Senators reach a bipartisan deal on gun safety legislation

[m16ty]

1 hour ago, The Legion said:

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.

Only thing we can hope for at this point is the crazy democrats over in the house vote it down for not going far enough.

what we need to be doing is tell the house democrats to vote this down for not going far enough. It’s the only hope we have at this point.

[Whisper]

6 hours ago, m16ty said:

Only thing we can hope for at this point is the crazy democrats over in the house vote it down for not going far enough.

what we need to be doing is tell the house democrats to vote this down for not going far enough. It’s the only hope we have at this point.

I don't agree on this.  I think yesterday's Supreme Court ruling is going to provoke a flurry of lawsuits against existing gun laws and that new laws will all be subject to careful scrutiny.  There are elements of the current gun bill (dealing with mental health and juvenile criminal records) that actually might be helpful, and I'm thinking now that the egregious elements of any new gun law will be vigorously contested.  Our gun rights organizations will have fertile ground for potential lawsuits.  It's a great day in America.

Cheers,

Whisper

[Big 10 Biden]

17 hours 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.

So is it one step forward and two steps back, or the other way around? 

[Big 10 Biden]

8 hours ago, m16ty said:

Only thing we can hope for at this point is the crazy democrats over in the house vote it down for not going far enough.

what we need to be doing is tell the house democrats to vote this down for not going far enough. It’s the only hope we have at this point.

Reverse psychology. I see what you did there. The dumbocrats might actually fall for it. 

[Jeb48]

A like minded friend in NY sent me this a couple of days ago.

[m16ty]

14 hours ago, Big 10 Biden said:

Reverse psychology. I see what you did there. The dumbocrats might actually fall for it. 

Well, it didn't work, the House will pass it  (if they haven't already, because the media has turned to the abortion court ruling) and it's on the way to Biden's desk.

[m16ty]

17 hours ago, Whisper said:

I don't agree on this.  I think yesterday's Supreme Court ruling is going to provoke a flurry of lawsuits against existing gun laws and that new laws will all be subject to careful scrutiny.  There are elements of the current gun bill (dealing with mental health and juvenile criminal records) that actually might be helpful, and I'm thinking now that the egregious elements of any new gun law will be vigorously contested.  Our gun rights organizations will have fertile ground for potential lawsuits.  It's a great day in America.

Cheers,

Whisper

Well, not having a law to have to fight in the courts is better than having a new law we will have to fight. I agree that there are segments of the new law that could be successfully challenged in court, but getting all the way to the supreme court takes a long time, and a lot of resources.

[Wingshooter]

19 minutes ago, m16ty said:

Well, it didn't work, the House will pass it  (if they haven't already, because the media has turned to the abortion court ruling) and it's on the way to Biden's desk.

I saw a brief headline that it did pass and on its way to biden. Done deal. The 14 or 15 GOP senators got a gift from the SCOTUS. The abortion media rage has completely covered the RINOs voting for a gun control bill

[bubbadavis]

11 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

I saw a brief headline that it did pass and on its way to biden. Done deal. The 14 or 15 GOP senators got a gift from the SCOTUS. The abortion media rage has completely covered the RINOs voting for a gun control bill

Hopefully enough informed voters are paying attention and not just listening to the main stream media. 

This is just more evidence we have to pay attention at the local, state, and federal level. Just voting along party (either one) lines isn't enough. I haven't been back in TN long enough for my reps to be annoyed by my calls and emails - but that day is coming!

[Darrell]

I woke up this morning to several news stories about all the protests, threats, etc. over the Dobbs decision. Isn't it interesting that conservatives address ourselves to our representatives and in the ballot box, but that liberals take it to the street?  I read that in Seattle one pro-life woman was attacked, knocked to the ground, and pepper-sprayed. Sad stuff.

[Erik88]

26 minutes ago, Darrell said:

Isn't it interesting that conservatives address ourselves to our representatives and in the ballot box, but that liberals take it to the street? 

Except on January 6th?

[Darrell]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

Except on January 6th?

There are, of course, always exceptions.  I'd mention Cliven Bundy, as well. But my point remains generally true.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Darrell

[gun sane]

Here's the latest story I could find about the possibility of a Tennessee red flag law:

Tennessee lawmakers split on 'red flag' laws (wkrn.com)

Does anybody have a state rep or senator on speed dialer to see what the climate is?

[Jeb48]

I wonder how long till the Supreme Court will have a case against a state with a Red Flag Law without due process. From what I have heard some Staes don't even require the person calling in a probable person that is dangerous to give their name. 

[Garufa]

7 hours ago, gun sane said:

Here's the latest story I could find about the possibility of a Tennessee red flag law:

Tennessee lawmakers split on 'red flag' laws (wkrn.com)

Does anybody have a state rep or senator on speed dialer to see what the climate is?

If TN does consider any kind of red flag law then women should be exempt.  It’s only fair considering.

[Grayfox54]

I already wrote my state legislators about Red Flag laws. They know where I stand. 

I can't wait for Red Flag to get to SCOTUS. Put an end to this nonsense for once and for all. 

[Wingshooter]

14 hours ago, Erik88 said:

Except on January 6th?

Jan 6 was a setup. Sure there were bad actors there as well, but we’re being played

[Links2k]

14 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

Jan 6 was a setup. Sure there were bad actors there as well, but we’re being played

Please explain. All of the public testimony has come from TFG staffers, conservatives, family members, cabinet members and people who say that they would vote for TFG again. The only testimony from anyone with no ties to TFG were the two election workers.  No democrats testified in the public hearings. I don’t want to argue. I just want to know how we’re being played. What am I not seeing? Thanks!

[Wingshooter]

10 hours ago, Links2k said:

Please explain. All of the public testimony has come from TFG staffers, conservatives, family members, cabinet members and people who say that they would vote for TFG again. The only testimony from anyone with no ties to TFG were the two election workers.  No democrats testified in the public hearings. I don’t want to argue. I just want to know how we’re being played. What am I not seeing? Thanks!

I didn’t mean to hijack this thread, so I won’t say much.
 

*Edit: I deleted part of my response since it referenced someone that was involved.*

I just don’t believe we have been given all the true facts. I wasn’t there and don’t have anything to do with it, but it smells like the Russian Collusion soap opera or the many other manufactured crisis they’ve tried to sell us lately that is beneficial to one political party.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Wingshooter

[Whisper]

3 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

I didn’t mean to hijack this thread, so I won’t say much.
 

*Edit: I deleted part of my response since it referenced someone that was involved.*

I just don’t believe we have been given all the true facts. I wasn’t there and don’t have anything to do with it, but it smells like the Russian Collusion soap opera or the many other manufactured crisis they’ve tried to sell us lately that is beneficial to one political party.

I'm confident that all of the facts in the case aren't public, which is the situation in almost every controversy.  So I agree with you on that.  But that's vastly different from claiming that "Jan. 6 was a setup."  

[E4 No More]

16 hours ago, Links2k said:

Please explain. All of the public testimony has come from TFG staffers, conservatives, family members, cabinet members and people who say that they would vote for TFG again. The only testimony from anyone with no ties to TFG were the two election workers.  No democrats testified in the public hearings. I don’t want to argue. I just want to know how we’re being played. What am I not seeing? Thanks!

I guess you've forgotten the crap said during the 2016 election cycle, Russian collusion, Ukraine call, and most of all,. the recording of Trump telling his people to protest PEACEFULLY.

[Chucktshoes]

Guys, if we could let’s steer back to the legislation a hand.

[Links2k]

7 hours ago, E4 No More said:

I guess you've forgotten the crap said during the 2016 election cycle, Russian collusion, Ukraine call, and most of all,. the recording of Trump telling his people to protest PEACEFULLY.

Chucktshoes is correct. If you’d like, I’d be glad to pm you video of TFG saying otherwise on the date in question. If not let’s stay on topic. I just had a good conversation about a hour ago at my lgs about this new legislation. 

[gregintenn]

I recall a fellow member not long ago stating “ain’t nothing gonna happen”.

[btq96r]

19 hours ago, gregintenn said:

I recall a fellow member not long ago stating “ain’t nothing gonna happen”.

But I also don't see anything that is a cause for concern.

The language of the Red Flag laws is vague, and as I understand it, only having grant money for states that want to set it up.  It's no more of a potential mess than it was before.  I'm actually okay with a few of the provisions in it (the mental health funding and boyfriend loophole being addressed), agnostic on others (18-21yr olds potentially having juvenile records reviewed, and the tighter FFL requirements that will grab private sellers clearly running a business), and not threatened by the rest.

This is a great vignette of the Washington "do something" legislative thinking.  It's kind of surprising Democrats went along with just this...they didn't even fight for universal background checks as to not derail things.  I would think trying to celebrate this as gun control opens them up to a primary challenge from an absolutist on gun control.  Republicans will get some mummers of betraying gun owners, but not enough to change anything other than the tightest primary.