SENATORS STRIKE A DEAL ON BACKGROUND CHECKS

[epilepticninja]

This got my attention...

And it got stripped out as quick as it was added in. No national reciprocity. Even though personally I don't mind background checks, its just once your start putting limitations and restrictions on the a right, where does it stop?

[jccam]

Is this even a big deal for us in CA?

It is if you ever plan to move to a free state someday.

Everyone needs to email or phone Toomey's office and remind him that the 2A says "shall not be infringed" and that we will support the next person (any person) who runs against him. If we're not his constituents, we will find another way to lend support to anyone who runs against him (donations, volunteer time, whatever).

[advocatusdiaboli]

THAT IS A GOOD THING...

Okay, I willing to hear the detail of your argument: why is giving up something granted quid pro quo in a negotiation good? Doesn't it mean you lost the basis of the compromise and you lost power in the negotiation for nothing in return? One of the fundamental rules of successful negotiation is never give up anything unless you get something in return.

If Schumer axed that with no quid pro quo , then we are lost—they'll fold and the AWB will be put in next by Schumer/Reid/Feinstein. Pussies.

[sholling]

As I understand it this is a deal between ONE democrat and ONE northeastern Republican. I'm sure that a couple of the usual sellouts will join them but this isn't a general sellout - yet. It's an agreement between Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) that has the media salivating and pushing as their last best hope to restrict something.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/10/sens-pat-toomey-joe-manchin-reach-gun-deal-report-/#ixzz2Q5BfhTmz

While Mr. Toomey, a first-term senator and former Club For Growth president, has reached across the aisle on guns, other Republicans are plotting a different course. A number of senators, including Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, may filibuster any gun-control measures. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also indicated he may be join the filibuster.

[aklon]

Crap: these fools only made "a deal" between themselves. Did anyone call you and ask what you'd like to see? Has anyone asked these idiot politicians that are telling us we have to "compromise" what are they going to give us in return for "compromise"?

Of course not. And they won't. For too long we have sat still and said nothing as they slice away another part of our right to bear arms without demanding they give us something in return for alllowing their restrictions.

We're talking about a fundamental civil right enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. None of our rights should ever be brought up for a discussion, a vote, or "compromise." Any politician who says we should ought to be kicked out of office immediately.

[advocatusdiaboli]

As I understand it this is a deal between ONE democrat and ONE northeastern Establishment Republican. I'm sure that a couple of the usual sellouts will join them this isn't a general sellout. It's an agreement between Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) that has the media salivating and pushing as their last best hope to restrict something.

Schumer is in on it, so I can guarantee it will not be good for us in the end. We just have to hope it doesn't pass muster on the floor and that Feinstein's AWB doesn't get added but they try that is certain.

[ja308]

Sellout is worse than the Feinstein gun ban!
Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) - but which also has Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.

See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun "ranters" have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun control bill; that they can’t cut off debate to a bill they haven’t seen yet. “Let the bill come up,” they say. “We need to see the bill” before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.

Well, we’ve seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it’s worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”

Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.

The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun - or it at least becomes very, very difficult.

Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.

Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it’s going to happen to the rest of the population ... by the millions!

And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don’t send every single patient’s name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don’t send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.

The bottom line: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”

All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazine bans.

Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act - the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.

Please keep in mind, nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.

Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally acquiring guns, but there’s plenty that will threaten our gun rights!

ACTION: Click here to contact your two senators immediately. Tell them the “see a shrink; lose your guns” sellout is even worse than the Feinstein gun ban which will reportedly be on the same amendment tree with it. Distribute this alert far and wide.

Time is short, so if you call - at 202-224-3121 - you may click here to see the pre-written letter and use the contents to help direct your comments.
The above was copied from GOA today

[morfeeis]

After watching the press conference it looks like the happy couple will be fighting off stage.

Link to watch

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/216951

[ccmc]

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.

[Rail]

This is good for Republicans and the pro-gun side in the long run: most of you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

The biggest threat by far to all of our 2A rights is a change in the Supreme Court. Taking back the Senate in 2014 negates that possibility by preventing Obama from even thinking about nominating anyone who is itching to overturn Heller and McDonald. And the best way to solidify those odds is to allow the Democrats to own up to their votes, so long as nothing substantive has a chance of passing the House (such as a DiFi AWB). Republicans in the Senate are basically letting the Democrats walk into their own trap/fall on their own sword.

[lasbrg]

Start here.

We still have to see the actual language and any new amendments.

I hope Congress can inject CCW recip but it's not there now...

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jamie-dup...ground-checks/

I like how they worded this part:

Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

2Aa: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed [much].

[jorgyusa]

It looks like it could be a real compromise. Where we get a tiny bit of our rights back and the gun banners get instant background checks on private sales at gun shows and the internet. Might be acceptable. I would like to hear more from the NRA and GOA to see what they think.

Would it mean Californian's could buy firearms from dealers out of state? (no stupid waiting period and no check with CCW)

Looks like it fixes the scam in some states where people are caught transporting firearms they legally possess because they have to stay over night in the state. New York is notorious for this.

[advocatusdiaboli]

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.

that's what Toomey implied but of course the devil is in the details of the actual working of the amendment.

Also for those worried about the "mental illnes" restriction—Toomey said it was limited to the "dangerously mentally ill and dangerous criminals". So it all depends on what the definition of "dangerous" is on the federal level—nt the state level. I see this having the potential to be a win but not sure—if only dangerous felons are prohibited, that opens up repeal of state measure in CA right now that prohibit even misdemeanors.

We'll see it's early in the process yet.

[kaligaran]

I'm so confused. All commercial sales that go through an FFL already requires a background check, even at gun shows.

Someone please explain this change to me like I'm 5.

[advocatusdiaboli]

And it got stripped out as quick as it was added in. No national reciprocity.

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.