CATO Institute article supports modified Manchin-Toomey - worth reading

[mugsy]

Here's the link: http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-sensible-gun-legislation

Please read and provide thoughtful comments/support/refutation - but remember yelling "Commie" or "Molon Labe" or "Sh#t Yeah"does not qualify as thoughtful

Here is the text:
April 28, 2013 10:32AM
Further Thoughts on Sensible Gun Legislation
By
Robert A. Levy
Share

In an op-ed on the New York Times web site yesterday, I voice my belief that the gun control bill authored by Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, if properly modified, can and should pass with the support of gun rights advocates.

In the interest of being as specific as possible, I’d like to expand upon the sentiments expressed in that piece.

When the Senate rejected the Manchin-Toomey compromise on gun background checks, opponents of the bill were condemned for ignoring polls signaling up to 90 percent public support. The stonewalling by gun rights supporters was indeed a mistake—not just on the politics, but on the substance as well. In exchange for the modest, reasonable, and constitutional augmentation of background checks, there was plenty in the legislation for gun rights proponents to embrace.

Manchin-Toomey may be re-introduced. Gun rights advocates can seize the opportunity to address some of their own priorities while avoiding being labeled as obstructionists once again.

Here are the parts of Manchin-Toomey that gun rights proponents should be happy about, with a few recommended changes:

First, the bill allows interstate handgun sales through dealers—under roughly the same rules that now govern long gun sales. Current law does not permit buying handguns from out-of-state sellers. So the new provision represents a major development.

Second, Manchin-Toomey confirms that a firearms registry by the attorney general is prohibited, and adds a 15-year prison term for violators. The attorney general limitation should be broadened to cover all government agencies, the bill should clarify that data from all sources are precluded, and civil damages should be available for misuse of database records. Justice Department regulations (which should be codified in Manchin-Toomey) state that government records of approved applicants must be destroyed within 24 hours. Dealers retain the data much longer, but law enforcement agencies have access only during a criminal investigation. Registry prohibitions may not be foolproof, but Manchin-Toomey adds a layer of protection.

Third, the bill sets a 48-hour limit on performing background checks. That’s reduced to 24 hours after four years. Most gun shows are two-day events—incompatible with current law that allows up to 72 hours for checks. That’s one reason for fewer shows of late. Under Manchin-Toomey, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) would come closer to matching its name.

Fourth, Manchin-Toomey reinforces current law permitting interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition—unless a certain weapon or use is barred. Guns have to be unloaded and inaccessible or locked, but the re-write of existing rules helps. Most important, state laws against unlicensed possession are preempted.

Fifth, the bill immunizes sellers from litigation when a gun is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was ineligible to get a gun.

Sixth, Manchin-Toomey improves NICS by expending $400 million over four years, withholding grants to states that don’t meet specified benchmarks, clarifying that mental health records in NICS do not violate the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and assuring due process for veterans facing loss of gun rights because of alleged mental illness.

Weighed against those pro-gun-rights provisions is a modest concession to gun controllers: Background checks—which already cover all sales through federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet, or by mail—would be extended to cover private sales at shows, over the Internet, and through published ads. Manchin-Toomey still wouldn’t cover non-commercial transfers such as gifts or bequests, in-person sales outside a gun show, or sales responding to postings on community bulletin boards. Moreover, buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within five years. Until NICS can function remotely, Manchin-Toomey should also exempt private sales to rural residents far from licensed dealers.

Finally, three suggested improvements: First, dealers impose fees for background checks ranging from $25 to $125. If those fees are deemed to promote public safety, the public (not just law abiding gun owners) should foot some of the bill. That could be accomplished by federal rebates of a stipulated amount to those who pass the NICS check.

Second, Manchin-Toomey instructs that NICS checks must prioritize gun shows over gun stores. As a result, backlogs could hamper stores during weekends when shows are held. That favoritism should be eliminated by increasing NICS personnel to expedite processing.

Third, existing law denies firearms to anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The maximum sentence is ten years in federal prison. Thus every would-be gun owner who lies to NICS about marijuana use, and every owner who smokes marijuana, could spend a decade behind bars—an unconscionable punishment that must be rectified.

