search
top

We Have Language on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment

UPDATE: OK, a bit of editorializing here. After reading and re-reading a lot of these provisions, it’s not abundantly clear what circumstances are or aren’t covered. This bill is not just limited to Internet sales, as it was advertised, but also includes soliciting for a transfer in “publications,” which are poorly defined in the Toomey-Manchin amendment. Senator Toomey says this measure throws some bones to gun owners, but without it being clear what it takes away, how can we possibly support it?

Can be found at Senator Toomey’s website. First, GOA’s assertions that doctors can put people in NICS is completely false. So is their assertion that being on anti-depressants will get you in the database. This is the same crap we heard during the last bill after Virginia Tech. With that out of the way…. I’m going to try to give you my best interpretation of the language, with no spin or chicken little routine.

(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-

(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or

(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

This basically sets forth what is illegal under the Toomey-Manchin proposal. The definitions come later. I’d note that this only seems to make transfers between non-licenees (e.g. private individuals) subject to checks if (A) or (B) apply. Next we look at the exceptions:

(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-

(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and

(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law; or

(D) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

By my reading, those exceptions apply to transactions conducted at guns shows, on the Internet or in publications, because transfers between unlicensed individuals is only prohibited under those circumstances. BTW, (D) refers to NFA transfers.

Paragraph (4) gives the Attorney General limited powers to promulgate regulations. They stipulate a number of things the Attorney General may not do, which addresses some of the concerns with S.374. I’d encourage folks to game through this one. This is important language.

Paragraph (5) and (6) applies PLCAA civil immunities to gun show promoters and to people who operate “interactive computer services,” which in this case would mean sites like Gunbroker.com.

Paragraph (7) is where we get to definitions.

(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event’-

(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and

(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923.

A flea market where a few guns go out wouldn’t be affected. Selling a gun at a huge flea market? Better run around and count! Likewise, most yard sales would not be. This doesn’t create any liability for organizers or promoters that I can tell. As for advertised sales on the Internet and in publications, I’m not pleased that there’s not more clarification on what a “publication” is, or what types of medium on the Internet are covered. Club newsletters would seem to apply. What about a bulletin board at a club? Sending an e-mail to a friend? I think the Internet/Publication language is more inadequate than the gun show language.

It gets interesting in Section (c) of the Amendment, which is supposed to offer protections from a national gun registry, except that the proposed new 18 USC 923(m) fails to forbid the attorney general from compiling a registry from all the information from closed FFLs that’s residing on microfilm in a huge warehouse in West Virginia. This is a huge oversight! By spelling out what he can’t do, you better be thorough, or the implication is that he can do it.

Now we get to penalties:

(8) Whoever makes or attempts to make a transfer of a firearm in violation of section 922(t) to a person not licensed under this chapter who is prohibited from receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law, to a law enforcement officer, or to a person acting at the direction of, or with the approval of, a law enforcement officer authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of section 922(t), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

(q) Improper Use of Storage of Records.-Any person who knowingly violates section 923(m) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

Section (8) makes no sense to me, and I think they might be missing a word. Either way, it sounds like the intent was to criminalize the transfer only if it ended up to be to a prohibited person, and to exempt if you’re law enforcement, or being directed by law enforcement, but I think they are missing some “not” language in there. Either way, this would make Bloomberg’s stings illegal if I’m reading what they mean rather than what they said correctly.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention. The penalty only seem to apply if you actually sell to someone who’s prohibited. If someone sold his buddy a gun not knowing there was a law against that kind of thing, because his buddy saw he posted it somewhere and said “Hey, don’t sell that online, I’ll buy it,” the penalty would only apply if his buddy was actually prohibited. At least that’s how I read it.

UPDATE: I’m striking out the above language in light of this comment. If this is indeed the case, selling to an undercover cop, or an undercover cop’s informant, also invokes the felony penalty.

The rest of the bill seems to be to be pretty much as advertised. Anyone else feel free to read over the parts I haven’t talked about and see if I missed anything.

UPDATE: I’m not sure how I feel about the state license exemption. For instance, in the proposed new 18 USC 922(t)(2)(A)(i):

… except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;

The language here is nearly identical to the current 18 USC 922 (t)(3)(A)(ii), which would just move up to (s), the current (s) being moot and proposed to be struck. The language in the proposed bill is different, but says it applies to “a transfer under this chapter.” It is not limited just to that subsection. The language is different. So which one controls? Does it change if you’re processing a transfer under proposed subsection (s) or subsection (t)? Shouldn’t those be harmonized, or rather, wouldn’t it better just to fix the one in (s), move it up, and call the subroutine from (t)? It’s also not clear to me that this would change much in terms of how ATF treats state licenses as NICS equivalents. I’m not very knowledgable in this area though.

UPDATE: If I had to sum up the effects of this amendment in a sentence: “If you’re selling a gun to someone you really don’t know, you better do it through an FFL.” The idea that this only applies to Internet sales or gun shows is really nebulous. Also, if you know your friend is a cop, don’t sell it to him.

UPDATE: John Richardson has some analysis here.

128 Responses to “We Have Language on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment”

  1. Rydak says:

    Nice work

  2. Amy says:

    Nice job and you cleared up some things, but I still honestly believe this is going to open doors that need not be opened…

  3. Miguel says:

    I am tired… but I think there is actually a loophole for the Internets selling thing.
    Will review in the morning

  4. Ahnold says:

    I actually am not fully opposed to this amendment. I think it needs some clarification and I’d personally like to see the whole “advertisement” part go but it’s really not terrible. I personally have no problem with mandated background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows- I just don’t see how they are that big of a deal. It’s not much of a hassle to go to a dealers table and and fill out the forms. I think it strikes the right balance in the gun control debate

    • Jim says:

      It’s a non-starter. They are outlawing perfectly legal conduct that had NOTHING to do with the premise that leads to these laws being proposed. This is an admitted culture war where we never get an inch, and they just creep slowly and surely towards what they want. NO.

      • thefirstndsecond says:

        Exactly! This should be a no go! This does nothing to help prevent crime.

    • Glen says:

      This amendment makes intrastate person-to-person firearms transfers illegal under federal law. This is far, far more than simply asking a gun buyer to “go to a dealers table and fill out the forms” at a gun show.

      For all practical purposes, it means that no one can transfer (sell, give, loan, rent, etc.) any firearm to another person outside of their immediate family. Period. You may henceforth sell your firearm only to federally-licensed dealers.

      It’s also debatable whether or not the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate purely intrastate private person-to-person transfers — of any kind of property.

  5. PT says:

    So this basically shuts down all intra-state sales of firearms advertised on the internet, while there is no change to inter-state sales because those already go through an FFL.

    They are trying to destroy the gun culture. There is no point to that prohibition other than to make you use an FFL.

    • John Richardson says:

      It goes beyond the Internet. If you offered to sell through a classified ad in a newspaper or penny shopper paper, it would be covered as I read it. They *are* publications as generally defined.

    • pbj says:

      Exactly. Where I live, there are few enough people that if you want to sell something, the internet is an invaluable resource. Otherwise you just can’t get the word out. No go.

    • Glen says:

      The language of this amendment is both sufficiently precise and vague to prohibit virtually any transfer other than between family members. Revised 922 USC § 922(t)(1)(B) means that any mention on the part of the seller or buyer of their desire to sell or buy a firearms in any “advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet” or in any “publication” places them at jeopardy of committing a federal felony. So, too, does their meeting at “any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer.”

      Who would risk taking that chance?

  6. Lucky Forward says:

    Nothing in the Toomey back-stab would have prevented Newtown.

    And the “oversight” was no oversight, I’m sure.

    Nothing in this bill is reasonable or necessary. It is an affront to what our forefathers fought for.

  7. Chris from AK says:

    Section 127 (military provision) is actually better than advertised.

    Currently military members may acquire firearms in states where they are residents or where they have PCS orders to.

    Section 127 extends that protection to military spouses as well, something which should have been done with the Military Spouse’s Residency Relief Act years ago.

    That military spouse provision, the ability to buy handguns across state lines, and reinforcing that FOPA allows overnight stays are the big wins. The FOPA language is still useless as it will be abused.

    I don’t think losing gun shows and Armslist/Alaska’s List is worth the meager crumbs we get out of this bill though. Oppose.

    • Sebastian says:

      That’s pretty much my feeling. I’ll disagree with those who see bad faith. I don’t think Toomey was out to screw us here (screw us in the sense of trying to slip something by). Most of this bill covered things I wouldn’t have thought of, so I’m not going to read a few esoteric omissions as bad faith.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m still opposing this Amendment, and I’m still not happy with Toomey, but this is a far cry from the raping the anti-gun Democrats have been proposing.

    • Glen says:

      This is far, far more than “losing gun shows and Armslist/Alaska’s List.”

      This amendment makes intrastate person-to-person firearms transfers illegal under federal law.

      For all practical purposes, this means that no one can transfer (sell, give, loan, rent, etc.) any firearm to another person outside of their immediate family. Period. You may henceforth sell your firearm only to federally-licensed dealers.

      • James says:

        I disagree. I would still be allowed to sell or buy a firearm to/from a friend or neighbor without first having to do a background check.

        • pbj says:

          I have about seven total neighbors within a five mile radius, three of whom are too young to legally purchase a firearm. Without some easy, inexpensive means for publishing my intent to sell, or viewing others’ listings, I’d be pretty much limited to FFLs. I realize most people have more neighbors than I do, but the rights this law proposes to restrict belong to me as much as to anyone else.

  8. Marcus says:

    Won’t be able to stand outside a gun “buyback” and purchase guns w/o a background check.

    • Sebastian says:

      Interesting. I’m not sure that would qualify under the gun show language, but if you held up a sign, would that be a publication?

      • Jim says:

        No. The key language is “on the Internet or in a publication.” According to that language, good old fashion actual poster boards at your LGS are going to become relevant again. The sale between private party is illegal only if the ad is “on the Internet or in a publication.”

      • Jim says:

        Fuck it. Here is the hole: you merely post an ad saying that you own X. Nothing more. People can then contact you directly to see if you might be interested in selling X, and the two parties figure out an agreeable price. The seller never posted an ad that had “his intent to transfer.” Instead, he just made an internet post saying that he owned X. Nothing more, nothing less. 100% compliance.

        • Sebastian says:

          Not a hole. Once someone contacts you and indicates his intent to acquire your firearm, it’d be a covered transfer.

          • Jim says:

            I don’t think so. I’m a lawyer by trade. If this were to pass, in 6 months, it would be unlawful for private parties to complete the transfer of a firearm if such transfer occurs

            (A) at a gun show or event, and on its grounds; or

            (B) pursuant to an Internet listing or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

            The intent to transfer in the publication (whatever that is) or the internet is the key that makes this unlawful. If you post an ad saying “Hi, like Glock 22s. I’m looking for a shooting buddy. Let’s hang out – 555-555-5555″ you have not run afoul of the law.

            • HappyWarrior6 says:

              Good catch. On the positive side of that, we would potentially see more “gun buying clubs” sprout out of this. That can’t be a bad thing for the gun culture.

            • Sebastian says:

              I would agree with you if it said “by the transferor of his intent to transfer, and the transferee of his intent to acquire,” but it says “or” rather than “and,” meaning even if your listing advertises no intent to to transfer, if someone contacts you indicating his intent to acquire, it has to go through an FFL.

