Deal reached on background checks?

[Father of four]

I think that one of the reasons we are where we are today is because way too many people accepted asking for the CHL permission instead of refusing it and standing up for all of our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[gcban]

I read the news and don't understand, is it commercial sales only at gun shows and stores or is it everybody but family members? can anyone explain it for me.

Here is the entire press conference (link below, 18 mins) from today. This is pretty much all anybody knows right now. I have watched several newcast this evening and heard 4 different versions of what these guys said. Watch the whole thing for yourself and go from there. Got the TIVO set up to record C-SPAN 2 tomorrow morning. Should be an intersting and heated debate on the Senate floor. Personally I think its all going to be put down in the House if it clears the Senate unless the final draft is only about mental health records to NICS and school safety. That may fly thru both political bodies. -G

<broken link removed>

 

[trainsktg]

I like the part of being able to use our conceal carry instead of waiting for the back ground check to come back.

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember a brief period of time in Oregon when you didn't have to have a background check if you were a concealed license holder.

Personally, even if my memory is incorrect, considering how many times government has already raised the bar on honest citizens, I'd rather not give up some rights for other 'benefits' that could easily be revoked at a later time.

Keith

 

[Father of four]

CHL didn't even exist until somewhere around 1968ish? Look at how much has changed.

 

[Father of four]

<broken link removed> Texas CHL history


"In the United States the history of modern concealed carry started with Georgia. In 1976 that state's governor, Zell Miller, introduced what became the model for later laws. His effort was inspired by an NRA director and former border patrolman, Ed Topmiller. The heart of the law was that the job of administering the shall issue permit process was given to a non-law enforcement, elected official.

Georgia joined a handful of other states allowing concealed carry, including Vermont, where no license is required; New Hampshire, with a 1923 law; Washington, which made issuance almost mandatory in 1961; and Connecticut, where in 1969 a Handgun Review Board was established to minimize arbitrary denials.

The Indiana Sportsmen's Council, assisted by the NRA-ILA, passed a mandatory issuance law in 1980, then had to sue the state police and other agencies and elected officials into compliance.

A trend started, with CHL laws passed in Indiana in 1980, Maine and North Dakota in 1985, and South Dakota in 1986. "


http://www.crimefree.co.za/Role-players/Criminologist/Kopel/RTC-history.htm

 

[Father of four]

A Short History of Concealed Handgun Permits

"Laws prohibiting concealed carrying of handguns without a permit are, in most of the United States, relatively recent. While some statutes from before the Civil War did address concealed carrying, they did so by outlawing it entirely, rather than by setting up a system whereby concealed carrying would be lawful only with a permit. These antebellum statutes usually had no exemptions for sheriffs or other peace officers, even when on duty. [1] During the 1920s and 1930s many states adopted "A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms." This model law, adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and supported by the National Rifle Association, prohibited unlicensed concealed carry.

Recognizing that there were circumstances when at least some civilians would have a legitimate need for concealed carry of a handgun, most states adopted provisions allowing a sheriff, police chief or judge to issue concealed handgun permits. Significantly, such statutes were broadly discretionary; while the law might specify certain minimum standards for obtaining a permit, the decision whether a permit should be issued was not regulated by express statutory standards. [2]

In some parts of the United States, concealed handgun permit statutes were passed for frankly racist reasons, as a method of prohibiting Blacks from carrying arms. "The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied," in the words of a Florida Supreme Court Justice. [3]

While the motivations behind California's concealed handgun statute are not as clearly understood, the effect has been similar. California's legislative research body studied the issue in 1986 and concluded: "The overwhelming majority of permit holders are white males." [4] Because so many victims of violent crime are female or non-white, the discrimination in granting of carry permits is especially hard to justify. [5]

Not every state adopted the Uniform Act. Some states had already enacted their own statutes. [6] Vermont adopted no statute prohibiting concealed carry of handguns, at least partly because of the Vermont Supreme Court's expansive reading of the Vermont Constitution's protections in State v. Rosenthal (1903). [7] Today, Vermont still has no laws prohibiting or regulating concealed carry, except "with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man..." [8]

 

[mosinguy1]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!!! IT IS STILL A STEP IN THE WRONG FREEKIN DIRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Profiteering]

State "this is not a commercial sale. Only selling to friends or neighbors.....wanna be my friend?" in you ad.

Or just ad them to your friends list.
Now where back to the," Proof of Friends Act!"

 

[kumabear17]

I imagine a bunch of CHL holders may consider looking out for themselves when they hear of the easy FFL purchases without background checks anymore though.

This doesn't mean you still wouldn't have to fill out the 4473 and there was supposedly some language in the proposal about changing how the ATF would manage these records - i.e. how long (forever) they would keep them.
For Schumer to offer support to Toomey's bill should worry everyone. I don't understand Senate procedures that well, but if it gets to the floor isn't there the only a 51 vote requirement to ad amendments and pass whatever they finally come up with? Rule One - Never trust a Liberal, also rule two and three....
Butch

 

[Diamondback]

With "friends" like Turncoat Toomey and Manchurian McCain*, who needs enemies?

