search
top

Toomey’s Press Release

Toomey has some of the details of the deal with Manchin. It’s a bit of give and take on both sides if everything is as advertised; that is a real compromise, and not a compromise where they only get a smaller slice of my pie instead of a bigger one. Of course that doesn’t make me feel any better about the concessions, nor does it help that we do not have language yet for the Toomey-Manchin Amendment. The devil is often in the details, and “just trust me,” is asking too much when Schumer is involved in this whole thing. Hell, it’s asking too much by any politician.

I don’t think the anti-gun folks are going to be happy about this deal, even if some of them come out and try to make the best of it. I think Bloomberg will try to spin it as a good start, and declare victory. But Bloomberg has to be concerned that this deal is not reaching all private transfers, while simultaneously taking the bogeyman of “gun show loophole” and “internet sales” away from him. It’s possible they were approaching the needed votes on something far preferable to them, and are likewise viewing this concession as unnecessary.

Finally, consider that amendments to bills, as best as I understand Senate rules, only require a bare majority, rather than 60 votes. It requires 60 votes to invoke cloture on a bill, to end debate and have a vote. The Democrats can pass amendments without any Republican support. We will see how this all goes down, but we really do need to see the language of the bill.

Previous attempts to regulate gun shows have seriously overreached, and I’m very skeptical of how Internet sales could be regulated. What defines an Internet sale? If I IM my friend Jason and ask if he wants to buy one of my guns, do I have to go through an FFL now? Does it only apply to advertising for sale? What about a private message board on a gun club’s web site? As for gun shows, what exactly is a gun show? Is it a place where people gather to sell guns? Can a few friends looking over a collection I’m reducing constitute a show? If there’s a guy at a flea market selling a rifle, does that make it a gun show? Is a yard sale a gun show if there’s guns for sale? Is the parking lot also a show? What if you bring the gun to a show, but sell it at the gas station down the street? You can see where can potentially entrap people with language. I appreciate the concessions made to our side in this deal, but there’s quite a lot to be wary of, and I’m not going to say this is a win, am not willing, without language, to opine on how fair the trade is here.

80 Responses to “Toomey’s Press Release”

  1. Why do veterans get the ability to challenge their placement on NICS and not the rest of us. There’s a laundry list of problems I see and honestly we’re not really getting anything and they’re getting everything.

    Give me national reciprocity or take suppressors off the NFA list.

    • Barron,

      “Why do veterans get the ability to challenge their placement on NICS and not the rest of us(?)”

      Because we earned it, that’s why. Do you really want to come across like you’re whining about this?

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        Veterans were getting placed by DOD without due process.

        Non-veterans don’t currently get placed on NICs until after their day in court that makes them “adjudicated mentally deficient” or have a hearing about their “involuntary commitment.”

        That’s why.

      • Patrick H says:

        Your rights are no greater or lesser than ours. Don’t act so holier than thou.

  2. If the bill is as advertised, their side is getting a trivial gain, and we are getting big gains indeed. But it sounds like a big bill.

  3. Patrick H says:

    Wow, it gets worse:

    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.

    • Patrick H says:

      Five guns a year? That’s not going to work.

      Here’s the link

      • MikeJ says:

        In December… “Honey, I have to buy these two guns before the end of the year. The law they passed sets a quota of five per year. You wouldn’t want me to break the law?”

        • cloaked in mystery says:

          I presume the “internet sales” limit is an attempt to codify how many guns one can sell privately without being considered dealing. Most “internet sales” are FFL to FFL transactions, so I fail to see how that would be impacted, unless now you will have to call by phone for shipment of guns 6 and up.

    • Jim says:

      And this: “[w]hen a sale occurs, the buyer and seller would meet at a federally licensed dealer, who would conduct the check.” How are private transactions exempted if this is what the bill does?

    • SPQR says:

      Cutting back on instant check deadlines is not good.

  4. brobrandonb says:

    Yeah I’m going to try taking deep breaths to keep from freaking out until we see the language but one item that caught my eye:

    I’m very interested to see how that is written. Who or what is a “dealer”? could we be able to carry on however we darn well please (i.e. cash and a handshake) so long as the buyer has a CWP? What about buying from local gunshop? can these transactions be exempt from 4473’s? – because that would be real compromise.
    I’m not really all that optimistic, as the devil is in the details.