              • Jim says:

                You are correct, but look at the “posting” I created. t is an innocuous posting about someone looking for a shooting buddy. If I call you back and say, “I’m also looking for a shooting buddy. Let’s hang out on Saturday morning.” You can see where I’m going with this. People can meet for all sorts of reasons. Once we’re hanging out, how will the state ever know what happens between two consenting adults?

                • Sebastian says:

                  Ah, yeah… in that case you’d be in the clear.

                • Glen says:

                  That’s too clever by (more than) half.

                  The language in this amendment is both sufficiently precise and vague to outlaw all non-familial person-to-person transfers. Once a buyer or seller has expressed a mere “desire” to sell or buy any firearm in any publication or in any Internet communication, it’s a federal felony to conduct a transfer without transferring via an FFL. Period.

                  Who would take this risk?

    • Sebastian says:

      I’m going to say that’s a grey area, and those will usually cut against us when push comes to shove.

      • Marcus says:

        It parses like this:

        It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer,(etc.) to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed …, if such transfer occurs at any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered for sale, exchange, or transfer.

        So standing outside the gun “buyback” is legal until the 75th gun. Maybe. Wouldn’t bet on it.

        • TS says:

          But the buy-back guns, once in possession of the police, are not offered for sale, exchange, or transfer. They are to be destroyed. So those wouldn’t count against the 75. But if the line of people waiting to turn them in reaches 75, you got yourself a “gun show”.

          • Glen says:

            Irrelevant.

            The “event” is for the purposes of transferring firearms, regardless of their eventual disposition. And the event includes the curtilage.

  9. Jim says:

    I called that one. They are trying to destroy private sales. In order to do so, they just renamed them “internet sales.” They will try hard to pass this. And next time, they will work hard to close whatever loophole bright individuals are able to figure out. This “compromise” is completely unacceptable.

  10. Jim says:

    These politicians are retarded. Reading the language, there are holes big enough to drive a truck through to keep private sales thriving. I hesitate in posting the details because MAIG staffers have been trolling our websites (at least TTAG for sure). It would just change how they are done. They are trying to push us down into caves. They want to destroy our vibrant culture. They want us to be ashamed of what we’re about. Any republican that votes for this is going to have serious problems in 2014 or 2016. We do not forget.

    • Sebastian says:

      What are the holes you see? If I think they would help MAIG, I’ll delete them.

      • Jim says:

        I posted it above. Feel free to delete it. Seriously.

      • Glen says:

        There are no “holes” in this amendment.

        If anything, it’s vague, over-inclusive, impossible to enforce without a national registry, and an unconstitutional federal interference into purely intrastate private personal affairs.

        The threat of a federal felony will prohibit all private transfers except between family members. Count on it.

    • Bitter says:

      Trust me, they know that this bill isn’t what they really want. If you notice, most of the groups have already changed their wording to applaud the extended checks for “commercial” sales. Yes, they will likely be back for more, but they will have to start demonizing individual gun owners to do it. There will be no more gun show complaints since gun shows inside and immediately outside will be covered. Yes, they could try the scare tactic that people could meet at a gun show and then walk to a diner across the street to conduct the sale, but they’ll start sounding ridiculous even to those who aren’t really that pro-gun. Point being, Schumer has already told them that this is as much as they can possibly get, and they already know their issues with it.

      • Jim says:

        The both of you correctly identified that this is an all out culture war. They are trying to relegate our culture to the shadows, like that ad for the drone that spots two people making a private sale in a field – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEL2C6oCg89 – They want to make it ugly, disgusting, and revolting to be associated with our kind. Other than the military language, I see nothing in there that benefits us. This is death by 1000 cuts. We have nothing to be ashamed of.

        • Trevor Shepherd says:

          I think the legal text is specifically worded so that the law will regulate interstate commerce, as Congress only has that authority, and not the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. Arguably, anything that involves the Internet is interstate, really international, commerce. I’m not sure that the courts have ruled as such, but it is likely that they would. This is the same concept that gives the Federal government the right to regulate local telephone service. The gun shows are not necessarily “inter-state” commerce per se, but notice that they include defining language that could make it easier for a court to rule that inter-state commerce is involved, affected, etc by a gun show as per their definitions. In other words, purely local discussions and actions about buying/selling guns between non-FFL license holders would probably be exempt from this law.

          • Trevor Shepherd says:

            “In other words, purely local discussions and actions about buying/selling guns between non-FFL license holders would probably be exempt from this law.”

            I should have added that those local actions would be exempt, not per the text of the law including the spelled out exemptions, but by the fact that an act of Congress has no power to regulate intra-state commerce. And, like all of this stuff, that issue would most likely end up being tried in a court.

            • Jake says:

              And, of course, the .gov would argue that either a) the gun has previously moved in interstate commerce and therefore is within Congress’s power to regulate forever, or b) intrastate firearms sales have a substantial effect on interstate firearms sales, and are therefore within Congress’s power to regulate, and the courts will agree, as they have nearly always done before (i.e., Wickard v. Filburn).

              • Sebastian says:

                Yeah, I wouldn’t hang your hat on the jurisdictional language there. The herpes theory of the commerce clause is alive and well.

              • Geodkyt says:

                And don’t forget the Wickard followup: Raich — the precedent used to kick Stewart‘s appeal (Stewart argued that intrastate machineguns were not subject to the NFA or 922(o); SCOTUS used the “Drugs R bad, m’kay? So, logical consistency doesn’t really matter” result of Raich to uphold Stewart’s conviction.

                Raich basically gutted the Lopez ruling, which actually provided teh first check on the unlimited use of Commerce Clause to destroy teh federal system by claiming everything is related to “interstate commerce”.

            • Glen says:

              “Publications” don’t necessarily involve interstate commerce in the same way as national communications networks. Yes, this amendment exceeds federal powers, but don’t expect that to stop anyone from enforcing it.

