Senators: Bipartisan deal reached on expanding gun background checks

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Senators: Bipartisan deal reached on expanding gun background checks


www.washingtonpost.com

A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.

The agreement forged by Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) would be more stringent than current law, which requires checks only wh
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nraila.org
www.politico.com




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
ok so first off i will say that this was one of the more confusing articles i have read so far and they have edited it twice all ready so it could change again it seems,

what i find odd about this is that pretty much all of this allready is a law and that it does not seem to change much other than if you were charged(asked to pay money) to post your add to sell your gun you now need to do a background check even if its a private party sale.

the other confusing part is it said part of the background check process will be to make sure you have a valid gun permit and or license and as we dont have these in my state(unless they were talking ccw) i am un sure as to what exactly this will change,it almost seems just like lip service to make the anti gunners think something is being done when it really is not

the only thing i got out of this that i found truly important is we got the name of a republican who is selling out the second amendment and that would be Toomey from PA so i guess we will have to remember this when he comes up for re-election

can any one make better sense of what will actualy be changed from current law by this bill?

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Not much from what I can tell.

It is pretty telling that the best the left can get is some watered down version of what's already on the books though.

Obviously they don't have the political capital to do much else.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Figure it out buddy...................
The checks are the excuse to put PERMITS and LICENSES into LAW.....
How they later will expand that mandate is the key to this traitorous work.

With these barstids...The devil is in the details!
edit on 10-4-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Figure it out buddy...................
The checks are the excuse to put PERMITS and LICENSES into LAW.....
How they later will expand that mandate is the key to this traitorous work.

With these barstids...The devil is in the details!
edit on 10-4-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)


If they had the political backing to put permints and licensing on the books they would have done it now. There is no indication that they will have support to do it at a later date anymore than they do now.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Just reading this, I already question whether they didn't actually make it easier for criminals to get weapons rather than harder. Does this law now allow people to circumvent having to go through an FFL dealer and allow direct online transactions between the buyer and seller due to the background check being performed online? If so this means that anyone with a stolen identity can just straw purchase a firearm and have it shipped directly to them eliminating any direct contact with the seller or other FFl holder.

I will wait to see the final details of this, but from what I am reading it really does nothing at all to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, and might possibly be a direct path for criminals to obtain them even easier.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Background check did not stop Lanza to that "amendment" is worthless.


The National Rifle Association, the powerful lobbying group that is the leading force against tightening gun laws, said expanding background checks “will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe.”


The NRA is right.


The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.


And this?


Under the terms of the Manchin-Toomey deal all background checks would be conducted by federally licensed gun firearm dealers, who would need to verify the validity of a purchaser’s gun license and record that a check was performed. Background checks would need to be completed within three days, except at gun shows, where they would have to be completed within two days for the next four years, and then within 24 hours. In order to avoid processing delays, the FBI would be required to complete background checks requested at gun shows before those requested elsewhere.


What the hell FBI background checks!!!

In 24 hours!!!

That needs to be voted down bigtime.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


thank you for your reply and im glad to get a different set of eyes looking at this as like i said the article was confusing,the main things im concerned about and want clarification on are so is this ALL online sales (gun broker armslist etc) or is it just the online/newspaper adds that charge you to post the add? ie if i just go putting up post-it notes on bulletin boards in town saying gun for sale but am not charged for this advertising that would then not require a background check?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
While "senate aides" can be reliable, I would prefer something a bit more concrete. Nothing on the Congressional Record regarding those two senators for the 4/1/2013-4/10/2013 time frame.

Senate Judiciary; the committee that handles this, shows nothing so unless it was a backroom deal, we are going to have to wait for it to be presented to that committee.

ETA: They say "amendment" which implies attaching it to an existing bill. So maybe we might have to wait till the 4/10/13 record is put online to see it.