    • brobrandonb says:

      whoops… stupid formatting…. here is the section I was looking at:

      – Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

      • Jim says:

        I bet you that the dealer will still be required to keep a record of the sale somehow, eliminating any anonymity benefit to CCW holders.

      • Andy B. says:

        This adds incentive for Real Gunnies who think their CCW is a badge to be proud of, to want to keep CCW and to resist Constitutional Carry. NFW, for my money.

        • SPQR says:

          I think that incentive to “resist” is minor.

          • Andy B. says:

            You haven’t known some of the Real Gunnies I worked with here in PA, back when I was still inclined to shovel shit against the tide.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          The two aren’t mutually exclusive, see AK, AZ, WY. No one legal to own needs a permit to carry and our permits give reciprocity in states that aren’t fully enlightened like us and VT. Though some are partway there, I don’t need my permit in OK for some reason.

          In AK it also gives NICs exemption.

          I’d say that’s pretty good progress over the ’80s, when legal carry wasn’t available at all in most states, and there was little reciprocity between those that had it.

          It certainly beats ’93 in Alaska when there was no carry, no reciprocity, and the Brady wait was still in effect.

          No NICs and nationwide Con Carry are obviously the goal, but we are winning, not moving backward. Every carrier we can get is an asset toward those goals; your locale may vary but the “permits are necessary subset” are a distinct, and educable, minority nationwide I’d wager.

          • Matthew Carberry says:

            That said I’ll withhold judgement till I see the actual bill, if we have something, we shouldn’t give any of it up. Our only “compromise” should be temporarily accepting just a bit less of what we don’t have, but do want.

            With the plan being to go back for the rest later.

  5. Skullz says:

    From the press release:
    “and imposes serious criminal penalties (a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.”

    So does that mean the PA state police will do federal time for keeping the “sales database”?

    • NUGUN Blog says:

      No, cause they use PICS not NICS…that’s probably their out. LOL

    • brobrandonb says:

      that deserves a gold star, right there.

      When it comes to it the vast majority of our community is okay with nationwide strong background checks – – – if it meant a real compromise where we were no longer tracked, recorded, and abused as purchasers of non-state-approved private goods.

      Walk in to gun store, show CWP or “certified buyer licence”, pay cash, walk out. Anybody who doesn’t want a licence does the insta-check and then can do the rest the same.

      The problem is we are always promised some give-and-take and then always burned.

      And where is our nationwide reciprocity?

    • This bill simply prohibits the fedgov from keeping a registry… if it ALSO forced states to completely abolish their registries and sales records, I’d probably accept gun show background checks in return. Won’t happen though.

      • Robert says:

        Sorry. Feds can’t “force” the states to do anything.

        • Motor-T says:

          Remember when the congress required sheriffs to perform background checks? How would requiring state/local law enforcement to report disqualifying events be different?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

          • BC says:

            Easy. The practical effect of Printz is that the fedgov may not dragoon state authorities into enforcing federal law via the alchemy of the Commerce Clause. But there is absolutely nothing in Printz that prohibits the fedgov from offering a too-good-to-refuse piece of cheese to the states, via the Spending Clause, if they’ll cooperate.

        • NUGUN Blog says:

          They can if its deemed an infringement of the second amendment. ;-)

  6. Jacob says:

    If the antis want to “close the gunshow loophole”, fine. Let Toomy put nationwide reciprocity on the table in exchange for that.

    • cloaked in mystery says:

      he did, schumer killed it

      • Corey says:

        And Toomey was under the disillusionment that nationwide reciprocity wouldn’t be killed in exchange for his vote on cloture… He’s not only a traitor, he’s an idiot.

  7. MattW says:

    Yeah I want to see the actual language. As brobrandonb said, the devil is in the details and I don’t trust Toomey’s summary to put me at ease.

    Specifically these sections could be troublesome based on the actual language:

    “Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).”

    “Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.”

    “Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term “transport” includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.”

