Ammo For Sale

« « Hey, you, stop contacting your congressmen. And congressmen, stop listening to your constituents | Home | Senate advances gun bill » »

A republican gun control bill

So, a couple of Republicans helped “reach a deal” on the supposedly inevitable gun deal by proposing their own bill. The press even calls the bill “meaningful”. Except that a cursory reading of it tells me that the bill will:

  • Require background checks at gun shows, except among private sellers.
  • It would also require background checks for guns purchases online.
  • Well, great, we need laws like that. In fact, we need them so much that that is already the law. Mind you, none of this would make schools any safer or prevent criminals and mentally ill from getting guns and so forth. The bill closes loopholes, apparently. Loopholes that don’t actually exist. But it’s something. And we must do something. Even if it’s stupid. And we get bonus points for doing the same stupid thing again! Background checks have exactly nothing to do with Sandy Hook, wherein the killer used the “shoot your mom in the face and steal her guns” loophole.

    The anti-gun people aren’t happy about it. But they’re never happy about anything. The NRA says let’s talk about Obama instead and not this bill. And it looks like they do not approve.

    Anyway, here details of the bill. And here’s some analysis.

    Now, it looks like there is some substance to the bill but none of it is the “closing loopholes” stuff the press is mentioning. Shhh, don’t tell them. But the bill “clarifies” that submitting medical records to the NICS does not violate HIPAA. So, we’ll have a crazy person database, I guess?

    Other things that got my attention:

    It asks states to do their jobs and report data. Ok, good.

    Dealers may voluntarily run checks and snoop on people who don’t buy guns err perform a check on employees. I don’t inherently oppose this but I can see it being abused.

    Looks to also expand peaceable journey laws but I bet NY still doesn’t comply with the law there.

    Importantly, it looks to pave the way for internet sales. It allows them and will allow dealers to do out of state checks.

    So far, I’m a fan. But we’ll see.

    28 Responses to “A republican gun control bill”

    1. John Richardson Says:

      Frankly the only thing I see decent in what has been discussed so far is that it will allow out of state pistol purchases.

      The rest, meh.

    2. Rabbit Says:

      I think that adding a ‘crazy person database’ is going to bring about a significant legal challenge via HIPAA. I also foresee a large portion of antigun folk gleefully rubbing their hands to expand ‘crazy person database’ to include anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti-anxiety medication (think Valium), prescription sleep aid (Ambien, Lunesta, Halcyon) or dopamine/serotonin reuptake inhibitor (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Serzone, Cymbalta) or tricyclicnon-tricyclic antidepressant (Wellbutrin, among others). Given the possible side-effects of other medications, I could see the possibility that even Chantix and Lyrica could be included as disqualifiers.

      Camel’s nose and all.

    3. Wes S. Says:

      One big problem is that the bill apparently allows doctors to flag gun owners in the NICS without even telling the patient he’s doing it…and there’s no due process provisions to protect patients at all. No shield against potential mischief or even a misunderstanding.

      Which means it’s up to the patient to “prove” he’s sane – which will likely take prolonged and expensive legal action – and the first clue any prospective patient might have that he’s been flagged will be a failed NICS check if he’s lucky.

      Or a midnight visit from a SWAT team on a gun confiscation mission “for your own good,” if he isn’t.

    4. TigerStripe Says:

      I don’t like it. The most likely reason for the Toomey involvement is the Obama and 60 Minutes pressure led to calls to Toomey’s office and he wanted the heat to dissipate.
      I can see statist Republicans liking this as much as Dems. If you are someone or live with someone taking any of the types of meds mentioned by Rabbit, be prepared for that midnight visit… TS

    5. rickn8or Says:

      Rabbit, are those the same drugs that are “not a factor” in the majority of these mass slayings??

    6. Mr Evilwrench Says:

      Man, I have a lot I could say here. I’m not going to.

    7. Cargosquid Says:


      “I also foresee a large portion of antigun folk gleefully rubbing their hands to expand ‘crazy person database’ to include anyone who has ever been” INTERESTED in owning guns…..supported the Constitution….. supported the 2nd Amendment….

      We know that they already think we’re crazy.

    8. Rabbit Says:

      Yes, those are the same meds that are indicted, and are shown to have been taken by a majority of the perpetrators in these mass slayings. Given the numbers of people who are, or have been, prescribed these medications versus the number of people taking them who have twisted off and walked into a disarmed victim zone with mayhem aforethought, I’d take the side of the equation that says the medications are helpful to people who may have a serotonin/dopamine reuptake issue which can cause mild to moderate depression, or have problems with anxiety, panic attacks, or sleep issues. We all know people who take them whether we’re aware of the fact they do or not. I’m not here to say that they’re safe and effective 100% of the time, by no means. I’m on y’all’s side with this, really I am. Some people seem to not be wired to spec to live in normal civilized society, and it seems that throwing the Physician’s Desk Reference at them makes the pot boil faster. Those may be the subset of spree killers, whether pharmaceuticals trip a switch or a quirk of hereditary genetics or watching TeleTubbies backwards on 8x speed does it, I don’t know. Before “kinder, gentler society” took root, I presume those sorts were dealt with early when the signs were noted, either with an application of the Law of Gravity off a cliff or set adrift on an ice floe. As for me, I want my elected representatives to quit voting on the size of the hammer they want to hit me with when I don’t want to be hit at all.

    9. Jim W Says:

      If we could actually strongarm something really pro-gun through with a “concession” that basically gave up nothing, it would easily sail through the republican house. Also, unless the republicans are asleep at the wheel during confrence comittee, not much opportunity for sabotage by anti-gun forces.

      That being said, I don’t think Reid will allow something that blatantly unfavorable to Obama through. Though I’m not entirely certain Reid and Obama are completely aligned as far as agendas are concerned.

    10. Chris from AK Says:

      Chuck Schumer wrote this POS and we won’t be able to see the text until it is introduced on the floor as an amendment.

      They’ll have to pass it to see what’s inside it, I guess.

      Screw that noise. It looks like we are getting very little, and in return Schumer gets to define you giving a buddy a rifle at a class as a “gun show” (as the range costs $$$) or an “internet sale” (as you texted your buddy on a smart phone).

      I want at least 48 hours to study the bill text before drawing ANY conclusions. Schumer wants us on a boxcar or in a ditch. His verbage simply cannot be trusted.

    11. Jim W Says:

      I dunno. My feeling is that anything authored by Schemer is going nowhere. I don’t even think that the 2014 dems can do anything but vote against it. No way they get 60 votes for actually get a vote on Schumer’s amendment.

      One thing, which I think would be acceptable, would be to do a bill that mandates background checks for online purchases of firearms… The new procedure would be
      1) manufacturer/distributor/FFL selling the gun online makes the background check at the time of purchase
      2) he bills the customer
      3) and then ships the gun directly to the purchaser via UPS/FedEx/USPS

      It would be just like the C&R setup, only the purchaser wouldn’t have to be an FFL.

    12. Shootin' Buddy Says:

      Couple of Republican?

      Ummm, no, Manchin is a Democrat from West Virginia.

    13. wizardpc Says:

      It’s a trap!

    14. dan Says:

      I’m reading things that say that peaceable journey is being attacked in this bill. From Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.

    15. Frank W. James Says:

      One thing I read yesterday about this said the burden of proof would be moved from the state to the individual if they are traveling through an area where the firearm they possess is illegal in that area. They would have to prove they were just traveling through. Formerly, the bill said the state had to prove they weren’t.

      If this is indeed the case, then I’m strongly against it as this is going to be a “Gotcha!!”…

      All The Best,
      Frank W. James

    16. Crawler Says:

      Knowing that media have been giving their marching orders to echo damn-near 24/7 that more gun control laws are needed to stave off the next Newtown, I seriously doubt that the despicable political vermin in D.C. will come up with any common sense legislation that would stop or deter the next mentally unstable coward that wants to murder sleeping innocent and lawful people, steal their firearms and go to the nearest elementary school to mass-murder innocent and unguarded children.

      I don’t trust these political ne’er-do-wells (especially Chuckie Schumer), and yes, “It’s a trap”.

      [As an aside, it was no surprise to me that my senators, Lamar “Let’s confirm all political activists with zero judicial experience for Supreme Court Justices” Alexander and Bob “I’m staying out of this controversy” Corker, chose not to join the fourteen other senators that championed our inherent rights by threatening a filibuster…]

    17. Mr Evilwrench Says:

      Well, maybe you were passing through, but we stopped you, so now you aren’t passing through, and you’re in possession of an illegal weapon, so you’re going to be “not passing through” for the next 10 years, and leaving without your weapon or any possibility of getting another one. So simple, so easy.

    18. Jake Says:

      It’s a trap!


      Require background checks at gun shows, except among private sellers.

      I wouldn’t assume that’s true. One article you linked to says that, but it’s not actually a quote, and we can’t trust the MSM to report accurately on this. Also, most sources I’ve seen don’t say that. What they do say – and what Toomey’s website says – is that “Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks” [emphasis mine].

      It sounds to me very much like private sales at gun shows will be required to go through background checks, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the listed exemptions won’t count at gun shows, either.

