Toomey-Manchin Amendment

carguychris said:
Here's my interpretation: if the state has a CHL system or a firearms purchase permit system in place, AND this system has standards equal to or in excess of a NICS check, AND a NICS-disqualifying event would also result in the revocation of this permit or license, then the US Attorney General can certify that this license or permit is essentially equal to a NICS check. Viola- it's legal to conduct a FTF sale to an in-state buyer who has the permit or license.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Talked with 3 different lawyers today, all sharp guys, and got three totally different interpretations of what 2(B) does. Regardless of what the author's intent was, that doesn't bode well - especially when Eric Holder is doing the interpretation and enforcement. There are several big players in the 1994 AWB working in DOJ now.
 
Also note that we might talk about “sales,” but the law actually refers to “transfers.” While I might personally find this a little disconcerting, in all honesty, I don’t see any changes to the definition of “transfer,” in this
amendment. However, I am bothered by this:
:
SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or
(2) to extend background check requirements to temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee.
Click to expand...
Someone (kraigwy?) noted earlier that this can be interpreted to mean that I can loan my buddy something for hunting, but not for “stalker duty,” unless it involves a BC.
Click to expand...

The first part of 2, is the old allowance for the temporary transfer for hunting and sporting purposes, but of course the old federal law was only interstate transfers. The second part of 2, is to cover the new FFL requirements for gun shows and advertising. I.e. you can legally let someone examine a weapon before they buy it or do not buy it.

Although the amendment has some plus's such as making handguns equal to long guns in interstate commerce, the background check extensions are useless. What percent of sales to bad guys really involve the internet or ads and how many are just guys saying "Do you know were I can get a gun" and Joe saying "Yes, see Phil"? No background check required for that.

Under federal law you cannot lend a buddy out-of-state a gun for personal protection without it going through a FFL, this law does not change that. If in state it does not change it either as you are unlikely to give you buddy the gun at a gun show.
 
These bills are presumably written by attorneys. If they wanted to be clear they would use precise language. The fact it is so muddled and open to executive interpretation so tell us A LOT about the intentions.

It is worded to allow us to be optimistic and assume it would never be applied in ridiculous or oppressive manner, while leaving open that very opportunity.
 
I have a feeling that the questions asked and points made here are far more detailed and perceptive than those asked before the next vote. :(
 
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or
(2) to extend background check requirements to temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee.
Click to expand...

wally626 said:
Under federal law you cannot lend a buddy out-of-state a gun for personal protection without it going through a FFL, this law does not change that. If in state it does not change it either as you are unlikely to give you buddy the gun at a gun show.
Click to expand...

This law would restrict loaning a gun to a friend for personal protection. The verbiage in section (1) is separate from section (2).
 
Breaking News!

I think we all need to take a step back. The politics of gun-control just turned a leaf.

It appears that Alan Gottlieb (SAF, CCRKBA) has just admitted to helping to write the Manchin-Toomey compromise bill/amendment. He was caught on video last Friday.

This was discovered over at CGN. That article is here: http://www.mediaite.com/online/watc...g-manchin-toomey-background-checks-amendment/. After doing some checking, I found the original article by Dan Santini (Daylight Disinfectant Blog): DAYLIGHT DISINFECTANT | SHOCK VIDEO: GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE’S STAFF HELPED WRITE BACKGROUND CHECK BILL. Both of the articles contain the flash video of Mr. Gottliebs statements to a country club dinner, last Friday. The standalone video at YouTube is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E9UMox1WoTw#!
 
My mind boggles, at how that guy doesn't see that even with his good intent,(giving him the benefit of the doubt) what came out on paper is dangerous and the few "protections" and "ornaments" as he would call them, are not a good trade for the language being wide open to interpretation to mean things other than he intended.
 
Watch the video, it contains some interesting inside info on pro-RKBA amendments to be offered Tuesday. I have some big concerns still.

1. Why are CHLs being forced to transfer through an FFL for Internet/Gun show sales when they have already been background checked and are exempt from NICS?

2. I think Mr. Gottlieb is overly optimistic about how he is "getting over" on the antis. Chuck Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden disn't sign off on that deal because they are stupid. They think they are getting something too - and there is a lot of gray area to justify their thoughts. The whole reason FOPA needs strengthening is because a combination of judges and bureaucrats have twisted the language and ignored the intent of the drafters. I don't know why Mr. Gottlieb doesn't think that is going to happen again if the language allows for more than one interpretation.
 
It is also the case that the bill will be seen as a first step and breakthrough towards more draconian gun control. Minor tweaks will not be seen as a compromise that treats both sides equally.

Perhaps the discussion about national reciprocity (if that happened in a manner that a state can't reject it) would be a step forward. If you do the net sum of public views, the current bill will be a step toward what must be done to control guns.

The meta is a changing mood away from gun rights and minor tweaks will not avoid the big crunch. I'm afraid only a definitive SCOTUS set of new decisions will do that.
 
I just saw an article in the washington post (responding from my phone, will add link when I get home) that stated a well regarded 2A organization voiced support for the amendment. Has anyone heard of the citizens commitee for the right to keep amd bear arms?
 
Interesting, this position he and by extension his organizations have taken is certainly a odd circumstance. I wonder if this will end up being similar to the earlier NRA gaff of supporting UBCs in the '90s.

Article referenced.
 
I am starting to see articles that this amendment will pave the way for full state to state reciprocity, and that Schumer is furious. Is this just wishful reading/thinking or is this an actual possibility?
 
Slippery slope when connecting the right to use or own something to health care, pilots for years have battled with seeking care mental and physical due to keeping there license. Once health care is used in this manner it can and will spread to other agencies, home insurance, car insurance, in the end it prevents people from obtaining the help they need. Once our health care records become an open book and I believe they will under Obama care it will affect more then guns.
 
I think there are probably as many hidden items that SAF missed as there are hidden items that Schumer missed. The Heritage Foundation article talking about how the use of the word "notwithstanding" weakens existing FOPA protections against a federal registry is one example.

The part where CHLs are now required to transfer through FFLs at gun show/ internet sales is another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top