  8. Publicola says:

    Again I’m in the “no” camp. The language of the bill does not matter. ANY concession, or ANY discussion weakens us in the big picture. I don’t want to see if it’s a “fair” trade” or if their gains are “trivial” in the short term & ours are moderate in the short term. ANY dealing with them on this puts us in a worse spot in the medium & long term. In the short term we might make some small gains, but it helps establish their premise that our demise as a culture can be negotiated, and if they do it slow enough, whilst whispering those sweet nothings in our ears, then we’ll go along. Worse, it bolsters the idea that our destruction is not morally wrong.

    We can’t afford to compromise or haggle about this. See the devil ain’t in the details, it’s in the idea that we can sit down at a table & negotiate (appease, compromise, wheel & deal, what have you) with folks whose aim is the destruction of the gun culture. By playing at all we lose.

    If person A told person B he wanted to kill him (person B), & person B said he wanted to live, & person A suggested they sit down at a table & try to work out a deal, would anyone here think person B when he sits down at that table, hasn’t already conceded too much by legitimizing the conversation? Well right now we’re person B.

    What I fear is that something will be offered – some concession on some bit of gun control that pro gunners like (reciprocity for permits comes to mind), maybe a seeming dial back of something (like making it an internet & gun show only scenario) & someone will bargain away my Rights again, crowing over a short term mock victory whilst strategically pushing us back further towards the sea.

    Again no; I’m in no mood to deal when their prize is my destruction. I’d rather fight it out on the floor & lose soundly than strike a bargain of any kind.

    • Sebastian says:

      We can’t afford to compromise or haggle about this. See the devil ain’t in the details, it’s in the idea that we can sit down at a table & negotiate (appease, compromise, wheel & deal, what have you) with folks whose aim is the destruction of the gun culture. By playing at all we lose.

      We can get up and leave the table, of course, and then others will haggle and negotiate without any regard for what we might think. Unless the courts take this issue off the table, that’s what you’re dealing with. No one I think is in this fight because we like these kinds of political struggles. I certainly could find better things to do with my time. We are in this struggle because politicians don’t honestly have much regard for our rights if we don’t play the game. It sucks, but that’s the way it is.

      • SPQR says:

        This.

        • Countertop says:

          If you don’t show up, they still play the game. You just don’t have a chance to Win. And when your the pre season favorites to win it all, it really makes no sense.

          • SPQR says:

            I got lost in those metaphors … or are they similes?

            • Arnie says:

              Similes are just metaphors that begin with the preposition “like.”
              E.g. – metaphor: “The half-back was a bowling ball and the defenders were all pins.”
              – simile: “The half-back cut through the defense like a hot knife through butter.”

              Love English!!!

      • Zermoid says:

        How can giving away more of our Rights that “Shall not be Infringed” be considered a “compromise”?

        We, according to the Constitution, have both the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) Arms.
        And since this right is tied to the Militia, (which at the time was every able bodied man in the state) which is a military organization when called up by the state governor, we should have access to military type weapons, not ‘hunting rifles’.

        Therefore anything that takes anything away from that “Right” is a concession, not a compromise.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          Giving up a method of exercise of the right that we already have secured by law, in return for something else we want, is a concession in my mind. We are going backwards a step, no matter how many forward we go.

          For instance, giving up not having to do background checks on private transfers, a free exercise we already have secured by law, in return for national reciprocity. We are conceding the one to gain the other.

          That I’m pretty much four-square against no matter what.

          However, securing a method of exercise of the right that we do -not- currently have secured by law, that is less than absolute but knowing that we plan to go for more later, is compromise to my way of thinking. No steps back, baby steps forward.

          For instance: accepting (real) corrections to FOPA because they are attainable but “conceding” temporarily that Nat’l Reciprocity is for next time. Nothing lost, something on the way to the ultimate goal gained.

        • Arnie says:

          Agreed, Zermoid! That is exactly what the Second Amendment means!!!! How liberals can come away with a different interpretation can only be explained by preconceived anti-gun bias! Thank you for your comment!!!
          – Arnie

  9. Spade says:

    I like how they add more to FOPA 1986 protections…despite NY and NJ ignoring it when they feel like right now.

  10. Motor-T says:

    What is an Internet sale?
    When I buy from Gunbroker, I have the gun shipped to my friendly local FFL, and transferred from there. Is this kind of sale limited?

