Senators: Bipartisan deal reached on expanding gun background checks

reply to post by buni11687


Exactly. This bill, with the information available, changes nothing for anyone. A complete null set.

Yet some dullards applaud it as closing the alleged and misunderstood "loophole"?

Here's an idea, how about we pass a bill that makes water wet. Finally somebody is doing something about the dry loophole.

reply to post by Fimbulvetr

www.casebriefs.com...

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions.

thank you for your reply and sorry it took me so long to respond i had to go get food for my dogs.
of interest is i found this while searching for info it seems that according to Printz v. United States state officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws so this was good news(at least thats how i interpreted it but i could be woefully wrong.

you bring up the biggest fear of gun owners that this will lead to a registry either legal or otherwise and i to am skeptical that they will truly destroy the records as i an not inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt as far as trusting them to protect our anonymity and as this en.wikipedia.org...

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

prohibits the federal government from creating a gun registry it seems that they are trying to do a back door run to try to create one on a technicality.again thank you for your reply

reply to post by seabag


thank you for your replly and yeah i feel the same way you do

politicians were not comming for your guns......until we change our mind after election and decide to come after your guns...... makes me angry ill add a few videos for evidence sake

www.youtube.com... Biden "Obama is not taking my Beretta!".....but he can have yours!

www.youtube.com... obama in 2008 i want to be clear no one is coming for your guns..........(tell after i get re-elected!) gee i wonder why americans are thinking obama is trying to come after their guns......

and to directly respond to your video the only way Fienstine is gonna stop coming for our guns is when she dies of old age baring that this is her crusade

www.youtube.com...
fast forward to 2013 we must act for the children of course!

reply to post by neo96


exactly not that im complaining but it would seem that they have no real intention of actually doing anything to stop the "wrong kind of people" from getting guns as this act will just lead to more sales they cant track,i am of the opinion that all this is is lip service to the anti-gunners who have no idea how guns and guns transactions work to create the illusion that they are doing anything, which to me = the fact they know they cant win and are trying to safe face with their voting block.

reply to post by seabag


ya hit the nail on the head Seabag with that biden quote they know it wont do anything its just to appease their voting block to try to stave off getting voted out of office and having the republucans take the senate just like they took the house the last time the democrats were foolish enough to try infringement last time! thank you for your reply i always welcome hearing from you on the forums

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


and what is exactly the gun loop hole? as far as i know (i have honestly never been to a gun show my self) all guns sold by an FFL holder had to go through a background check and that only private individuals could sell guns with out background checks so to me it seems that the bulk of the people who have booths at gun shows(again i have never been to one so if i am wrong i apologize for my ignorance) are either FFL holders or those that possess the less common Curio and relic/collector permits(pretty sure background checks apply for these if they were made before 1898 or something)

on the criminals will always get guns we are in full agreement just like the war on drugs(not advocating for drug use just saying its mostly a failure) and prohibition on alcohol from back in the day all they end up doing is feeding and growing the black markets for such things

thank you for your reply

reply to post by seabag


thank you for pointing that and your reply out good sir! its been echoed by pretty much all involved with out a national registry they cant know who is selling what and as currently registries are illegal( does not mean they don't have one somewhere) this measure is just a feel good legislation that relies on most but not all the anti-gunners lack of knowledge on how gun sales and what not actually work,they are just trying to stave off getting voted out of office come next election cycle.

who ever got them not allowed to have a registry saved us a lot of problems down the line!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


from my interpretation of the confusing law you either can not advertise online at all with out a back ground check(not entirely sure) OR you can sell them online but not pay money to do such a thing if that makes any sense.

example you have your buddy we well call him Jim bob come over to see your gun collection,as long as you dont have any of them listed for sale online you can hand him the gun for cash right their with out a background check and that would be legal with the converse being if you invited jim bob over in response to an add he saw online for example on gunbroker or armslist and paid to have it posted(or newspaper classified) that would require a background check under this new law(if it passes) i hope that makes sense(coffy has yet to kick in )

thank you for your reply

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


always pay cash and only cash for your guns and ammo purchases and then they cant know anything,but if you use a credit card they could in theory follow the paper trail but i do get what you are trying to say that they could in theory follow it via electronic records

reply to post by seabag


all of my hand guns and long guns that i own personally(even my black powder revolvers) have their serial numbers logged in a book i keep in my safety deposit box with a separate copy in a folder in my garage with photos from all angles of these weapons(an no they aren't on my facebook or anywhere else digitaly) i have also gone one step further and using and engraving tool put the last 4 of my SSN on the receivers of my weapons and i would recommend gun owners take contingencies,for my firearms that were made with out serial numbers(yes its legal if they came that way btw) i have taken extra photos of the cartoches and markings and as my gun came from the remmington factory in 1912 with no serials its legal

i was not aware that not many stolen guns were returned so it makes me feel better about my contingency plans thank you for your reply and teaching me something i did not know before today

reply to post by conspiracytheoristIAM


(sarcasam) my gosh how dare you bring logic into an internet forum! it's madness and you will break the internet ! _javascript:icon('')

on a more serious note i am impressed that they went through that fast as for me i usually get "delayed" even though i have a clean record and originally was confused about it but from what my gun store says it is because i i moved from California to Montana and they have to try to access California records,so the process is a bit different for me in Montana where normally you pay for your gun and walk right out with it,i personally don't mind the wait but i can see how others would not be a fan of it thank you for your reply as i know very little about gun show process vs gun store and i also wonder with the blacklog of background checks if it would still be that quick for you in this climate

reply to post by buni11687


thank you for the additional link! and yes you are correct,this is all feel good legislation to make it look like they are doing something when in fact they aren't really doing jack.
This is all to try to save their political behinds because they know gun owners will remember who tried to sell us out and we WILL vote them out the precedent is already been seen once

on a personal and off topic nature is that a bearded dragon in your avatar or some other cool kind of lizzard?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by buni11687

 

Exactly. This bill, with the information available, changes nothing for anyone. A complete null set.

