Skip to comments.Bipartisan deal reached on gun background checks
Posted on 04/10/2013 7:39:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Bi partisan. It sounds so friendly.
Toomey has an “A” rating from the NRA?
Is there a "bill" (you know, a written document available for public inspection) which is "under consideration" (you know, in the hopper, assigned to a committee, debated, passed to the floor with majority and minority reports) in the Senate?
I don't actually think there is.
Just one of many.
No, you can’t buy a gun over the internet. You can LOOK at guns for sale, but it still has to be shipped to an FFL holder.
The debate in Congress about guns is always about which rights do I no longer need.
Not how to protect my rights.
Unless I’m a f*g, an illegal alien or I want an abortion.
Then they’ll invent rights for me that don’t exist.
All commercial sales already require a background check so, as presented here, this bill would change nothing. And we know that’s not going to happen.
One thousand D I N G S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Struck me precisely the same. This background check BEE ESS is a ruse for something else. One more example of corralling the law abiding and doing nothing to inhibit criminals, and Ayn had plenty to say on that subject as well.
Anything that allows O'Bozo to claim a win.
Sure you can.
At auction sites for one example - places like Gun Broker and Guns America
But you still have to ship to and from an FFL.
Another example is CMP.
And they ship direct to the purchaser - no FFL intermediary required.
How bout IGNORE IT. They can make all the phony laws they want. Then try to enforce them!
That may sound like a good idea, but that would be last resort IMHO. Far better to have some distance between bad law and last resort.
Toomey’s a TRAITOR. He’s let the snakes in the back door.
A Senate aide and a lobbyist say two senators have struck a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more firearms purchases. The agreement could build support for President Barack Obama’s drive to curb gun violence.
Remember Obmma Care? The same was said about that.
All they need to do is roll 16 Repubs. They can do that.
RE: The agreement could build support for President Barack Obamas drive to curb gun violence.
That’s the argument... the more important question is this -— WILL IT?
Political News & Commentary
Obama continues his traveling gun show charade
By Andrew Malcolm
Posted 04/09/2013 09:06 AM ET
President Obama was on again Monday about gun laws, not enforcing the existing ones. But getting some new ones, any new ones so he can claim some kind of political victory after all of the promises and vows he made in the emotional days last December.
But Obama wasn’t working on the senators from his own party who will actually determine the fate of these measures. That would be political leadership.
No, Obama was out of town again, up in Hartford for a photo op with Connecticut legislators and some Newtown families. Of course, it wasn’t so much about everyone coming together to agree on new safeguards to protect children anymore, as he talked way back in December. No, as usual, this latest campaign rally was all about him. The usual suspects yelled their love. Obama mentioned himself 40 times.
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/040913-651148-obama-senate-background-check-legislation.htm#ixzz2Q4iTMKJp
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
D.C. forgot to add ... No Criminals will be emboldened by this legislation.
April 10, 2013 4:00 A.M.
A Tax on Freedom
Punitive taxes on guns and ammunition will punish only the law-abiding.
By Charles C. W. Cooke
Im not asking to take away peoples guns, Maryland legislator Jon Cardin nervously told Politico this week. Im just saying that for an activity that is relatively dangerous, obviously, people who participate in that activity should pay the full costs of that activity. America, witness a guileful new tactic of the gun-control movement.
Cardin (a nephew of U.S. Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat), who wishes to tax bullets at 50 percent, was outlining an increasingly popular progressive idea: If you cant regulate something, why not tax it in lieu? Similar proposals by which states impose specific levies on purchases of firearms and assorted peripheral items are now being considered in California, Nevada, and New Jersey; and in Chicago,
Ok, so where do YOU draw the line?
Just how, and where, can you buy a gun over the internet? You cant.
You can see an advertisement for a gun, contact the seller, and come to terms. You then buy it from the seller, legally, without a background check.
This is legal in many states, and legal under federal law as long as the transaction is within the state.
You do not have to be a licensed dealer to buy a firearm. If you are not a licensed firearm dealer (also called an FFL Holder), you must make arrangements with an FFL Holder in your state to receive the item and transfer it to you. Virtually anyone who is involved in the sale or distribution of firearms is an FFL Holder, including gun shops. You must make arrangements with your FFL Holder before placing a bid on an item. By contacting the FFL Holder before bidding, the buyer can verify that all state and federal laws will be observed. For most firearms, the buyer must be able to pass a background check.