    • Sebastian says:

      What is an Internet sale?

      That’s the million dollar question.

      • Tam says:

        I was unaware that they’d already released the sentencing guidelines?

        (Thank you, I’ll be here all week. Try the veal. :D )

      • rickn8or says:

        Slow down Sebastian; we’re still working on the definition of “infringed” from Heller.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      It already is, there’s still a NICs check happening by law.

      Note they say we would be able to buy a pistol from a dealer in another state, in person while traveling, with a NICs check instead of having to have it shipped to a dealer in our home state for the check and physical transfer. That’s huge.

      What they are undoubtedly after is in-state private sale sites, like alaskaslist.com, that put together buyers and sellers who aren’t “friends, families, or neighbors” and don’t require a transfer to a dealer.

    • Motor-T,

      Great question. This should be interesting.

  11. Stephen says:

    Reading through the talking points …

    I think we do make some big gains, if it’s as advertised. CCW instead of a background check actually will grow CCW users — the more of us there are the better. Politicians don’t like to take things away, and I still say the expansions of CCW is what has given life to what Sebastian calls “Gunculture 2.0.” Here in Colorado where we were stabbed in the back the one thing they couldn’t even get badly harried Democrats to pass was a serious restriction on CCW — the push to end carry on College campuses got killed based on a “self defense” plea.

    And FOPA needed some strengthening, and it sounds like they’ve done it — now NJ and NY won’t be able to ignore it (or will be more open to false arrest claims and civil liability when they do).

    So I do see some pluses, and if it truly works as advertised (big if) I’m not offended by it.

    • Motor-T says:

      The way the CCW thing works here in Texas is that you fill out your 4473 and the FFL copies down your CHL number and stores the 4473. There is no phone call, but the record keeping is still required. Many states have this now. Any state that wants it can fix their laws so it works that way for them.
      This is not a big win for us.

      I don’t see the new FOPA changes doing anything in NY or NJ unless there is a way to actually punish police for violating the law.
      This is not a big win for us.

      The only change this law will have on my life is that I will now have to go to a FFL to buy a gun from another Texan. No background check will take place. But the record keeping (4473 process) will cost me $25-$100.
      This is not a win.

      • Stephen says:

        Didn’t know how the CCW thing worked, as the Dems have kept that from happening in Colorado. So not such a big win. A minor plus for many of us.

        From what I read, though, you won’t have to go to an FFL for an xfer to a fellow Texan depending on the relationship. We’ll see in the details how that relationship is defined. You will for an internet sale or a gun show sale, so I understand how that’s a negative to you.

        But the FOPA thing is a win for everyone if I’m reading it correctly. Before NJ and NY ignored it because they claimed if you stopped for the night at a hotel or bought gas or whatever it didn’t apply. Now that’s being set right — you can make a legitimate stop for gas or dinner or whatever and are still protected. And false arrest claims and civil liability are a punishment that matters.

        Maybe our pro-gun friends will manage to get some better amendments on it. We’ll see.

      • I’m with Motor-T on this. My North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit substitutes for both the NICS check and the NC Pistol Purchase Permit.

        If I’m at an FFL, the 4473 is still filled out. If I buy from a private individual, I just show the CHP and we’re both good.

        Until we have all the details, I’m a no on this bill. There is just too little gain

    • SPQR says:

      The ban on campus carry would have easily passed in Colorado legislature but for one legislator making a really stupid comment. They pulled the bill to get his comments out of the news and get the news coverage positive for the rest of the gun control agenda, not because it wouldn’t pass.

      • Stephen says:

        Bottom line is … people made stupid comments and we got it pulled back. But they made stupid comments about the other items as well and they were still passed. And that idiot’s comments didn’t disappear from the news. Anti-gunners will always say stupid things because they understand neither guns nor the empowerment of owning them.

        At the end of the day … the only limitation on CCW was a minor change to training laws, and that doesn’t affect current holders and didn’t piss anybody off. We won on the CCW issue, and it’s still the big winner.

        Do you understand that once people get an entitlement of any kind, whether is monetary or otherwise, politicians are unlikely to take it away because people who you take something away from will vote aginst you? Which is why CCW has never been completely rolled back anywhere, even in otherwise blue states?