This is why I hate the media. We have this vast cross-reference capability, but it is always vague. Writers refer to an "amendment" but provide no means of knowing that that amendment is.
edit on 10-4-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The NICS system is run by the FBI so this actually changes nothing, and if you make a purchase in person at an FFL dealer they usually do the check on the spot at the time of purchase before you can take possession of the firearm, so the 24 hour time frame doesn't seem to be a stretch. The only thing that I can see this bogging down would be dealers who handle hundreds of transactions online daily.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


thank you for your reply

so are you saying that they are trying to implement a 50 state wide permitting requirement for being able to buy a gun from FFL (currently not required in my state Montana) or do you think this will only effect states that have permitting(and by this i mean the permit part not the whole law)allready? and you are right we need to watch this to make sure that they dont toss in any riders or extra tricks to the bill



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


A background check in 24 hours?

Good luck with that.


except at gun shows, where they would have to be completed within two days for the next four years, and then within 24 hours


actually that changes quite a bit
edit on 10-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


eh like i said its very confusing but you may very well be right

my take on it is you can still sell your guns private party with no background checks you just can not pay to advertise them online or in print. but i do see people who are not FFL holders being able to just walk into the parking lot of a gun show and sell guns and not be effected by this law as long as they dont advertise so yeah i think they did make it easier to get guns but i dont think they know that yet again thank you for your reply



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I am certain that they are referring to the NICS instant check and not a full background check. A full background check isn't even feasible just due to the fees involved let alone the manpower involved to handle the volume of gun purchases that would be coming through.
edit on 4/10/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Keep it up, government. Keep putting up progressively more draconian legislation to make it more difficult for the average American to get a gun, because the only thing it will produce is an unbalance between armed criminals and unarmed citizens.

We've been having numerous break ins and home invasions in West Virginia. I'm keeping my Glock 8 in my bedroom at all times. Since there aren't any kids in the house, I can keep it unlocked and loaded for when some delinquent thugs come decide to pick the wrong house to invade.

I hope it never comes to that, the last thing I want is to shoot anybody, but I see my gun as an insurance policy. Unfortunately, in this day and age, we need insurance policies.

It shows just how much the average citizen needs a gun. A system like Canada or England has just won't work, especially in a country of people who, for the most part, KNOW that owning a gun is a basic God given right to protect life, liberty, and property.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


thank you for clearing up the sales part as that is what has been confusing me the most,and see your third point is what has me the most confused i had assumed that the fbi were the ones doing the checks currently or would that be different from the current back ground checks we already have?or am i thinking of the NCIS(?) or something along those lines?

on the 24 our part i think that kind of makes sense but not in the way you interpreted it here is how i see it the 24 hour part is currently like the background check system now in that you go buy your gun,you get a background check for some reason lets say you get put on a Hold(for whatever reason) after 3 days its currently legal to go pick the gun up even if they dont ever call back to release the hold,so i see the 24 hour window meaning they are trying to speed up the process due to the backlog but i could be waaaaaaay off base and if im wrong id love to be corrected.

we need to watch this closely to make sure nothing gets added in last minute and thank you for your reply



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


also of note and im glad you brought this up as we do not have concrete proof yet of how this is going to be implemented and senate aids is a very ambiguous term i guess we could try to call reps Toomey or Munchin(the ones allegedly doing this bipartisan measure.

in full agreement the media or at least the press who wrote this one dont seem to really know what they are saying quite yet. thank you for your reply and info on this



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


You had it right private person to person word of mouth sales aren't covered.

Gunshow now have to do background checks.NICS is still done the real question is how evasive they will be.

It says they have to be completed in 2 days don't mean they will be for the first 4 years, after that 4 year period they are suppose to be completed within 24 hours.

Go in buy a gun and take it home the same day?

Long gone.
edit on 10-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I enjoyed reading the compromise on not having a Nat Gun Registry. It made sense. Wait a minute.

Right, the FBI will be handling the expediency of background checks now. The FBI wouldn't actually log who was getting these background checks, who passed [and thus is probably a gun-owner] and who didn't, and store that information somewhere.. i don't know, like.. a secret gun registry?

I feel like more and more these days I don't trust a single word coming from MSM and/or the Government, because if you look hard enough, you can see the wrinkled edge that is hiding the real agenda underneath.

- Fim



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Oh fun, a band aid solution.

Isn't legislating your rights fun?!

I hope people aren't too taken by the dog and pony show about to start in the Senate, cause I can tell you that nothing good will come of it.

~Tenth





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join