Senators announce bipartisan agreement on gun proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.
If your drunk girlfriend stumbles to a police station,
Actually, it's more insidious than that.
Because there are significant issues for not acting on DV complaints, there is significant "over reaction" to use an imprecise term.
Applying a TRO "looks" logical to a Court, because, if the person is not, in fact, guilty, any Due Process impediment, simply expires, and they were merely (merely o_O) inconvenienced, not permanently damaged by the action of the Court.

But, nothing about NICS is "temporary." It was designed to be a listing of only those permanently Prohibited.
This is the huge flaw in dumping people on the non-permanent "No Fly" list into NICS.

The Temporary Restraining Order is meant to allow time for the slower processes of the Courts to evolve and execute.
 
Bingo.

If your drunk girlfriend stumbles to a police station, or gets arrested for a DUI, all she has to do is mumble something about your kinky night a week ago, and boom, DV. Police come and impound every gun you have.
That almost exact same thing ALMOST happened to me. Fortunately, my county Sheriff at the time still had the option of taking or leaving guns after a TRO (called PFAs in PA..and are automatically granted to women just for asking in almost all cases)was issued. He read all the paperwork..came back out if his office and said..NOPE, you ain't the crazy one...not taking your guns.

That was then...today? Forget it.
 
How about slipping in "some weirdo stuff" like repeal of the Hughes Amendment? Any one of those 10 Republican senators has enormous negotiating power right now. Why aren't we pushing for a pro-gun addition, rather than blindly opposing everything? This is why the pro-gun side never gets anything, and is always forced into concessions -- it's called failure of imagination.

Because the other side would never give the gun supporters anything. To them "compromise" is the anti's getting everything they want while the right signs on with nothing in return.

I have have multiple discussions with anti gun liberal friends and they all share the same idea on what "compromise" means regarding guns
 
The NICS check is not a background check. It's only a check to see if a person's name is on the Federal Prohibited Persons list (such as that is).

An actual background check takes three to six weeks (I have conducted these).
I had to get one for my NY State pistol permit. I wish it exempted me from NICS checks, but no.
 
Actually, it's more insidious than that.
Yes. Even in Florida, one of the remaining somewhat free states, all someone has to do is to claim you're a threat to them and they feel at risk, and bam! Your guns are seized. The people who seize them may not agree with the wreckless abuse of the law, but that's what they have to do. It happened to an FFL I know. A renter who willfully hadn't paid rent in many months was finally evicted after months of red tape due to the CDC of all freakin' people declaring that those who didn't pay their rent couldn't be evicted, so what did they do? Correct. They filed a Red Flag and the innocent FFL was treated as if he were a convicted criminal back before crime was decriminalized by the left.
 
Last edited:
I'm betting it passes the Senate and crashes in the house.
Disagree.

It will likely go to conference and be signed into law – which means nothing as, again, it’s meaningless political theater.

Much of the measure has ‘incentives’ for the states to act – and of course Republican-controlled states won’t.
 
The criminals and the crazies don't give a crap about gun laws which is why gun legislation does not stop criminals or crazies from doing what criminals and crazies do. Additional gun legislation may seem harmless to our rights at this time but they are not harmless. The Left already controls a great portion of our court system and they intend to control all of it. As their control over the courts increases all gun laws, even those that appear harmless today, will be increasingly "interpreted" by the courts against gun ownership rights.

We are very close of losing not just gun rights but our entire country to a few very bad, very smart and very determined people that are unfortunately supported by many, very stupid people.
 
Megawatt maker said:

I'm betting it passes the Senate and crashes in the house.

Disagree.

It will likely go to conference and be signed into law – which means nothing as, again, it’s meaningless political theater.
A conference takes place when the House/Senate versions of a bill have to be reconciled. Pelosi has already put out the word that whatever passes the Senate will be rubber-stamped in the House. To her, time is of the essence.

The only players that matter are those 10 Senate Republicans. Without them, nothing gets passed. Any one of them can insist on amendments. Why aren't we putting pressure on them to put something pro-gun into the bill?
 
June 12 (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators said on Sunday they had reached an agreement on a framework for gun safety legislation, potentially the first significant new U.S. gun law in decades, following a string of recent high-profile mass shootings. read more

Below are some highlights of what is and what is not covered by the agreement, according to a statement from the group of lawmakers that includes 10 Republicans, enough to overcome the Senate's "filibuster" rule:

IN: STATE CRISIS INTERVENTION SUPPORT

The proposal would provide resources to states and Native American tribes to create and administer "red flag" measures intended to ensure weapons are kept out of the hands of people whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others. These measures would be consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections.

OUT: ASSAULT-WEAPONS BAN

During an impassioned June 2 speech, Democratic President Joe Biden urged Congress to re-impose the federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and the transfer and possession of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. That measure faces staunch opposition from Republicans in Congress and is not in the framework agreement released on Sunday.

IN: ENHANCED REVIEW PROCESS FOR BUYERS UNDER 21

The framework calls for an investigative period to review the juvenile criminal and mental health records for gun buyers under 21 years of age. This would include checks with state databases and local law enforcement.

OUT: HIGHER AGE REQUIREMENT TO BUY SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES

The proposal does not include a provision to raise the age for buying a semiautomatic rifle to 21 nationwide. Currently the minimum age to buy is 18. Federal law already prohibits anyone younger than 21 legally buying a handgun.

IN: PENALTIES FOR "STRAW PURCHASES"

If passed, the new law would crack down on criminals who illegally straw purchase and traffic guns. A straw purchase occurs when a person buys a weapon for someone who is not legally allowed to buy one.

OUT: FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK EXPANSION

The framework does not include proposals to expand federal background checks to buy a weapon from three to 10 days. It also does not close a loophole in federal law that allows many sales over the internet and at gun shows to go unchecked.

IN: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, TELEHEALTH INVESTMENTS

The proposal would expand community behavioral health center models and makes investments to increase mental health and suicide prevention program access. It also would help fund crisis and trauma intervention and recovery services and makes investments in programs that increase access to mental and behavioral health services for youth and families in crisis via telehealth.

OUT: REPEAL OF LIABILITY SHIELD

The proposed framework makes no mention of amending or repealing a federal liability shield that protects gun manufacturers from being sued for violence carried out by people carrying, and shooting, their guns.

IN: CLARIFICATION ON DEFINITION OF LICENSED DEALER

The framework would also clarify the definition of a federally licensed firearms dealer and crack down on criminals who illegally evade licensing requirements.

IN: PROTECTIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS

Those who are convicted of domestic violence crimes and face domestic violence restraining orders would be subject to criminal background checks for gun purchases under the proposal.

IN: SCHOOL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES FUNDING

The proposed framework calls for funding to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including early identification and intervention programs.

IN: SCHOOL SAFETY RESOURCE FUNDING



Under the proposal, federal funds would go to programs that help primary and secondary schools create safety measures, support school violence prevention efforts and provide training to school personnel and students.
 
"…I’ve never understood why they don’t give tax credits for gun safes to make them more affordable. Frankly, I disagree with it on principle(s) but it seems like something everyone in congress would like. I’m just surprised they haven’t proposed it…"
I totally see the idea behind this suggestion. It would get more rarely-used firearms under lock and key.

Many folks would be opposed to providing any additional federal agencies with any insights on how many firearms one might own, how they might be protected, and perhaps their perceived value to the owner.
 
It passed the House
No, it didn't. The house passed a bunch of crap that's going no where in the Senate.

We are talking about a framework that a group of 20 senators agreed to. It now has to get written into a bill...go through committee, get voted on the floor of the Senate...then get sent to the house.

Pigosi says the house will pass it...but seeing how we don't even have a bill yet, no idea what the details will be...she is just shooting darts in the dark.

It WILL die in the house because the little Commie brats won't be able to resist adding either their per control dreams to it....or they will add on billions of unrelated crap to fund other pet projects that stand no chance of passing on their own.

Either way...it will kill the bill.

It's all a BS dog and pony show...useful to both parties...no no good what so ever for the American people.
 
post#65, no, it will NOT fail, the Senate so-called (R)'s will cave again. And the only reason they will not cave again a 3rd time, is they will plot to cave the 2nd time sufficiently to eliminate the 3rd time.


READ IT, WEEP ye knee knockers and RISE ye stalwarts...

The ONLY WAY this fails is, activism from within the 2A community. Phone calls. Emails. Something, ANYTHING but keyboard warriorship degree seekers...
 
dog and pony show
In a 50-50 Senate, Democrats need at least 10 Republicans to support this plan for it to become an actual bill AND overcome a filibuster. With 10 Republicans already signed onto the broad outline of the bill, Democrats appear able to meet that threshold, for now.

Those numbers could change as the final text of a bill is drafted and senators work through the details. On all kinds of issues, lawmakers often agree on broad frameworks but fail to find consensus on the text itself.

Perhaps that recess in August will be the death of all of this as the House and Senate take weeks off. Momentum lost, the push on this front may be over having been spent on the 20 plan.
 
Last edited:
IN: ENHANCED REVIEW PROCESS FOR BUYERS UNDER 21

The framework calls for an investigative period to review the juvenile criminal and mental health records for gun buyers under 21 years of age. This would include checks with state databases and local law enforcement.
Wonder where all the new investigators will be whistled up from? Who pays for all those brand new rice bowls?

Have to wonder if there will be any sort of limit for how long a "Delay" will last?

Sigh. Congress will ignore such details and just foist the details off on AFTFE to try and sort out.
 
Senator Martin Heinrich, D (NM) - "This is a great place to start."

In other words, we are just going to keep on chipping away until we get to our end goal of civilian disarmament.

When people suggest the "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy, our elected legislators explain why such an argument is valid.
 
I’ve never understood why they don’t give tax credits for gun safes to make them more affordable. Frankly, I disagree with it on principle(s) but it seems like something everyone in congress would like.

I’m just surprised they haven’t proposed it.
Texas got the sales tax on gun safes repealed last year. It is a rare thing everyone can agree on.
 
Texas got the sales tax on gun safes repealed last year. It is a rare thing everyone can agree on.
Nope. Just another camel nose in the tent.
The idea may start as good one...but it would quickly snowball into an avalanche of regulations and requirements.

I can see all kinds of ways that goes south fast.
Start out with a tax break..then they could even make it a tax write off...but sooner or later (bet on sooner) they would require proof you have one if their "approved" storage container before you could buy a gun.

What kind of proof? That can go south fast too.

What's "approved"...another that goes south fast. Before long, even the gold vaults at Fort Knox wouldn't meet the standard.

NOPE. Want to part of that nonsense
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top