[GUNS] Manchin/Toomey/Schumer Gun Control Bill Goes Down

[Will]

Pretty important news for all you gun folks. Failed to reach 60 votes.

A small Victory for Civil Liberties today, but the war is far from over.

:flag:

[Stangkiller]

:hurray: :hurray: without that passing, they can't add the ridiculous amendments they wanted to add to it right?!

[Bill]

Freedom 1, totalitarianism 0.



Ice Cube - It Was a Good Day - YouTube

[Joecooool]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.

[Cybercowboy]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.

We ALREADY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS!

Sheez.

Please, just at least keep that in mind. Every single gun I've ever purchased, I've had to go through a BG check. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

If I bought one from my father-in-law, I wouldn't have to. He wouldn't sell one to a criminal, and neither would I.

[Jeff '79]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.

Thank you Phil ! I for one will enjoy it :seasix:
I already had a back ground check to acquire my pistol permit.
Why should I go through a back ground check every time I buy a firearm, if I've already had one?

[Cybercowboy]

If for some reason I wanted to sell a weapon to a stranger, I'd make sure they had a valid MO CCW card. If not, I'd simply do a consignment sale at a local gun shop. The buyer would get his background check, I'd be sure that I wasn't committing a felony, and everything would be fine.

Kinda like how SeaSix sold me a Glock 21. Two FFL's involved, one background check. Simple, effective, already the law.

Those who don't care about such things wouldn't care about breaking any new laws either. See how easy this is?

[Stangkiller]

If for some reason I wanted to sell a weapon to a stranger, I'd make sure they had a valid MO CCW card. If not, I'd simply do a consignment sale at a local gun shop. The buyer would get his background check, I'd be sure that I wasn't committing a felony, and everything would be fine.

Kinda like how SeaSix sold me a Glock 21. Two FFL's involved, one background check. Simple, effective, already the law.

Those who don't care about such things wouldn't care about breaking any new laws either. See how easy this is?
But if you wanted to sell your gun to a criminal...you could simply hand him a gun and take the cash....the new back ground chck law would do nothing to stop you from doing that.

[Jeff '79]

Powerful, frank speech there by Obama...

[RedLS1GTO]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.

You do realize that even Harry Reid voted against it... right? :rofl:


...and yea, I do realize that he (supposedly) voted it down for backhanded procedural reasons, but it is pretty hilarious that even the fearless leader wouldn't man up and stand behind it.

[RedLS1GTO]

ens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) unveiled an alternative gun control bill on Wednesday.

The announcement comes on a day when the Senate appears likely to block further debate on a bipartisan background checks bill.

“Rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding Americans, we should be focusing on keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, which this legislation accomplishes,” Cruz said. “While the Obama Administration continues to politicize a terrible tragedy to push its anti-gun agenda, I am proud to stand beside my fellow senators to present common-sense measures that will increase criminal prosecutions of felons who try to buy guns, criminalize straw purchasing and gun trafficking, and address mental health issues.”

Grassley and Cruz, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.) introduced the bill at a press conference Wednesday morning, just hours before the Senate will vote on it and other gun control measures.

One of the primary criticisms Republicans had before a vote to move forward on a background checks bill last week was that they didn’t have time to read it before the vote.

Cruz said that despite the late hour, his legislation has 20 co-sponsors and had been circulated among Republicans and Democrats with no negative feedback. He predicted that despite the small window before the vote, the bill would garner bipartisan support.

The bill would increase the resources available to prosecutors for violators of gun laws, and creates a “Cruz Task Force” to prosecute those who fail criminal background checks. The task force is funded through an Asset Forfeiture Fund.

The bill criminalizes straw purchasing and trafficking, measures Grassley supported in committee hearings on the gun control bill that will go before the Senate later this month. It also seeks to increase safety at schools, keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and increases accountability for prosecutions at the executive level by requiring the Department of Justice to submit reports to Congress.

The senators were particularly critical of the Obama administration’s record of prosecuting background check violations, saying it only took up a small portion of such cases.

The bill does not expand background checks, but rather “focuses on making the backgrounds system work better…by encouraging states to report mental health records,” Cruz said.

The National Rifle Association said it supports the bill.

The bill includes provisions making it easier to purchase and transport firearms across state lines.

The bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, and for the interstate transportation of firearms providing certain conditions are met. Guns transported across state lines will have to be unloaded, locked in a vehicle or kept in the trunk.

Another pro-gun provision of the bill will allow military members to buy guns in the states where they’re stationed.

Grassley said the bill was the result of “the combined efforts of many members of the Senate,” and called it “a sensible alternative” to Democratic gun control reform efforts that “addresses problems we’ve seen without burdening law abiding citizens.”

Read more: Sens. Grassley and Cruz roll out alternative gun control bill - The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294499-sens-grassley-and-cruz-present-alternative-gun-bill#ixzz2QlD3bA00)
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


Well played gentlemen. Well played.

Annnnnnnnnd. Voted down by the Dems. Come on coool, please tell us how the dems voting down this bill did it because they care about the American people rather then party lines.

[island14]

Thank you Phil ! I for one will enjoy it :seasix:
I already had a back ground check to acquire my pistol permit.
Why should I go through a back ground check every time I buy a firearm, if I've already had one?