              This amendment will stop all private gun sales — and that is precisely its goal.

          • Defens says:

            The way I imagine it would be interpreted is that if the gun EVER was in interstate commerce, it would always be considered to be that way. Just like machine guns – once defined as such, an M16 will always be an NFA weapon, even if you converted it to semi-auto.

            So any gun that originated from out of state would always be considered to be in interstate commerce – even selling between two guys from the same state at a gun show. Twisted, yes – but it’s the only quasi-legal way the feds could continue to poke their noses into state affairs.

  11. Robert Kennedy says:

    This is nothing but an attack on the gun culture and it effectively bans private sales between people. Ask yourself, since most people don’t sell their guns(or seek guns to buy)from relatives then where do they advertise(or seek out advertisements)? The Internet! Think about how many local, club, or state organizations have “for sale” forums. These would all be illegal. And so would any paper publication. So it would remove a seller’s ability to let people know their gun is for sale. This alone kills 99% of private gun sales and they know it. So unless you go around talking to everyone you know or walk up and down the street holding a sign good luck in ever selling your gun(or finding one to buy from a private individual).

    • Sebastian says:

      The forums themselves would not be illegal, the buyers and sellers would just have to process via an FFL. Other than that, I agree the poorly defined terms “Internet” and “publication” are a real problem.

      • Robert Kennedy says:

        I don’t see anywhere that people hosting the forums would enjoy any type of immunity from prosecution. If they can’t prove that all guns listed there went through an FFL(and the Feds found one that didn’t) they would possibly be open to liability of aiding criminal activity. Nobody is going to open themselves to that type of risk….especially now with the Feds seizing domains on the mere suspicion of criminal activity. The only option to protect themselves would be to setup some type of FFL system like gunbroker..but nobody is going to want to incur those costs. Most of these sites are just guys doing it on the side as a favor to the club or state org. I talked to a friend who works on the site for my states gun org. He said flat out that he’d push to get rid of that forum as trying to figure of the details of the law and risking a run in with the Feds wasn’t worth it. And that is EXACTLY what they want. Make it such a hassle that people just give up.

      • KSGunner says:

        Sebastian you are lying to yourself if you don’t think this whole thing is a clear attack designed to outlaw private sales, period. I said as much yesterday and have been proven correct, this needs to be opposed with the full might that we as gun owners and free citizens can muster. By involving an FFL is being done to get the transaction on record and therefore into a database in the future. If you don’t or refuse to see that this is a clear step toward registration you are either blind or willfully ignoring that fact.

      • Glen says:

        “Process via an FFL.”

        You make that sound so simple, innocuous and straightforward. Well, come to California and let me show you reality. And our reality with this regimen is a nightmare.

        This amendment means that both buyer and seller must be physically present at the FFL (current regs would force FFLs to enter firearms into their inventory and bound books if kept overnight). Which means that both buyer and sell have to coordinate travel to meet at an FFL, which may be difficult or impossible in large portion of the country.

        This amendment also specifically outlaws regulations “placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph” (See amended 18 USC § 922(t)(D)), which means that FFLs can charge whatever the market will bear for the “service” of processing a “simple” background check. At least in California, state law prevents FFLs from gouging citizens on transfers!

        When FFLs can charge unlimited fees for processing “background check,” then those “checks” become indistinguishable from selling directly to the FFL. Which is the effect of this amendment: complete prohibition of all non-familial transfers.

        This is worse than what we have today in California!

        • Sebastian says:

          I already live in a state that bans private transfers of handguns, so I know the drill.

          • Glen says:

            Then you know it’s beyond a pain. It makes person-to-person sales impossible except for people who live near each other in areas with a high density of federally licensed dealers. Which serves to exclude a lot of people and a lot of guns.

            Calling this “universal background checks” or ”closing the gun show loophole” is beyond Orwellian.

  12. HappyWarrior6 says:

    If the “internet” versus “poster board” issue is emphasized, this also poses a potential 1st amendment issue as well. Why is one form of speech more criminal than another? I could see the House easily striking down the internet sales language. Hopefully they would replace it with something very palatable to us as they still have yet to win us over. Also where does 75 guns come from? This is a blatant power grab to add borders to the gun culture.

    • Sebastian says:

      That’s a really good point. Though, generally speaking, commercial speech can be subject to more regulation than other types of speech. But lately the Courts have been taking a dimmer view of commercial speech restrictions.

      • John Milne says:

        It seems to me all of your previous commenters have missed one IMPORTANT point. if you begin a sale/transfer through a FFL holder and the potential buyer FAILS the background check, YOU now have to pass a background check to get YOUR firearm back from the dealer. You may have possessed the firearm legally but be unable to pass a background check to Purchase a firearm from a FFL holder. You now cannot legally get your gen back nor can you ask anyone you know to get it back for you as this would be a “straw-man” purchase. BY-BY firearm! Who gets it? Probably your county LEO for disposal!

  13. Jake says:

    This is not “compromise”. We gain nothing substantial, and all but completely lose private sales.

    Toomey may think he’s helping, but he’s just offering them more of our cake in the hope that they’ll stop trying to take the whole thing. Worse, his attempt at “compromise” broke our first line of defence.

    Kill it. Kill it with fire. Then nuke it from orbit just to make sure. We cannot afford to give up any more ground.

    • Sebastian says:

      How is it offering more of our cake than Schumer’s bill, which covers handing a gun to someone under the wrong circumstances?

      • Jake says:

        Not more than Schumer’s excrement, just more than they’ve already taken. Far more than they should be allowed to take.

        It’s appeasment, pure and simple, and we lose more every time we go down this path. And he talked people who were saying “no more” into standing aside, with the usual platitudes that “this will satisfy them, and they’ll stop.”

