There is a lot of confusion on this forum, and others, about what is currently happening in the U.S. Senate. Let me try to shed a little light.
It is not true that the Senate invoked cloture on the main gun control bill, S. 649. If that had occurred, the amendment process would never have really begun, and a vote on final passage of the bill would be near. But what the Senate actually did on April 11 was vote to end debate on whether to take up the bill (the "motion to proceed"), and thereby to begin the amendment process, which is an entirely different matter.
So far, one amendment has been filed, the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (which I have attached in PDF format), Amendment No. 715 to S. 649. It will be debated, and likely voted on, during the week of April 15. After it is disposed of, other amendments will be considered, from both pro-gun and anti-gun senators. After the amendment process is over, the bill itself could still be filibustered, and if that occurred, 60 votes will be required to end debate and pass the bill. If that occurred, the bill would go to the House, which a number of different procedural options would be available to the majority leadership. So this is all still a long way from becoming law.
I have read the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (the printed version is 49 pages long). It covers quite a bit of ground, and I am not going to try to describe all the provisions here. For example, there are extensive provisions about getting state mental-health records into the federal system, how to deal with issues concerning veterans who have been classified as having mental health issues by the VA, and so forth. For the moment, I'm just going to try to summarize here some key provisions that relate to transfers of firearms and background checks, since these may be of particular interest to some of the participants in this forum.
(I am not a lawyer, but this is not the first time I've read a statute. Obviously nothing here is "legal advice" -- we're not even talking about a law, just a legislative proposal on which a vote will soon occur. There may be mistakes here -- part of the purpose of these discussions is to get the perspective of multiple analysts.)
(1) Private transactions in firearms (between parties who do not have FFLs) would become subject to a federal background-check requirement if they occur "at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or . . .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." (Pages 21-22.) As far as I can tell, "publication" is not defined. The background checks would be run by FFL-dealers, who would be allowed to charge a fee for the service; the bill prohibits the ATF from placing a cap on the fee. (page 25.) Participation by any FFL-dealer is strictly optional. (Page 25.) If a buyer is cleared by a background check, the seller is immunized from liability if the gun is later used in a crime, to the same extent that a dealer is currently immunized by current law. (Page 25.) The FBI is told to prioritize background checks from gun shows. (Page 21.) For gun-show checks, if no definitive response is received within 48 hours, the sale may proceed (after four years, this would go to 24 hours). (Page 20.)
(2) Persons who hold the various classes of FFLs (including C&R) would be able to engage in purchases without repetitive background checks, to the same degree that they can now. Moreover, the amendment would clarify that FFL-dealers can acquire firearms face-to-face from other FFL-dealers while traveling out of state -- for example, at gun shows. (Page 31.) There has been some confusion on this point engendered by ATF in the past, even though federal statutes never prohibited such transfers.
(3) The new requirement described in paragraph (1) above would apply even to transactions conducted between two residents of the same state, within their state of residence, with respect to both long guns and handguns, unless that state already enforces a comparable background check requirement. (Page 23.)
(4) Contrary to reports on Fox News and CNN, there is nothing in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (or in the underlying bill, S. 649) that would result in any state's carry permit being recognized, for handgun-carrying purposes, in any other state. The only provision in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that relates to carry permits would allow an FFL-dealer to accept certain licenses, which would include most carry permits and some other types of licenses, in place of running the FBI background check for the gun-show and published-notice private transactions. (Page 22.) (According to press reports, other senators will later offer a different amendment to S. 649 that would require some sort of "national reciprocity" for at least some types of state carry permits, but no such amendment has yet been filed and no text is available.)
(5) When an FFL-dealer does a background check for a private transfer at a gun show or pursuant to a published offering, he will keep a record of it in his "bound book" in the same manner as the guns he sells from his inventory.
(6) There are exemptions from the proposed new background check requirements for transfers between various classes of persons, as follows: "between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins." (Page 23.) All such exempt transfers require that "the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."
(7) No background check would be required for "temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee." (Page 36.)
(8) Current federal law allows FFL-dealers to sell rifles and shotguns over the counter (face to face) to residents of any state, if the laws of the FFL-seller's state and the buyer's state also allow this. The Manchin-Toomey Amendment would extend this right to handguns as well. (Page 29.) Take note, however, that this would not override any state laws that place additional restrictions on handgun transfers -- the federal law will continue to allow face-to-face sales by FFLs only if they comply with the applicable laws of both the buyer's state and the state of sale (and there a lot more state laws on handguns than on long guns).
(9) The current federal law that protects your right to transport a firearm, unloaded and cased, across various state lines and jurisdictions, 18 U.S.C. §926A, would be considerably expanded and clarified. Some jurisdictions have been reluctant to recognize the intent of the current law, and have construed it very narrowly -- there have been some egregious episodes particularly in New Jersey and New York. (Pages 33-36.)
It is not true that the Senate invoked cloture on the main gun control bill, S. 649. If that had occurred, the amendment process would never have really begun, and a vote on final passage of the bill would be near. But what the Senate actually did on April 11 was vote to end debate on whether to take up the bill (the "motion to proceed"), and thereby to begin the amendment process, which is an entirely different matter.
So far, one amendment has been filed, the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (which I have attached in PDF format), Amendment No. 715 to S. 649. It will be debated, and likely voted on, during the week of April 15. After it is disposed of, other amendments will be considered, from both pro-gun and anti-gun senators. After the amendment process is over, the bill itself could still be filibustered, and if that occurred, 60 votes will be required to end debate and pass the bill. If that occurred, the bill would go to the House, which a number of different procedural options would be available to the majority leadership. So this is all still a long way from becoming law.
I have read the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (the printed version is 49 pages long). It covers quite a bit of ground, and I am not going to try to describe all the provisions here. For example, there are extensive provisions about getting state mental-health records into the federal system, how to deal with issues concerning veterans who have been classified as having mental health issues by the VA, and so forth. For the moment, I'm just going to try to summarize here some key provisions that relate to transfers of firearms and background checks, since these may be of particular interest to some of the participants in this forum.
(I am not a lawyer, but this is not the first time I've read a statute. Obviously nothing here is "legal advice" -- we're not even talking about a law, just a legislative proposal on which a vote will soon occur. There may be mistakes here -- part of the purpose of these discussions is to get the perspective of multiple analysts.)
(1) Private transactions in firearms (between parties who do not have FFLs) would become subject to a federal background-check requirement if they occur "at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or . . .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." (Pages 21-22.) As far as I can tell, "publication" is not defined. The background checks would be run by FFL-dealers, who would be allowed to charge a fee for the service; the bill prohibits the ATF from placing a cap on the fee. (page 25.) Participation by any FFL-dealer is strictly optional. (Page 25.) If a buyer is cleared by a background check, the seller is immunized from liability if the gun is later used in a crime, to the same extent that a dealer is currently immunized by current law. (Page 25.) The FBI is told to prioritize background checks from gun shows. (Page 21.) For gun-show checks, if no definitive response is received within 48 hours, the sale may proceed (after four years, this would go to 24 hours). (Page 20.)
(2) Persons who hold the various classes of FFLs (including C&R) would be able to engage in purchases without repetitive background checks, to the same degree that they can now. Moreover, the amendment would clarify that FFL-dealers can acquire firearms face-to-face from other FFL-dealers while traveling out of state -- for example, at gun shows. (Page 31.) There has been some confusion on this point engendered by ATF in the past, even though federal statutes never prohibited such transfers.
(3) The new requirement described in paragraph (1) above would apply even to transactions conducted between two residents of the same state, within their state of residence, with respect to both long guns and handguns, unless that state already enforces a comparable background check requirement. (Page 23.)
(4) Contrary to reports on Fox News and CNN, there is nothing in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (or in the underlying bill, S. 649) that would result in any state's carry permit being recognized, for handgun-carrying purposes, in any other state. The only provision in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that relates to carry permits would allow an FFL-dealer to accept certain licenses, which would include most carry permits and some other types of licenses, in place of running the FBI background check for the gun-show and published-notice private transactions. (Page 22.) (According to press reports, other senators will later offer a different amendment to S. 649 that would require some sort of "national reciprocity" for at least some types of state carry permits, but no such amendment has yet been filed and no text is available.)
(5) When an FFL-dealer does a background check for a private transfer at a gun show or pursuant to a published offering, he will keep a record of it in his "bound book" in the same manner as the guns he sells from his inventory.
(6) There are exemptions from the proposed new background check requirements for transfers between various classes of persons, as follows: "between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins." (Page 23.) All such exempt transfers require that "the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."
(7) No background check would be required for "temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee." (Page 36.)
(8) Current federal law allows FFL-dealers to sell rifles and shotguns over the counter (face to face) to residents of any state, if the laws of the FFL-seller's state and the buyer's state also allow this. The Manchin-Toomey Amendment would extend this right to handguns as well. (Page 29.) Take note, however, that this would not override any state laws that place additional restrictions on handgun transfers -- the federal law will continue to allow face-to-face sales by FFLs only if they comply with the applicable laws of both the buyer's state and the state of sale (and there a lot more state laws on handguns than on long guns).
(9) The current federal law that protects your right to transport a firearm, unloaded and cased, across various state lines and jurisdictions, 18 U.S.C. §926A, would be considerably expanded and clarified. Some jurisdictions have been reluctant to recognize the intent of the current law, and have construed it very narrowly -- there have been some egregious episodes particularly in New Jersey and New York. (Pages 33-36.)
Last edited:
