West VA senator Manchin at it again

tennmike

He's reintroducing the failed background check legislation.

http://m.lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2013-04-28/west-virginia-senator-manchin-says-hell-bring-failed-gun-control-legislation

WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the architects of failed gun control legislation says he's bringing it back.

Sen. Joe Manchin on Sunday said he would re-introduce a measure that would require criminal and mental health background checks for gun buyers at shows and online. The West Virginia Democrat says that if lawmakers read the bill, they will support it.

Manchin sponsored a previous version of the measure with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. It failed.

Manchin says there was confusion over what was in the bill.

In the wake of last year's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Congress took up gun control legislation, but it was blocked by supporters of the powerful pro-gun lobby, the National Rifle Association.

Manchin appeared on "Fox News Sunday."

CaliFFL

Damn. At this rate, the price of ammo will never stabilize. :cuss:

Teach

Can they recall that idiot?
Jerry

KENFU1911

Teach wrote: »

Can they recall that idiot?
Jerry

Maybe....but like most serious weapons systems......once they are launched....the just go till they burn out.....Kennedy/Pelosi/Fiendstein....Etc.......Ken

SirGeorgeKillian

If only they put this much effort into passing a budget....

samzhere

I've been criticized here as being somewhat ambivalent regarding background checks and registration of firearms, but a pal of mine recently offered this analogy (and I may have seen it here and forgotten it)...

Let's introduce legislation to do background checks and universal registration and tracking of all Muslims in America. Sure, the percent of Muslims who are terrorists is very tiny, but you never know. Law abiding Muslims will have nothing to worry about anyway.

Which is precisely the same arguments put forth regarding firearm registration, right?

Excellent point of logic, I thought.

Rimfire

SirGeorgeKillian wrote: »

If only they put this much effort into passing a budget....

:agree:

horselips

Has the NRA regraded this Nazi to an "F" yet?

sgtrock21

tennmike wrote: »

He's reintroducing the failed background check legislation.

http://m.lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2013-04-28/west-virginia-senator-manchin-says-hell-bring-failed-gun-control-legislation

WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the architects of failed gun control legislation says he's bringing it back.

Sen. Joe Manchin on Sunday said he would re-introduce a measure that would require criminal and mental health background checks for gun buyers at shows and online. The West Virginia Democrat says that if lawmakers read the bill, they will support it.

Manchin sponsored a previous version of the measure with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. It failed.

Manchin says there was confusion over what was in the bill.

In the wake of last year's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Congress took up gun control legislation, but it was blocked by supporters of the powerful pro-gun lobby, the National Rifle Association.

Manchin appeared on "Fox News Sunday."

Can someone please help me understand the need for background checks regarding online purchase of firearms. Is it not currently a violation of Federal law to ship a firearm directly to a non FFL purchaser? When the purchaser picks up their firearm from the FFL it was shipped to, are they not required to complete a form 4473 and background check? Why are online sales included in these bills if background checks are already required?

bullsi1911

sgtrock21 wrote: »

Can someone please help me understand the need for background checks regarding online purchase of firearms. Is it not currently a violation of Federal law to ship a firearm directly to a non FFL purchaser? When the purchaser picks up their firearm from the FFL it was shipped to, are they not required to complete a form 4473 and background check? Why are online sales included in these bills if background checks are already required?

Because it will crush the local F2F sales. It does not just say "online"- it also includes print publications as well. So, buying out of the Classifieds? Ask the Govt 'Mommy, may I?' Armslist.com? Same thing

olesniper

sgtrock21 wrote: »

Can someone please help me understand the need for background checks regarding online purchase of firearms. Is it not currently a violation of Federal law to ship a firearm directly to a non FFL purchaser? When the purchaser picks up their firearm from the FFL it was shipped to, are they not required to complete a form 4473 and background check? Why are online sales included in these bills if background checks are already required?

Because these laws are written by people who think magazines are ammunition or clips or hand grenades or.............

SirGeorgeKillian

Best part is I buy guns from my FFL and never have to take a background check!

sgtrock21

bullsi1911 wrote: »

Because it will crush the local F2F sales. It does not just say "online"- it also includes print publications as well. So, buying out of the Classifieds? Ask the Govt 'Mommy, may I?' Armslist.com? Same thing

If the term "online" in the bill is addressing advertising and contact by email or social media resulting in legal local F2F sales OK but why would that be included in the bill? I really don't see how the purchaser discovered that a firearm was for sale is a factor. What still confuses me is a statement made by Manchin or Toomey during the recent hearings and broadcast on the news. The statement was that the bill "would close the gunshow, private sale, and online sale loopholes". Was that intended to sway voters who are ignorant of current law or is the senator ignorant of current law?

CaliFFL

sgtrock21 wrote: »

If the term "online" in the bill is addressing advertising and contact by email or social media resulting in legal local F2F sales OK but why would that be included in the bill? I really don't see how the purchaser discovered that a firearm was for sale is a factor. What still confuses me is a statement made by Manchin or Toomey during the recent hearings and broadcast on the news. The statement was that the bill "would close the gunshow, private sale, and online sale loopholes". Was that intended to sway voters who are ignorant of current law or is the senator ignorant of current law?

Yes.

sgtrock21

CaliFFL wrote: »

Yes.

ROFLMAO

sgtrock21

sgtrock21 wrote: »

If the term "online" in the bill is addressing advertising and contact by email or social media resulting in legal local F2F sales OK but why would that be included in the bill? I really don't see how the purchaser discovered that a firearm was for sale is a factor. What still confuses me is a statement made by Manchin or Toomey during the recent hearings and broadcast on the news. The statement was that the bill "would close the gunshow, private sale, and online sale loopholes". Was that intended to sway voters who are ignorant of current law or is the senator ignorant of current law?

On the subject of ignorance of current law I ran into this a couple of times after the 5 day waiting period went into effect. I was in the sporting goods department of a regional discount store and saw a Navy Arms 1863 Springfield .58 sporter rifle hanging on the wall. I asked to check it out and of course "needed" it. The clerk had me complete a 4473??? He then informed me of the 5 day waiting period??? I informed him that the waiting period applied to handguns and did not apply to non fixed ammunition firearms. He informed me that it was store policy. I replied no thank you and left. I found the same rifle in shotgun news. I ordered it. Paid with a postal money order and UPS had it on my doorstep in 5 days. With $10 shipping it was still $20 less than the "discount" store. A couple of years later in a different regional discount store I found a Navy Arms Colt Walker revolver. I had wanted one for years. It was reasonably priced so I said I would take it. Again the clerk informed me of the 5 day waiting period! I again explained that it did not apply to non fixed ammunition firearms. This clerk actually called the state attorney general"s office and was eventually informed that I was correct.