I can see his point, can't you? :island14:

But also think he should show support for his point by doing a complete back ground check on himself before making each and every post from now on.. :D

[Chris Fowler]

If for some reason I wanted to sell a weapon to a stranger, I'd make sure they had a valid MO CCW card. If not, I'd simply do a consignment sale at a local gun shop. The buyer would get his background check, I'd be sure that I wasn't committing a felony, and everything would be fine.

Kinda like how SeaSix sold me a Glock 21. Two FFL's involved, one background check. Simple, effective, already the law.

Those who don't care about such things wouldn't care about breaking any new laws either. See how easy this is?
I keep wondering where they get this 90% number. I'm betting that less than half of the "90%" even know what the current background check laws are nor what the new law would be.

And I'm betting that "90%" number is no more accurate than the "40%" number they keep using as purchases that occur without a background check...

[Chris Fowler]

I'd like to know the reason the democrats voted against the Cruz-Grassley bill...the one that would actually have a chance of making a difference...

[Blademaker]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.


:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

:cry:

Boo fckin' hoo :seasix:

[bsmith]

If for some reason I wanted to sell a weapon to a stranger, I'd make sure they had a valid MO CCW card. If not, I'd simply do a consignment sale at a local gun shop. The buyer would get his background check, I'd be sure that I wasn't committing a felony, and everything would be fine.

Kinda like how SeaSix sold me a Glock 21. Two FFL's involved, one background check. Simple, effective, already the law.

Those who don't care about such things wouldn't care about breaking any new laws either. See how easy this is?
:iagree:
I've sold a couple privately in the last few months.
You don't have to, but I wrote up a bill of sale, and I required the buyer to show his permit & drivers license and I recorded both on the bill of sale.
No FFL involvement.

[RedLS1GTO]

I'd like to know the reason the democrats voted against the Cruz-Grassley bill...the one that would actually have a chance of making a difference...

Can't wait for cooool to explain it to us.

:waiting:

[Jeff '79]

I can see his point, can't you? :island14:

But also think he should show support for his point by doing a complete back ground check on himself before making each and every post from now on.. :D

I'm all for clowning around but Tim, this is serious shit.

I personally, have no problem with having a back ground check, however, they want multi level checks done in some cases. No one could even read the bill, just like the NYS SAFE act which was rammed down our throats.
How would I solve the problem?
Eliminate all state, county and town level permitting, and dealings regarding gun purchases.
Require a federal pistol permit , which would entail a back ground check. Once you have the federal permit, you can buy anything you want without an FFL involved.
There are too many fingers in the pie right now, and shrinking government is a logical step. This would kill two birds with one shot. The pro back ground check people would win, and the less government people win.

I have 5 pistol permits from 5 different states right now. It's ridiculous. The fees, and paper work are insane. The cost to fund all of the agencies involved with those is ridiculous.

Write a reasonable bill instead of a knee jerk reaction and it will pass . Hopefully it will happen, but if I know Washington, like I know Washington, it won't, and we'll keep the pressure on to vote no.

[Will]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.


Let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, in 1994......

[Will]

P.S. the Republicans will GAIN Senate seats in the midterms.

LOL if you think a bunch of RED states that voted for Romney and McCain are going to be angry at Republicans over gun control failing.

It's a midterm election, there are a metric ****-ton of DEMOCRATS in the Senate up for election, and a huge chunk of them are ones who rode Obama's coattails in 2008 to victory in races they otherwise never would have won.

So, aside from ignoring history, you also ignore future realities as well.

[Fasglas]

Background check plan defeated in Senate, Obama rips gun bill opponents | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/background-check-plan-in-trouble-as-dems-call-votes-on-gun-bill/)

The Senate on Wednesday defeated a vital background check amendment seen as the linchpin to Democrats' gun control bill, dealing a major setback to President Obama -- who lashed out at opponents in unusually blunt terms during remarks from the Rose Garden.

"All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said. :cry::cry::cry:

The vote was 54-46, with supporters falling six votes short of the required 60-vote threshold.

The failure of the background check proposal authored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., now imperils the entire legislation. The proposal would have expanded background checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting personal transactions. The amendment was aimed at winning over reluctant conservatives, who were opposed to the more stringent background check plan in the existing bill.

It's unclear where supporters will go from here. They could try to vote again, or craft an alternative piece of legislation. Four Republicans voted for the amendment, but five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid -- who only switched his vote to oppose it because doing so allows Democrats to call up the measure again. Other Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.

The Obama administration has made the package, written in the wake of the Newtown school mass shooting, a top priority and along with its allies had applied heavy pressure to wavering lawmakers. Vice President Biden presided over the vote Wednesday.

Though the bill advanced on a key procedural vote last week, it would likely need to clear the 60-vote threshold once more -- a very heavy lift without the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

In the run-up to Wednesday's vote, Democratic leaders gave ever-changing assessments of where support stood.

Biden said Tuesday that Democrats would get the 60 votes, but then said later in the day that it could come down to one or two senators.

Manchin acknowledged early Wednesday that the bill was having trouble, but then released a statement saying he remained "optimistic and hopeful."

Opponents needed just 41 of the Senate's 100 votes to derail the Manchin-Toomey background check plan.