      • Jim says:

        Sebastian, you know better. Hegelian dialectic 101. Don’t compare this bill to the Schumer bill. Compare this bill with what is currently the law. Private sales will be outlawed because some sicko shot his mom in the face and then killed 20 white children. There is NO compromise that benefits our cause. We are offering something in return for nothing. They have said ON THE RECORD that they will be back for more at the next opportunity. (See – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LwGnaKZy8) No. Enough is enough.

        • Sebastian says:

          I’m not saying it’s a benefit. I’d still like to see this amendment go down. I mistook the point Jake was trying to make.

          • Jim says:

            If this passes the senate, I will wager anyone that it will also pass the house. These fucking traitors are in the business of selling us down the river for their personal gain. We’ll never really find out what perks are handed out during these things.

            For example, it’s illegal to give gifts to politicians, but it’s ok for Manchin to become a 1/8 owner in a luxury yacht provided by a rich donor. The rich donor probably does not control the boat at all. If this passes the Senate, it will pass the House. It’s time to stand with Rand, Cruze and Rubio.

            • Lucky Forward says:

              Toomey’s betrayal here is tantamount to Olympia Snowe letting Obamacare out of committee. Toomey had the power to stop tyranny in its tracks, and he failed us, our forefathers, and our children to come.

      • JC_VA says:

        What are we exactly getting from this bill, apart from immediate and apparent confusion regarding its meaning and implications? Why is that not reason enough to oppose it?

      • rudedog says:

        are you kidding me???like any of us can trust what the “goverment”says they will do!!!wake the hell up!!!

  14. David says:

    The GOA asserted that this would lead to being in a database for taking anti depressants, not that the bill would itself do this. I think they made that clear

    • Sebastian says:

      If the bill/amendment itself doesn’t do this, then how does it happen?

      SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
      Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).

      I suspect that’s their concern. Except it notes that it only related to records to assist in the enforcement of 922(g)(4), which wouldn’t be records of whether someone was on anti-depressants or not. That would only a record of involuntary commitments or adjudications.

      • Joe says:

        “Except it notes that it only related to records to assist in the enforcement of 922(g)(4), which wouldn’t be records of whether someone was on anti-depressants or not. That would only a record of involuntary commitments or adjudications.”

        That is specific though badly linked in language, IN THAT PARAGRAPH.

        Earlier there is this:

        ” IN GENERAL.-To be eligible for a grant under this section, a State, Indian Tribal government, or State court system shall certify, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the State, Indian Tribal government, or State court system-
        “(A) is not prohibited by State law or court order from submitting mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System;”

        In many if not all the paragraphs above that paragraph that relate to mental health, the phrase ” mental health adjudications or commitments” or similarly is used – in the above description of the requirement for funding, it is missing, leaving the States to report ALL mental health interactions to the Feds as grounds for no-go on firearms, as is happening RIGHT NOW in NY where doctors and admins are willy-nilly sending in all their mental health out-patient contacts, and those patients’ family members are having their firearms confiscated.

        http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041613-652128-mental-health-exploited-for-gun-control.htm

        imho, THIS BILL IS BAD.

  15. Andrew C says:

    Section 8 makes sense to me. It seems like the provision allows for enforcement – so if you actually sell to a prohibited person, or to a police officer or investigator playing the role of a prohibited person to see if you’ll check, you can be charged. That would be my interpretation.

  16. Chris says:

    The fact that if I offer to sell a gun to my neighbor by talking to him over the fence is not regulated but if I have the same conversation on Facebook with him it would be is a chilling thought… The 1st amendment implications alone are bothersome let alone the 2nd amendment implications.

    • Trevor Shepherd says:

      The use of the Internet is participating in interstate commerce, and Congress has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

      • Chris says:

        By that logic, all speech on the internet could be banned by congress right?

      • Glen says:

        Contacting your neighbor on the phone to coordinate a gun sale involves every bit as much “interstate commerce” as an email message or conversation on Facebook.

        That’s not a sufficiently rational difference to evade the Constitution’s limits on federal powers.

  17. Robert says:

    Would boomershoot be covered? What about the full auto shows that are occasionally held? If there are more than 75 guns at the “event” (counting every single gun anybody brought to the event, even CC handguns that would not be fired), and people let others shoot them (a transfer) then that would count, correct?

    • Sebastian says:

      It’s not the number of guns, but the number of guns that are exhibited for sale.

      • Robert says:

        “or transfer” is the language. So, it’s not a transfer if I allow a stranger to shoot my gun at a range event? Just asking. It’s the details that get you.

        • Sebastian says:

          At the end of the Amendment proposed here is this:

          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.

          You should be fine there, because it’s not a “gun show” and it’s for a sporting purpose. Giving a firearm to someone for carry is a different matter. I tend to think you’d be OK, but I’d prefer “including, but not limited to,” language there.

          • Zermoid says:

            I hate legaleze………

            In Robert’s example, if the ‘range event’ was advertised, or even mentioned in a newspaper article, would that not be “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”?

            Sounds close enuf to make me worry…….

          • Borepatch says:

            What seemed very strange was that it said that it’s not a transfer if done for evaluation or examination purposes at the transferror’s house. No mention of the transferee’s house.

            There’s a lot in here that seems inconsistent.

          • Glen says:

            Your defense of the Toomey/Manchin amendment is difficult to understand. Maybe it comes from unfamiliarity with the law — but if that’s the case, then you have no business offering such specific opinions on matters about which you are so ignorant.

            The courts interpret the laws. So all of these hypotheticals – most of which are easy to foresee — will only be clarified once buyers and sellers are arrested, prosecuted and convicted of federal felonies by aggressive federal prosecutors.

            And how these laws are enforced and interpreted all depends on the wishes of political appointees. Remember, the U.S. Attorney General (currently Eric Holder) prosecutes all federal crimes. So how reasonable is it to expect so much “reasonable” enforcement and interpretation?

