SENATORS STRIKE A DEAL ON BACKGROUND CHECKS

[0nTarg3t]

im not fine with background checks especially when they define the criteria for said checks. this is just more ****en infringement on our RTKBA.we cant keep letting them chip away.any elected official that goes along with this should be removed from his or her position in the next election cycle period.you don't compromise on a fundamental right!

[advocatusdiaboli]

GOA is dead set against it. Looks like it is wolf in sheep's clothing.

http://www.gunowners.org/a04102013.htm

I haven't been able to find any comments by NRA yet.

I believe the GOA before I believe most US Senators on anything. Politicans are used to promising and implying anything to gain public support while putting the wording of the legislation very, very differently. Then, when called on it, they say it was a compromise.

[cmichini]

In some states it seems, internet sales are not bg checked while I find that hard to believe they said it so...In CA they are as you must transfer through an FFL in CA and they run the check so we are already bg checked.

So, broadly, it adds checks to all gun show and internet sales. PPT are not subject to this amendment and Toomey made that clear.

Further we have a few wins there: when traveling across state lines, you are subject only to the laws of your home state and not the state you travel in. For example all those people being prosecuted in NY for concealed carry with permits their home state would be carrying lawfully. So it is a big step towards reciprocity.

We'll see if it passes and what is left or added by that time. This is early, but I could live with the amendment as they stated it as it takes a big step toward reciprocity.

They talk about family exemptions which makes me think private party sales between unrelated parties are retail.
It means end of ppts to us in free states.

this is giving miles , not inches.
Clear indication the republicans in the senate don't have a single vertebrae among them. If any vote yea they are DiFi to me.

And the c cw amendment will never make it into law.

[lasbrg]

I'll say it again, just so everyone can see it:

One of the provisions of S. 649 makes it a felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm to the attorney general and local law enforcement within 24 hours. Just one of the things they buried inside.

One source has Manchin-Toomney as an amendment to the Reid bill. Many S. 649 provisions may still be lurking around. A gun-control group claims to be reviewing a "draft bill", but no links to it are available yet online.

[sakosf]

It will be ineffective and at some point in the future they will ask that all firearms to be registered to make the universal back round check effective

[mrdd]

They talk about family exemptions which makes me think private party sales between unrelated parties are retail.
It means end of ppts to us in free states.

this is giving miles , not inches.
Clear indication the republicans in the senate don't have a single vertebrae among them. If any vote yea they are DiFi to me.

And the c cw amendment will never make it into law.

Yes. S. 649 implements CA style PPT nationwide. Check out Section 122.

It supersedes CA 30 day transfers.

Also see Section 123, lost and stolen reporting.

Here is the latest text of the bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s649pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s649pcs.pdf

[meaty-btz]

This bill mutates into a worse and worse version with every revision of its 1500 pages. Compromise my arse.

[RonnieP]

Would that also mean that a resident of a state that had no gun roster and no mag cap limits could travel to a state such as CA or NY with a gun allowed in their home state with standard cap mags? That's a pretty big plus if that were the case.

If you honestly belive that, I have beach front property in Montana to sell you.

[EM2]

Can you provide a link? It was still in at the press conference. If Toomey and Kirk gave it up for nothing in return, they betrayed us.

Ha, bull****
they betrayed us the moment they stepped into any meeting where they were negotiating our rights away.

[1BigPea]

Geeezus, it's the frickin Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment says, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!!!

[stony]

I retract my previous statements. This isn't a compromise. This is the US Senate's version of If You Give a Mouse a Cookie

If we compromise a little bit, they will come back and ask for more.

The magazine ban is back:

[speedrrracer]

It's the Senate, people. Controlled by Dems. Fueled by Obama's recent push, the hysterically emotional (and therefore unthinking) parents from Newtown, they're going to work themselves into a lather with all kinds of unconstitutional crap.

Let them.

If the House says "no", all their fantasies die. Stay on your Reps, and come next year's midterms, let's take back the Senate.

[Tyrone]

I am suspect but want to see the actual text of the "compromise" which I believe will be offered as an amendment to whatever bill Reid puts up for discussion. I have seen the pdf that was provided to the media which is not the actual text, but I do find disturbing a section in the report from Politico which seems to indicate a limit on internet purchases.

"Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially."

Again, I am distrustful of any gun related legislation (especially anything with Schumer's fingerprints attached) but an interesting aspect could be positive unintended consequences for California or other "un-free" states. Not to bait but I don't want to give any ideas and am exercising STFU beyond this. Again, I wait for the final bill.

[advocatusdiaboli]

It will be ineffective and at some point in the future they will ask that all firearms to be registered to make the universal back round check effective

[meaty-btz]

I am suspect but want to see the actual text of the "compromise" which I believe will be offered as an amendment to whatever bill Reid puts up for discussion. I have seen the pdf the was provided to the media which is not the actual text, but I do find disturbing a section in the report from Politico which seems to indicate a limit on internet purchases.

"Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially."

Again, I am distrustful of any gun related legislation (especially anything with Schumer's fingerprints attached) but an interesting aspect could be positive unintended consequences for California or other "un-free" states. Not to bait but I don't want to give any ideas and am exercising STFU beyond this. Again, I wait for the final bill.

The actual bill text is 1500 pages long. "We have to pass it to know what is in it."