
Click to expand...

That argument is correct, misleading, and not in our best interests. Aside from more of the Bad guys break the laws anyway, why do anything rhetoric it spawns, Crime Guns usually start out legal. Extending the NICS check to private sales via FFL AND extending protection to the seller who uses the FFL NICS check from lawsuits is a good thing. We get the protection, and the peace of mind. We also get a dwindling of the supply of crime guns as Bob can't buy one from Bill, then funnel it into street sales. Arrests of criminals with guns will slowly dwindle the supply as they're only replaced with the stolen guns.

Besides allowing for sloppy reporting, I do not understand the disparity of these reports.
Click to expand...
The 24 hour news cycle, and a press conference less than 24 hours ago counts for the disparity.
 
lcpiper, no, you can't ship a firearm to a non-FFL unless you are shipping it to yourself.

However, if you are buying from a seller from your own state of residence; and if your state has no laws restricting such transactions; and if you meet face to face - then federal law does not require a check or paperwork.
 
But ...
and if you meet face to face
Click to expand...
then this is not an Internet sale.

Calling a private sale, regardless of where and how two private individuals meet, an Internet sale is wrong. It misrepresents the nature of the transaction.

By labeling this an Internet sale they misrepresent the nature of the transaction so it doesn't look like what it is. It's a requirement for background checks on private sales.

It doesn't change the fact that this is not something the Federal Government should be allowed to do. It is still a State issue. If you are still writing your Senators and Reps, this is a point you can make.
 
MLeake said:
...no, you can't ship a firearm to a non-FFL unless you are shipping it to yourself.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is correct. AFAIK firearms shipments between unlicensed residents of the same state are legal under federal law unless the person shipping the firearm knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the recipient is a prohibited person.

IIRC the person shipping the firearm is required to provide written notice to the shipping company, delivery driver, captain of the ship, or pilot of the aircraft that the shipment contains a firearm.

Some shipping companies expressly prohibit such shipments, but IIRC they're not illegal under federal law.

(I cannot look up the statutes at the moment, so forgive me if my memory does not serve me correctly.) :)
 
lcpiper said:
Calling a private sale, regardless of where and how two private individuals meet, an Internet sale is wrong. It misrepresents the nature of the transaction.
Click to expand...

gun show loophole ...
universal background checks for gun sales ...
internet sales ...

Offhand, I can't think of a popular gun grabber catch-phrase that is NOT a calculated deceit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top