Senators reach a bipartisan deal on gun safety legislation

[cgpeanut]

 

Among the gun provisions:

1) incentives for states to pass and implement red-flag laws to remove firearms from potentially dangerous people; -- Can they (govt) confiscate a lawfully acquired firearm(s) of a lawful U.S citizen from an anonymous tip from a jilted lover, disgruntled employee or I hate my neighbor, so I'll report him as mentally incapacitated?

2) stricter gun background checks for people between the ages of 18 and 21 to include a mandatory search of juvenile justice records; -- Does this include medical records as well?  

3) and closing what is known as the “boyfriend loophole” to bar dating partners — not just spouses — from owning guns if they have been convicted of domestic violence.  -- any ideas on how can this be enforced?  federal gun registry? by doing random checks on everyone in the household?

4) billions of new federal dollars would go to mental health care and school security program  - hope they use the unspent covid-19 money for this. wait, it might be all gone.

I have a very bad feeling about this, I do hope if this passes at least we get Nationawide Concealed Carry Reciprocity and no tax on silencers 

Edited June 13, 2022 by cgpeanut

[Chucktshoes]

Hopefully the coalition falls apart before anything gets through. That said, no. Even if this does get through you will not get anything on your wishlist.

At all.

Ever. 

That’s not how “compromise” on guns works. When it comes to gun laws the only compromise on the table is that they take away less than they were after, this time. They’ll come for more later, and keep coming until somebody forces them to stop. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Chucktshoes

[Darrell]

7 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

hat’s not how “compromise” on guns works. When it comes to gun laws the only compromise on the table is that they take away less than they were after, this time. They’ll come for more later, and keep coming until somebody forces them to stop. 

The gun control crowd has been up-front that their current strategy is "incremental change". Meaning exactly what Chucktshoes said, they'll take a nibble here and a bite there, but they'll never, ever give an inch.

[GlockSpock]

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

[scatman]

This whole bill is the start of them taking everything. It isn't about protecting our children, it's about control. Look into all the fine print. This is the outline and foot in the door for them to disarm the civilian population. This bill will have an impact on LAW ABBIDING CITIZENS. Like the OP said on point #1, you decide to make that call on your neighbor, or your ex decides to stir some stuff up and call them on you, they/you don't even get due process to defend themselves, their house will be raided, and items confiscated. How does this not bother people? 

Edited June 13, 2022 by scatman
Typo

[GlockSpock]

@cgpeanut

I just want to point out and commend your optimism. It's probably a better world where you can find hope for things like national reciprocity (which, I personally don't think you want the Feds managing this) or looser NFA laws.

[FUJIMO]

Funny thing to me is this "gun control" crowd they showed protesting this last weekend looks similar to many other groups we've seen since back in the pu$$y hat metoo days. If you hit the mute button and change the AR buster signs to MY BODY MY CHOICE signs it the same sheep running their mouth about whatever social media site got them panties all in a froth. David pencil arms Hogg still trying to squeeze a few more minutes out of tragic time which is his life at Parkland. Who GAF at this point. @Links2k told me not to worry so I'm sticking with that until further notice

[Whisper]

1 hour ago, scatman said:

This whole bill is the start of them taking everything. It isn't about protecting our children, it's about control. Look into all the fine print. This is the outline and foot in the door for them to disarm the civilian population. 

Sorry, but this isn't the start of taking everything -- it's just the latest step.  Taking everything dates back to the time of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and similar groups that were open and honest about their desire to felonize gun ownership.  That didn't fly, so they've taken the incrementalist approach:  working in small steps, to trim away this right, then another, before eventually arriving at what they wanted -- total bans.

That said, there are some legislative steps that can be taken to improve safety.  Nobody wants violent people with serious mental illnesses to have access to guns, but proposals that focus on reasonable steps like that are almost always rejected by organizations for whom gun bans, not protecting society, are the real goal.  I'm going to hope that some of the mental health proposals of this new batch of laws will help protect public safety without reducing the rights of the law-abiding, but given the fact that it's not what some of the supporters really want, I'll remain skeptical.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Whisper

[scatman]

4 minutes ago, Whisper said:

 I'm going to hope that some of the mental health proposals of this new batch of laws will help protect public safety without reducing the rights of the law-abiding, but given the fact that it's not what some of the supporters really want, I'll remain skeptical.

I agree with that.

[Whisper]

1 hour ago, GlockSpock said:

@cgpeanut

I just want to point out and commend your optimism. It's probably a better world where you can find hope for things like national reciprocity (which, I personally don't think you want the Feds managing this) or looser NFA laws.

Actually, I'm not sure the feds would need to be involved in managing reciprocity -- your driver's license works perfectly well in Tennessee and in 2A hellholes like Massachusetts or California without any federal involvement.   Looser NFA laws would be great, but we weren't able to get that under a Republican administration and we sure won't get it now.

