What Amendments would we like to see on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jeepstrapped

New member
There is a thread discussing the amendment itself already.

The purpose of this thread is to think of amendments we would like to see added to this amendment/bill http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 , that is come up with things to write our congressmen and senators.

It is my understanding, someone correct me if I am wrong, that Democrats and Republicans have agreed to limit the number of amendments and have established a quid-pro-quo, for every one Republican amendment there will be one Democrat amendment.

Again, the purpose of this thread should be to distill into cogent ideas a list of "Carrots" we would like to see added to the bill/amendment. This is somewhat self-serving because I am a little reactionary and want to take advantage of the wealth of knowledge and exertise here on this forum for the end-result of e-mailing senators and congressman what amendments I would like to see made.

On the Toomey-Manchin Amendment http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=522340 thread it has been pointed out that the amendment does allow the "Carrot" of being able to buy firearms in states other than the one you live in.

My ideas, which are probably over-the-top, are:
1: Repeal the NFA, make all NFA items now fall under the purview of this amendments' background check.
Pro: I think this would be an expansion of gun rights. It would likely keep the bill/amendment from being signed into law.
Con: Is there a Senator or Congressman that would offer this amendment?

1a. Remove sound suppressors from NFA status.
Pro: Watered down idea from 1, but may be more feasible to get a Senator or Congressman to propose the amendment.
Con: The quid-pro-quo Democrat amendment.

2. Since a NICS check in effect checks to see if we are indeed citizens and do not have felonys or other criminal convictions that bars us from enjoying our Second Amendment Rights.
NICS background checks will also be used in all local, state, and federal elections to determine the eligibility of voters.
Pro: I don't know if there is one, I am just tired of losing my rights so I want to give everyone, that votes, a taste of what it feels like to have your rights infringed.
Con: See Pro

EDIT:
3. Require NICS to inform in writing, within 7 days, the reason for any denial as well as the appeals paperwork. Upon finding that any NICS employee has incorrectly denied a purchase a total of 3 times said employee will be relieved of duty and will be barred from any future employment relating to NICS.
Pro: This could reduce the number of improper denials. This would also speed up the process for individuals wrongly denied to regain their rights.
Con: quid-pro-quo amendment.


This is the basic idea. I am sure there are members here that a

re able to offer much better, more well thought out, ideas.
 
Last edited:
I want the national speed limit lowered to 35, and the drinking age lowered to 12. Also, legalize duelling.

Hey, anything that acts as a poison pill works.
 
jeepstrapped,

Would be good if they were attatched and included if it passed, but I doubt UBC as some anti's want would pass SCOTUS either. Perhaps I am too hopeful.

If I could, Id tack on something about how all the "hot-air from bloviating by politicians/media in DC would either need to be captured and used to heat the country, or to have a cap on the hot air to help with the global warming farce."

Eh, we can all dream...At least I pray we are able too!
 
Force "Hollywood" to pay a $1000 fine for every act of violence shown in any non
"X" (can't remember the current nomenclature) movie for every ticket sold to such. Can not be passed on to the distributors - theatre owners - or movie buying public.
 
There are too many laws and taxes already.If they need another gun law,it means the gun laws we have are ill conceived,ineffective,and unjustifiable.
Repeal the old ones before any new ones.
Each new law criminalizes more,each new tax..well,you get my point.
If the GCA 68 does not work,scrap it..First.
 
There are other off-topic items I would like added as well. But this one might be germane to the topic of the bill.

A provision that requires prosecution of media and news people or politicians breaking the law while doing stories, exposes on firearms. Here I am thinking about the CNN thread http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=522451.

Or, some cleverly written amendment that abolishes the NFA gun registry.
 
The answer is SO obvious...

Add an amendment requiring members of Joe Biden's Secret Service detail to be armed only with double-barreled shotguns.

I don't know how he could feel safe otherwise... ;) :D
 
I've seen some justifications that are... statistically rare, and stretchy, but reasonably viable...

For example the folks who live rural enough to shoot in their backyard, but urban enough to have neighbors close enough to call the cops about shots fired and/or get annoyed at the noise. It's certainly not a common set of circumstances, but I can understand the rationale behind it.
 
Kochman said:
1a. Remove sound suppressors from NFA status.
This idea has always boggled my mind.
What could you possibly need a suppressor for?
To protect my hearing.

What does need have to do with it? I want one, and removing the $200 tax stamp requirement would make it easier to get.
 
And while I'm busy today hitting the silly Submit Button too early AGAIN - we're missing an important question for you Kochman-

What could you possibly need to place a suppressor on the NFA list for?
 
While we're on the topic...

In addition to protecting your hearing, suppressors can be useful for hunting near civilized areas, where local NIMBYs may object to the sound of high-powered rifle fire interrupting their idyllic suburban utopia. ;) In fact, suppressors are REQUIRED for legal rifle hunting in some European and British jurisdictions, largely for this reason.

Some anti-suppressor factions like to point out that suppressors somehow encourage poaching by masking the source of gunfire, but I regard this argument as somewhat specious, as there is more than one way to silently bag game animals (e.g. archery or traps).
 
And there are people who will pay for one because it looks cool, just like there are people who put aftermarket flare thing-a-ma-bobs on their EBR to LOOK like an auxiliary grenade launcher, or a spoiler on their Japanese Import to LOOK like a race car.
 
When I was more nervous about the momentum of these bills and the potential for the national registration of semi-autos in the NFA registry I was real excited for the prospect of some Senator (NOT MINE!) to introduce a little innocuous amendment to reopen the MG registry that closed in 1986. Fine, I'll register my semi's and I will happily apply for 5 stamps to cover NEW production full-autos at actual real-world retail prices e.g. $2K for an M16A3/4 NOT 20K for a 1970's vintage M16/A1. And a replica BAR... and something beltfed...

Wouldn't that be their nightmare? You get national registration of semi-autos but the number of transferable full-autos will quintuple in a week! Then we could continue to demonstrate that NFA items are so exquisitely rarely used in criminal acts.

I find this to me more realistic than outright repeal of NFA. Also, NO ONE give them ideas RE indexing tax stamps to or adjusting for past inflation. Please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top