            And how many cases of “innocent” gun guys in federal prison will be necessary before everyone in the nation is terrified of doing anything with their guns except selling them directly to licensed dealers?

            The language you quote above is typical; it also repeats the operative language earlier in the statute. As such, it carries no or more less weight (and in practice, courts typically disregard these sorts of “catch-all disclaimers.”). So it’s basically meaningless.

            So, of course, by any stretch of the imagination, events like Boomershoot would be covered by this amendment if more than a handful of bona fide transfers occurred at the event. Suggesting otherwise is simply naïve or disingenuous. Or both.

            • Sebastian says:

              Your defense of the Toomey/Manchin amendment is difficult to understand. Maybe it comes from unfamiliarity with the law — but if that’s the case, then you have no business offering such specific opinions on matters about which you are so ignorant.

              And your specific expertise is?

              • Glen says:

                I’ve been a litigator for over 40 years. My wife is also an attorney and she’s spent the last 15 years drafting model statutes and ordinances. Plus I live under this regime in California so I know what it’s really like. And I buy and sell lots of used and older guns for my personal collection.

                What other expertise should I have? Writing a blog?

            • rudedog says:

              you are exzactly right!!!!WE HAVE GIVEN ENOUGH!!!!!!

      • Robert says:

        So, if I have two tables (A & B) of 74 guns each, but Table B is covered with a tarp. I say “The guns on Table A are for sale”. Guy looks at them and says “Nope, nothing there I want.” So I cover up Table A and say “These are not for sale now, but I changed my mind and now these here are for sale.” and uncover Table B. So, what then? Is that covered or not? After all, it’s not the total number of guns, but the ones that are “displayed for sale”? right?

        • Geodkyt says:

          Um, sort of. Yes, it only covers the guns displayed for sale, but you have displayed 148 guns for sale — the fact that they are not all displayed at the same time doesn’t matter, if they are displayed at the same event.

          Otherwise, you could hold a “non gunshow” by having no more than 74 dealers, prohibiting private sales (after all, you rented the hall and charge fees for dealer tables, and the guy with a flag in his barrel isn’t paying a table fee — pay to play capitalism) and telling them each dealer can display no more than ONE firearm at a time.

        • Glen says:

          Of course this would be a “covered” event. In practice, it would impossible to prove that any and all guns present at an event where transfers occurred were not “offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer.”

  18. Richard says:

    Thanks for the analysis. I also agree with you comments about culture war. The only safe politicians are those who are part of the culture. Club for Growth Toomey doesn’t qualify, no what he says.

  19. Robert Kennedy says:

    A thought just occurred to me on this bill and how just F’d up this country is. We now have a Government that is actively trying to make United States Citizens CRIMINALS for exercising and enjoying their Constitutional rights and telling them what they can do with their own legally owned property. At the same time..this same Government is attempting to make foreign citizens who engage in illegal activity(illegal immigrants)NON-CRIMINALS and then give them(through welfare etc) property that doesn’t belong to them(our tax dollars). It is absolutely insane.

    • Jim says:

      It makes perfect sense, actually. We need more payors into our massive ponzi scheme of promised entitlements, and the state must protect itself from its citizen for the day when it can no longer pay said promises. Legalize massive influx of payors, criminalize the ownership of firearms. Simple, really.

      • Robert Kennedy says:

        Silly me..and I thought that the Govt was here to protect me and my rights ;-)

    • rudedog says:

      whats F8888d up is that ppl are EVEN thinking about it being ok to pass this sh*thole of a bill!!

  20. JC_VA says:

    This bill is a horror. We’re not getting anything from it, and it’s introducing a legal mess that is clearly a burden on lawful gun owners, and an attempt to create a barrier into the gun community, and natural, lawful activity within that community. It’s a step toward cultural genocide, and it needs to be opposed, strenuously.

  21. Sebastian says:

    I am continuing to make changes and to adjust the post, as I re-read this and digest it. I think our big problem is in this “publication” and Internet language. We really need more clarity there. OTherwise huge swaths of private transfers could potentially be covered.

  22. Carl from Chicago says:

    You guys seem quite intent on finding potential holes. While interesting intellectually and quite possibly practical should that language become law … I am flatly opposed to these additional restrictions on intra-state sales. Bottom line is that I don’t want to deal with the trouble and infringement of worming my way thrrough various loopholes simply to engage in a legitimate activity that I have done hassle-free for years.

    When folks start viewing additional and incremental infringements on their rights as “not that bad”, the folks wishing to limit our freedoms win the day. And will win next month, and next year with yet more infringements we deem “not that bad.”

  23. MW says:

    ACLU who have “serious concerns” about the bill. 1) Best practice ontrols on the recods collected > to paraphrase “second step” towards creation of national registry. There are no “best practices” data security provisions included on how to treat the transaction records…which could certainly lead to data creep/abuse 2) Civil liberties issues esp. Sen. Boxer’s “school tiplines” wording.

    See, Chris Calabrese, ACLU, comments as per Daily Caller interview.
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/

    Regards – MW

  24. The more I read this the more concerned I am about the FOPA provisions. The only “gain” there is that it clarifies that overnight stops are theoretically permissible, and it addresses other forms of transportation than cars.

    The loss is that you lose all your FOPA protection if you transport…
    “(A) with the intent to commit a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year that involves a firearm; or
    “(B) with knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe, that a crime described in subparagraph (A) is to be committed in the course of, or arising from, the transportation.

    So if I enter a Ban State with a standard capacity magazine (not a firearm or ammunition) is that a crime that involves a firearm? What if NY makes it a crime to enter a hotel without a pistol permit, do I lose my FOPA protection? If I am speeding while there is a firearm in the trunk, is that a crime involving a firearm that I lose my FOPA protection for? If a cop lies and says I “was belligerent” and “assaulted an officer” (read: standard contempt of cop charges) while there was a firearm in the trunk, do I lose my FOPA shield?