Cheers,

Whisper

[JD_Shellnut]

If it happens, so be it. I’ll adhere to it just like I do speed limits and my doctor’s advice. Those selfsame citizens that think themselves “awoken” are oblivious of the fact that they’re a weeklong power outage away from burning their cities to the ground. 
 

What irony. I’ve lived to see the day where “awake” people actually couldn’t be more asleep if they swallowed a whole bottle of Ambien and washed it down with a big jug of NyQuil. 
 
 

[krunchnik]

As for their amplified background checks-I think not-

I went to pick up a AR15 lower I ordered from Shoot Point Blank 0n Friday-

The employee told me it could take awhile to approve the NICS check that for some reason they weren't getting their approvals back-

So I was the 4th person in line-

I applied at 3:30 and didn't get approved till nearly 5:30-normally takes 10 minutes for mine-

So much for instant background check-

All they ever do is make things worse and never better-

New laws will stop nothing until Law Enforcement decides to actually enforce the laws-

[bubbadavis]

6 minutes ago, krunchnik said:

New laws will stop nothing until Law Enforcement decides to actually enforce the laws-

And DAs actually prosecute offenders as the law allows; especially repeat offenders!

[krunchnik]

18 minutes ago, bubbadavis said:

And DAs actually prosecute offenders as the law allows; especially repeat offenders!

Amen to that-

[Grayfox54]

There are a couple of things here that I can go along with. 

14 hours ago, cgpeanut said:

2) stricter gun background checks for people between the ages of 18 and 21 to include a mandatory search of juvenile justice records; -

Gangs learned a long time ago to recruit members young. They use them to do their dirty work knowing full well that the law will go light on them if caught.  When they hit 18, that record gets sealed. So then they have these new "clean" adults who can buy guns. 

 

14 hours ago, cgpeanut said:

4) billions of new federal dollars would go to mental health care

My understanding is that most of this will be used for local programs that offer help within the community. That's where the help is most needed. This will give easy access to people who need help. Let's just hope they use it. 

HOWEVER I totally oppose Red Flag laws. This amounts to guilty until proven innocent. I'm convinced that they are un-constitutional and SCOTUS will eventually strike them down. But I also worry greatly about what other doors they may open. How long will it be before citizens can be detained or even jailed for what they might do?  Scary stuff for sure. 

[cgpeanut]

Here are the Senate Republicans who are backing the bipartisan gun reform legislation.  They are NOT up for re-election this November 2022, and some are retiring.  We need to contact our Senators and convince them to talk to these 10 Senators and RESIST!.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) 

Cornyn was among the initial group of nine lawmakers who began discussing gun legislation after the mass shooting at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school last month that left 19 students and two teachers dead.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appointed Cornyn as the GOP’s lead negotiator in the talks.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Tillis also played an early role in the gun violence negotiations. He said he was not willing to support raising the age limit of purchasing AR-15–style rifles to 21 years of age, which is high on the Democratic wish list.

Shortly after the Uvalde shooting, Tillis warned against blaming mass shootings on the proliferation of guns in America.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Blunt, who is retiring from his Senate seat at the end of this year, worked with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) on mental health provisions in the framework package, such as national funding for mental health clinics that will provide 24/7 mental health crisis responses among other services. 

Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Portman recently told NBC affiliate WFMJ-TV that keeping firearms away from dangerous individuals and implementing safety measures at schools were his focuses in the talks.

Portman also noted he doesn’t want to infringe on citizens who abide by gun laws. He also expressed interest in making juvenile records more accessible in systems used to prevent dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms.

Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Burr, who is also retiring this year, has received nearly $7 million in donations from the NRA, according to data from Brady United, placing him second among GOP senators behind Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah).

Asked about Democratic gun control proposals following the Uvalde shooting, Burr didn’t say specifically what he opposed or supported.

“If somebody’s got a solution to this, by all means, let’s talk about it,” Burr said. “But nobody’s proposed that they’ve got one.” 

Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Romney, who received more than $13.5 million in donations from the NRA, said in a tweet after the Uvalde shooting that “we must find answers” to the issue. 

In a statement on Sunday, he said, “Families deserve to feel safe and secure in their communities.”

“Proud to join my colleagues on this commonsense, bipartisan proposal that will save lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. It deserves broad support.”

Romney has regularly opposed Democratic-proposed gun control measures, though he said in 2018 that he was open to considering “more effective background checks.”

Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Cassidy said he was open to discussion on gun reform legislation in the aftermath of the Uvalde school massacre.

Among the initial group of nine lawmakers, Cassidy suggested that red flag laws and expanded background checks were not the right solution to the problem.