        Facts is facts: CCW is one of the smartest things we’ve done on the pro-gun side, and it puts down a line that the anti-gunners have a long ways to go before they dare cross it.

  12. Motor-T says:

    And still I am curious what they mean by online/Internet sale.

  13. Matt says:

    I collect antique guns (pre-1899) that legally are not “firearms” via GunBroker, Collector’s Firearms, etc. So I order these guns on the Internet and have them shipped straight to my door. I’m going to be very curious how this is going to be defined.

  14. Andy B. says:

    All these claims of “some big gains” are giving me flashbacks to the run-up to when PA’s last comprehensive gun control bill was passed in 1995. You know, what the NRA dubbed “The Sportsmens Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill.” What one Real Gunnie assured us “made the state constitution more powerful” because they had allowed him to write a stupid preamble that praised the constitution — in the very legislation that was violating it.

    I am about to write a memo to myself, to remember that any pol who adds some “big gains” to an otherwise anti-gun bill, is a traitor, and should be forever treated as such. But that will make one of us, who will listen.

  15. John A says:

    The language will matter. Especially in applying it, but also as-is wording. For example, a story yesterday (about a bill in some State) addressed the quesdtion about loaning a firearm to someone with language implying that you could loan one to a friend with whom you are hunting – what about at a gun range while shooting targets?

  16. Reese says:

    “Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks”

    So, this really doesn’t change anything regarding private sales? My Senators, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch, better vote NO on this.

  17. Andy B. says:

    “The language will matter”

    Of course it will. Language that empowers and protects us will be ignored. Language that constrains government will be ignored. Language that restricts us will be enforced to the last jot and tittle.

    • Arnie says:

      You are so right, Andy B. Words are meaningless unless recognized and respected by those who swear to support and defend them – lately, the Feds have been totally selective in which ones they support. I don’t trust any regulations by Congress when it comes to guns. I tend to agree with Publicola. I am sick of compromising fundamental principles. Maybe we should muster a 4.5 million man march in D.C. protesting all federal gun laws. I wonder if D.C. Police would arrest 4.5 million Americans for open carrying? Of course, they would first have to underestimate our crowd size down to about 20,000; then arrest us. *groan*

  18. Rayra says:

    TRAP!
    Half that shit is already the law. We’re being given the shit we already have in ‘trade’ for more onerous controls.

    There has never been a ‘gunshow loophole’ for FFL Dealers. They MUST run NICS checks even at gun shows.

    Military already CAN buy guns in their home state AND in their duty station state.

    FOPA of ’86 ALREADY requires asshole states like NY to allow ‘safe passage’ of firearm owners from legal state to legal state THRU NY. NY has been violating this Federal Act for 27 years and has unjustly imprisoned several people and taken the property of many more in violation of it.

    Charter of the ATF already expressly forbids their creation of a national registry. The ATF has been undermining and working around that restriction in every way they can, for decades.

    We can already make interstate purchases of handguns – by having the gun purchased and transferred to an FFL in our own state, where we then fill out the 4473 and get checked.

    • ericcartman says:

      look at all these suckers begging for scraps and abandoning their principles. they dont see that congress is going to screw us with sneak in amendments like the hughes amendment.

  19. Richard says:

    Don’t thing there is anything worth trading here for the good guys. National reciprocity would have been something worth trading for but Schumer killed that. Doofus Toomey went along. Primary.

  20. D. O. Gennies says:

    Penalty for registering guns is ok. But if there is no penalty for registering gun owners, or sellers, or buyers, then it makes no difference.

    Once they have one list or the other, they know which doors to knock on to pick up all the guns.

  21. RAH says:

    Getting rid of the interstate ban is good but not enough to sign on for this. I will wait and negotiate getting rid of the 1986 bans on long arms and get rid of the 1968 interstate prohibitions.

    The FOPA redefnition is ok but I want some teeth and I don’t see that.

    This is a sweet bribe but it is a trap. Reminds me of the devils bargain.

  22. ericcartman says:

    this is bullshit. fuck these RINOS. everyone should call their reps and say “NO NEW GUN LAWS” no political victories for democrats or obama. there are going to be a ton of sneak in amendments like the hughes amendment.

top