2 ms·

FUD: The proposed legislation that (technically the proposed amendment, which was co-authored by my Senator, Pat Toomey) explicitly excluded transfers of weapon

by mcherm 14y ago

FUD: The proposed legislation that (technically the proposed amendment, which was co-authored by my Senator, Pat Toomey) explicitly excluded transfers of weapons within a family -- those remained unregulated. Nevertheless, the amendment received only 54 votes out of 100.

hga 14y ago
That wasn't the only amendment up for a vote, and before being absolutely sure that carve out would hold up it would need examination in light of e.g. the "advertised on the Internet or any publication", and how the courts interpret it and many other parts of this at best very badly drafted amendment. To the extent we were able to analyze it in the time we had, it was clear Toomey had no experts helping him (the list of qualified lawyers is rather small, after all, but the errors, if they were that, in what were supposed to be pro-RKBA provisions were telling). Whereas part of this law was lifted straight from the horrible Schumer bill it was proposing to amend (that would go a lot further, its definitions of "transfer" were lethal), not surprising given that Schumer was also a co-sponsor along with anti-RKBA Kirk and drama queen trending anti-RKBA Manchin. Requiring NICS checks for all "transfers" was very much up for discussion (heck, even quasi-relevant to Newtown, except of course transfer by murder and theft is already illegal), so making that point in a general discussion is hardly illegitimate, let alone FUD.
- mcherm 14y ago
  You clearly know more about it than I do. However, masonhensley's claim that "the champions of gun control really don't care" is plainly false. Perhaps the wording was wrong, but the clearly stated goal was NOT to prevent transfers within a family.
  - hga 14y ago
    I think it's a defensible statement. I grant you that no champions of gun control voted against Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (as we've been calling it as of late :-), excepting the special case of Harry Reid since Senate rules then allow him to bring it up again, but you don't have to step back very far. E.g. without the poison pills and gotchas in Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (again, details on request, and, yes, I probably do know more since I read all of it :-), it would have had a much better chance of success. But it's the "champions of gun control" who we assume e.g. inserted the nullification of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of '86 provisions for protected interstate travel at the same time they were ostensibly strengthened. Seriously, my move from Massachusetts to Virginia in 1991 would have been felonious if Manchin-Toomey-Sauron had been in effect then. Well, I suppose I could have arranged with two FFLs, one in each state, to ship my guns, but I hope you're getting the general point, it wasn't a "clean" bill, and that wasn't the fault of nominally pro-RKBA Toomey, except in his decision to sup with the devil in the first place (especially without a top flight food taster (serious pro-RKBA lawyer---lawyers would be an asset when dealing with the devil :-)).

by mcherm 14y ago

hga 14y ago

That wasn't the only amendment up for a vote, and before being absolutely sure that carve out would hold up it would need examination in light of e.g. the "advertised on the Internet or any publication", and how the courts interpret it and many other parts of this at best very badly drafted amendment. To the extent we were able to analyze it in the time we had, it was clear Toomey had no experts helping him (the list of qualified lawyers is rather small, after all, but the errors, if they were that, in what were supposed to be pro-RKBA provisions were telling). Whereas part of this law was lifted straight from the horrible Schumer bill it was proposing to amend (that would go a lot further, its definitions of "transfer" were lethal), not surprising given that Schumer was also a co-sponsor along with anti-RKBA Kirk and drama queen trending anti-RKBA Manchin. Requiring NICS checks for all "transfers" was very much up for discussion (heck, even quasi-relevant to Newtown, except of course transfer by murder and theft is already illegal), so making that point in a general discussion is hardly illegitimate, let alone FUD.

mcherm 14y ago
You clearly know more about it than I do. However, masonhensley's claim that "the champions of gun control really don't care" is plainly false. Perhaps the wording was wrong, but the clearly stated goal was NOT to prevent transfers within a family.
- hga 14y ago
  I think it's a defensible statement. I grant you that no champions of gun control voted against Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (as we've been calling it as of late :-), excepting the special case of Harry Reid since Senate rules then allow him to bring it up again, but you don't have to step back very far. E.g. without the poison pills and gotchas in Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (again, details on request, and, yes, I probably do know more since I read all of it :-), it would have had a much better chance of success. But it's the "champions of gun control" who we assume e.g. inserted the nullification of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of '86 provisions for protected interstate travel at the same time they were ostensibly strengthened. Seriously, my move from Massachusetts to Virginia in 1991 would have been felonious if Manchin-Toomey-Sauron had been in effect then. Well, I suppose I could have arranged with two FFLs, one in each state, to ship my guns, but I hope you're getting the general point, it wasn't a "clean" bill, and that wasn't the fault of nominally pro-RKBA Toomey, except in his decision to sup with the devil in the first place (especially without a top flight food taster (serious pro-RKBA lawyer---lawyers would be an asset when dealing with the devil :-)).