Month: April 2013

So the analysis of the Toomey-Manchin Amendment here turned into a good bit of crowd sourcing, and readers have uncovered a number of issues. I want to address them here. I’m kind of torn between trying to make sure people have correct information, and just letting the panic play out, because panic, politically speaking, is good, and I don’t honestly like this deal. But I think a case can still be made that the deal is bad, so I will lay out some clarifications.

One of the big surprises is that it does not cover advertisements solely on the Internet, but also to publications. I asked someone for a Black’s Law Dictionary definition of publication:

“Generally, the act of declaring or announcing to the public.”

But the person (who has a law degree) who I asked believed the Court would be more likely to use the ordinary definition, which combined with the mention of “listing,” would mean a periodical, gun club newsletter, etc. So just holding up a sign would not likely be construed as publication. Nonetheless, by failing to define the term in the amendment, it’s open to interpretation by the courts. If they mean a newspaper, magazine or other periodical, they can plainly say so.

A reader pointed out that it would make it illegal to rescue guns from a buyback. I thought that might be plausible if a sign or verbal announcement would be considered publication. I think it’s still plausible, but it would be a stretch. I think it would also be a stretch to suggest that a buyback is a gun show. The guns are not being displayed for sale, you’re soliciting a sale from people walking buy. UPDATE: A reader surmises it would actually make buybacks illegal. Buybacks are generally advertised in publications, on the Internet, and in newspapers. Actually, yes, it would make buybacks illegal, I believe.

Another reader asked about C&Rs. This doesn’t change anything about C&Rs, except that for purposes of guns that are curios and relics, you are a licensee, rather than a non licensee, so you can acquire the gun from a private seller the same way any other FFL would be able to, provided you log it in your A&D record. Someone also asked about antiques. The language does not change how antique firearms are treated.

Chris from Alaska brought up a point about the FOPA protections. The bill creates a new exception where the protection no longer apply if the firearms are being transported to commit any crime punishable by a period over one year. He pointed out that transporting a 30 round magazine through Colorado would be such an offense. I’d note that the language covers firearms and ammunition. Presumably that would also cover a magazine, since you need a magazine to operate the firearm. But what about 10 magazines, say, if you were on your way to a competition? We’ve seen enough abuse of FOPA provision that I think this language needs to be air tight. There can’t be any wiggle room. The language needs to include “and firearm accessories” as well.

As many have pointed out, the Concealed Carry exception doesn’t really do anything for us. One reader commented Oklahoma issues 10 year carry permits. So Oklahoma is not likely on the list of states whose carry permits are NICS equivalents. The language in the Toomey-Manchin amendment was a bit different, but not radically so, and as I pointed out, they left the existing language in place currently in 922(t), which would become 922(s), so it’s unclear which controls.

You are still permitted to liquidate large collections from your home, and not be covered under the gun show language. Your home can never be a gun show. But someone else’s home could be. I missed the language there, and have removed that conclusion from the previous post.

I have concern about the section on penalties. If I had a friend who was a cop, and I privately sold him a gun after he saw me advertising it in a club newsletter, and I didn’t go through a check, the penalty applies. For someone not prohibited, it would not. Better to suggest law enforcement, or a law enforcement informant, if and only if they are posing as someone prohibited under 922(g) and 922(n).

I am of the opinion that the Toomey-Manchin Amendment doesn’t honestly give us enough to justify the vague language, and what we’re being asked to give up. I think it would be difficult for an ordinary gun owner to know what’s legal and what’s not legal, so the smart advice would be to run all sales to someone you do not know, or who is a cop, through an FFL. I think there are probably also quite a lot in here we’re missing. I don’t trust what the courts and the DOJ are going to do with it. Also, today’s exceptions will be tomorrow’s loopholes. I think this Toomey-Manchin deal needs to be opposed, and people need to call their Senators.

From PennLive, on the Toomey-Manchin deal. Casey is naturally happy. Barletta is still dancing, and that’s a good sign. Dent looks like he might be favorable. Tom Marino came out solid against the Toomey-Manchin deal. I would suspect that if Dent is leaning toward the bill, then all the suburban GOP reps will as well.

2:58PM: Right now it’s Chris Murphy (D-CT), engaging in some good old fashioned emotional blackmail, reminding all of his colleagues that it’s For the Children. He throws out the now thoroughly debunked 40% number on number of private transfers as a percentage of gun sales.

3:00PM: Deb Fischer (R-NE) is unhappy with the 2014 budget. I thought this was supposed to be about gun control? But I’m not complaining. Americans care more about the budget than they do about gun control.

3:09PM: Now Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is up for some emotional blackmail of his own. He says, “it is only a first step,” “a solid foundation,” and the basis of “more compromises,” to come. “Minds are changing, and voices are changing that conventional wisdom” that gun control is a losing issue. Toomey just got the kiss of death, thanks and praise from a solid gun hater. He notes he supporters further measures to expand background checks after this, even though Lanza, as Uncle noted, used the “shoot your mom in the face and steal her guns” loophole. Now Blumenthal is recounting another mass shooting in CT, in a workplace. Millions of gun owners didn’t shoot anyone yesterday, so clearly we must be punished. Onto another mass shooting. CT seems to have a lot of these for a small state with much stricter gun laws than most others.

3:23PM: Blumenthal is done. He suggested the Senate did not have a quorum, and they are taking a roll call. I guess they are real eager here. Actually, more likely, their caucus is running over, which is good. Kind of like a jury that takes a while to come back.

3:41PM: *crickets*

4:24PM: Still crickets.

5:07: Looks like we’re back, but I missed whoever was speaking. OK, apparently not on a topic related to gun control.

6:20: *crickets*

6:49: The Senate is proceeding. I’m not entirely sure what’s happening right now. OK, the Senate is adjourned until Monday.

Between Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards on NRA News, about whether or not Toomey is just doing what he has to do. I’ll refer to Geraghty’s Morning Jolt:

The deal reflects some basic political realities: Toomey was elected in 2010, and so he’ll next appear before the voters in 2016, a presidential election year with high turnout. You’ve heard Pennsylvania described as Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle, but the real battleground that determines statewide elections is the Philadelphia suburb counties… These are classic “soccer mom” suburban counties, and the Philadelphia Inquirer is a big media influence here. It is a tough corner of the state to sell an uncompromising stance on gun issues.

I figure since I actually live here, I ought to throw in my two cents, trying to take a step back, take off my activism hat, and put on my politics junkie hat. I think of all the things that Geraghty mentions here, the Philadelphia Inquirer is the largest factor, which is entirely in favor of gun control and has no interest whatsoever in treating the issue fairly, or treating gun owners fairly. The Inquirer has the power to destroy Toomey’s brand on the gun issue with a lot of voters, and they are backed up by several other popular and thoroughly slanted media outlets. A bigger factor is Bloomberg’s power to weaken Toomey with expensive ad buys in the Philly media market.

However, a lot of people who aren’t from around here essentially make the assumption that there is no gun culture in the suburbs worth worrying about, and that it’s soccer moms all the way down. This is not necessarily the case. Bucks County is home to several large and popular gun shops. There are dozens of smaller shops sprinkled around the county. There are about half a dozen private clubs with memberships into the thousands, and several public ranges. A great many blue collar Democrats here are also gun voters. Hell, even a lot of Jewish voters here are heavily armed. Bucks County issues about 30,000 carry permits currently. That comes out to about 1 in 17 adults in this county, and assuming gun owners vote at a higher rate than the public, arguably about 4% of the registered voters in the county. Do you know too many politicians that are willing to piss away 4% of their vote? Or even half that amount? Montgomery County issues 34,000 LTCs. Even Philadelphia issues about 32,000 LTCs. The whole state is more than 600,000. These are people with carry licenses we’re talking about, who are engaged enough in the issue to obtain an LTC.

Suzy Soccer Mom, who cares enough about the gun issue to vote on it, is never going to vote for Pat Toomey even if he voted to personally go around and confiscate every AR-15 in Pennsylvania. I would argue that Toomey has more votes to lose than gain here on the gun control issue, even in the Philadelphia suburbs, because gun owners were among his most enthusiastic supporters. It’s one thing for Toomey to vote on some things that make us unhappy because the vote came up. It’s another thing entirely to work with Manchin and Schumer to cut a deal to help get something passed. It also won’t win you any friends to lie to your constituents who call, and tell them you aren’t working on a deal when you really are.

Trying to look at this issue objectively, I get that the media has a great ability to influence low-information voters, but I also believe those tend to break for Democrats. Time will tell how badly Toomey hurt himself, if at all.

Manchin cutting deals to undermine Second Amendment rights aboard his yacht named “Black Tie,” while cruising the Potomac and boozing it up with RINOs. The 2018 Republican attack ads practically write themselves.

I’m told it’s being covered on C-Span. Note this is just a motion to proceed, which allows debate and the amendment process to go forward. If they come up with the votes to proceed, it does not necessarily follow that they come up with the votes to invoke cloture to end debate on the final bill and vote on it.

UPDATE: 68-31, the Motion is agreed to. S.649 moves forward.

UPDATE: Reid is pleading that there be no filibusters on every amendment. I guess they can filibuster amendments. I fully expect Senators to filibuster any gun control if that’s what it takes to stop it.

UPDATE: Reid motions to adjourn for a joint caucus meeting. They will reconvene at 2:30. That’s when the fun will start.

UPDATE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. The cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed is not a big deal. All this means is that the bill is now on the floor, and open for debate and Amendment. A lot of politicians on both sides want recorded votes on this issue to be posted for various, and often opposite reasons. Obviously, we’d prefer to stop it every step of the way, but political animals will be what they are.

While sarcastically noting that this will play well with his base:

Toomey seems to think he’s there to get things done. As a Republican in the current Senate, his chief role is to stop bad things from happening.

Yes. Toomey’s problem is that he is more afraid of Bloomberg’s ads than he is of us. The people who would be motivated by Bloomberg’s ads will never vote for Pat Toomey. And how big is that number? A few dozen showed up for an Ed Rendell headlining protest in the heart of Philadelphia. A few dozen. Those aren’t votes that are up for Toomey to grab, and the rest of the voters don’t care about gun control.

There are no votes Toomey is going to pick up by embracing gun control, even if it’s gun control lite, and with a few bones thrown at us for good measure. But there are an awful lot of votes to be lost. Toomey might learn that the hard way.