In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Toomey-Manchin Amendmendment
dustinfox
Member Posts: 393 ✭✭✭
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
Comments
Just saw debbie stabinow on msnbc and it sounds like the democrats are going to try to add a awb amendment to the bill .
That is the reason to worry about issues getting to the Senate floor.
Said the fox to the hen.
What is that supposed to mean? I'm just saying that I read it and that is the only thing of significance I can get out of it.
Said the fox to the hen.
Just saw debbie stabinow on msnbc and it sounds like the democrats are going to try to add a awb amendment to the bill .
That is the reason to worry about issues getting to the Senate floor.
Well of course they will. But the Toomey-Manchin amendment by itself doesn't change much of importance.
But the Toomey-Manchin amendment by itself doesn't change much of importance.
But it DOES make one more infringement on the second amendment........One more little bite.......See how it works?
Currently the Federal Government interferes with Licensed dealer sales of firearms, and (presumably justified by the commerce clause) the private sales of firearms across state lines.
This bill inserts Federal Control over all private firearms transactions and mandates a permanent record of all firearms transactions. For citizens of states that do not restrict Face to Face sales, this is obviously a huge change in how we live our lives. For citizens of states that already restrict Face to Face sales, it removes that control power from the State House and places in the White House.
There are a number of trinkets and baubles contained within the bill to distract from the damage that it does to the 2nd and primarily the 10th Amendment. Too many Americans have become so incredibly superficial that it is no wonder we have the idiots that we do in Congress and in the White House. If something has the slightest positive impact upon their selfish self-interest, it can be accepted regardless of the liberties and freedoms that are actually destroyed.
Brad Steele
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
You're not looking at the big picture. What right does the government have to make me do a BGC if I'm not buying from an FFL.
Anything debbie stabmeintheback supports is not good for us.
Anyone in favor of this bill is a TRAITOR in my book.
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
Will it apply to cross state border private sales?
quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
Will it apply to cross state border private sales?
Yes, instead of being illegal it will be really really illegal
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
You say one good thing, that is already in effect in some states when buying from FFL, there should be no checks when ffl not involved.
I do not understand how people do not see the incredible increase in Federal Power and control inherent in this legislation. It is not just gunshows. It is Federal control of the relationship between you and your neighbor.
Because the general public is lazy and/or stupid beyond belief.
Currently the Federal Government interferes with Licensed dealer sales of firearms, and (presumably justified by the commerce clause) the private sales of firearms across state lines.
This bill inserts Federal Control over all private firearms transactions and mandates a permanent record of all firearms transactions. For citizens of states that do not restrict Face to Face sales, this is obviously a huge change in how we live our lives. For citizens of states that already restrict Face to Face sales, it removes that control power from the State House and places in the White House.
Because politician's crave power and control, can't have an armed populous with that in mind.
There are a number of trinkets and baubles contained within the bill to distract from the damage that it does to the 2nd and primarily the 10th Amendment. Too many Americans have become so incredibly superficial that it is no wonder we have the idiots that we do in Congress and in the White House. If something has the slightest positive impact upon their selfish self-interest, it can be accepted regardless of the liberties and freedoms that are actually destroyed.
As I previously stated, the general public is stupid and lazy. Even the wording of the bill's title is mis-leading; "The Public Saftey and 2nd Amendment Protection Act", is enough to convince many that the bill's good to go, there's nothing to worry about. As often as we complain about politician's not reading a bill before voting on it, the same complaint can be leveled at the public. This bill is a turd and there is no other way to discribe it. I don't see how public safety is enhanced nor how the 2nd amendment is protected. Our only hope is that it die's a quick death in the House.
quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
You say one good thing, that is already in effect in some states when buying from FFL, there should be no checks when ffl not involved.
Right... SOME states. Not in my state. I would like to see a federal law that exempts CCW license holders from the NICS check.
As I previously stated, the general public is stupid and lazy. Even the wording of the bill's title is mis-leading; "The Public Saftey and 2nd Amendment Protection Act", is enough to convince many that the bill's good to go, there's nothing to worry about. As often as we complain about politician's not reading a bill before voting on it, the same complaint can be leveled at the public. This bill is a turd and there is no other way to discribe it. I don't see how public safety is enhanced nor how the 2nd amendment is protected. Our only hope is that it die's a quick death in the House.
This is what disgusts me most about politicians. They act as though all of us are stupid. It is sickening to watch the masses being manipulated by these people. This amendment is a perfect example of politicians trying to passify both sides by taking advantage of peoples ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by torosapo
quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
You say one good thing, that is already in effect in some states when buying from FFL, there should be no checks when ffl not involved.
Right... SOME states. Not in my state. I would like to see a federal law that exempts CCW license holders from the NICS check.
Be careful of that for which you wish.
Do you really want the Federal Government involved in your State's CCW program?
For example:
In my state, a Shall Issue State, there is no test, no training requirement, no need based evaluation. Pretty much if you are eligible to purchase a pistol, you will get licensed to carry it if you ask.
A Federal mandate will not come absent strings. Dollars to donuts there would soon be a national minimum standard for Concealed Carry Licenses, particularly if the statue includes the lifting of the restriction on purchasing handguns from a licensed dealer in a state you are not a citizen of.
I really believe you are totally missing the point of this entire situation.
You state that you actually want the Federal Government to further insert itself into your personal life.
You state that you actually want the Federal Government to strip more powers from your state.
Government is always best the closer it is. It is at the local and State levels that individuals have the largest voice and wrongs can be righted more easily and effectively.
None of this is the business of the Federal Government. It is naive to think that the Feds will step in and make your life easier without cost.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
quote:Originally posted by torosapo
quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
For all the thousands of words in it, all it really does is require background checks at gun shows. There is actually one good thing in it; A federal law exempting people from the NICS check if they have a concealed carry permit.
You say one good thing, that is already in effect in some states when buying from FFL, there should be no checks when ffl not involved.
Right... SOME states. Not in my state. I would like to see a federal law that exempts CCW license holders from the NICS check.
Be careful of that for which you wish.
Do you really want the Federal Government involved in your State's CCW program?
For example:
In my state, a Shall Issue State, there is no test, no training requirement, no need based evaluation. Pretty much if you are eligible to purchase a pistol, you will get licensed to carry it if you ask.
A Federal mandate will not come absent strings. Dollars to donuts there would soon be a national minimum standard for Concealed Carry Licenses, particularly if the statue includes the lifting of the restriction on purchasing handguns from a licensed dealer in a state you are not a citizen of.
I really believe you are totally missing the point of this entire situation.
You state that you actually want the Federal Government to further insert itself into your personal life.
You state that you actually want the Federal Government to strip more powers from you state.
Government is always best the closer it is. It is at the local and State levels that individuals have the largest voice and wrongs can be righted more easily and effectively.
None of this is the business of the Federal Government. It is naive to think that the Feds will step in and make your life easier without cost.
Well I really think that you are missing my point. I agree with you one hundred percent on states rights, and what I should have said was that I wish my state would exempt the NICS check for CCW holders. I did not say I wanted the federal government to "strip more powers from my state." On the contrary... The ONLY thing that states should have to answer to is the U.S. Constitution. But if the state is denying my rights as spelled out in that federal constitution, then I think they (the feds) should step in. Your statement that "Government is always best the closer it is" assumes that state law is always right and just no matter what. But there are certain "top level" federal laws (meaning the constitution) that must be abided by. In the case of the second amendment, the federal government ought to be telling states like California and New York that they are denying the people rights. If your state passed a law banning all firearms and requiring existing guns to be confiscated, would you not want the feds to step in and tell them they can't do that?
Well I really think that you are missing my point. I agree with you one hundred percent on states rights, and what I should have said was that I wish my state would exempt the NICS check for CCW holders. I did not say I wanted the federal government to "strip more powers from my state." On the contrary... The ONLY thing that states should have to answer to is the U.S. Constitution. But if the state is denying my rights as spelled out in that federal constitution, then I think they (the feds) should step in. Your statement that "Government is always best the closer it is" assumes that state law is always right and just no matter what. But there are certain "top level" federal laws (meaning the constitution) that must be abided by. In the case of the second amendment, the federal government ought to be telling states like California and New York that they are denying the people rights. If your state passed a law banning all firearms and requiring existing guns to be confiscated, would you not want the feds to step in and tell them they can't do that?
There is a difference between the courts throwing out an unconstitutional State Law, and the Federal Government coming in and passing a National Law that preempts that State Law.
Your direct quote: 'I would like to see a federal law that exempts CCW license holders from the NICS check.' is the latter, and is the expansion of Federal Power and control. You cannot truly support this statement and 'States Rights'.
You have the option of moving from one state to another if you do not like the way a particular state is governed. The option of leaving the United States is a practical option for very few.
I don't mean to be an *, dustinfox, but I believe it very important that those that have an initial positive response to this miscarriage of legislation take a step back and think deeply about what is really going on. Just as Romney's AWB in Massachusetts was heralded as an expansion of 2nd Amendment Rights due to the insertion of a few small pro-gun ownership items, those same types of items in this legislation serve only to distract the voter from the true danger that is at the core.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
Well I really think that you are missing my point. I agree with you one hundred percent on states rights, and what I should have said was that I wish my state would exempt the NICS check for CCW holders. I did not say I wanted the federal government to "strip more powers from my state." On the contrary... The ONLY thing that states should have to answer to is the U.S. Constitution. But if the state is denying my rights as spelled out in that federal constitution, then I think they (the feds) should step in. Your statement that "Government is always best the closer it is" assumes that state law is always right and just no matter what. But there are certain "top level" federal laws (meaning the constitution) that must be abided by. In the case of the second amendment, the federal government ought to be telling states like California and New York that they are denying the people rights. If your state passed a law banning all firearms and requiring existing guns to be confiscated, would you not want the feds to step in and tell them they can't do that?
There is a difference between the courts throwing out an unconstitutional State Law, and the Federal Government coming in and passing a National Law that preempts that State Law.
Your direct quote: 'I would like to see a federal law that exempts CCW license holders from the NICS check.' is the latter, and is the expansion of Federal Power and control. You cannot truly support this statement and 'States Rights'.
You have the option of moving from one state to another if you do not like the way a particular state is governed. The option of leaving the United States is a practical option for very few.
I don't mean to be an *, dustinfox, but I believe it very important that those that have an initial positive response to this miscarriage of legislation take a step back and think deeply about what is really going on. Just as Romney's AWB in Massachusetts was heralded as an expansion of 2nd Amendment Rights due to the insertion of a few small pro-gun ownership items, those same types of items in this legislation serve only to distract the voter from the true danger that is at the core.
OK... I don't think we are on the "same page" here. You seem to think that I have a positive view of the proposed legislation and I really have much better things to do then spend time on here trying to convince you otherwise. I made an "off the cuff" remark... That's all. Think what you want.
I heard that the Senate is delaying the vote because they don't think they even have the votes to pass the Toomey-Manchin firearms registration act.
Something pleasant for a change.
I heard that the Senate is delaying the vote because they don't think they even have the votes to pass the Toomey-Manchin firearms registration act.
Now that's a dab of great news!
OK... I don't think we are on the "same page" here. You seem to think that I have a positive view of the proposed legislation and I really have much better things to do then spend time on here trying to convince you otherwise. I made an "off the cuff" remark... That's all. Think what you want.
Fair enough, but you made the remark of support of the one proposal in the OP and re-emphasized your support much later on in the thread. All I have done is point out the downside to this Federal Law that may make your life just a little more convenient.
Millions are making the same 'off-the-cuff' remark as you have done, and refuse to look past personal convenience to the greater harm. If this bothers you, hopefully it also will give you pause when you think about supporting something that feels good for you today when it is destined to limit the freedoms of those that follow.
Brad Steele
Spot on, on all counts.
Don-
Spot on, on all counts.
+1