Yet some dullards applaud it as closing the alleged and misunderstood "loophole"?

Here's an idea, how about we pass a bill that makes water wet. Finally somebody is doing something about the dry loophole.

If this bill manages to go through (Im not sure how it's going to go over in the House), hopefully this shuts up the gun grabbers for a bit. They'll run around cheering, while they actually havent done anything.

Hopefully prices on ammo and gun settle by then.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

on a personal and off topic nature is that a bearded dragon in your avatar or some other cool kind of lizzard?

Im not sure what kind he is. I found him running around my garage last summer.

few more links for people to try to give a better perspective

www.rollcall.com...

Four senators may have signed on to a gun background check deal Wednesday, but only two showed up for the news conference — in part because Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Patrick J. Toomey’s public support for the bill hinged on not having to stand next to Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York.

so it seems that even this was hard for them to get they know we are winning and they are going to fail now its gonna shift it to saving the jobs they have for the time being but we as gun owners have a long memory!


dailycaller.com... and a response from senator Toomey on how he does not consider background checks gun control.......

WASHINGTON — Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on Wednesday called for an expansion of required background checks for those who want to buy guns by arguing that the proposal does not actually constitute “gun control.” Read more: dailycaller.com...

while i do not agree with him on this i will respect his right to freedom of speech to look like an idiot in front of the whole nation.

also notice how absolutely nothing is being brought up on the real issue the mental health issue(which is near and dear to me as i have bi polar and own my guns legally as I have not been ruled to be adjudicated as a mentally defective ) seems they are determined to do absolutely nothing that would actually help things like looking into SSRI's roles in an alarming amount of these "mass shootings"

and sorry that this page has mostly my reapplies on it as i strive to reply to all who post in my threads regardless of if i agree with you and if i have left any one out i apologize

Originally posted by SpaDe_
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.

I'm not sure if someone else already said this, but you are not allowed to have a firearm shipped to your house, regardless of where you purchased it. That is the law right now, and that would continue to be the law if this new bill passes.

If you purchase a gun online it must be shipped to one of your local gun stores, a licensed Firearms dealer, where they will do the background check, check your ID, etc etc etc.

It's even illegal for private parties to ship guns to each other, shipping a gun across state lines without having it shipped to a licensed Firearms dealer is a felony.

So there is no INCREASE in possibility for baddies to get, but at the same time there is no decrease either. This bill is pointless. While I would be 100% against the idea of background checks for 100% of gun sales, at least requiring background checks for all private sales would somewhat limit the amount of nefarious characters getting guns. I'd be totally against it, but at least it would make sense. This bill will accomplish absolutely nothing other than to piss off legal gun owners.

This isn't them compromising, this is the idiot democrats knowing that nobody supports them, and to save face they basically made a bill that copies our current laws nearly completely, so they change nothing, but to their ignorant fanboys they can claim they "fought the good fight against law abiding gun owners" while the republicans know the dems didn't gain a single inch with this stupid bill.

reply to post by James1982


you are mostly correct but their are exceptions and they are as follows:
1. you possess a curio and relic fire arms permit/license and have correct permits,then it is legal to get a gun shipped to your door assuming it meets the criteria

2.you are buying a black powder fire arm either original or replica they will ship those from Cabelas for example to your front door with no permits required or even a background check

3. you are a class three dealer(unsure if class 3 or AOW's can be shipped this way) or posses a federal fire arms license then they at least as far as i can remember can ship weapons to and from their homes and or places of business

but aside from those few exceptions your post was spot on thank you for your reply and hit the nail on the head so to speak for the fact that democrats are just in scramble mode to save their jobs

Internet sales ALREADY require sale to go through a Licensed dealer who does a background check......

Gun show sales ALREADY require a background check if you buy it from a dealer there.......

What changes? Why bother with all this for something that already exists ?!?!?

So if I walk up and say "hey dude you want to buy my gun it's legal but if I put an ad in the paper to sell it I have to do a background check (it's advertised)

All these people are freaking idiots who are doing absolutely nothing to curb crazy people from committing violence. But they spend all this time and money to do nothing just because it makes people who don't know an assault rifle from a whiffle bat feel better about themselves......

Whenever I see the words "Bipartisan Deal" coming out of DC, I know the American people are about to get screwed. Has anyone ever seen a "bipartisan deal" that expanded the rights and freedoms of American Citizens?

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

only the one percenters Mr Doom
only the one percenters

Why don't you guys just admit you overreacted?
They aren't coming for you guns so they can install socialism.

Or keep sitting in your bunker polishing your guns, saying "my precious, we'll be ready when they come."