Manchin & Toomey reviving gun bill

| April 28, 2013 | 17 Comments

The New York Times reports that Senators Manchin and Toomey are working behind the scenes to breath life back into the gun bill that failed last week in the Senate.

Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, have been talking in recent days about how they could persuade more senators to support their bill to expand background checks for gun buyers, which drew backing from only four Republicans last week.

“We’re going to work it hard,” Mr. Manchin said Thursday, adding that he was looking at tweaking the language of his bill in a way that he believed would satisfy senators who, for example, felt that background checks on person-to-person gun sales would be too onerous for people who live in rural areas far from a sporting goods store.

Yeah, well, that’s not the only reason guys. The bill includes a recordkeeping requirement for gun dealers who perform the background checks for private sales. It was the only part that Chuckie Schumer wouldn’t let go during his negotiations with Manchin, so for that reason alone, I oppose the bill – the fact that Schumer won’t negotiate it away tells me that it’s part of a grander plan ending in national registration.

As I told Manchin in a fax this evening, I liked the part where CCW license holders could avoid background checks, but if Schumer is adamant about maintaining records of sales, I’m willing to sacrifice that convenience and continue to oppose the bill.

The Republicans, Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, are discussing ways they might support the bill, which would criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm.

What? That’s not illegal now? I’m pretty sure it is, I’m positive that I read something in the US Code about it last time I read the damn thing, a few weeks ago when I was looking at something else. But if I’m wrong and it’s not in there, it damn well should be, but without all of the accoutrements about restricting legal gun owners.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Hondo says:

    Jonn, unless I’m misreading 18 USC 922(d) that’s already illegal. 18 USC 922(d) would appear to make knowingly transferring a firearm to someone you know/have reasonable cause to believe is

    (1) a felon,
    (2) a fugitive from justice,
    (3) has been adjudged mentally defective or committed to a mental institution,
    (4) received a DD from the military,
    (5) is a substance abuser/addict,
    (6) is an illegal or other nonpermanent resident alien,
    (7) has renounced their citizenship,
    (8) is subject to certain types of restraining orders, or
    (9) who has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap44-sec922.pdf

  2. UpNorth says:

    Jonn, that would be 18 USC 922 b. It prohibits possession by
    felons, drug user or addict, alien, if one is subject to a restraining order, convicted of domestic assault, a fugitive and one holding a dishonorable discharge.
    So, what more can they do to “enhance” this section of the U.S. Code?
    They won’t prosecute someone who lies on a 4473, or attempts a straw purchase now, they need more laws so they won’t prosecute more people?

  3. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Thanks, Hondo, I was looking at the reg for a different reason the other day and I thought I had read that.

  4. OWB says:

    So, just how do they wish to change it??

  5. FDCGuy says:

    Unsurprisingly the NY Times is wrong, Manchin is trying to breathe some life back into his dead bill but Toomey is not part of that equation. He said that it had its chance and failed and that is the end of the issue. See Toomey’s thoughts here: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/04/manchins-dead-horse.html

  6. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Manchin is the dope who get burned touching the hot stove and then wonders a few weeks later whether the stove is still hot–so he touches it again. What a ma-roon.

  7. B Woodman says:

    (LIGHTNING STRIKE!!!)
    FrankenToomey and FrankenManchin:

    GIVE OUR CREATION– LIIIIIFE!!!!!!

  8. DaveO says:

    Think there’s a law for every damned thing Schumer and the rest of the Manchinite Prognazis want to inflict on us. Nobody enforces it.

    If they (the state and federal government) don’t enforce the laws that exist today, how will they enforce the laws they are trying to pass.

  9. OWB says:

    The only options I see are: they are so dumb that they have no idea what the existing law is now, they know the current law and simply want to appear to be doing something, or they know the current law and want to hide something in this new law which will enable whatever it is that they really want.

    Bottom line is that there is no reason at all for additional law. Based upon what they say, there is plenty of law already. So what exactly is it that they want to add?

  10. James says:

    Of course they’ll keep trying. Remember how many times the Obamacare bill was declared “in trouble”, but they kept pushing with behind the scenes deals till they did it. the public must be very vigilant and keep the pressure on.

  11. NR Pax says:

    In my evil little mind, I would happily support their ideas on the condition that every Congresscritter who votes for it faces prosecution for the next gun-related homicide.

    Hey, if they want to promise that this set of laws will work, let them put their own freedom at risk to prove it.

  12. B Woodman says:

    They’re following what Ayn Rand wrote many years ago, to the effect that under a tyranny, there will be so many laws passed, that you will be breaking at least half-a-dozen every day, weather you know it or not. And since “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, the tyrannical FedGub can haul you in on “valid” charges at any time, for any duration.

  13. pete says:

    you betcha,,i’ll bet they work it hard everytime they get behind closed doors scheming and screaming with each other!
    frigging schulbs

  14. Ex-PH2 says:

    Well, then, it will be illegal to simply exist, so they’ll all be breaking their own laws and have to stop existing.

    That thinking is giving me a headache.

    I think the real problem is that they don’t have anything to do so they cook up crap like this to justify their existence. Then they say ‘look I did something’ and toss back a few in self-congrats. They are the biggest waste of time and money on the planet.

  15. FatCircles0311 says:

    Well shit why don’t they just strike until they eventually get what they want? Makes sense. Our government is disgusting.

  16. David says:

    You know, if they came up with something REASONABLE like
    allowing anyone who wants to getting a background check –
    WITH NO RECORD KEPT- which would be good for maybe 60 days
    and would allow purchase of anything within that window. CHL/CCW permit holders exempted, everyone else has to get the magic piece of paper. Satisfies the background check but makes it almost impossible to create a database. (Oh, and if you get declined, you get told WHY and are allowed to appeal – none of this “on a watch list” BS, only disclosed reasons apply.) I think then you might actually see some support for universal background checks. Oh,and keep Charlie Schumer in the picture – he’s Congress’ Joe Biden, and will inevitably leak any adverse aspect of the bill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *