# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/21 "2013-04-17T17:15:50Z")
I don’t think you get to decry liberal ignorance of guns in the fact of the utter hypocrisy of the other side. “We just need to enforce existing laws”, they cry, while forgetting to mention existing laws aren’t enforced because they defunded the ATF and state firearms enforcement. The tone of this thread seems to be, “well, why bother if there are still ways around the measure?” By that logic, we might as well repeal gun sale restrictions entirely, since there are currently ways around those. ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/22 "2013-04-17T17:18:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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? I was strictly speaking of the Manchin-Toomey bill; expanded background checks and an incentive and funding system to improve NICS. Both measures are sensible to me, they achieve legitimate aims through legitimate means. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/23 "2013-04-17T17:32:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t think you get to decry liberal ignorance of guns … Sure I do. When Barack Obama makes ridiculous claims like Lanza used a full-auto weapon, and Bloomberg doesn’t understand the fundamental difference between a machine gun and the “assault weapons” he’s trying to ban, not only does it open them up to some much-deserved ridicule, but it undermines the wider gun-control movement, which has made it a point to prey on ignorance (like that of Obama and Bloomberg). > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > … defunded the ATF … I wish that were true. The ATF _should_ be defunded for Fast & Furious, but unfortunately, it hasn’t happened. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/24 "2013-04-17T19:46:49Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > California already requires a background check for all transfers, so it’s not unheard of. Unless the law has changed recently in CA, inter-familial transfers of long guns require no background check, or paperwork whatsoever. I believe this is changed for 2014 and registration will be required, but no background check. For pistols, I believe only registration and a HSC is required, but no background check for inter-familial. And C&R the rules are different too. I believe it is cash and carry if you have the right license. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/25 "2013-04-17T19:54:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Unless the law has changed recently in CA, inter-familial transfers of long guns require no background check, or paperwork whatsoever. I believe this is changed for 2014 and registration will be required, but no background check. For pistols, I believe only registration and a HSC is required, but no background check for inter-familial. And C&R the rules are different too. I believe it is cash and carry if you have the right license. You are correct, there are some exceptions, including immediate family. Good catch. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/26 "2013-04-17T20:44:43Z")
Ding-Dong! The witch is dead!!! [In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795377-in-blow-to-gun-control-backers-background-check-compromise-falls-6-votes-short?lite) ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/27 "2013-04-17T20:47:35Z")
If it passes, I’m fine with that. I’ve never NOT undergone a background check, and it’s no big deal. Sure, it adds a few bucks to the sale, but so what? What’s another $25 on a $500 purchase? If it doesn’t pass, that’s fine too. I’m not super invested in this like some people are. As gun control measures go, this one is nothing special. That said, this won’t be the end of it, because the only way to enforce this law is to reference something that confirms that the firearm was obtained legally. That something is a registration list, and THAT is something I have qualms with. But this law as proposed isn’t anything for me to get crazy about. It’ll stop a few sales and it’ll give some extra coin to FFL holders. Big deal. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/28 "2013-04-17T20:48:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Ding-Dong! The witch is dead!!! > > [In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795377-in-blow-to-gun-control-backers-background-check-compromise-falls-6-votes-short?lite) Excellent… ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/29 "2013-04-17T20:52:13Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > If it passes, I’m fine with that. I’ve never NOT undergone a background check, and it’s no big deal. Sure, it adds a few bucks to the sale, but so what? What’s another $25 on a $500 purchase? > > If it doesn’t pass, that’s fine too. I’m not super invested in this like some people are. As gun control measures go, this one is nothing special. That said, this won’t be the end of it, because the only way to enforce this law is to reference something that confirms that the firearm was obtained legally. That something is a registration list, and THAT is something I have qualms with. But this law as proposed isn’t anything for me to get crazy about. It’ll stop a few sales and it’ll give some extra coin to FFL holders. Big deal. I was more interested in the portion of the bill that would have improved the NICS, which is badly needed, because the various involved governments have made a hash of it. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/30 "2013-04-17T20:53:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Ding-Dong! The witch is dead!!! > > [In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795377-in-blow-to-gun-control-backers-background-check-compromise-falls-6-votes-short?lite) Outstanding. ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/31 "2013-04-17T21:02:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I was more interested in the portion of the bill that would have improved the NICS, which is badly needed, because the various involved governments have made a hash of it. Oh well. Do you have the text of the Manchin-Toomey amendment? I know that the underlying S. 649 had other objectionable provisions (lost & stolen reporting). Was that retained in the Manchin-Toomey amendment? Interestingly, S. 649 did include an anti-F&F clause: “LIMITATION ON OPERATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/32 "2013-04-17T21:47:06Z")
What’s objectionable about a lost and stolen reporting requirement? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/33 "2013-04-17T21:57:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What’s objectionable about a lost and stolen reporting requirement? It assumes that there is a list somewhere that each firearm can be traced back to determine ownership. If this is not the case, then the requirement would never be enforceable. Unrelated, it would also need to provide sufficient time elapse between when reporting is required so as to not criminalize non activity based on ignorance of events. It would also go against those who adhere to a ‘no compromises ever’ position. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/34 "2013-04-17T22:05:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What’s objectionable about a lost and stolen reporting requirement? 1. Have you ever reported a theft to the police? They do nothing. 2. It’s one thing to say, “Gee, it would be nice if you’d all let us know when your gun gets stolen”, but an entirely different thing to say, "We’re going to lock _you_, the victim of a crime, up in prison if you fail to notify the police _and_ the Attorney General within 24 hours of when you _should_ have known that your gun was stolen. Reid’s bill is closer to the latter than the former. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/35 "2013-04-17T22:22:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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. Well looks like you are right. Its too bad, the gun control activists have really made a hash of it. Thery could have had a lot more in january if they had moved quickly and without so much stupid. Maybe next time they try not to be so stupid about things. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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)? I think most of the gun control folks on this board would call me a little bit of a gun nut. Of course some of the gun rights folks think I’m a little bit of a gun grabber. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Sure I do. When Barack Obama makes ridiculous claims like Lanza used a full-auto weapon, and Bloomberg doesn’t understand the fundamental difference between a machine gun and the “assault weapons” he’s trying to ban, not only does it open them up to some much-deserved ridicule, but it undermines the wider gun-control movement, which has made it a point to prey on ignorance (like that of Obama and Bloomberg). Obama is also continuing with the claim that 40% of gun purchases do not have background checks. This falls into the “lying or stupid” category. The gun control activists act like Republicans on this issue. They prey on ignorance and fear. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > If it passes, I’m fine with that. I’ve never NOT undergone a background check, and it’s no big deal. Sure, it adds a few bucks to the sale, but so what? What’s another $25 on a $500 purchase? > > If it doesn’t pass, that’s fine too. I’m not super invested in this like some people are. As gun control measures go, this one is nothing special. That said, this won’t be the end of it, because the only way to enforce this law is to reference something that confirms that the firearm was obtained legally. That something is a registration list, and THAT is something I have qualms with. But this law as proposed isn’t anything for me to get crazy about. It’ll stop a few sales and it’ll give some extra coin to FFL holders. Big deal. What is your problem with a gun registry? Are you worried about a wolverines situation or confiscation at the federal level? If they haven’t done it with machine guns after almost a century, what makes you think they would try it with handguns? > [@Bone](#): > > It assumes that there is a list somewhere that each firearm can be traced back to determine ownership. If this is not the case, then the requirement would never be enforceable. > > Unrelated, it would also need to provide sufficient time elapse between when reporting is required so as to not criminalize non activity based on ignorance of events. > > It would also go against those who adhere to a ‘no compromises ever’ position. I think we should have licensing and registration and then stop. ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/36 "2013-04-17T22:26:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What is your problem with a gun registry? Are you worried about a wolverines situation or confiscation at the federal level? If they haven’t done it with machine guns after almost a century, what makes you think they would try it with handguns? Shhhhhhhh!!! Most of them don’t know that those are still legal. And if you bring up my metal-detector-evading porcelain Glock in mixed company, we’re really going to have an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/37 "2013-04-17T23:22:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think we should have licensing and registration and then stop. I don’t share your optimism about the opposition side. I see no reason to acquiesce to \*\*anything \*\*without some sort of meaningful concession. There were other problems with this bill, [namely](http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/): > [@](#): > > 1. The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry. > > 2. The provision which is supposed to strengthen existing federal law protecting the interstate transportation of personal firearms in fact cripples that protection. Those are bad. I’m glad the bill failed. ---
**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, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/38 "2013-04-17T23:34:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Ding-Dong! The witch is dead!!! > > [In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795377-in-blow-to-gun-control-backers-background-check-compromise-falls-6-votes-short?lite) Aaahhhhhhh. Don’t let your guard down, though. They always come back. ---
**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 18, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/39 "2013-04-18T01:50:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you have the text of the Manchin-Toomey amendment? I know that the underlying S. 649 had other objectionable provisions (lost & stolen reporting). Was that retained in the Manchin-Toomey amendment? > > Interestingly, S. 649 did include an anti-F&F clause: “LIMITATION ON OPERATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE” Link to the text is in post #2. No sections that I can find deal with lost or stolen reporting. > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > Well looks like you are right. Its too bad, the gun control activists have really made a hash of it. Thery could have had a lot more in january if they had moved quickly and without so much stupid. Maybe next time they try not to be so stupid about things. Yes, they are among the most inept, self-obstructing and alienating political movements in the nation, and their own worst enemies. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861/40 "2013-04-18T02:10:35Z")
Its shameful something as simple as expanded background checks couldn’t get 60 votes in the Senate. Considering Senators Manchin and Landrieu were willing to vote yes, I don’t see how the 4 Democrats who voted no can be excused nor the Republican moderates who voted no such as Portman and Murkowski. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/655861.md?page=3)