*Yes, I know there will be a chorus of "but he was a war hero and deserves respect!" No, what he did in Hoa Lo Prison was his DUTY as istructed in the US Fighting Man's Code, nothing more. And even then, everything he's done since LEAVING the service negates whatever good he may have done while in uniform. Personally I think he, his lapdog Grahamnesty, Bad Check Barry, Fuhrer Bloomingidiot and all their minions should be exiled to an island somewhere... St. Helena? Did wonders for keeping Bonaparte bottled up...

 

[Blitzkrieg]

This doesn't mean you still wouldn't have to fill out the 4473 and there was supposedly some language in the proposal about changing how the ATF would manage these records - i.e. how long (forever) they would keep them.
For Schumer to offer support to Toomey's bill should worry everyone. I don't understand Senate procedures that well, but if it gets to the floor isn't there the only a 51 vote requirement to ad amendments and pass whatever they finally come up with? Rule One - Never trust a Liberal, also rule two and three....
Butch

Schumer is a deadly poison snake. Beware all he does

 

[kumabear17]

Here this just came out on the internet. Valid or not we will know later, but the reporter understands the compromise means internet communication regarding a firearm qualifies for a background check..
"Apparently, we are to believe that people who read about a gun for sale on the Internet or in the classified ads, or who buy one at a gun show (the source of about 0.7% of "crime guns," according to a National Institute of Justice study) are more dangerous than prospective buyers who hear about the sale through word of mouth, smoke signals, or carrier pigeons--or those who buy out of the trunks of cars in Chicago."
Worse it appears there are to many CS Reprublicans will to back Paul so there is small chance of a filibuster.
<broken link removed>
With people like the RINO MeCane leading them it appears the Republicans are continuing there loosing streak, but this time Obama fed them before he F'd them. Some improvement.
Butch

 

[bill97024]

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember a brief period of time in Oregon when you didn't have to have a background check if you were a concealed license holder.

You are correct, that's how it was when I first got my CHL, back around 1990 or so.

 

[kumabear17]

Just to rile some of you up some more, CNN is reporting Rick Warrens son committed suicide with a gun purchased off the internet. &#8211; an Internet Sale?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/11/rick-warren-son-bought-unregistered-gun/
(I in no way trying to demean Warren or his son. I don't think I could survive something happening to my sons and one has been in a bad part of the world for six years now.)
My point is farther down in the article one reads the serial number had been scratched off and - unlike CSI - they aren't sure they will be able to read it.
I know in WA some guns do transfer off the internet between citizens living in the same State which is legal here - person to person private sale. It won't be if Toomey's proposal is enacted. If the internet sale was inter-state the Son's purchase was illegal without the FFL regardless.
In that the serial number was removed the transaction was illegal anyway one wants to look at it and no law was going to stop it.
Think any politician has figured that out? No!
Butch

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

The way it reads to me is; background checks at gun shows, gun stores and internet sales like Buds gun store and Gunbroker.com where you are having a gun sent to you.

That's what I have wishfully been thinking. But if they are going to try for anything, I would think they would include sales such as using our classified section here on NWFA. Has anyone seen or have a link to any media stating something that pertains to forums?

 

[kumabear17]

That's what I have wishfully been thinking. But if they are going to try for anything, I would think they would include sales such as using our classified section here on NWFA. Has anyone seen or have a link to any media stating something that pertains to forums?

There hasn't been a written release of what Toomey/Manchin put together that I have found today. I believe tomorrow is when it was to be debated, but you know Congress. They have to pass it to find out what's in it.
I made the point above that there have been lots of discussion that any transaction involving the internet will be an "Internet Sale" requiring an FFL. Just speculation and presented by CNN and WA Post if anyone things that's reliable.

 

[meener777]

I believe that the proposal is to amend the original proposal:

Text of S. 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

with the Toomey amendment:

<broken link removed>


Here is one part that just blows my freaking mind:

"(2) VOLUNTARY BACKGROUND CHECKS.-Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations allowing licensees to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System established under this section for purposes of conducting voluntary preemployment background checks on prospective employees."

 

[Mark W.]

Here is one part that just blows my freaking mind:

"(2) VOLUNTARY BACKGROUND CHECKS.-Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations allowing licensees to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System established under this section for purposes of conducting voluntary preemployment background checks on prospective employees."

When they say Licensees they are talking about FFL dealers being allowed to do a preempolyment background check through NICS to make sure they are not hiring a person not allowed to own a firearm and possibly be the kind of person who might sell to his buddies girl friend knowing the buddy is a felon etc.

Got nothing to do with the general public.

Least ways thats my read on it.