    This language WILL be abused. NY and NJ have ignored FOPA for decades. Giving them specific language that lets the entire FOPA shield be thrown out for a misdemeanor charge means FOPA effectively ceases to exist.

    This law is horseshit. All it gives us is the ability to buy handguns across state lines from FFLs. We lose FOPA Safe Travel, gun shows, and the ability to post on internet forums.

    Strongly oppose. I’d consider it an ok trade if it allowed (1) National CCW Reciprocity or (2) 50-State Permit Reciprocity for Washington DC plus “teeth” for FOPA. Otherwise its crap.

  25. Ian Argent says:

    Too much smoke and mirrors, too many grey areas for me to be comfortable

  26. Stacy says:

    I have to agree that from a purely strategic standpoint, it’s troubling that the bill just gives ground to the antis. I know we all want to be reasonable and try to accommodate people’s concerns, but even if the bill itself isn’t in bad faith, the “concerns” are. Acting like they have a leg to stand on is just playing their game. Next time around it will be, effectively, “they admitted they’re evil violence-mongers, so why are we even having this discussion?”

    That said, the watering-down is a hopeful sign, given the massive resources Bloomberg put into all this. Maybe the right strategic move is to let this go through and then punish the appropriate pols for it in the next election. It’d be an easier argument, because you’d be telling people that so-and-so bargained away some of their rights without much of a fight, which is basically true. And a big election swing would send a much more lasting message to the political establishment about the importance of gun rights. We all need to keep in mind that low-information Joe and Jane believe the CW about “gun show loopholes” and a supposed epidemic of mass shootings. I’m not sure that it’s possible at this juncture to both explain why those notions are wrong, and convince the general public that private sales are a critical part of their Constitutional rights.

    • Jim says:

      No Stacy,

      If we let private sales die, we will never get them back. Period. This is Hegelian Dialectic 101. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals 101. All we’ll get is a nice “vote for me and I will repeal S. 649″ next fall, and just like Obamacare, once in office, the new bozos won’t be able to do a single thing about it. I will not be made a felon for exercising my 2nd amendment rights. They want to eliminate us. If we want to keep our rights, we have to fight back hard.

  27. Jake says:

    Wolfwalker gave a masterful summary of the biggest danger with this amendment over at Roberta X’s blog.

    On the surface it looks reasonable. It will appeal to low-information voters and to the politicians who depend on their votes.

    This is why we needed the filibuster more than this weak attempt at “compromise”, and how Toomey has hurt us the most. Because it looks reasonable on the surface, especially when compared to Schumer’s excrement, it will now be harder for us to fight when it comes up for an actual vote than the original bill would have been.

  28. Jay says:

    No the most earth shattering flaw in this bill, but “valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State” would run into problems here in OK, since we now have the option for a 10 year SDA permit.

    Really, I hate the whole thing.

  29. Matt says:

    Haven’t had a chance to get the bill text but does this bill redefine the definition of a firearm under 18 USC 921(a)(16) to capture antiques? Because if it doesn’t, I’ll still be buying guns online without a background check. It appears they’re trying yet again to legislate behavior, drive a wedge into what they perceive in the gun culture without understanding the laws that already exist.

    Any idea on how this affects C&Rs? After all, a C&R holder is a licensee, not a private individual for the purposes of transfers made under the license.

    • Zermoid says:

      I would assume it would treat a C&R licensee the same as any other licensee.

      Of course I assume a C&R licensee has to have a bound book of all purchases and dispositions under the license?
      A regular FFL licensee has ‘business’ guns and ‘Personal’ guns, guns you buy under your FFL can be ‘sold’ to yourself and moved from inventory to personal collection, thus making them personal property the same as the guns of any other person.

  30. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Bottom line, if senate amendments can be filibustered, this one is desperate need of one. Now that everyone’s seen it (the excuse I’ve read as to why it got so many YEAs to proceed), they should oppose it.

  31. Zermoid says:

    I fail to see where this “Compromise” gains us anything.

    Is not the definition of Compromise where both sides give up something to obtain an agreement?
    Are they repealing any of the past infringements on our rights?
    Walking up to someone and demanding they give you everything they have, and then “compromising” on only taking half of what they have is not a real compromise.

    • Patrick H says:

      That’s the thing, what do we really get? The CCW/NICS thing is a joke. It should be if I have a CCW, no form 4473 period.

      • Geodkyt says:

        Well, the 4473 is the dealer’s documentation he actually sold the gun to you when he said he did, and didn’t just randomly put the name of a former customer in his bound book when he actually slipped the gun out the back door to Ice Dog and Meth Mouth in exchange for food stamps and weed.

  32. Randy says:

    These are the “exceptions” … maybe I’m reading this wrong – but maybe not! Read (i) below … it seems the private transfer exception ONLY is allowed if the USAG – Holder certifies the state has laws that are equivalent to this “section” :

    “the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section”

    What do they mean by this “section”? Do they mean this new law requiring private sale background checks or ??? I’m sure Holder will go out of his way to help gun owners – duh!

    Here’s the exceptions:

    (B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-

    (i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and

    (ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

    (C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law; or

    (D) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    • Patrick H says:

      Yeah, we really want AG Kane controlling this. Is Toomey an idiot?

      • Sebastian says:

        Not Kane… Holder. References to the Attorney General mean the US attorney general. Not that Holder isn’t arguably worse than Kane, but the language here isn’t new. All the existing gun laws have been administered by the Attorney General since 1968.

    • Glen says:

      Amended 18 USC § 922(t)(2)(B) provides for intrastate transfers to proceed under state law provisions in states such as California that have already banned all private transfers.

      It is included solely to prevent the weakening of existing state gun control laws.

  33. Lucky Forward says:

    The courts will interpret all the gray areas to reduce Americans into unarmed slaves. Schumer knows this, and Toomey is either too stupid or too cynical to give a damn.

  34. Borepatch says:

    I was also confused about the seeming conflict between “publications” and the detail put into defining family members. I don’t think this is at all clear, and will certainly end up in the Courts if this thing passes.

    Also, I didn’t see anything about your doctor being able to put you on the Prohibited Persons list. Did I miss this one? This is what a lot of people have been focusing on.

  35. Lucky Forward says:

    Romney needed only 350,000 in four states to win the 2012 election. What used to be called “Reagan Democrats” simply were not inspired to show up and vote; they did not trust Romney. Toomey barely won in 2010; now that he has alienated gun owners and voters savvy enough to be sympathetic to constitutional arguments, he will go the way of Arlen Specter.

  36. Jim says:

    In the end, this is what they really think of us:

    here

    Private sales must cease because “t” can buy them.

  37. Randy says:

    No private non-family transfer without background check!

    To my reading ALL non-family (as enumerated) private sales will require a background check! Check out (i) below…

    Here’s the ONLY listed exceptions to the background check:

    (B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-

    (i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and

    (ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

    (C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law; or

    (D) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    Looks like your state will have to have laws “generally equivalent” to “this section” – huh? What does this mean???

    • Glen says:

      Amended 18 USC § 922(t)(2)(B) provides for intrastate transfers to proceed under state law provisions in states such as California that have already banned all private transfers.

      It is included solely to prevent the weakening of existing state gun control laws.

      Otherwise, you’re absolutely correct: no private non-family transfers. Period. Must now sell to/via an FFL (as if there’s a difference).

  38. Bartholomew Roberts says:

    Sebastian, I suspect that you are interpreting the bill too broadly. As you interpreted, 2B would exempt intrastate transfers by non-licensees at a gunshow. That would make the gun show background checks meaningless and clearly contrary to the intent of the authors.

    I believe the 2B exception is meant to exempt those states who have stricter requirements rhan federal law.

    And I believe the online/publication interpretation is every bit as broad as you fear.

  39. NUGUN Blog says:

    Where are Universal Sales. If we have universal background checks why are we not be able to purchase a firearm in ANY state

    • Sebastian says:

      It’s in there. I didn’t highlight it because it does what they say it will do. You could buy handguns out of state from an FFL.

  40. Glen says:

    This amendment specifically bans regulations “placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph” (see amended 18 USC § 922(t)(4)(D)). When combined with the general prohibition on most person-to-person transfers, this amendment essentially mandates that all guns must be sold directly to FFLs.

    Remember that FFLs are to conduct transfers under this amendment in accordance with the existing provisions of federal law. This means that, to an FFL, a transfer under this amendment is indistinguishable from a dealer inventory sale. And because the dealer can charge any amount whatsoever to facilitate the transfer, they will have the power to buy guns from sellers at whatever price the dealer market will bear, because there are no other legal buyers. Individuals can still “transfer” a gun between themselves, but they will be powerless to affect the economic or legal terms of the transfer.

    California anticipated this problem when they banned private sales many years ago. In California, dealers are prohibited by law from charging more than $10.00 to conduct private transfers. So prices in California are still set by the private individual buyer and seller.

    This provision gives enormous power to federally licensed dealers. They become the one and only legal buyers of all firearms and gain cartel pricing power. Look for dealers to conduct private transfers in a manner that generates as much or more profit for the dealer as a sale directly from their inventory.

    No other outcome is economically — or legally — viable.

  41. surfgeorge says:

    I’d recommend people read:

    Ten Really Important Problems with the Toomey-Schumer Sell-out(Many more to follow)
    by Michael E. Hammond
    http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm

    One of the problems is that if there are possible violations of the creation of the (poorly defined) “registry”, the person responsible for deciding whether or not to prosecute those creating the registry is, you guessed it, Attorney General Holder! Here is the excerpt from the above article:

    (6)  SECTION 202(c):  “The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination…”
    COMMENT:  First of all, if your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Manchin (and virtually all will be), you will have a 4473, and, if you have a 4473, you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry.  Schumer’s staff, in drafting this section, might have benefited from talking with pro-gun advocates in connection with the real nature of the problem.  First of all, although taking a storeful of 4473’s to an ATF agent’s home is not unheard-of, the real problem is when ATF agents go into an FFL with a laptop and copy all of the information on the 4473’s.  This language would not stop that.  Second, whatever ATF thinks it’s compiling with the 4473’s it does not regard it as a “national gun registry,” even though we regard it as such.  I drafted the language in McClure-Volkmer prohibiting national gun registries.  I also drafted the first draft of the Smith/Tiarht amendment doing the same.  ATF does not regard itself as violating these.  Third, with respect to making unauthorized copying a crime, the person who will determine whether the Department of Justice is prosecuted is Attorney General Eric Holder (who, by the way, is the head of the Department of Justice).

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Anatomy of Pat Toomey's Calculated Treason - Page 2 - [...] but it's a smoke and mirror job to the gun grabbers as I see it now. Pa …
  2. Toomey And Manchin Reach Deal On Background Checks - Page 5 - [...] Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act' | The Weekly Standard Analysis here: We Have Language on …
  3. More on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] So the analysis of the Toomey-Manchin Amendment here turned into a good bit of crowd sourcing, and readers have …
  4. The Toomey-Manchin Amendment text is online | kR-15: info and resources for firearms enthusiasts - [...] rights of future generations of Americans- PLEASE JUST DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!) I also found some insightful analysis …
  5. Yes, someone is lying | Internet Scofflaw - [...] strengthen interstate transport protection, it actually eviscerates it. (UPDATE: Much more here.) Others have pointed out that, despite purporting …
top