So technically you can buy it, but an FFL is still involved, so the checks and balances are there.
Something off topic .... am curious about your date attachment. Did something clue you in ... two days before?
America betrayed by bipartisan treasonous senators one act at a time.
Yeh I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. All internet sales and also gun show sales already require a background check. I just bought a weapon on the internet and it had to be shipped to my FFL dealer and I had to have the background check. There must be a little paragraph in this bill somewhere that they are not telling us about.
I was in the business of reading the tea leaves...
Statement from the National Rifle Association Regarding Toomey-Manchin Background Check Proposal
Posted on April 10, 2013
Fairfax, Va. - Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.
If it truly does nothing more than extend background checks to commercial sales (meaning sales by businesses which do advertising), then this is really doing nothing at all.
I’m surprised there are that many commercial sales that aren’t already done by licensed gun dealers.
This would mean private (owner) sales would not be covered, which was the problematic part of the democrat proposal.
Of course, the devil is in the details.
When you give your kid your prized Ruger 10-22, drag him down to the local FFL and make sure he’s got a clean record.
The America of my youth is dead.
If Boehner were a Conservative, he wouldn’t allow any bill to be brought before the House.
Either they are lying about it, or they are not. If they are not lying, then the words “commercial sale” means that it would not cover you transferring your gun.
If this story is to be believed, there is apparently a way for a commercial enterprise to NOT be a “licensed gun dealer” and to do the sale of a weapon. Maybe pawn shops? I don’t know, because I would have thought all commercial sales were already covered.
The one thing it says that could be problematic — if they define “commercial sale” as “advertising”, then they might argue that listing your gun on a craigslist-type site would be “advertising”. I guess they could argue that posting on a bulletin board at a gun range was “advertising”, so I hope the actual language makes it clear THAT is not what they mean.
I know everybody here will be hopping mad. And if the argument was “we should not have background checks at all”, I’d understand that. But it could just be that we are winning. The democrats are desperate to not look like they are incompetent. They might well agree to something that does absolutely NOTHING real, just to say they “did something”.
And the leftist activists are not totally clueless. They will see they were sold out, and will respond accordingly.
So, I will reserve screaming rants until we see exactly what this bill will do. If it does something bad, I expect the house won’t pass it.
Toomey, as much as I supported you to get you in office, I will work that hard to see you thrown out on your ass, you back-stabbing bastard.
We should never, EVER compromise with tyranny. And we should never support those who do.
I wish I had your confidence regarding that. I recall something called obamacare.
Never trust a politician to do what is right, My FRiend. REly on them to save you is like the Jews in the concentration camps hoping they would not be executed. It is obvioue that the politicians, even those that are supposed to be on our side, no longer respect us. After loss of respect comes hate. After hate extermination.
I stand corrected. Thanks fellas.
I trust a politician to do what is in his own best interest, like getting re-elected.........
I cringe whenever I hear the words bi-partisan.......
To me, background checks are dangerous because if the government ever says that all gun owners have to turn in their guns, and gun owners don’t comply, then the govt. will know who owns what and just come to your home and confiscate them. And you will be arrested.
The answer to this deal is: no! no! No!
We do not meet the enemy halfway, between right and wrong, over and over and over. Every time the issue comes up we must compromise? Eventually, you have nothing left.
There _is_ a line in the main street. Hold the line or be part of the problem.
Bingo. Bipartisan is what that free speech hating jerk McCain does.
The Constitution of the United States of America, which has a supremecy clause that says basically if it isn’t constitutional, it need not be obeyed. Easily said and far more difficult to get 50 states and 300,000,000 million people to join in the nullification. The left is going to continue their efforts to rid the land of a Constitution, and any that place stock in it. Our duty is to oppose vehemenly and physically any and all such efforts by sworn sacred oath at the risk of our very lives. This would be for all those previously sworn to support and defend the Constitution. The others side has no such mandate.
Kill it with fire!!
Kill it with fire!!
There’s an idea...