Manchin-Toomey is complex and controversial. Committee hearings are necessary and the public must have ample time to review the legislation. Still, considered as a package, a reworked Manchin-Toomey would offer substantial benefits to gun owners while imposing tolerable restrictions—none of which intrudes on core Second Amendment liberties.

 

[greezypete]

No new laws are needed

 

[jakerz]

I still don't agree with anything in the bill. Even with the re-wording, it is still not acceptable.

 

[Dale00]

Manchin-Toomey is complex and controversial. Committee hearings are necessary and the public must have ample time to review the legislation. Still, considered as a package, a reworked Manchin-Toomey would offer substantial benefits to gun owners while imposing tolerable restrictions-none of which intrudes on core Second Amendment liberties.

"Complexity" is bad - It provides room for abuses of second amendment rights. I favor "simplification" by rolling back current infringements of the second amendment.

Money to improve the NICS system? - sure just like the Post Office.

On paper there may be "substantial benefits to gun owners" but are they not just sops to improve the odds of passage while stealthily increasing the gun control powers of the federal government and laying a foundation for future expansion and/or abuse?

The Attorney General is not motivated to prosecute any federal official for misuse of registration information.

This has the feel of a snake in the grass. It appears to give with one hand while waiting to take away with another hand.

 

[Poke78]

CATO Institute and/or Mr. Levy seems to be conflicted about what level of libertarianism they/he want to support. In the next to last paragraph, he faithfully and predictably supports the recreational use of marijuana. Throughout the article, though, the discussion is about how to write a law to further regulate what is clearly a natural right of humans, i.e. the possession of such tools as necessary for self-defense.

This is just another attempt to negotiate with the alligator to eat you last. It was not an effective approach at any time in history and cannot be couched in any acceptable terms now. Mr. Levy has cast himself into the same "squish" referred to by Senator Cruz in his recent constituent meeting when telling about the reactions from other Republicans.

 

[caojyn]

Individually I could get behind some of these items (out of state handgun sales) but as Poke said as a whole this modified bill still ends up with more restrictions. It's a great strategy on their part, because it again probably won't pass and will be used to further "prove" that we 2A'ers are unreasonable and unwilling to compromise. I predict they'll keep doing things like this until the public is so tired of this debate that they'll be happy it's over when "some action is taken," (most likely not to our benefit). Idk maybe my crystal ball is on the fritz.

 

[dutchwrangler]

"... because the object of a bill of rights is to assert the rights of individuals and the people, as against the government, and not as against private persons...

... Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of governments, unless it be understood that the people will, by force, compel the government to keep within the constitutional limits." ~ Lysander Spooner in Trial By Jury

 

[abajaj11]

Here's the link: http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-sensible-gun-legislation

Please read and provide thoughtful comments/support/refutation - but remember yelling "Commie" or "Molon Labe" or "Sh#t Yeah"does not qualify as thoughtful

Here is the text:
April 28, 2013 10:32AM
Further Thoughts on Sensible Gun Legislation
By
Robert A. Levy
Share

In an op-ed on the New York Times web site yesterday, I voice my belief that the gun control bill authored by Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, if properly modified, can and should pass with the support of gun rights advocates.

In the interest of being as specific as possible, I’d like to expand upon the sentiments expressed in that piece.

When the Senate rejected the Manchin-Toomey compromise on gun background checks, opponents of the bill were condemned for ignoring polls signaling up to 90 percent public support. The stonewalling by gun rights supporters was indeed a mistake-not just on the politics, but on the substance as well. In exchange for the modest, reasonable, and constitutional augmentation of background checks, there was plenty in the legislation for gun rights proponents to embrace.

Manchin-Toomey may be re-introduced. Gun rights advocates can seize the opportunity to address some of their own priorities while avoiding being labeled as obstructionists once again.

Here are the parts of Manchin-Toomey that gun rights proponents should be happy about, with a few recommended changes:

First, the bill allows interstate handgun sales through dealers-under roughly the same rules that now govern long gun sales. Current law does not permit buying handguns from out-of-state sellers. So the new provision represents a major development.