    19. Kristophr Says:

      rickn8or: The cart is being put before the horse here.

      The drugs did not cause the crazy person.

      The crazy person was put on the drugs to control his behavior. Crazy person stops taking meds, goes completely clock-tower, and then the meds get blamed.

    20. Bill Says:

      I’m constantly amazed at the ignorance of people when it comes to medications. Saying that antidepressant meds create the monster is exactly akin to saying that antibiotics create the pneumonia, or that chemotherapy creates the cancer!

      The people are on the meds BECAUSE the monster is there, and they have demonstrated some inability to deal with it. To then blame the meds when the monster escapes is ludicrous.

      There MAY be some tiny percentage of people who react in an unpredictable way to the medication, (we are dealing with brain chemistry here, after all) and go off the deep end because of the meds. BUT…by and large, society has seen a huge benefit from the meds.

      AND….no one is taking these meds against their will. So if you feel that people have a right to ingest whatever they want to ingest, then the meds fit that bill also.

    21. rickn8or Says:

      Kristophr, Rabbit, I think we’re all in strong agreement here. The meds themselves won’t be an issue until after legislation is in place to suspend CCWs, etc. for users, THEN it will be mentioned that “the spree killers were using them, YOU’RE using them, so YOU’RE not to be trusted. Anymore.”

      I’m sure they help the people that need them when taken as competently prescribed. BUT we cannot force the people that need them to take them, nor regulate how they take them. (And I’m not sure I’d want to live in a country where we could.)

      I’m just fed up with AR-15s and 30-round mags getting the blame after every failed Gun-Free Zone shooting. (After all, “the spree killers owned them, YOU own them, so YOU’RE not to be trusted. Anymore.”)

      Fed up with Schumer and McCarthy trotting out the same laundry list of prohibitions after every shooting and RINOs thinking they can out-deal the Devil.

    22. Bubblehead Les Says:

      Useless Bill. Why, well, the “Private Sellers Clause” for one. At least in Ohio, we have that. Take your guns to the Show, put up the “NOT a Dealer” sign, sell guns. No NICS Check required. And don’t forget all those people walking the aisles with a Sign in the Barrel.

      Hell, I just bought a Smith Model 28 Highway Patrolman 3 weeks ago from a guy carrying it in his hand. All we had to do was see each others Ohio Driver’s License and swap Money!

      And let’s not forget the Car Trunk Sales at the Show, the “Stop by my House when you’re done Sales” and the “You brought that Gun with you this time?” between the Dealers BEFORE the Show starts.

      Useless. Just more Political Theater.

    23. Ron W Says:

      If any of this makes it out of the Senate to the House, the Speaker SHOULD say, we’ll take this up for consideration ONLY AFTER we have a full accounting for “Fast and Furious”.

    24. Jim Says:

      I guarantee you that “internet sales” is not what you and I consider internet sales. It will mean two people who meet online to agree to a private sale (i.e. classifieds such as Armslist). Mark my words.

      There is a reason we have not been shown the language. They are trying to outlaw private transfers that go unrecorded in the books. This closes the “gunshow” loophole, and creates a new boogieman of “internet sales.” From what I’ve read, the only private transactions possible will be between family members, and “acquaintances,” whatever the statute decides that’s supposed to mean…

      The Republicans do not know how to play chess, nor have enough of them reads Rules by Radicals. This is all out war, ladies and gentlemen.

    25. Bill Says:

      Don’t drink the cool-aid. It is a trap. All the points discussed about this bill are based on what some polititian of some flavor has said and of course polititians never mislead or lie. And of course most of them have no clue what they are talking about anyway. I called my congress critters and told them to vote no!

    26. Snackeater Says:

      How do you purchase a firearm online w/o submitting to a background check? I’ve bought several online and I always had to have a background check–not by the seller but by the FFL the seller had to mail it to who then transferred it to me. And every gun I’ve bought at a gun show–from a licensed dealer–required passing a background check first.

      No, this is just a way to record all private sales, and we all know to what end it will be used. It seems innocuous but it’s a trojan horse, and we will truly regret it if it’s allowed to pass.

    27. rickn8or Says:

      “…the Speaker SHOULD say, we’ll take this up for consideration ONLY AFTER we have a full accounting for “Fast and Furious”.

      “And Behghazi.”

    28. xyhpdq Says:

      If the top-o’-the-hour NPR news briefs on my music station of choice are any indication of what’s in this bill, ALL private sales will require a background check. At least, that’s the way they’re making it sound. And, by God, if I didn’t know any better I’d say they almost sound happy about it.

    Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

    Uncle Pays the Bills

    Find Local
    Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges