PDA

View Full Version : Manchin-Toomey Bill Is Gun Registration




Lucille
04-16-2013, 01:02 PM
The Ruling Class trying to pull one over on the Amerikan people? I know I'm shocked. /

Manchin-Toomey Bill Is Gun Registration
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/04/16/alan-korwin-on-the-manchin-toomey-betrayal/


Alan Korwin is something I’m very much not: an expert on gun laws and someone who actually reads the wretched bills (an act I consider akin to diving into Charles Schumer’s septic tank, but somebody has to do it).

He just sent around his take on Manchin-Toomey & I think it’s a strong analysis. That, and a link to the latest text (which I’m actually attempting to read despite not having a hazmat suit or a gas mask), after the “more” link.

Everything that follows is from Alan, not me. The short version is: Yes, as you already knew, this is national gun registration and yes, Gottlieb’s “trinkets” and “sweeteners” don’t make up for the fact that you DO NOT surrender a right in order to gain illusory, revocable, government-granted privileges.


Manchin-Toomey Bill Is Gun Registration–
Studied and Revealed
Media chatter about background checks a smokescreen

1- “Background gun-check records are saved.”

The so-called “background check” bill is really about gun registration — ultimate and imminent registration of every gun and gun owner in America.

The mandatory paper records are saved — nobody denies that. Federal agents use those all the time.

The electronic records have virtually no controls on them. They go into a system designed as a recording device. This bill vastly expands the electronic records federal agents will collect.

THE MANCHIN-TOOMEY-SCHUMER KEY:

Read the bottom of page 27 of the bill (read it, it’s killer, very short) and you tell me if you think that language stops the federal government from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or … backing up its records forever. It doesn’t. Show me an audit trail. You can’t. It’s not there.

It doesn’t even limit the FBI or BATFE in this regard. It only restricts gun dealers and gun owners. It is a complete farce.

Show me where they can’t go around and just use all the Form 4473 gun-registration papers you fill out that every dealer must permanently keep — as they are doing right now and have been doing for years. You can’t. This bill allows the federal government to do almost anything it wants with records of you and your firearms, and massively expands the records it can collect — even though it can’t collect absolutely every record at this time, yet.

Failure to give them all the records they currently demand under this bill, even by accident (and there are plenty of easy ways to innocently make an error), would put you in prison. The 15-year prison term they threw in for creating a federal registry is a meaningless smokescreen.

The bill requires you to get a background check to buy firearms from people you meet at a gun show, but doesn’t require anyone to do a background check just because you want one. Dealers would have plenty of reasons not to do such a check — like having paying customers, liability, fee caps, and pressure from a sometimes rogue federal agency like BATFE. That would mean the end of freedom at gun shows. This is something Sen. John McCain has been working on for more than a decade. McCain was quoted by the Associated Press today as “very favorably disposed” to this Manchin-Toomey-Schumer gun-infringement bill (meaning he likes it). This bill is totally unacceptable.

And what’s that bit at the end of that section that says medical- and health-insurance-company owned guns are exempt? Say what? Where’s the media on that? I’ll do a more detailed report on this soon. Or someone should — who’s planning what that got that in there?

Is BBFMS so bad they think right wing terrorists are going to be gunning for the Medical Industrial Complex?

sailingaway
04-16-2013, 01:05 PM
It is worse than that, it would remove HIPAA medical protections so anyone who told their doctor they were 'going through a period of depression' or just mentioned they had an AR 15 to a doctor who thinks mere ownership of that is a sign of madness, could have their doctor list them so they can't buy guns, without even telling the patient, and no due process. Guilty or 'damaged' until proven at expense to an unsympathetic panel specifically chosen for gun control, that they are innocent.

Lucille
04-16-2013, 01:10 PM
I know, it's frickin' horrid.

I read that but hadn't made make the connection until now. That must be why medical and health industry cos get to keep their guns off the books!

Lucille
04-16-2013, 03:30 PM
The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/


The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular:

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.

Let’s start with registration. Here’s the Machin-Toomey text.

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
“(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
“(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
“(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.

The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.

Under current law, retired FFLs must send their sales records to BATFE. 18 USC 923(g)(4); 27 CFR 478.127. During the Clinton administration, a program was begun to put these records into a consolidated gun registry. The program was controversial and (as far as we know) was eventually stopped. Manchin-Toomey provides it with legal legitimacy.

The vast majority of FFLs are small businesses, often single proprietorships. Only a tiny fraction of FFLs are enduring corporate entities (e.g., Bass Pro Shops) which will never surrender their FFL. By consolidating and centralizing the records of all out-of-business FFLs, BATFE will be able to build a list of most people in the U.S. who have bought a gun from a store. The list will not be fully up-to-date for every gun owned by every individual, but the list will identify the very large majority of gun owners.