What was the problem with the background check amendment?

[krispos42]

Was there a "poison pill" section or something? Anybody heard anything?

[SummerSnow]

1. Yes there was a problem with the background check amendment..

Obama wanted it, period.

[gejohnston]

2. I do know that

the SAF supported it until the last minute.
Pink Pistols opposed it because it did not allow for domestic partners, at least until marriage equality happens.

FWIW, here is David Kopel's take.
http://www.volokh.com/author/davek/

[Pullo]

3. I think things just became too polarized

Not R and D necessarily, more like gun control vs gun rights. Neither side wanted to see the other get anything passed. There were a couple of amendments that could probably have made it to 60 votes in a vacuum.

[Atlatl]

4. It wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook or Aurora or Tuscon.

Sandy Hook was the rationale for the bill but it would not have stopped it.

They needed to do more than just push for gun control to prevent stuff like this from happening again but with Schumer-Feinstein and their anti-gun hysterics taking precedence over everything else...what can you do.

[arcane1]

5. Paranoid idiots were whipped into a fake frenzy because it might lead to slightly fewer gun sales

The NRA represents businesses, not gun owners. They have to make sure sales increase, that demand remains high. Background checks might cause a shiver in their stock price. We can't have that!

[benEzra]

17. Meh...

A well-written background check bill (background check on transfer of ownership, not a transfer ban) with an ironclad criminal-penalties guarantee against registration, would have probably passed easily prior to the hatefest-and-spittle-flinging contest that the "debate" degenerated into. After the demonization began, even a well-written bill would have had trouble, and none of the proposals were well written.

From a business standpoint, a gun shop would make more money selling me more smaller magazines (low-capacity magazines cost about the same to make and distribute as regular magazines, but you have to buy more of them), and gun shop business would be increased rather than decreased if all sales had to go through gun shops. Those provisions inconvenience gun owners, not gun/accessory sellers. But since gun owners (and not gun sellers) are the big voting bloc here, it's the views of gun owners that count the most.

FWIW, NSSF is the gun industry lobby, not NRA, though they both opposed the current bills, as were most hunting-focused groups.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. In simple language...

...there's too many dicks on both sides.

[Pullo]

7. Best answer yet n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Thanks

these short-lived moments of clarity are few and generally gone by morning.

[kudzu22]

9. Toomey-Manchin would have actually done some good things

for gun owners, such as buying handguns in any state and not needing background check if you already have a state-issued permit of some kind. It'd save me a few bucks on each purchase and open my shopping options a bit.

The problem, I think, was the national registry lurking in there. It's not in there specifically, and in fact it purports to ban a registry, but it only prevents the Attorney General from building one. Nothing in there about DHS or HHS building one from data they collect. If the language preventing the registry were a bit stronger, I think it would have passed, and probably passed the House too.

[quadrature]

10. the registry .nt

nt

[rrneck]

11. It wouldn't work.

Support for it was soft on the left and motivated against it on the right.

[era veteran]

12. Background checks should have been focus

Energy , time, and moment wasted on 'bans' etc.
Would have liked a stronger bill. This one better than now but gun sales were still wide open.

[jeepnstein]

13. It's just a lack of trust.

Just look at what some states are proposing. And who is involved in those bans. It doesn't help when some rising star in the Democrat Party goes around talking about bans and seizures. The rhetoric driving the ban movement is just too heated.

I agree that making NICS checks available to private sellers is a very good thing. I have no doubt that what would have been acceptable to the President would have been something very different. And that's the problem. There's just no trust that new legislation won't be yet another taking of our rights. In a day and age where we can't rely on our elected officials to protect our workplace, our pensions, our Civil liberties, or much of anything else it comes as no surprise that many don't trust them at all. Both parties work for the wealthy benefactors who pay their bills. The rest of us are just a problem that they need to manage. We've been lied to so much that many of us have come to expect lies to be the standard issue from Washington.

Politics in America is just too heated for it's own good.

[benEzra]

14. Overreaching by Schumer et al from the get-go, followed by an incompetently written compromise.

The first bill out of the gate (Schumer's bill) would have made it a 5-year Federal felony for a gun owner in any domestic relationship other than heterosexual marriage to let their significant other shoot any of their guns (except at a corporate shooting range), or to leave home for more than a week without removing every single gun from their house first (because otherwise the absence would be considered a 'transfer' for the purposes of the law. It would have been a 5-year felony for me to shoot my girlfriend's .22 at her place, or for her to shoot any gun I own.

The second version (Manchin-Toomey) was incompetently written and would have accidentally gutted some key protections in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act and the current Federal background-check law, from a close reading of it.

The overreaching by Bloomberg and his sockpuppets with regard to gun and magazine bans, the downright wacky NY SAFE act, and the Colorado gun-and-magazine ban, Biden bashing nonhunters and whatnot, etc. etc. also got the gun-owning grassroots active like I've never seen it since 1994.

I think a better-written version of Manchin-Toomey could have easily passed before the anti-gun-owner hatefest, but not now.

[Straw Man]

19. Proving it.

ezra: (Schumer's bill) would have made it a 5-year Federal felony for a gun owner in any domestic relationship other than heterosexual marriage to let their significant other shoot any of their guns (except at a corporate shooting range),

No it would not have; prove it.

It would have been a 5-year felony for me to shoot my girlfriend's .22 at her place, or for her to shoot any gun I own.

No it would not have; prove it.

SEC. 202. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

Bold above refers to a transfer through an FFL -- which, unless you carry such person in your pocket, is often not feasible.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

‘(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

So not a same-sex partner unless the particular state recognizes gay marriage.

‘(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;

‘(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if --

‘(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;

‘(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and

‘(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

Can't be in the borrower's home or anywhere else; has to be in the lender's home. So actually no, it wouldn't be a felony to shoot your girlfriend's gun at her place, but it would be a felony for her to shoot yours. At her place, that is.

This would appear to cover house-sitting situations, but only up to one week. What do you do if you have a two-week vacation? Sell your firearms? Have them all legally transferred to your house-sitter until you return and then have them transferred back?

‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--

‘(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;

‘(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and

‘(iii) while hunting or trapping, if--

‘(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;

‘(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and

‘(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

So cannot apply to any informal recreational shooting anywhere other than the property of the current owner of the firearm.

--http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s374/text

[Paul E Ester]

15. Harry Reid Flip flopping

What Kind of 3D chess was that?

[Pullo]

16. He had to vote 'NO' on Toomey-Manchin to have the oppotunity to bring it back up this session.

It's a procedural thing.