Skip to comments.Sens. Toomey and Manchin Reach Deal on Expanding Background Checks
Posted on 04/10/2013 1:28:56 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin(D-WV) have reached a deal on expanding background checks. Firearms purchases at guns shows, on the internet or any circumstance involving paid advertising would be subject to background checks but there would be important exemptions, such as temporary transfers and between close relatives.
Under the terms of the Manchin-Toomey deal all background checks would be conducted by federally licensed gun firearm dealers, who would need to verify the validity of a purchasers gun license and record that a check was performed. Background checks would need to be completed within three days, except at gun shows, where they would have to be completed within two days for the next four years, and then within 24 hours. In order to avoid processing delays, the FBI would be required to complete background checks requested at gun shows before those requested elsewhere. [ ]
A precise list of which transactions would be covered by the background check deal was not immediately available. One person familiar with the discussions said the proposed legislation would likely require background checks on all advertised transactions, including those posted on Internet sale sites.
Although the press release issued by Manchin and Toomey explicitly states that the bill will not create a national registry and makes it illegal to establish one, Guns Saving Lives points out an important detail. If transfers are done through a federally licensed firearms dealer there WILL be a form 4473 for every single transaction. These forms must be turned over to the government whenever a dealer changes owners or closes its doors. The ATF can also inspect these forms almost at will. This will create a de facto gun registry through the records that will be generated.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
we have to realize “our guys” are not idiots, they are collaborators.
The fix is in.
Some states don't require "gun licenses." Is this a subtle hint that states are going to be required to issue them?
Here’s the kicker...
“...verify the validity of a purchasers gun license...”
Debate the Second Amendment? Just say NO!
This bill is NOT posted on thhomas.loc.gov
I bet we don’t get to read it before the senate vote.
One concern is just how doctors can enter you in the “no guns” database and whether such a listing can be appealed.
Yep. I trust no one in D.C.
From Toomey’s website:
“The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
Oh, except for the Due Process Clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments
RINO’s screwing America with great abandonment.
The same unstoppable momentum as 0bamacare, and the same feeling of helplessness in trying to influence any of the politicians involved. When men repeal rights given by God, man plays God. Government is God. America no more.
time to melt the phone lines.
Tommey especially, what an idiot.
I emailed Toomey. Explained to him that he just lost a vote. He is NOT a Conservative and I refuse to vote for anyone that whittles away at the Constitution..
I have read that the atf gets around "national registry" now by keeping several regional registries. I do not know if that is true or not, but if they were keeping it concealed from JQ Public, we wouldn't know, now would we?
Gun license? Since when do we need a license to own a firearm?
This is already the case. Has been the case for a very long time.
Last I checked, aren’t you already required to send a firearm to an FFL if it’s purchased over the internet and you’re mailing it to someone?
Of course, this is hardly the first time big brother had its head up its @$$ when it comes to knowing a law is already on the bloody books.
I bet we dont get to read it before the senate vote.
That's what I have been wondering....how the heck are they going to vote on something that hasn't even been written yet and if it has been written then why has nothing been released for public scrutiny? This is actually WORSE than the way the PPACA was handled.
I'm really getting sick and tired of these snakes producing highly controversial legislation that is likely to be unconstitutional without allowing the public to know what is being voted on.
Secret up or down votes on the Constitution might be a sign of a problem.
That is required *unless* the buyer and seller physically meet in person to conduct the transaction, which is in the eyes of the gun grabbers a huge "loophole".
"Purchaser's gun license???!!!???!!! WTF!
No one in Texas needs a license to purchase, only those in dark and fascist states like NJ, NY and IL.
Oh, and last I read the FFL's fee for doing the background check is to be determined by the Attorney General - who has no limit on what that fee may be. So if he makes the fee $1,000 or $10,000, that would effectively stop all transfers.
Phuk these guys and the horse they rode in on! I hope that several states pass laws specifically exempting guns made and sold within the state to be exempt from this "law" should the abomination pass. I also hope that the American People give the fed.gov the finger on this one, just like their great grandparents did on Prohibition and their parents on the issue of the 55 MPH limit and recreational drugs. This is NONE of the fed.gov's business.
I might ask when we can expect a similar background check for prayer books and newspapers. EVERYONE knows that ideas and the written word a far more powerful weapons than mere firearms.
Here’s what I sent this tool:
“Senator, I respectfully request and strongly advise you to drop your cooperation with Senators Manchin and Schumer on this issue, and to oppose their unconstitutional efforts to register firearms and to make the exercise of a RIGHT dependent upon obtaining a government permit. What is next, registration for prayer books? Permits to belong to a church or to subscribe to a newspaper?
The proposed law requires some sort of license to purchase a firearm - how is that NOT a severe infringement on the right of all citizens in states that don’t have any such license at this point? How is something that requires a license possibly to be considered a right - let alone one that supposedly ISN’T being infringed upon?
If you fail to support the rights guaranteed to ALL CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY by the Constitution, as you swore to do in your oath of office, by changing your position on this issue, I promise you that I will oppose your re-election with all resources at my disposal. You will face a primary fight, and if you somehow succeed in that then you’ll face a general election fight. One way or the other, you will not be Pennsylvania’s Senator after this term...unless you honor your oath and respect our rights. The choice is YOURS.”