The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Deal to prevent sales to criminals and mentally ill.

Manchin says it protects lawful gun owners.


On CSPAN now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Manchin says this is now bi-partisan. Will be an amendment to the gun bills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Toomey:

Senator Kirk also involved.


Pa has a long bi-partisan tradition... Gun rights important to me - i am gun owner.


Thinks background checks are ok. Doesn't want people who can't pass the check to have guns.

Swears nothing in this amendment will infringe on gun purchases or ownership by those legal.


Common ground is criminals and mentally ill shouldn't have guns. The question was how to prevent them from getting them. I support background checks.


Amendments will require background checks at gun shows and internet sales.There will be no paperwork trail or record keeping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Q&A

Have you been in contact with the NRA?

Yes, (both) answered they have been.


///// Sounds like Toomey / Manchin agreed to do background checks like the current system in PA ///

They have been promised this amendment will be the first allowed on the bill.


Gun show sales (all) ffl. (lost audio)


Sounds like they also fixed the intrastate transport issues.

Q: <span style="font-weight: bold">is theis the first step to National CCW?</span>

Manchin - <span style="font-weight: bold">yes - I support that. </span>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I suggest we get this and read it before passing judgement. of course, we shall also wait for the NRA to weigh in.


Manchin WV (D) is A+ NRA rated.


From the continuing conversation in the press conference, it seems that they took a comprehensive approach to this making FFL checks uniform across the country (again - it sounds like the PA system) but also looked at transport and uniformity of transport and possession laws. Thus the inference to national CCW.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Who will decide what mentally ill is?? How will they get the info on who is metally ill, medical records are private. This is the begining of the end, the government will probe every aspect of our lives before Bobo is out of office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
TOOMEY, WHEN ASKED IF HE CARED WHAT THIS WOULD DO TO HIS NRA A+ RATING REPLIED "I don't care, I only care about doing what is right". He DONT care !!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,632 Posts
That becomes an inherent problem when they don't understand what is right in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Fairfax, Va. - Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg's "universal" background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-f...k-proposal.aspx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
I sent Toomey an email telling him I hope he likes being a one term Senator. All of us on here must remember what he has done to us and support whoever runs against him in the Republican primary in 2014.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
It not going to get any better, they have the U.N. breathing down there backs, so it does not matter who is in there. Most don't see this because it is happening in the cities, and these people want some control. Then you need to get people to vote. And as 1 said how do we know they will be any better. Its a fact there will be gun law changes. But again it would be nice if they went after the people breaking the gun laws we already have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,354 Posts
some of you on here sound like we don't need gun laws at all. is that how it should be? no laws. If I didn't know any better I would think that if your afraid of a background check it is because you probably would not pass one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
gunmaster12 said:
some of you on here sound like we don't need gun laws at all. is that how it should be? no laws. If I didn't know any better I would think that if your afraid of a background check it is because you probably would not pass one.
It's because the 2nd Amendment contains the words "shall not be infringed". It grants a "right"...not priviledge..but a "RIGHT". Each transgression (tresspass)(infringement) invalidates the 2nd Amendment piece by piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Gunmaster the problem is that it will not stop at just the back ground checks...New York state is proof #1...look it up...they sent the letters out already..."turn in your guns and ID cards". Search NY gun confiscation and you will find
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Curly Maple said:
It's because the 2nd Amendment contains the words "shall not be infringed". It grants a "right"...not priviledge..but a "RIGHT". Each transgression (tresspass)(infringement) invalidates the 2nd Amendment piece by piece.

All of us celebrated the Heller decision and then McDonald. They together solidified the 2nd in a way they never had been before.

That said, the court in Heller clearly, and in several places, said that reasonable restrictions were allowed by federal and state government.

Just as there are restriction and rules on each of the other amendments to the constitution.

So we are in a place where about any law passed at any level is going to be challenged in the courts until their is a body of law sorting all this out. Thus will be the course for the laws in Colorado, New York, Maryland, and I am sure anything passing congress - if anything passes at all.


All of us celebrate our enumerated rights in the state and federal constitutions. With that is the implication of embracing all of those documents and the decisions of the courts to interpret them.

America is a country based on law. The rule of law - the set procedure for finding a course via the courts for redress.

So, as much as we revel in Heller and McDonald, they stripped away many decisions of the past. So each new law since those decisions is open to constitutionality and validity.

As many here, in the NRA, and elsewhere have said often, we can not pick and chose what amendments we like or don't like. It is a package deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,948 Posts
Still going back and forth on this one in my mind. I fully support background checks. However, as others have said, where does the paper trail stop and how do we determine who is mentally ill?
I dont have a problem doing a background check. I have said it before and will say it again, no amount of laws or paper trails will ever change my resolve or my stance. So if they wanna make them law of the land, fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
According to the press conference and what they said, they are adding gun shows to the background check - I am assuming handguns and long rifles... but not sure about long rifles. Need to see the text.

I always assumed that online gun sales had to go through a FFL unless the gun was a handgun or the gun went across state lines.

But not all states have the same rules. Lots of confusion on this and it is a huge winning wedge issue for the anti's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
The GOA take on this:

Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) - but which also has Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.

See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun "ranters" have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun control bill; that they can’t cut off debate to a bill they haven’t seen yet. “Let the bill come up,” they say. “We need to see the bill” before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.

Well, we’ve seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it’s worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”

Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.

The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun - or it at least becomes very, very difficult.

Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.

Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it’s going to happen to the rest of the population ... by the millions!

And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don’t send every single patient’s name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don’t send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.

The bottom line: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”

All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazine bans.

Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act - the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.

Please keep in mind, nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.

Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally acquiring guns, but there’s plenty that will threaten our gun rights!

ACTION: Contact your two senators immediately. Tell them the “see a shrink; lose your guns” sellout is even worse than the Feinstein gun ban which will reportedly be on the same amendment tree with it. Distribute this alert far and wide.

Time is short, so if you call - at 202-224-3121 - you may click below to see the pre-written letter and use the contents to help direct your comments.

http://gunowners.org/a04102013.htm
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top