Skip to comments.What’s inside the Manchin-Toomey background check proposal?
Posted on 04/10/2013 1:00:21 PM PDT by Perdogg
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) have released their much buzzed-about proposal to extend background checks to all commercial gun sales, including sales conducted at gun shows or on the Internet. The proposal would exempt some gun sales from background checks, such as those that occur between relatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
You should hear a distinct hissing sound from this one.
- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
So, if you’re not a veteran, your shrink can perform a “submission of mental health records” that does not “Provide a legal process... to contest (your) placement in NICS when there is not basis for barring the right to own a firearm.”
If your shrink is a leftist, he’ll just cancel your civil rights.
Posting at Twitchy:
“Remember, the whole Toomey/Manchin bill was brought on by Sandy Hook, which nothing they proposed in the presser would have stopped.”
Lol! Oh, you mean the mafia definition of "encourage", such as "asking" the rich to pay more in taxes, when you really mean force them with the threat of imprisonment.
I wish I still worked at the auto parts store, Senator Toomey’s cousin comes on all the time and I sold him lots of parts. I’d like to ask him, “what’s going on?!”
Nobody cancels my rights, because they come from God not from man. True, they might make it a little more inconvient for me to purchase guns as I won't be able to go to the local gun store and I might be forced to obtain my guns by...other means...but I WILL still have guns.
Adding, I’d say, “tell him not to trust Manchin at all, and if he does, he’s lost all support. Never, ever trust ‘the other side’ on this issue.”
What is a "shrink", and who has one? Is that like a "guidance counselor" for grown-ups?
I don't even think I KNOW anybody who ever visited a shrink. I sure as hell wouldn't, anymore than I visited my high school guidance counselor.
Abortion appears no where in the Constitution. Yet we’re told it’s a right that has to be protected.
If our government protected guns the way they protect abortion you would see:
1) Courts striking down all gun legislation.
2) Media would refuse to air any real arguments against guns. Moreover, Hollywood media heroes would fight against out of control gun regulators.
3) Government would fight any attempts at registering, regulating or tracking fire arms.
4) Laws banning the transport of guns over state borders would be thrown out.
5) People under the age of 18 could buy guns without their parents consent or knowledge.
6) The government would be supplying us all with guns and ammo, regardless of how poor you are.
7) Our schools would teach about guns and gun safety.
8) The government would crack down on protesters outside of gun stores.
9) All gun store records and receipts would be protected from outsiders on the grounds of “privacy”.
Note that most guns never kill or injure anyone.
Most abortions result in someone dying.
People injured or killed by guns include a large age range from 1 year old to 100 years old. Some of these people are injured because they are doing bad things.
People injured or killed by abortion include those who are 9 months and younger. The only crime they are committing is not being out of the womb.
***MORE CHILDREN DIE TO ABORTION EVERY YEAR THAN GUNS***
But no one talks about regulating abortion.
Both those bums belong in prison.
Not only that, but horribly, more young, elementary school age children are killed every week by their parents or other caregivers than were killed in the shooting in Newtown, CT. Few of those children are killed with firearms.
Most of them result from the actions of parents with mental health and/or substance abuse problems.
Of course that doesn't fit into the gun grabbing agenda of the left, so there is no effort at the federal level to do something about the killing of more than 1500 children per year by their own parents.
The bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, and imposes serious criminal penalties (a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.
So the bill will send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), but not create a national firearms registry .
Whew! I'm relieved. Its only a list, a Federal database - not a registry. We all know the Federal government is an absolute paragon of trustworthiness and will never cross an explicit ban
That's an improvement, so is making it a felony to retain NICS background check data. (Although they'll probably do it anyway through some backdoor scheme...)
- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term transport includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
Also not a bad idea.
Maybe the senators can amend out some of the bad provisions and keep the good ones.
So, if you are prescribed an antidepressant you may be deemed unfit to purchase a firearm. If this is retroactive that would eliminate about 75% of the population.
perscribed or filled perscription? seems an anti-second doctor could just issue a perscription without having it filled and screw up a person’s life. Also don’t some of those pills have dual uses?
Either way, the only place this taking of a civil right should go is in front of a competency court hearing with due process.