yanici
NES Member
I don't read it that way. I think an internet "sale" would get the check. But, even though a gun might be "advertised" on the internet such as our classifieds here, a FTF sale can still be done with the gun without a check.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
SAF (Gottlieb) Helped Write S.649 (Toomey/Manchin) "Background Check Bill"
- Thread starter MaverickNH
- Start date
I don't read it that way. I think an internet "sale" would get the check. But, even though a gun might be "advertised" on the internet such as our classifieds here, a FTF sale can still be done with the gun without a check.
Without having read the whole thread it would be retarded to not have someone on our side providing a leading hand in crafting something like this. I'd prefer nothing, but since something like this was politically inevitable post newtown, making it as harmless to us as possible to us while maybe even getting some "compromises" in as a step forward for us is a no brainer.
Mike
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Mike
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
No thanks.
It's unlikely the 'final' bill, if it gets that far, would even resemble their initial offering. Who knows what kind of crap could end up in there, and none of it would be good for us. I can't see why SAF would be involved in this mess unless it was to try and neuter the gun-grabbers efforts. Crazy like a fox or something else?
None of this will prevent another Newtown. They all know it. They just want to push something through that will make it seem like they did something. We all know that Democrats want us disarmed. Something will get passed one way or another. I'd prefer that it be a bill with no teeth and no real consequence to gun owners.
Even if it prohibits FTF transactions...who the hell is going to enforce that?? Nobody... How can they enforce it?? They can't.....Not without a national registry and that isn't going to pass in any bill that is introduced.
Even if it prohibits FTF transactions...who the hell is going to enforce that?? Nobody... How can they enforce it?? They can't.....Not without a national registry and that isn't going to pass in any bill that is introduced.
ntomsw
Banned
/thread
if anyone, including gottlieb thinks you can trust schumer in any way, your naive. They will use anyone to further their agenda, including anyone that "thinks" they are helping.
Watch all of the SAF changes get voted out, and the libs will claim its "SAF" Sponsored. watch it happen.
Watch all of the SAF changes get voted out, and the libs will claim its "SAF" Sponsored. watch it happen.
I haven't played the video or seen the links yet, but from what I've seen of Gotlieb, he's too smart to let anything come up that's going to hurt us.
I'll wait and see for a while.
I'll wait and see for a while.
The problem with Alan's thinking is that the govt. would be the ones responsible for the prosecution of those officials who violate the law and we know how that has gone with holder and others responsible for fast & furious.
The govt. can't be trusted to enforce its own laws if it's against one of their own.
The govt. can't be trusted to enforce its own laws if it's against one of their own.
ANY "common sense gun control" hurts us.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Saw the video and heard the podcast. Gottlieb isn't a traitor. If you don't know cars much, think of him as the salesman who sold you your last few cars that all ran great.
Gottlieb is opening with a gambit that appears to give up Background Checks to make sizable gains in gun rights, while ceding little tangible ground. Granted, there is risk here, but simply expecting to shoot down the gun controllers' bills with no legislation passed at all is a pipe dream. Really. Vote for that Presidential candidate nobody heard of instead of Romney to make your point, but don't torpedo SAF yet.
POTUS is coming out against us - the 40-50% of homes that have firearms - using the full force of his office, claiming moral superiority based on a fictitious 90% support base. This will not whimper and die.
I continue to write, call and generally harass my legislators to oppose any legislation that would enable the possibility of registration of guns/owners or new bans/limits on firearm purchase, possession and use by honest citizens. I am specifying the intent, not the bill designator number, as amendments can push the bill right or left.
Gottlieb is opening with a gambit that appears to give up Background Checks to make sizable gains in gun rights, while ceding little tangible ground. Granted, there is risk here, but simply expecting to shoot down the gun controllers' bills with no legislation passed at all is a pipe dream. Really. Vote for that Presidential candidate nobody heard of instead of Romney to make your point, but don't torpedo SAF yet.
POTUS is coming out against us - the 40-50% of homes that have firearms - using the full force of his office, claiming moral superiority based on a fictitious 90% support base. This will not whimper and die.
I continue to write, call and generally harass my legislators to oppose any legislation that would enable the possibility of registration of guns/owners or new bans/limits on firearm purchase, possession and use by honest citizens. I am specifying the intent, not the bill designator number, as amendments can push the bill right or left.
Un-****ing-Believable! Pardon my French.
Danor
NES Member
Whats he says on the vid is if you already have a concealed carry permit you can be anywhere in the country and not need a check.Just fill out a form. Private transactions between family and friends don't need a check. who's to say the guy you just met online isn't your old pal? It actually almost sounds pretty good when you throw in the national reciprocity and laws against registration. You know what they say,if it sounds too good to be true..
This was the guy who came to speak in Boston a few week ago, right? I thought it sounded familiar.
WHAT compromise? I don't see what it is they are giving us in return, or giving up.
It seems too bad to be true. I guess I need more information.
Maybe it is that he (they) found his price?
One "compromise" would be them allowing us to buy handguns from out-of-state dealers, but that is just them giving back to us what was taken away.
I'm really confused as to why SAF would write a bill that allows the federal government to blackmail states into violating HIPAA or else they lose federal money.
I'm really confused as to why SAF would write a bill that allows the federal government to blackmail states into violating HIPAA or else they lose federal money.
Last edited:
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 165
Not sure which side is which in the 1986 compromise. There's some talk that the whole Hughes Amendment was meant as a poison pill for FOPA - I could see that some of these provisions are in a similar vein. That is, the real idea is to torpedo the effort, but if something is going to pass better to get something out of it.
This bill certainly doesn't seem like a compromise to me, hence my use of quotes.
Funny thing is, libs are just as pissed about it as we are, but for very different reasons. The NY Daily News was upset that bans and confiscation weren't part of the bill.
rep308
NES Member
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
constitutional carry is probably going to happen on its own in the short term. We need to jam something retarded in it, something that is way out there in todays climate, something like NFA.
I would view that as a trade for the ability to properly arm ourselves, the militia.
Nothing would have stopped it, but the reactionary manner in which this country works means that something MUST be brought to the table in washington. To refuse to have anything to do with it and then getting raped doesn't help us any. SAF crafting it in a way that doesn't really effect us, and if anything may actually quietly give us MORE ground is much bbetter than the former situation. You can put your fingers in your ears and go la la la la but washington had to at least introduce something, amd I'd prefer that something is as undamaging as possible.
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
I am not a legislative expert, I don't play one on television, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, I would still like to offer my layman's understanding of what is going on. Those with better knowledge; please offer corrections and additions.
What the Senate currently has before it for "Background Check" legislation is the bill drafted by Chuck Schumer and passed out of Leahey's committee on a party-line vote. This is a horrendous bill with lots for the gun grabbers and nothing in the form of sweeteners for those who have actually read the 2A. This is the bill the Senate voted on last Thursday to begin debate.
Now we move onto debate on Schumer's bill beginning with the amendment process. First up on the list will be the Manchin/Toomey amendment we've all been talking about. It is a substitute amendment meaning that if adopted, it will replace the Schumer text in the current bill and become "the bill". The Senate will then move on to considering amendments to the text of what is now, The Manchin/Toomey Bill. If the Manchin/Toomey amendment is rejected, what the Senate will be stuck with is the original Schumer bill which has no hope of passing. The Senate will then move on to trying to amend the Schumer bill and attempt to turn it into something that can get 60 votes.
The Manchin/Toomey amendment has a lot not to like in it, although the expanded background checks appear to have minimal impact on Mass residents. There is also a lot like. So much so that Schumer has already voiced his opposition based on the move towards reciprocity for concealed carry permits. I can't say for sure yet if it balances far enough in our favor to be supportable, but I would like to learn more before deciding.
I listened to Gottleib's speech about Manchin/Toomey and found it interesting to say the least. One thing he mentioned was a claim that they have the votes to amend Manchin/Toomey later in the process to begin chipping away at lifetime bans by providing for restoration of rights for those convicted of "White Collar" felonies.
What the Senate currently has before it for "Background Check" legislation is the bill drafted by Chuck Schumer and passed out of Leahey's committee on a party-line vote. This is a horrendous bill with lots for the gun grabbers and nothing in the form of sweeteners for those who have actually read the 2A. This is the bill the Senate voted on last Thursday to begin debate.
Now we move onto debate on Schumer's bill beginning with the amendment process. First up on the list will be the Manchin/Toomey amendment we've all been talking about. It is a substitute amendment meaning that if adopted, it will replace the Schumer text in the current bill and become "the bill". The Senate will then move on to considering amendments to the text of what is now, The Manchin/Toomey Bill. If the Manchin/Toomey amendment is rejected, what the Senate will be stuck with is the original Schumer bill which has no hope of passing. The Senate will then move on to trying to amend the Schumer bill and attempt to turn it into something that can get 60 votes.
The Manchin/Toomey amendment has a lot not to like in it, although the expanded background checks appear to have minimal impact on Mass residents. There is also a lot like. So much so that Schumer has already voiced his opposition based on the move towards reciprocity for concealed carry permits. I can't say for sure yet if it balances far enough in our favor to be supportable, but I would like to learn more before deciding.
I listened to Gottleib's speech about Manchin/Toomey and found it interesting to say the least. One thing he mentioned was a claim that they have the votes to amend Manchin/Toomey later in the process to begin chipping away at lifetime bans by providing for restoration of rights for those convicted of "White Collar" felonies.
Similar threads