Second, Manchin-Toomey confirms that a firearms registry by the attorney general is prohibited, and adds a 15-year prison term for violators. The attorney general limitation should be broadened to cover all government agencies, the bill should clarify that data from all sources are precluded, and civil damages should be available for misuse of database records. Justice Department regulations (which should be codified in Manchin-Toomey) state that government records of approved applicants must be destroyed within 24 hours. Dealers retain the data much longer, but law enforcement agencies have access only during a criminal investigation. Registry prohibitions may not be foolproof, but Manchin-Toomey adds a layer of protection.

Third, the bill sets a 48-hour limit on performing background checks. That’s reduced to 24 hours after four years. Most gun shows are two-day events-incompatible with current law that allows up to 72 hours for checks. That’s one reason for fewer shows of late. Under Manchin-Toomey, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) would come closer to matching its name.

Fourth, Manchin-Toomey reinforces current law permitting interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition-unless a certain weapon or use is barred. Guns have to be unloaded and inaccessible or locked, but the re-write of existing rules helps. Most important, state laws against unlicensed possession are preempted.

Fifth, the bill immunizes sellers from litigation when a gun is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was ineligible to get a gun.

Sixth, Manchin-Toomey improves NICS by expending $400 million over four years, withholding grants to states that don’t meet specified benchmarks, clarifying that mental health records in NICS do not violate the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and assuring due process for veterans facing loss of gun rights because of alleged mental illness.

Weighed against those pro-gun-rights provisions is a modest concession to gun controllers: Background checks-which already cover all sales through federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet, or by mail-would be extended to cover private sales at shows, over the Internet, and through published ads. Manchin-Toomey still wouldn’t cover non-commercial transfers such as gifts or bequests, in-person sales outside a gun show, or sales responding to postings on community bulletin boards. Moreover, buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within five years. Until NICS can function remotely, Manchin-Toomey should also exempt private sales to rural residents far from licensed dealers.

Finally, three suggested improvements: First, dealers impose fees for background checks ranging from $25 to $125. If those fees are deemed to promote public safety, the public (not just law abiding gun owners) should foot some of the bill. That could be accomplished by federal rebates of a stipulated amount to those who pass the NICS check.

Second, Manchin-Toomey instructs that NICS checks must prioritize gun shows over gun stores. As a result, backlogs could hamper stores during weekends when shows are held. That favoritism should be eliminated by increasing NICS personnel to expedite processing.

Third, existing law denies firearms to anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The maximum sentence is ten years in federal prison. Thus every would-be gun owner who lies to NICS about marijuana use, and every owner who smokes marijuana, could spend a decade behind bars-an unconscionable punishment that must be rectified.

Manchin-Toomey is complex and controversial. Committee hearings are necessary and the public must have ample time to review the legislation. Still, considered as a package, a reworked Manchin-Toomey would offer substantial benefits to gun owners while imposing tolerable restrictions-none of which intrudes on core Second Amendment liberties.

Expanding background checks would make sense ONLY if one actually thought the lefties or anyone else seriously believed it would reduce crime.
If the Feds were actually serious about background checks and NICs' effectiveness, they would have pursued people after they were denied NICs checks, since it is a FELONY to lie on the 4473 form. Why are the people who lie on the 4473 form almost never prosecuted?
Check this article out:
http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967

Hence I believe ALL 2A supporters should be against any kind of expanded background checks...they do nothing and are only being used by the Left as a pathway to firearm registration.

 

[Aku]

I guess I'm in the majority so far. Don't care how flowery the words are and reasonable it sounds, it is still an infringement on a constitutional right.

Total repeal of ALL gun laws, I would get behind and support congressional action on. Otherwise, they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[dutchwrangler]

I guess I'm in the majority so far. Don't care how flowery the words are and reasonable it sounds, it is still an infringement on a constitutional right.

Total repeal of ALL gun laws, I would get behind and support congressional action on. Otherwise, they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

It's not a Constitutional right. It's a human right. The Constitution is non-binding on any of us. It was only binding on the 39 men that put their signatures on the bottom while they were alive. The belief that we are bound to abide by a contract not signed by any of us is absurd. If a man signs a contract then dies, are the man's heirs liable to follow through on that contract? Of course not. This idea that we are bound to the Constitution that none of us were signatories to or had any voice upon is pure ignorance.

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing" ~ Lysander Spooner in No Treason No. VI