Thirty-one senators voted last week to completely block debate on overall gun legislation. Since last week, enough lawmakers who voted to allow debate switched to oppose Manchin-Toomey, in turn defeating the amendment.

Opponents, which included a few Democrats, voiced concern that the proposal would still infringe on Second Amendment rights by imposing a burden on those buying and selling guns. They claimed the proposed system would not have prevented Newtown, and would not stop criminals. They also voiced concern about the possibility that the expanded system could lead to a gun registry, though the amendment language prohibits this.

"I believe very strongly that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms," Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., one of those opposed, said in a statement.

Only four Republican senators committed to voting for the amendment ahead of time. The last was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who announced his support Wednesday afternoon. The other three were Toomey, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

The Senate gun bill would extend background checks to nearly all gun purchases, toughen penalties against illegal gun trafficking and add small sums to school safety programs.

Perhaps helping explain Democrats' problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January -- a month after the December killings of 20 children and six aides at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school propelled gun violence into a national issue.

In a climactic day, the Senate planned to hold eight other votes Wednesday besides the one on background checks, all of them amendments to a broad gun control measure.

They included Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, which are expected to lose; a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states' permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure.

The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws.

The votes were coming a day after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, badly injured in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, tried galvanizing gun control support by visiting Capitol Hill and attending a private lunch with Democratic senators. Reid, D-Nev., called the lunch -- senators said it included emotional speeches from lawmakers -- "as moving as any" he has attended.

[MrPeabody]

Most of the Republicans in Congress are from districts and states where they would gain votes if they were firing guns into the air as they voted.

[RedLS1GTO]

Obama sounded like a pissed off, spoiled little brat who didn't get what he wanted.

He knows he can't win the debate with facts and reason so he goes straight to emotion, ideals, and rhetoric. You know... the stuff that those like coool slurp right up without question. It is absolutely amazing the we have fallen to the level of having this pathetic piece of sh*t as president.

[Stangkiller]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.
Sooo if sensible rules were the goal your side should have started with the other proposed bill and offered any amendments you thought could pass, instead because if your sides unwillingness to compromise and find a happy medium, no laws will be passed.

[Broken Wind]

Coooool. :owned:

[Chris Fowler]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.


Why is it that every time something you want doesn't pass or looks like it's not going to pass your default response is to threaten that something worse is going to happen?

And when something you want does pass and doesn't work, you return to the same response that it didn't go far enough.

Never is there an admission that what was done was wrong and should be backed off to fix it.

(hint...there's a reason it's called "progressivism")

[RedLS1GTO]

Why is it that every time something you want doesn't pass or looks like it's not going to pass your default response is to threaten that something worse is going to happen?

And when something you want does pass and doesn't work, you return to the same response that it didn't go far enough.

Never is there an admission that what was done was wrong and should be backed off to fix it.

(hint...there's a reason it's called "progressivism")

You can't expect him to make an argument based on something other than threats, fear mongering, emotion, rhetoric, and ignorant ideology (backed by massive amounts of unsubstantiated bullsh*t).

That just wouldn't be fair.

[Blademaker]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.


https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/563712_10200876319931366_1842182214_n.jpg

:seasix:

[Torqaholic]

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.



What's reasonable about making laws that target honest/innocent people?

I don't need a cause, I have guns.

[Blademaker]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/524817_529025187134146_1118680730_n.jpg

[Loco Vette]

I keep wondering where they get this 90% number. I'm betting that less than half of the "90%" even know what the current background check laws are nor what the new law would be.

And I'm betting that "90%" number is no more accurate than the "40%" number they keep using as purchases that occur without a background check...

It's out of the mouth of a libloon and it has numbers. Therefore it is completely made up in the hopes that enough repetition will lend it credence. Typical unicorn riding thought process.

[Loco Vette]

Can't wait for cooool to explain it to us.

:waiting:

You have zero chance of that happening.

[Jeff '79]

You have zero chance of that happening.

:yesnod: Another hit & run..... As usual.:spdchk:

[Blue 92]

Come on coool, please tell us how the dems voting down this bill did it because they care about the American people rather then party lines.

That would require him to violate his post and run policy. :rofl:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

So, if this would have passed, it would have made background checks a requirement for online sales, and sales at gun shows, correct? So right now, today, I can order a Kimber (I don't know Kimber from a Glock :D) over the Internet or while I'm attending a gun show without any background check. Walk in, plunk down my Visa, and walk out with a handgun.

But if I walk into a brick and mortar, I have to get a background check?

[Jeff '79]

Statement from Chris W. Cox on U.S. Senate Defeat of Manchin-Toomey-Schumer Amendment ;



Today, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S. Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.

;
The NRA will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats who are committed to protecting our children in schools, prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and fixing our broken mental health system. We are grateful for the hard work and leadership of those Senators who chose to pursue meaningful solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.

[Chris Fowler]

So, if this would have passed, it would have made background checks a requirement for online sales, and sales at gun shows, correct? So right now, today, I can order a Kimber (I don't know Kimber from a Glock :D) over the Internet or while I'm attending a gun show without any background check. Walk in, plunk down my Visa, and walk out with a handgun.

