The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: PegLeg45 on April 13, 2013, 05:57:36 PM
-
Got this video from Georgia Gun Owners, Inc. saying Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amenment Foundation and his staff helped write the Manchin-Tommey expanded federal background check bill.
I don't know if that is good or bad........
Here is what Gottlieb has to say:
This is a quote from Gottlieb:
“Unfortunately some of my colleagues haven’t quite figured it out yet because they weren’t standing in the room writing it. My staff was. I’ll be perfectly candid about it. This will probably break on Monday in the Wall Street Journal. “
-
I did not read this on Toomey's post of the Background bill. With the things Alan brought up that are in the bill makes me want to look at it more closely. Alan seems always to look at the big picture, trade a little to get a lot back. Just a thought but worth a look.
-
Universal background checks are nothing but a backdoor to registration, and confiscation, I don't care WHO wrote the bill .
-
Universal background checks are nothing but a backdoor to registration, and confiscation, I don't care WHO wrote the bill .
Not if your name/ID never leave the local FFL where you are acquiring the firearm.
-
It can't be enforced with out registration .
How can they charge you with not going through a background check unless they know who last owned the gun ?
Which means it has to have been registered.
-
I haven't read the bill, but I'm will to bet dollars to donuts that the CCW exemption for a NICS is gone.
The whole thing is about control and being in a position so that if confiscation is decreed later on, the government has all the info they need.
-
For those who have not read it yet:
Thursday, Apr 11
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) tonight posted the bill text of The Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act that he and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced yesterday.
The full text of The Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act is available below:
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968)
-
It can't be enforced with out registration .
How can they charge you with not going through a background check unless they know who last owned the gun ?
Which means it has to have been registered.
Nobody said it has to work as intended.
SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to-
(1) expand in any way the enforcement authority or jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; or
(2) allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.
To quote Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
I haven't read the bill, but I'm will to bet dollars to donuts that the CCW exemption for a NICS is gone.
I'm not sure...
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
-
May issue is the problem. BATFE pressure on licensee's will mean all purchases/transfers will go through NICS. Bound books are available to BATFE all the time. No notice required. Without having read the text of the bill, this is backdoor registration. Contact your Senator/s.
Contact your reps in the house. Have them shoot it down. Make it crash and burn. Make 'em have to sift the ashes to find any remnant of this POS legislation.
EDIT: Upon further review, this does not appear to be a POS legislation after all. I am wrong. Hearing what Gottlieb had to say, plus a cursory reading of the text of the legislation, leads me to believe that our side may be able to get over on the anti's with this one. I especially like having this over-ride local and state legislation when conveying a firearm in a motor vehicle.
-
Amazing how the light turns on when someone actually reads the text before making a comment on it. It's the people on the far side of arguments (Right or Left) that refuse to See and Hear before they make a statements.
-
Amazing how the light turns on when someone actually reads the text before making a comment on it. It's the people on the far side of arguments (Right or Left) that refuse to See and Hear before they make a statements.
At least I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.
-
Another layer to our Regulation Nation,.... sadly, there will probably be another "mass" shooting in the future, another "crack" some loon fell through, and this will all happen again with ANOTHER demand to add ANOTHER layer to our Regulation Nation.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum......
Eventually, given the current propaganda wing of the left, MSM, how much "layering" on the 2nd Amendment are you willing to give up or have added on. These are politicians and lobbyists with their own agenda.
(And yes I read the sell-out bill, and watched the video).
The anti's won't stop after this "compromise" legislation goes through. (still hoping it doesn't). Schumer, Feinstein, Bloomberg, et, al,...aren't going to get the warm fuzzies if it goes through.
They will just wait until the next opportunity....
-
Nobody said it has to work as intended.
SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to-
(1) expand in any way the enforcement authority or jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; or
(2) allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.
To quote Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
I'm not sure...
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
What the hell, it's only a little more infringement .
There are only 20,000 other laws either not working or not being enforced, what's one more ?
You don't need to pass a background check to run the freaking country ,but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?
What part of "Shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding ?
The frogs ignore another click.
-
For those of you looking for "reasonable" "compromise", see what it gets you?
-
It can't be enforced with out registration .
