Keep Pouring Guys

Schumer and Manchin are watering down the background check bill, presumably in an attempt to pick up the needed Republican votes to overcome an expected filibuster.

At issue is whether to exempt private gun sales between friends and acquaintances from record-keeping requirements that now only cover licensed gun dealers.

Shortly before the Easter recess, Schumer and Manchin proposed that such transactions be subject to background checks but exempt from the record-keeping rules.

How do you define “friends and acquaintances” legally? I think Tam was hitting on this issue in an earlier comment with respect to the proposed bill in Delaware.

Boy, that “known personally” provision in Sec (A) is just bad law writing.

Why the difference between (A) and (B)? When I walk ups and tell you my name and we shake hands, am I not now “known personally” to you, thus making Sec (A) rather than Sec (B) the pertinent section?

Who writes this stuff?

Indeed. The fact that they are getting the water buckets out is good, because it means they are desperate for votes. But keep pouring guys. There’s no NICS expansion that’s going to be OK with us now. You blew it. Keep pouring. We’ll be done when we get to the point I can legally carry in Manhattan.

16 thoughts on “Keep Pouring Guys”

  1. California at one time required you to personally know who you sold a handgun to. And not surprisingly, it was impossible to get a conviction unless you were prosecuting an idiot.

  2. “We’ll be done when we get to the point I can legally carry in Manhattan”

    Run for and win a Constable position.

  3. F*&^ ’em. No accomondation and the only compromise is that where the middle ground is between where we are now and where we want to be, namely where all the anti-gun BS is swept into the dustbin of history.

      1. Indeed. Your spelling of that F-bomb was so bad it had symbols instead of letters.

    1. And this is what so many of the purist/absolutists don’t seem to understand: The left has been able to get gun control legislation passed largely by trying to bring forward bills that have a chance of passing, watering them down further until they pass, and then repeating the process. The most surefire way to restore our rights is to employ the same process in reverse.

      For example, we could probably get a repeal of the hughes amendment passed as part of a budget measure, with it touted as a measure to increase tax revenue. Were this to happen, I would probably convert most or all of my AR15’s to M16 configuration (or buy new M16 lowers), and buy a G18 for CC. That alone would give the government 400-1,000+ dollars that they wouldn’t have had otherwise, and I’m not alone.

      1. Nobody dare even try that. They will tell you you need baby steps to get to the baby steps.

  4. It is good to see them water down the record keeping part, but have they bothered diluting the definition of “transfer” yet? Or is it still a felony if the buyer touched the gun in the wrong location?

    1. Your guess is as good as mine, but it’s a good sign if they are having to pour water because they can’t find the votes. Like I said, keep pouring.

    1. What exactly does that mean? Their blood? Our blood? We’re not in your head to know :)

  5. Maybe the parts where loaning a gun or leaving your dwelling with someone else in it for a period of time or simply handing someone a gun is an ‘unlawful transfer’ that becomes a 5 year felony is a stickler to some more of the squishy republicans like McCain and Graham who may support it otherwise.

  6. Personally I’d like to see it get to where we can walk thru Manhattan carrying a full auto machine gun.

    Like we SHOULD be able to do according to the Constitution.

Comments are closed.