# Manchin-Toomey Background Check Deal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861 "2013-04-16T19:38:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/1 "2013-04-16T19:38:43Z")
I know I’m starting with a question, but this will descend into a debate, but hopefully stay within the current bill under consideration and reasonably possible amendments that may be attached to it. I understand that the compromise extends background checks to guns purchased at gun shows and those purchased online. I suppose gun shows could be defined easily enough. X number of people and Y number of guns within the same Z geographic area. But what is an online purchase? A person already cannot buy privately from someone outside his home state without a dealer and a background check. So this must apply purely to in state purchases. How will that work? If I buy a gun from my brother, but email him the night before and say, “I’ll see you tomorrow at 10am, and bring a couple of boxes of ammo!” did I just make my sale subject to the Manchin-Toomey restriction? Also, what of the possible amendments to the bill? You all know my stance, but I might trade background checks at gun shows in exchange for recognition of my carry permit nationwide: in D.C., Chicago, and NYC. Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Thoughts? And again, can we try to keep it within the realm of the bill? Handgun bans and legal machine guns with no registration aren’t on the table. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/2 "2013-04-16T19:51:17Z")
[Here’s the text](http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968) of the bill. The relevant portion: > [@](#): > > (t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs- > "(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or > "(B) **pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.** So, it seems to me (non-lawyer, of course) that your purchase from your brother would not qualify, the transfer must originate from a listing on the Internet or in a publication. I would love a nationwide carry permit. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/3 "2013-04-16T19:56:15Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I suppose gun shows could be defined easily enough. X number of people and Y number of guns within the same Z geographic area. Yep: > [@](#): > > (7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event’- > (A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and > (B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/4 "2013-04-16T19:58:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > So, it seems to me (non-lawyer, of course) that your purchase from your brother would not qualify, the transfer must originate from a listing on the Internet or in a publication. So once again, the media is misleading. It’s not only online purchasers: it’s “publications” as well. So if someone advertises in the local “Ad Pad” or similar free circular you get at convenience stores, that’s subject to the law as well? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/5 "2013-04-16T20:04:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So once again, the media is misleading. It’s not only online purchasers: it’s “publications” as well. So if someone advertises in the local “Ad Pad” or similar free circular you get at convenience stores, that’s subject to the law as well? That’s my understanding, yes. The intent seems to be put private (non-dealer) transfers in which neither party knows the other through background checks. I can transfer to friends and family, but if it’s someone responding to a print or internet ad, it’ll have to go through a check. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/6 "2013-04-16T20:14:59Z")
As I look further, what’s to stop two people who meet at a gun show from driving off of the property and selling without background checks? ETA: The parking lot would also be okay. That isn’t curtilage. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/7 "2013-04-16T20:28:39Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > As I look further, what’s to stop two people who meet at a gun show from driving off of the property and selling without background checks? > > ETA: The parking lot would also be okay. That isn’t curtilage. Nothing, which is why I plan to set up a seasonally-appropriate beverage stand (lemonade or hot chocolate) just off the “curtilage” of all future gun shows in my state to ease in accomplishing Manchin-Toomey compliant transfers (if it passes, which it won’t) without the dealer transfer fee. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/8 "2013-04-16T20:31:32Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > As I look further, what’s to stop two people who meet at a gun show from driving off of the property and selling without background checks? > > ETA: The parking lot would also be okay. That isn’t curtilage. Again, not a lawyer, but by my reading, nothing stops them. The internet/publication part, t(1)b, includes “intent to transfer/acquire” language, but the gun show part, t(1)a, does not, it seems to apply strictly to the physical location at which the transfer takes place. That said, 1. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding and don’t want criminals to have them, so if a customer at a gun show asked a seller to drive around the block so as to avoid the background check, most would refuse. 1. Under the [Gun Control Act](http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-acquire): > [@](#): > > A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A court might hold that someone ducking the background check in that way qualifies as reasonable cause to believe that the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/9 "2013-04-16T20:53:23Z")
And further it seems that if I see my brother at a gun show, the one I grew up with, the one with no criminal or mental history (in fact, I don’t have a brother at all) we MUST drive off of the curtilage to transfer a gun to each other so as not to be subject to the bill. We could sell to each other anywhere in the state without a check, tomorrow or the day before even at the very same location, but not right now since a gun show is going on. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/10 "2013-04-16T20:58:08Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > A court might hold that someone ducking the background check in that way qualifies as reasonable cause to believe that the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. I don’t necessary agree. There are a lot of people who don’t want their names on a federal form for buying a gun; could be for political or religious reasons. I wouldn’t call that a per se prohibited person. If they said other things, then I might agree. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/11 "2013-04-16T20:59:28Z")
Yeah, it’s really not that much of a change, really. It’s pretty narrowly tailored to affect a specific group of firearm transfers; it’s nothing close to universal background checks. That said, I strongly support the bill’s measures to improve the NICS system. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/12 "2013-04-16T21:13:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That said, I strongly support the bill’s measures to improve the NICS system. I do too, but there is a federalism issue there. Can the feds mandate that the state turn over medical records to them? Who pays? Which records? What illnesses? What privacy concerns? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/13 "2013-04-16T21:31:04Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t necessary agree. There are a lot of people who don’t want their names on a federal form for buying a gun; could be for political or religious reasons. I wouldn’t call that a per se prohibited person. If they said other things, then I might agree. +1 to this. If potential purchaser says, “Do you mind if we go across the street so that this sale doesn’t get added to the evil ATF gun registry and the black helicopters don’t come to get us both once Hillary Clinton is elected?” then I don’t see a reasonable belief that you’re selling to a prohibited person. If, on the other hand, he says, “Hey, look, I’d love to buy your gun, and I’d pay double, but I can’t pass a background check because my good-for-nothing ex-wife lied and told the judge I beat her, so we’d have to go to the Walmart parking lot to make the exchange,” then you probably _do_ have evidence of a reasonable belief. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/14 "2013-04-16T21:53:00Z")
This provision: [QUOTE=Manchin-Toomey] SEC. 128. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION. (a) In General.-Section 926A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "926A. Interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition "(a) Definition.-In this section, the term ‘transport’- "(1) includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental to the transport; and [/QUOTE] is a nice addition to the code, but simply confirms what most legal scholars believe is implicit in the current language anyways. I guess some poor schmo wouldn’t have to be the (easy) test case if the law passed, but we need more than that for gun owners to support it. It’s weak sauce. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/15 "2013-04-16T23:09:15Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t necessary agree. There are a lot of people who don’t want their names on a federal form for buying a gun; could be for political or religious reasons. I wouldn’t call that a per se prohibited person. If they said other things, then I might agree. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > +1 to this. If potential purchaser says, “Do you mind if we go across the street so that this sale doesn’t get added to the evil ATF gun registry and the black helicopters don’t come to get us both once Hillary Clinton is elected?” then I don’t see a reasonable belief that you’re selling to a prohibited person. If, on the other hand, he says, “Hey, look, I’d love to buy your gun, and I’d pay double, but I can’t pass a background check because my good-for-nothing ex-wife lied and told the judge I beat her, so we’d have to go to the Walmart parking lot to make the exchange,” then you probably do have evidence of a reasonable belief. That makes sense as well, just throwing out the possibility that a court might rule otherwise. I’m not informed as to the current case law of that part of the GCA; and that might not be relevant anyway, as if I’m not mistaken Manchin-Toomey would be the first federal law to require a background check when neither party to the transfer is a license holder. > [@jtgain](#): > > I do too, but there is a federalism issue there. Can the feds mandate that the state turn over medical records to them? The answer appears to be “no”. The incentive to create and implement an improvement plan is withholding of federal grants. From the bill: > [@](#): > > "(3) PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.- > "(A) IN GENERAL.-During the 4-year period covered by a 4-year plan established under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall withhold- > "(i) 10 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State does not meet the benchmark established under paragraph (2) for the first year in the 4-year period; > "(ii) 11 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State does not meet the benchmark established under paragraph (2) for the second year in the 4-year period; > "(iii) 13 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State does not meet the benchmark established under paragraph (2) for the third year in the 4-year period; and > "(iv) 15 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State does not meet the benchmark established under paragraph (2) for the fourth year in the 4-year period. > “(B) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A PLAN.-A State that fails to establish a plan under paragraph (1) shall be treated as having not met any benchmark established under paragraph (2).”. > [@jtgain](#): > > Who pays? Federal taxpayers. From the bill: > [@](#): > > SEC. 111. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. > Section 106(b) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended- > (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking “of this Act” and inserting “of the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013”; and > (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: > "(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.- **There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this subsection $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017**. > [@jtgain](#): > > Which records? What illnesses? After reading the bill, it doesn’t appear to make any changes there, so it’s the same criteria as it’s [always been under the GCA:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System) > [@](#): > > These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1] > > - Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year > - Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year > - Is a fugitive from justice > - Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance > - Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution > - Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States > - Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions > - Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship > - Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner > - Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence > > In addition to local, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily contributing information to the NICS Index, the NICS Section receives telephone calls from mental health institutions, psychiatrists, police departments, and family members requesting placement of individuals into the NICS Index. Frequently, these are emergency situations and require immediate attention. Any documentation justifying a valid entry into the NICS Index must be available to the originating agencies.[1] > [@jtgain](#): > > What privacy concerns? Again, seems to be the same as under the GCA. Though the bill does say: > [@](#): > > SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. > Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note). ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/16 "2013-04-17T00:47:12Z")
So if a newspaper runs a print-only classified ad; “gun for sale, call XXX-XXX-XXXX” I can buy it legally, but if they run the same ad online I need a background check? My neighbor can sell me a gun at his garage sale with no background check, but if I see him at a gun show with the same gun, I need a government check to complete the sale? Why? I’m still me, he’s still him, and it’s the same gun. These scenarios will soon be known as the “print ad loophole” and the “garage sale loophole”. Once they’re “closed”, there will be others. Guaranteed. I expect to see the “guy you knew for 30 years loophole”, the “your son’s 16th birthday loophole” and the “your own father” loophole. This won’t stop until you can’t buy a single-shot .22 from your own wife without a government approved DNA check, and maybe not even then. If you ask most people what constitutes “online sales” of guns, you’ll find they’re under the impression that you can buy a gun on the internet and have it shipped to your house. More work from the intentionally deceitful anti-gun crowd. This idiocy needs to stop. Now. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/17 "2013-04-17T01:26:45Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > So if a newspaper runs a print-only classified ad; “gun for sale, call XXX-XXX-XXXX” I can buy it legally, but if they run the same ad online I need a background check? The bill refers to listings on the Internet or in publications, so you’d need the background check for both. > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > My neighbor can sell me a gun at his garage sale with no background check, but if I see him at a gun show with the same gun, I need a government check to complete the sale? Why? I’m still me, he’s still him, and it’s the same gun. Correct. Why? Because the law can’t reasonably have exceptions for if you know a guy or not, how would you implement that in a statute? > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > These scenarios will soon be known as the “print ad loophole” and the “garage sale loophole”. Once they’re “closed”, there will be others. Guaranteed. I expect to see the “guy you knew for 30 years loophole”, the “your son’s 16th birthday loophole” and the “your own father” loophole. This won’t stop until you can’t buy a single-shot .22 from your own wife without a government approved DNA check, and maybe not even then. California already requires a background check for all transfers, so it’s not unheard of. > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > If you ask most people what constitutes “online sales” of guns, you’ll find they’re under the impression that you can buy a gun on the internet and have it shipped to your house. More work from the intentionally deceitful anti-gun crowd. Right, and that’s been illegal since 1968. This bill doesn’t affect interstate transfers, it just applies some of the GCA to some intrastate transfers. This is a manifestation of the general issue that people on the gun-rights side tend to be much more informed about guns and gun laws than people on the gun-control side or those in the middle. > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > This idiocy needs to stop. Now. I don’t know, I like and support this bill. We have all the gun control we need, _if_ it’s enforced. Incentivizing and funding states to actually supply data to the NICS is a good thing. As a law-abiding, responsible gun owner, I want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally incompetent, without costing me my rights. The NICS system achieves that, if it can be run competently. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/18 "2013-04-17T15:15:01Z")
Does anyone think that the Manchin Toomey bill gets past the house even if it gets past the senate? It seems to me that there are a lot of conservative Democrats in the House that practically HAVE to vote against gun control right now (in part, because of how badly the gun control side of the debate has flubbed things). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/19 "2013-04-17T15:21:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Does anyone think that the Manchin Toomey bill gets past the house even if it gets past the senate? > > It seems to me that there are a lot of conservative Democrats in the House that practically HAVE to vote against gun control right now (in part, because of how badly the gun control side of the debate has flubbed things). I don’t think it will, which is a shame, it’s actually a pretty sensible bill, unlike flashy-but-useless junk like an “assault weapon” ban. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/20 "2013-04-17T17:09:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Does anyone think that the Manchin Toomey bill gets past the house even if it gets past the senate? > > It seems to me that there are a lot of conservative Democrats in the House that practically HAVE to vote against gun control right now (in part, because of how badly the gun control side of the debate has flubbed things). My (D) representative here in Utah will vote against it if he wants to continue his political career. It’s dead in the House. It might die in the Senate. The liberals’ own ignorance killed any chance of gun control. Too much (“but then the clips will be all used up” or “Lanza used a full-auto weapon” or “anti-gun legislation”). Next time you guys want to give it a try, why don’t you start by learning what the hell you’re talking about (speaking to D’s generally, not Damuri directly)? ETA: which part of it is a “sensible bill” in your eyes? Reid’s bill? Feinstein’s AWB? Schumer’s standard-capacity mag ban? Manchin-Toomey’s background-check expansion? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861.md?page=2)