How can they charge you with not going through a background check unless they know who last owned the gun ?
Which means it has to have been registered.
Not sure what you are thinking.
If you are on the No Gun list, you are charged with Illegal Possession of a Firearm. It just doesn't matter what you did or did not do about getting a background check.
The goal is to allow sellers to know who is on the proscribed list.
-
Too bad they stuck with the NICS system and didn't take advantage of the benefits of the BIDS system.
There would be no chance of registration, no delays, no central shutdowns...
-
At least I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.
You're not wrong. It is a POS. It mandates background checks for any sale or tranfer from published source, eg newspaber or the Net. Now that's no change from interstate sales. But for intrastate sales? It mean's you have to go through a dealer. And what about C@R transfers, where no check is required if you're sending it to someone with a C@R licence?
-
What the hell, it's only a little more infringement .
There are only 20,000 other laws either not working or not being enforced, what's one more ?
You don't need to pass a background check to run the freaking country ,but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?
What part of "Shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding ?
The frogs ignore another click.
Tom, are you off your meds??? Get a refill!!
I've read through this entire thread twice.
Nobody has said it should pass. Nobody has said they support it. Nobody has said "call your senators and urge them to vote yes."
Nobody is ignoring anything - we just read the text and are discussing it.
Maybe you should read it too then you can add intelligent comments to the discussion rather than "but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?", which is addressed in:
SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
As FQ noted, "It's a POS."
I'm sure we all agree on that, that's why nobody on this board is saying it's a GOOD thing.
Adults discussing something doesn't mean they support it.
-
Tom, are you off your meds??? Get a refill!!
I've read through this entire thread twice.
Nobody has said it should pass. Nobody has said they support it. Nobody has said "call your senators and urge them to vote yes."
Nobody is ignoring anything - we just read the text and are discussing it.
Maybe you should read it too then you can add intelligent comments to the discussion rather than "but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?", which is addressed in:
SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
As FQ noted, "It's a POS."
I'm sure we all agree on that, that's why nobody on this board is saying it's a GOOD thing.
Adults discussing something doesn't mean they support it.
If you are not irate about ANY further gun law, you don't deserve any rights.
The only Constitutionally valid gun law is one that says any law abiding citizen can buy carry and possess anything he (or she ) can afford .
As originally written the citizens "right to keep and bear arms" included the latest field cannon and naval guns with out any regulation, or background check at all.
So it must be you who are off your meds.
The ones that keep you from bleating sheepishly.
-
C&R are FFLs under the law.
-
C&R are FFLs under the law.
BUT, no 4473 required if you have a C@R licence. I don't, HAZ does. Say we both order a moisin from an out of state dealer today. I have to go though an FFL. He doesn't, they just ship to his house. That saves him 50 bucks. Now, if this law passes, does he have to ship through a dealer and fill out the 4473 and pay their fee? And if so, what's the point of the C@R? ???
-
At least I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong
Sorry FBG, That was not directed at you.
-
Sorry FBG, That was not directed at you.
No blood, no foul. I'm a big boy and can take my medicine. ;D
-
BUT, no 4473 required if you have a C@R licence. I don't, HAZ does. Say we both order a moisin from an out of state dealer today. I have to go though an FFL. He doesn't, they just ship to his house. That saves him 50 bucks. Now, if this law passes, does he have to ship through a dealer and fill out the 4473 and pay their fee? And if so, what's the point of the C@R? ???
No, he IS the FFL, if they make it so he does then it would have to apply to every supplier/dealer transaction.
-
As I see it, there are two different tracks one can follow when discussing issues such as the UBC. One track is the theoretical or philosophical where you can talk about things like the Founding Fathers' original intent. The other track is the practical... the pragmatic. On this second track, your discussions are constrained by what is possible or probable given the entirety of current social, legal, and political conditions. We become frustrated - often angry - when we're on track one and we try to carry on a conversation with someone on track two. In this situation, our conversation is not supported by a common frame of reference and will seldom rise above the level of friendly bickering.
In the case of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a pragmatist would recognize that NICS isn't going anywhere. There may be better systems out there but NICS is here to stay for the foreseeable future - too much has been invested in the legal, technical, and procedural infrastructure for NICS to be replaced or abandoned. But NICS can be improved. The States can upload more criminal and mental health records. The restraint against a centralized registry and related penalites can be codified more forcefully. The interstate transport of firearms and ammunition can be made more traveler-friendly. And the process for rights restoration can be strengthened and simplified.
Is the M/T amendment the right legislative vehicle to make these improvements? We will each decide that for ourselves. Politicians love to wax philosophical when standing before the cameras. Their careers and their votes, however, are very pragmatic things.
-
No more compromise at all .
There are over 20,000 earlier compromises on the books that have not done a bit of good.
After that many failures how dumb do you have to be to think going back the other way is a "bad" idea ?
No matter what regulation, rule change, or modification they make it will have 4 guaranteed results .
It will be more of a PITA.
It will cost you more.
It will not have any effect.
and criminals will ignore it.
-
No more compromise at all .
There are over 20,000 earlier compromises on the books that have not done a bit of good.
After that many failures how dumb do you have to be to think going back the other way is a "bad" idea ?
No matter what regulation, rule change, or modification they make it will have 4 guaranteed results .
It will be more of a PITA.
It will cost you more.
It will not have any effect.
and criminals will ignore it.
You are right about the last two, concerning BIDS, but it will be less of a PITA and will be cheaper.
All it requires is the existing prohibited data base enabled for initial downloading and downloading of updates to FFLs.
That database will reside on the FFL system and be accessed by a 3rd party program...or an Office application.
-
You are right about the last two, concerning BIDS, but it will be less of a PITA and will be cheaper.
All it requires is the existing prohibited data base enabled for initial downloading and downloading of updates to FFLs.
That database will reside on the FFL system and be accessed by a 3rd party program...or an Office application.
Are you making money off this ?
Or are you just OK with infringements that are convenient ?
-
If you are not irate about ANY further gun law, you don't deserve any rights.
The only Constitutionally valid gun law is one that says any law abiding citizen can buy carry and possess anything he (or she ) can afford .
As originally written the citizens "right to keep and bear arms" included the latest field cannon and naval guns with out any regulation, or background check at all.
So it must be you who are off your meds.
The ones that keep you from bleating sheepishly.
No sh!t Captain Obvious.
The people who happen to be irate IS EVERYONE COMMENTING ON THIS THREAD. We all know it's BS, dumb and an infringment that shouldn't exist and hopefully it never will. That doesn't mean we shouldn't read it to see what it says. ::)
Now shhh...the adults are talking.
-
There is only one reason for the government or law enforcement to know who has what guns. It is so they can take them when it has been decided that the American Citizens are no longer allowed to have a particular gun and to prevent them from refusing to comply with the forced ban.
"Shall not be infringed" prohibits government from placing any restrictions whatsoever upon the citizens to use guns and ammunition in self-defense. And self-defense in this instance includes but is not limited to resistance to a tyrannical government.
The U.S. government has slowly and gradually infringed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- the very thing the Second Amendment prohibits with strong language. That slow trickle has now become a raging torrent that threatens the gun rights of the people as to render them practically useless.
There are hundreds of laws regarding firearms that directly infringe on the original intent, spirit, and purpose of the Second Amendment. These laws are illegal and are therefore null and void. The Framers knew in the future the possibility that laws would be passed by tyrannical representatives that ignored Constitutional prohibitions.
American Citizens are under no obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. The question now is, how many more infringements will the American Citizens/patriots allow before a tipping point is reached?
From the R E P O R T OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
ORRIN G. HATCH, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution.
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying—that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976—establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime
These gun laws you are trying to enact are unconstitutional!
-
I'm tired of all this.
REPEAL 1934 NFA
REPEAL 1938 FFA
REPEAL 1968 GCA
REPEAL 1990 CCA
REPEAL 1994 BHVPA
If you want to draw up a compromise, I'm willing to start with repealing 1968, '90 & '94.... for the time being.
-
Please listen to Alan Gottlieb on Tom Gresham's Gun talk radio show. He explains the hole bill. http://guntalk.libsyn.com/ (http://guntalk.libsyn.com/)
One more thing. For all those people that want to roll back all gun laws, I agree with you totally.
It's just not going to happen!
-
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/
"Alan Gottlieb and CCRKBA had no business getting involved in writing Manchin-Toomey. Gun control legislation was slowly dying in the Senate until the "grand compromise" revived it. The gun prohibitionists have already jumped on Alan's statement. Mark Glaze, executive director of Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors, called it "a helpful development" in the Washington Post."
Thanks for polishing that turd Alan. >:(
-
Well, Buckshot, you don't have to yell! We can hear you. But Tom is right. There is no sense even discussing what's in the bill as it is just another compromise of our right to bear arms. Talk about grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, this is it. Between what is happening on the federal level and the state levels, our right will be LEFT!
-
Are you making money off this ?
Or are you just OK with infringements that are convenient ?
Not at all.
It's like this.
If I am getting physically beaten by the government 10 times a day, I'll work as hard as I can to stop the beatings.
If I have a chance to force them to cut back to 5 beatings a day, I'll do it and keep working to get rid of the rest.
From what you have been saying you would prefer to continue with the 10 beatings a day unless you can get them to stop them all at once.
In my opinion, that is not the optimal approach.
If we can work a way to have the most onerous aspect of background checks, the ability to build a registration database, without losing anything, we should take that opportunity and keep working for the while thing.
Recovering some of our lost rights in the process of fighting to get them all back is is not, in my view, a bad thing.
-
Thank You Solus. +100
-
Thank You Solus. +100
You are welcome, Buckshot...but, to be clear, I haven't said I support this bill, just said it would be better had it replaced the NICS system with the BIDS system because there is no possibility of building a registration data base with BIDS because no buyer information is sent.
-
I'm tired of all this.
REPEAL 1934 NFA
REPEAL 1938 FFA
REPEAL 1968 GCA
REPEAL 1990 CCA
REPEAL 1994 BHVPA
If you want to draw up a compromise, I'm willing to start with repealing 1968, '90 & '94... not indicting AF employees and agents.... for the time being.
Fixed it for you .
But Buckshot is right.
The population is generally to gutless to make it happen .
-
Solus, I'm not sure if I support it at this time either . I need the time to go over it some more but at this time I think if it dose pass,it may will not hurt as bad as the Schumer bill would if it passes.
-
Solus, I'm not sure if I support it at this time either . I need the time to go over it some more but at this time I think if it dose pass,it may will not hurt as bad as the Schumer bill would if it passes.
Another one willing to accept "a little" infringement . :-\
-
Quote from: 1Buckshot on Today at 03:53:30 pm
Solus, I'm not sure if I support it at this time either . I need the time to go over it some more but at this time I think if it dose pass,it may will not hurt as bad as the Schumer bill would if it passes.
Another one willing to accept "a little" infringement . :-\
Tom, I don't see any thing is Buckshot's statement you quoted here that says he is willing to accept anything. All I see is him saying that this bill may not hurt as much as Schumer's bill.
If you were to say that 4th degree burns hurt less than 3rd degree burns, could that be taken as you saying you are willing to take 3rd degree burns?
-
Another one willing to accept "a little" infringement
We will have to what and see but yes if I have to give a little to get more back, Most times I will take it. Just depends what I am trading for. In this instance it may be to much. "I NEED MORE INFORMATION" ; ??? ;D
-
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/04/alan-gottlieb-useful-jew.html
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Alan Gottlieb, "Useful Jew."
Too cute by half. "Let's make a deal!" Why is this Wertvolle Juden smiling? Because he just negotiated away your God-given, natural and inalienable rights to liberty and property in return for a seat on the Judenrat.
Gun group ‘had hand in writing’ Manchin-Toomey background check amendment
The head of a national gun rights group is supporting the Manchin-Toomey background check bill, an email sent today to a group of Second Amendment activists, scholars and journalists revealed. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation also staked an authorship claim in the email, which he confirmed to Gun Rights Examiner is a for-the-record statement that can be shared and published.
“Just so you all know, I am in support on the Manchin-Tooney substitute bill to knock out the bad Schumer Background Check bill,” Gottlieb wrote. “I and our CCRKBA attorney lobbyist had a hand in influencing and writing parts of it.
David Codrea comments, with more self-control than I can muster at the moment:
This explains why Republican Toomey, who won election by a narrow margin, has been willing to put his name on the bill in spite of pleas from gun owners who have not been privy to behind-the-scenes efforts. He obviously believes this will give him the political cover he needs to present his actions later as one that was in gun owner interests to pass, and has good reason to suppose that at least one national gun group will back him on it.
In one fell swoop Gottlieb has provided political cover for all those waffling senators and congressmen who were seeking it desperately. The committed, truly evil collectivists like Feinstein and Schumer must be howling with laughter. In return for the chairman's seat on the Judenrat, Gottlieb has agreed to compromise YOUR God-given, natural and inalienable rights to liberty and property in return for, what? Language in a bill that is sure to be amended to our further detriment? At the critical moment when even the NRA was showing a little unexpected backbone, Gottlieb has out-flanked them with his own appeasement. The line is breached and it will be Gottlieb who will be remembered for that little treason.
There WAS a chance this could get stopped cold in the House. No more. Gottlieb's behind-the-scenes stab in the back has put paid to that idea. A truly "useful Jew" indeed.
*****
Before any anti-semitic rants are offered, remember your history. Remember George Soros, remember how some Jews enabled many of the atrocities the Nazi Party committed. Keep it in context.
But Codrea is right.
-
We will have to what and see but yes if I have to give a little to get more back, Most times I will take it. Just depends what I am trading for. In this instance it may be to much. "I NEED MORE INFORMATION" ; ??? ;D
It was people like you who caused this whole problem in the first place .
They allowed the NFA because they would get some of that tax money for nothing.
After 70 some odd years you shouldn't still be that stupid.
-
Here's a thought...
If the M/T amendment is so darn good for gun owners then the Democrats won't vote for it anyway. Has anything really changed that much? The most ardent 2A supporters think it is too strong and the most ardent gun grabbers think it is too weak. Both sides will try to amend the amendment and will end up with something nobody can live with.
-
My point is gun owners are always being asked to compromise on just a little bit more gun control. On just giving up a few more rights. For once it would be nice if we started from the position of power.
I've seen very few talk about the futility of NICS. How it returns so many false positives. How we have no idea how many false negatives it's generated. How it doesn't prevent actual crime. How it never will. How it's just a tool of control. 2nd Amendment supports should be talking about repeal not compromise on expansion.
REPEAL 1934 NFA
REPEAL 1938 FFA
REPEAL 1968 GCA
REPEAL 1990 CCA
REPEAL 1994 BHVPA
-
Haven't found it in this bill, but read that it specifies guns carried across state lines must be unloaded with the ammunition stored out of reach of the armed occupants.
Seems like it might not be true, if the bill truly interstate CCW, else that feature is worthless...give you the right to carry and empty gun.
-
When I worked for a ffl, very few doj kick backs were for them being criminals. most of them were for things like unpaid tickets, often from 20 + years ago.
-
Seems Gottleib, got used, no flowers, no reach around,
http://www.examiner.com/article/ccrkba-pulls-support-for-manchin-toomey?cid=db_articles
snip
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms announced this morning that it has withdrawn its support for the Manchin-Toomey alternative background check measure because a key amendment for restoration of firearms rights is not being considered.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb advised Examiner by telephone that, “Our support for this measure was contingent on several key provisions, the cornerstone of which was a rights restoration provision that is not on the schedule for consideration.
*****
Good
-
Is he really saying "I was for it before I was against it"?
-
According to the news he was after nationwide concealed carry.
-
Cornyn R-TX Proposed it,....knowing it would probably failed....Had nothing to do with his "touting" helping write the sell out bill he abandoned at the last minute.
He should stick to being a lawyer defending lawful gun owners.....
But yet again,....he is a lawyer...
-
I think he may have sunk CCRKBA after this.
-
Look, Reid killed most of this with his bare hands. The only two parts which are still alive are the UBC (we lose) and national reciprocity (We win, and win a lot) good work Senator Reid given the circumstances. Still, we had a pretty good day given what could have happened if he'd voted differently.