“Senator Cassidy will always be an advocate for law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Cassidy’s spokesperson Ty Bofferding said in a statement to the Daily Advertiser last month.

“Cassidy is open to conversations about solutions that will actually work to prevent these kinds of mass shootings. Unfortunately, expanded background checks or red flag laws, as Democrats are proposing as a solution, would not have prevented the tragedy in Texas.”

Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Collins previously said she would like to see red flag laws, which have already been enacted in her state of Maine, be part of the bipartisan proposal.

“I believe that we should look at enacting a red flag law based on the one we have in Maine, which has due process rights and involves a medical professional in the decision,” she said last month. “I don’t know the details of the shooter, but it’s hard to believe he wasn’t mentally ill.”  

Collins also expressed her support for creating a process for keeping firearms away from those who suffer from mental health issues.

“I really think our focus should be on looking at what the states have done, what some states have done on red flag or yellow flag laws,” she added. 

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Graham has suggested that retired and former military members should provide armed security at schools, joining a chorus of GOP voices calling to “harden” schools against threats.

“I will be working to create a certification process that allows former military members to go through school security training and become available to school districts throughout the country,” Graham said in a Twitter thread last month.

“It is time to mobilize our retired and former service members who are willing to help secure our schools. Our schools are soft targets,” Graham added. “They contain our most valuable possession — our children, the future of our country — and must be protected.” 

Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Hochul, Zeldin hold double-digit leads in NY governor primaries: poll
José Andrés to open restaurant in former Trump DC hotel
Toomey recently told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that he wants to ensure background checks on all firearm sales. 

“I certainly remain committed to the idea of the principle of the policy of expanding background checks to cover all commercial sales,” Toomey said last month. “I would also point out that even though we fell short, I think it’s the only measure that had bipartisan support — probably the only one, or one of the few, that would have it now.”

Toomey first introduced an expanded background check legislation alongside Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, but the bill failed to reach the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

[Grayfox54]

Its all about appearances. Truth is, they don't give a ####. They just wanna look good. 

[cgpeanut]

INSANE: Dem's Gun Control wish list released from negotiations... and EACH of you need to see this...

 

This is what's being negotiated? we are in trouble.

[Daniel]

16 hours ago, Darrell said:

The gun control crowd has been up-front that their current strategy is "incremental change". Meaning exactly what Chucktshoes said, they'll take a nibble here and a bite there, but they'll never, ever give an inch.

Same thing for anti abortion crowd.  

[Chucktshoes]

9 hours ago, Daniel said:

Same thing for anti abortion crowd.  

What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China, or maybe just guns? 

 

Remember;

Gun politics = good.
General politics= bad.

[cgpeanut]

Nadler is out of touch and definitely has no clue what our law enforcement officers has. Revolver really? I just hope this drags on way pass mid-terms and losses steam.  How can you pass a law that allows the govt to take your property without due process?

I was born in the Philippines and now and American Citizen.  I remember the then president Ferdianand Marcos declared Marial Law and declared "Surrender your all your guns within two weeks or FACE the DEATH penalty",  Folks did and he became a dictator for more than 30 years, no one could opposed him and his justification was mass shootings.

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by cgpeanut

[AuEagle]

[Darrell]

I read today that several anti-gun democrats are saying that this legislation "opens the door" for more gun control. I think the SOTUS decision today probably pushes that door closed.

[Links2k]

1 hour ago, Darrell said:

I read today that several anti-gun democrats are saying that this legislation "opens the door" for more gun control. I think the SOTUS decision today probably pushes that door closed.

Agreed, with the exception that the Democrats that I’ve heard complaining know that their constituents are not happy with the legislation. They wanted much, much more. The response from the anti gun senators has been “we know it’s not what you wanted, but it’s something “.

[The Legion]

Senate passes bipartisan gun contol bill.

The Senate passed a bipartisan gun bill late Thursday night in a 65-33 vote. 

The bill, spearheaded by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, comes in the wake of several recent mass shootings. The mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, was the major driver behind the bipartisan effort. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Safer Communities Act was the first major gun safety legislation to be passed since the Brady Bill in 1994. 

Tonight, the United States Senate is doing something many believed was impossible even a few weeks ago: we are passing the first significant gun safety bill in nearly 30 years," he said in a statement. "The gun safety bill we are passing tonight can be described with three adjectives: bipartisan, commonsense, lifesaving." 

The bill would provide funding for states to create programs that could keep weapons away from people who are dangers to themselves or others, often called red flag laws. It would also enhance background checks for gun buyers under 21, add penalties for some gun criminals and provide funding for a variety of health and mental health-related programs. 

It also addresses close the so-called "boyfriend loophole," which is a gap in federal law that means spousal domestic abusers can have gun rights taken away but not unmarried ones. 

The bill now heads to the House. President Biden has said he intends to sign it if passed.