But if I walk into a brick and mortar, I have to get a background check?
No...right now if you go into a gun show and buy from a dealer you go through the same background check you go through at a gun shop.

If you buy online it has to be transfered through an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder, who performs a background check.

The amendment had nothing to do with gun dealers. It only dealt with private sales at gun shows.

But the biggest problem with the proposed amendment was that it changed the wording on the laws against establishing a nation-wide gun registry and added potential loopholes to allow it to happen.

[JRD77VET]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/563712_10200876319931366_1842182214_n.jpg

:seasix:

Yup, he didn't get HIS way and he's all pissed off.

http://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/assets/bin-201304/86bf54d8ef8081e24e4de5ffae77fa8c.jpg


Ever think that's OUR expression every single day of his presidency?

[Burro (He/Haw)]

No...right now if you go into a gun show and buy from a dealer you go through the same background check you go through at a gun shop.
Thanks. My understanding was wrong. Sorry, RONG. :D

If you buy online it has to be transfered through an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder, who performs a background check.
So, when Sea unloaded (See that? "Unloaded" :D ) several of his guns here, no problem. No background required. If this would have passed, whomever bought them would have needed a background check.

As for the online purchase, any merchant selling guns would require a background check?

What about some dude who just deals in gun, but is NOT merchant? He's free to sell 10 handguns per day? No check?

[Y2Kvert4me]

So, when Sea unloaded (See that? "Unloaded" :D ) several of his guns here, no problem. No background required. Wrong again. You cannot legally ship a firearm to anyone but an FFL.

Sea Six did this, so all his customers had background checks before receiving their guns.

[Chris Fowler]

Thanks. My understanding was wrong. Sorry, RONG. :D

And this is my issue with the "90%." They have been lied to by both the government and the media, and formed their opinion based on that lie. The "gun show loophole", specifically, is a name created to make people think that gun shows did not require background checks.


So, when Sea unloaded (See that? "Unloaded" :D ) several of his guns here, no problem. No background required. If this would have passed, whomever bought them would have needed a background check.

As for the online purchase, any merchant selling guns would require a background check?

What about some dude who just deals in gun, but is NOT merchant? He's free to sell 10 handguns per day? No check?

I'm pretty sure his guns were all shipped FFL to FFL, which still requires the background check and a waiting period, where required (I believe). That's because the gun crossed state lines. If he made a private sale in state no background check would be required, because it was a private sale.

The dude that sells off his gun collection privately doesn't need to do background checks for private sales, no matter how many he buys or sells. And the only way to stop this would be gun registration.

What I do support is opening up the NICS so that a private individual can quickly, easily and cheaply run a background check on a potential customer. I'd be willing to run a check if I were going to sell a gun to someone I didn't know. But I have no desire to have to go through a gun shop and pay $50 to do it...

[Burro (He/Haw)]

. You cannot legally ship a firearm to anyone but an FFL.

Sea Six did this, so all his customers had background checks before receiving their guns.

How did he know? How did Sea know they all had prior background checks? They simply TOLD him? "Yeah, I got one."

Wrong again
I currently don't understand this and I'm trying to OK?

[Chris Fowler]

How did he know? How did Sea know they all had prior background checks? They simply TOLD him? "Yeah, I got one."

He did not ship directly to the buyer.

He had a FFL in his state ship to an FFL in their state.

[MrPeabody]

The bottom line is, no matter what laws are passed, bad guys will get guns (or drugs) if they want them. Read your local police bookings, if they're available on line. Almost every arrested parolee or probation violator around here has a gun and drugs when they get picked up, although it was illegal for them to buy or posess either one.

Politicians don't do anything to address most problems. They merely do things that fool some people into thinking they are.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Much thanks Fowler. :cert: It's becoming clearer.

[Jeff '79]

The bottom line is, no matter what laws are passed, bad guys will get guns (or drugs) if they want them. Read your local police bookings, if they're available on line. Almost every arrested parolee or probation violator around here has a gun and drugs when they get picked up, although it was illegal for them to buy or posess either one.

Politicians don't do anything to address most problems. They merely do things that fool some people into thinking they are.

http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af113/jeff79/WillyWonka_zpsba16c852.jpg

[RedLS1GTO]

How did he know? How did Sea know they all had prior background checks? They simply TOLD him? "Yeah, I got one."


I currently don't understand this and I'm trying to OK?

EDIT... I'm too slow.

Here are more details on FFL

Federal Firearms License - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chris Fowler]

Much thanks Fowler. :cert: It's becoming clearer.
I'm perfectly willing to educate someone willing to learn.

What pisses me off is the number of people who have not educated themselves, but have a strong opinion on the issue, believing they know everything, and they're wrong.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

FFL details
Thanks, I'm just trying to get a high level understanding of what's what. Try asking a website a few questions. :D

[MrPeabody]

Much thanks Fowler. :cert: It's becoming clearer.

What we really need are background checks for guitar purchases. Those things lead to drug use.:D

[Burro (He/Haw)]

What we really need are background checks for guitar purchases. Those things lead to drug use.:D

And chicks. That's why we all picked one up in the first place. :lol:

[MrPeabody]

And chicks. That's why we all picked one up in the first place. :lol:

:lol: I could have saved a lot of time and money if I had discovered before my late 50s that a cute little dog is a much better chick magnet than any car.:leaving:

[JRD77VET]

Much thanks Fowler. :cert: It's becoming clearer.

Let's say you decide to sell me that .22 you mentioned the other day. We agree on a price, I send funds to you. You take that .22 to your local FFL holder ( either private citizen with one or gun shop ) and then they will ship it to a FFL holder of my choicing. ( If I had a FFL, it could be sent directly to me and the serial number must be entered into the record books).

When I go to the dealer to pick up the .22 I already paid for, I pay a fee to the dealer for the transfer and the backround check. I also fill out a "4473" form ( that's the form you fill out when transfering/purchasing a firearm)



If we both lived in the same state, and allowed in in that state ,a FTF ( face to face ) sale may be done between private citizens.

My own personal rules on that is the person shows a both a driver's license and a carry permit before I would complete a sale.

Jeff

[Burro (He/Haw)]

If we both lived in the same state, and allowed in in that state ,a FTF ( face to face ) sale may be done between private citizens.
OK, I'm gonna keep going here. What if I toss it in the truck of my car and deliver it from my state to yours? No shipping. Still a FTF transaction right?

[Chris Fowler]

OK, I'm gonna keep going here. What if I toss it in the truck of my car and deliver it from my state to yours? No shipping. Still a FTF transaction right?
Here I'm not 100% sure.

I believe that would still be considered a sale across state lines and would legally require an FFL transfer.

[JRD77VET]

OK, I'm gonna keep going here. What if I toss it in the truck of my car and deliver it from my state to yours? No shipping. Still a FTF transaction right?

FTF ( in Pa ) is only allowed between residents.


edit-- only between state residents. If you're not a PA state resident, it must be done by a FFL

edit again, may be legal for long gun transfers, I hope to find links to support

edit one more time


18 Pa CSA §6141. Purchase of Firearms in Contiguous States.

(a) General rule.—It is lawful for a person residing in this Commonwealth, including a corporation or other business entity maintaining a place of business in this Commonwealth, to pur*chase or otherwise obtain a rifle or shotgun in a state contiguous to this Commonwealth and to receive or transport such rifle or shotgun into this Commonwealth.

(b) Applicability of section.—

(1) This section applies to residents of this Commonwealth who obtain rifles or shotguns from a state contiguous to this Commonwealth in compliance with the Gun Control Act of 1968, State laws and local ordinances.

(2) This section shall not apply or be construed to affect in any way the purchase, receipt or transportation of rifles and shotguns by Federally licensed firearms manufacturers, importers, dealers or collectors.

(c) Definitions.—

(1) As used in this section the term “a state contiguous to this Commonwealth” means any state having a common border with this Commonwealth.

(2) The other terms used in this section shall have the mean*ings ascribed to them by Public Law 90-618 known as the “Gun Control Act of 1968.”

which was later expanded to allow non-contiguous:

18 Pa CSA §6141.1. Purchase of Firearms in Contiguous States.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a person in this commonwealth who may lawfully purchase, possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm which exceeds the barrel and related lengths set forth in section 6102 (relating to definitions) from lawfully purchasing or otherwise obtaining such a firearm in a jurisdiction outside this Commonwealth. (Added by L.1997,Act5(3), eff 6/21/97.)

~~~~~~~~~~~

Long arms transfers are permitted by law in Pa

[RedLS1GTO]

Thanks, I'm just trying to get a high level understanding of what's what. Try asking a website a few questions. :D

It is your questions that show exactly why the "gun nuts" are so frustrated with this entire debate.

No, I don't in any way mean that as a knock on you (quite the opposite).

The left has put out so many skewed truths and flat out lies that even educated intelligent people have absolutely no idea how the processes actually work unless they have actually experienced it first hand, or in a rare case like this actually decide to cut through the crap to learn the truths.

[RedLS1GTO]

Here I'm not 100% sure.

I believe that would still be considered a sale across state lines and would legally require an FFL transfer.

Laws on that vary from state to state. Many neighboring stated have a sort of reciprocity as JRD said with long guns. I don't know of any state where handguns are allowed to be transferred across state lines without an FFL being involved.

[RedLS1GTO]

See how your representatives voted on Grassley/Cruz...

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00098)

Imagine that, 48 Nay, 44 (D), 2 (R), 2 (I)

Seems to me like it is the (D)'s that don't give a shit about the public in this case.

[Chris Fowler]

Mike Lee voted against it? surprised...

Kirk from IL...gee...IL...

[Fastguy]

OK, I'm gonna keep going here. What if I toss it in the truck of my car and deliver it from my state to yours? No shipping. Still a FTF transaction right?

If it is a handgun, that is a felony unless the purchaser is a FFL (federal firearm license holder). If it is a long gun (rifle or shotgun) it varies by state.
In MA, its very tightly controlled. You used to check each other's licenses and then fill out a transfer form and send it in.
Now we do it electronically.
I sold a gun to a guy last night. In MA, you can only sell a gun if you are licensed to own it, and can only sell to someone licensed to own it.
I logged into the state site and entered my license number and pin, and the buyer's license number. It runs it through the database and once we are both cleared, lets me complete the transfer.
What a lot of people want is for that to be illegal and force us to go do the same thing at a gun store and pay $50 and do it during the store's business hours.

[Broken Wind]

It is your questions that show exactly why the "gun nuts" are so frustrated with this entire debate.

No, I don't in any way mean that as a knock on you (quite the opposite).

The left has put out so many skewed truths and flat out lies that even educated intelligent people have absolutely no idea how the processes actually work unless they have actually experienced it first hand, or in a rare case like this actually decide to cut through the crap to learn the truths.

That is SO true! I lose my mind every time this issue is reported in the MSM. They make it sound like there are NO background checks at gunshows or internet sales. It's simply dishonest reporting, and I want to reach out and touch someone every time I hear it.

[Broken Wind]

I keep wondering where they get this 90% number. I'm betting that less than half of the "90%" even know what the current background check laws are nor what the new law would be.

And I'm betting that "90%" number is no more accurate than the "40%" number they keep using as purchases that occur without a background check...

You might be able to add up some of these numbers and come up with 90%.

Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem)

[bryanZ06]

I keep wondering where they get this 90% number. I'm betting that less than half of the "90%" even know what the current background check laws are nor what the new law would be.

And I'm betting that "90%" number is no more accurate than the "40%" number they keep using as purchases that occur without a background check...

I can't find it right now, but I heard on Hannity yesterday afternoon that it was a very small Quinnipiac survey conducted in Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey (I think those were the three sates). With Maryland and NJ in there it's not hard to imagine that they got the 90% number they like to throw around.

[Newby]

The bottom line is, no matter what laws are passed, bad guys will get guns (or drugs) if they want them. Read your local police bookings, if they're available on line. Almost every arrested parolee or probation violator around here has a gun and drugs when they get picked up, although it was illegal for them to buy or posess either one.

Politicians don't do anything to address most problems. They merely do things that fool some people into thinking they are.

Here they made the penalties for gun involved crimes much, much more severe than the same crimes without using a gun.
It did slow down gun use in crimes considerably.

That's the direction they should be going.

[RedLS1GTO]

Here they made the penalties for gun involved crimes much, much more severe than the same crimes without using a gun.
It did slow down gun use in crimes considerably.

That's the direction they should be going.


What a crazy idea... actually punishing the criminals instead of everybody else.

[Cybercowboy]

This was a good education thread. Thomas, who I would say is typical of an average person who doesn't own guns, has never really cared to, but is concerned with such things as reducing mass shootings and shooting deaths in general. Thomas would not have been surprised, at all, if we had told him SeaSix sold us all guns and no background checks were done at all, or maybe a few but not the majority of us.

He subsequently found out that each and every sale involved an FFL transfer. In my case, two FFL's were involved. Technically SeaSix could have shipped that Glock 21 directly to my FFL here in Missouri, but my FFL requested that it be shipped via a Florida FFL, because that way there would never be any questions. My FFL is like almost all other legal gun owners. They do things the right way, they are above board, and in no way would they want to be involved in anything that even had a whiff of illegality.

Thomas now also knows that the "gun show loophole" is no such thing. The reason people go to gun shows to sell their guns in FTF transactions is because:

a) they have a lot of potential buyers there
b) it is SAFE!
c) there are FFL's galore right there should they need one. For instance, I would insist on using one for the transfer if the person buying the gun did not have a CCW licence (meaning they already passed a background check...)

Now not everyone at a gun show doing a FTF private transfer is going to do that extra part mentioned in c), but then again they aren't required to by law and the fact it is at a gun show is meaningless since they could do the transaction in a Lowes parking lot.

Thomas now knows that the left uses the term "gun show loophole" to demonize gun shows and confuse people such as himself who has never purchased a gun at a gun show or even a gun store. The fact that after all this he is just now learning the full truth isn't surprising because the media aren't interested in educating people like Thomas. They are much more useful when they are kept in the dark.

And Jeff, as far as your idea about doing away with state licencing and going with a federal system, I'm against that because then they could simply pass a single law and it would invalidate your license or make it impossible to get one. You know, for the children.

[Doug28450]

Then there;s is always stuff like this....

Representative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault | Saving Our FutureRepresentative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault » Saving Our Future (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/representative-jackson-lee-dont-condemn-the-gangbangers-its-the-guns-fault/)

Representative Jackson Lee: “Don’t Condemn The Gangbangers,” It’s The Guns’ Fault

Posted on April 17, 2013

Last week, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee spoke on the House floor in favor of more restrictions that prohibit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families from criminals. She pleaded with fellow lawmakers to run to the defense of the gangbangers, telling them that it’s not the criminals’ fault. It’s that we don’t have more laws restricting guns:

“Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked — that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws. Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation. I’m going to agree with my friends on the other side of the isle. Our Republican friends, let’s enforce the gun laws that we have – – who would run away from that. That’s a sensible proposition. Put a resolution on the floor of the House – – let’s enforce gun laws that we have.”

Chicago’s murder rate is so high because they don’t have strict enough gun control, and that neighboring states don’t impose the same restrictions that Illinois does. So, don’t blame the criminals. It’s not their fault. It’s that we don’t have universal gun control. If we didn’t have any guns at all, these criminals wouldn’t be able to kill each other. Poor gangbangers. They just need more rehabilitation.

I guess she feels the same way about Adam Lanza, the person responsible for the crisis that liberal politicians wouldn’t dare let go to waste. It wasn’t his fault that he killed all those kids and teachers. It was because guns exist, and he got his hands on some of them.
Read the rest at Political Outcast



Read more: Representative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault | Saving Our FutureRepresentative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault » Saving Our Future (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/representative-jackson-lee-dont-condemn-the-gangbangers-its-the-guns-fault/#ixzz2Qp8kQM8d)

[erickpl]

So, if this would have passed, it would have made background checks a requirement for online sales, and sales at gun shows, correct? So right now, today, I can order a Kimber (I don't know Kimber from a Glock :D) over the Internet or while I'm attending a gun show without any background check. Walk in, plunk down my Visa, and walk out with a handgun.

But if I walk into a brick and mortar, I have to get a background check?

While technically, buying a gun from Bud's Gun Shop online doesn't require a check, it DOES require shipment TO an FFL in my area. Once I go to pick it up, I have to fill out the background check form and submit to a check before I pay my FFL transfer fee (I already paid for the gun at Bud's), and walk out with the firearm.

Politicians are too slow to realize that background checks on firearms are already done during the purchase/possession process, but not necessarily at the point of sale. They DO occur before delivery is completed though.

I've never bought at a gun show (no deals at the ones I've been to), so cannot address that. Though I did find some magazines for my 1943 Mossberg 44US .22LR bolt action rifle thought! WOO HOO!!!

There is a case where a pistol can be shipped directly to an individual - if that individual has a proper FFL for the firearm being purchased. I have a Curio and Relics FFL (FFL03). This allows me to purchase firearms designated as a C&R firearm to be shipped directly to me. When I wanted to be a CZ-82, I had my FFL03 designation so that when I did it, it would ship directly to me. This C&R license also enables me to purchase WW2 vintage M1 Garand (rifles) without issue online. Since I am a qualified FFL purchasing a firearm that falls under my license, I am, in effect acting as the FFL.

So I have two firearms licenses: My C&R FFL03 and my CCW. However, the CCW only indicates I have passed a background check and can carry. It has no provisions, under current law, to allow me to directly receive a pistol without going through a local FFL and subsequent background check.

I hope that didn't muddy up the waters. But I wanted to point out that individuals CAN also be FFL-licensed to directly receive firearms. For an FFL01 license, like a store would have, would require a more extensive check and a lot more $$ up front to do. I don't purchase enough firearms to justify that cost, so I prefer to use a local FFL for receiving transfers.

[kylebuck]

Remember this day. It's the day the GOP fuked itself. It's the day that will trigger much more sweeping gun regulations than what was voted down today.

More than 90% of Americans want background checks. This WILL be the issue in the mid terms. Democrats will argue successfully that GOP politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and don't give a shit about the public.

It happened with health care, it will now happen with guns.

Killing a perfectly reasonable bill for background checks just fuked your whole cause.

Enjoy your 'victory'. The bill in 2015 is going ruin your day.
You see that LA senator that voted , yeah you know which one, Mary Landriueu. She FU CKED herself in t he next election. We dont need that treasonist bitch in office anymore, and someone will beat her.

[Cybercowboy]

I've never bought at a gun show (no deals at the ones I've been to), so cannot address that. Though I did find some magazines for my 1943 Mossberg 44US .22LR bolt action rifle thought! WOO HOO!!!

Same here. The only thing I've bought at a gun show is parts and pieces, mainly magazines and cleaning stuff. Haven't been to one in over 20 years. It was in Tulsa.

[CBonsall]

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh23/cbonsall/fail/10039_555552784489851_939306324_n_zps152f4e81.jpg

[Chris Fowler]

Same here. The only thing I've bought at a gun show is parts and pieces, mainly magazines and cleaning stuff. Haven't been to one in over 20 years. It was in Tulsa.
I've purchased 3 pistols and an AR-15 lower at gun shows. background check for each of them.

[Chris Fowler]

Thomas, I'm going to put you on the spot here given what you've learned here:

1) Do you feel you've been mislead by the pro-gun control government officials?

2) Do you feel you've been mislead by the media?

3) Do you think that "90%" number has any bearing on reality?

4) Do you still think that the amendment should have passed (presuming you did before)?

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Thomas, I'm going to put you on the spot here given what you've learned here:

1) Do you feel you've been mislead by the pro-gun control government officials?

2) Do you feel you've been mislead by the media?

3) Do you think that "90%" number has any bearing on reality?

4) Do you still think that the amendment should have passed (presuming you did before)?

No problem

1) Yes. But I take responsibily. I made no attempt to understand all this until yesterday.

2) Yes, for the same reason stated in response #1.

3) 90% seems high. I question how this number was arrived at. Surely results from Texas will look different than results from California. Therefore I would question the pro-gun results equally.

4) I'm not sure I though it should have passed to begin with. My gut tells me background checks are a good thing. Therefore , the ignorant side of me says it should have passed. However, now that I have a high level understanding of this, I have to say no. It should NOT have passed.

[Cybercowboy]

Thanks, Thomas. :cheers:

[RedLS1GTO]

Thanks, Thomas. :cheers:

:iagree:

[Chris Fowler]

Thanks, Thomas. :cheers:
Thanks for allowing me to put you on the spot and the honest answers. :cheers:

[Sea Six]

Thomas, you're all right. :cheers:

[erickpl]

Thomas, it takes guts to ask the questions and admit you don't know something, especially on something like guns, a highly polarizing topic.

Kudos to you for asking, listening, and thinking.

More kudos to all those that responded with factual information and citations of law to help back up you point.

A very good thread! Educational too!

[TripleBlack]

Then there;s is always stuff like this....

Representative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault | Saving Our FutureRepresentative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault » Saving Our Future (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/representative-jackson-lee-dont-condemn-the-gangbangers-its-the-guns-fault/)

Representative Jackson Lee: “Don’t Condemn The Gangbangers,” It’s The Guns’ Fault

Posted on April 17, 2013

Last week, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee spoke on the House floor in favor of more restrictions that prohibit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families from criminals. She pleaded with fellow lawmakers to run to the defense of the gangbangers, telling them that it’s not the criminals’ fault. It’s that we don’t have more laws restricting guns:

“Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked — that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws. Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation. I’m going to agree with my friends on the other side of the isle. Our Republican friends, let’s enforce the gun laws that we have – – who would run away from that. That’s a sensible proposition. Put a resolution on the floor of the House – – let’s enforce gun laws that we have.”

Chicago’s murder rate is so high because they don’t have strict enough gun control, and that neighboring states don’t impose the same restrictions that Illinois does. So, don’t blame the criminals. It’s not their fault. It’s that we don’t have universal gun control. If we didn’t have any guns at all, these criminals wouldn’t be able to kill each other. Poor gangbangers. They just need more rehabilitation.

I guess she feels the same way about Adam Lanza, the person responsible for the crisis that liberal politicians wouldn’t dare let go to waste. It wasn’t his fault that he killed all those kids and teachers. It was because guns exist, and he got his hands on some of them.
Read the rest at Political Outcast



Read more: Representative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault | Saving Our FutureRepresentative Jackson Lee: ?Don?t Condemn The Gangbangers,? It?s The Guns? Fault » Saving Our Future (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/representative-jackson-lee-dont-condemn-the-gangbangers-its-the-guns-fault/#ixzz2Qp8kQM8d)

She is quite the brain trust...
Sheila Jackson Lee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hill reported in 1997 that Jackson Lee had asked NASA officials whether the Mars Pathfinder photographed the U.S. flag that Neil Armstrong had planted on Mars. When this incident was reported, her chief of staff wrote a letter to the editor suggesting that she was targeted because she was black.

[6spdC6]

Thanks Thomas:hurray::seasix:

You might be surprised to know than many/most of the UA brothers I have met are pro second Amendment people and know we are treated as mushrooms by the media & politicians and many times our BAs/Ms.

For the people that do not understand the term Mushroom, that means fed shit and left in the dark!

[jaxgator]

Oh Joecooooool ... where are you?

http://beatingcowdens.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/house_cricket2.jpg

Thomas, you're all right. :cheers:

:iagree: Thomas, it was nice to see your interest in learning the facts of the gun debate.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Thanks everyone.
:cert:

[Sea Six]

Thomas, you're all right. :cheers:

Thanks everyone.
:cert:

And I don't care what everybody says about you. :yesnod:






















:p

[Jeff '79]

And I don't care what everybody says about you. :yesnod:

I do, and I demand an apology.

[69camfrk]

Those SOB's will never give up in the attempt to take away our rights.:sadangel:

[Fastguy]

Thanks everyone.
:cert:

Guns and guitars are about the only things that rarely lose value so if you ever do decide to buy a gun, you can trade a guitar for it, and then trade it back a few years later.

[Jeff '79]

Guns and guitars are about the only things that rarely lose value so if you ever do decide to buy a gun, you can trade a guitar for it, and then trade it back a few years later.

Truth :yesnod:

I traded a Line 6 100 Watt amp for a Ruger P-94 9mm and an SKS straight up...:seasix: I made out like a bandit.
I threw in an old learner Strat style guitar too. Due to guilt....:D

[Burro (He/Haw)]

if you ever do decide to buy a gun, you can trade a guitar for it,
What do you figure a Les Paul Custom will get me? Honeyburst. REAL nice too.
:funnier:

Lets see if Sea Six has his radar up and running.

[kylebuck]

I do, and I demand an apology.

BP - We're Sorry - YouTube

[Jeff '79]

BP - We're Sorry - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0EL_u4nvw)

That is Thomas........ Right?

:D

[Sea Six]

What do you figure a Les Paul Custom will get me? Honeyburst. REAL nice too.
:funnier:

Lets see if Sea Six has his radar up and running.

I heard the previous owner didn't know how to polish gold hardware.

Pass. :ack:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

I heard the previous owner didn't know how to polish gold hardware.

Pass. :ack:
:funnier:
:funnier:

[Blademaker]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/555984_522363154490871_1344530398_n.jpg

[onedef92]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/555984_522363154490871_1344530398_n.jpg

Charlie Brown like a mofo! :lol:

[erickpl]

Oh SNAP! LOL