Senate reaches framework for bipartisan gun control bill

Harold2689

Harold2689

Shooter
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
568
Location
Henderson County
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
nypost.com

Senators reach bipartisan deal on gun reforms framework

Senate negotiators representing Democrats and Republicans are hashing out the final details, CNN reported on Sunday.
nypost.com nypost.com

I still cannot locate the actual text of the proposal, but for now, they say that there is not a ban on AR-15s, or raising the age limit to buy a long gun to 21. They actually got 10 republican senators to go along with it. I cannot find their names yet...
 
The senators include: Chris Murphy, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis , Kyrsten Sinema, Richard Blumenthal, Roy Blunt, Cory Booker, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Chris Coons, Lindsey Graham, Martin Heinrich, Mark Kelly, Angus King, Joe Manchin, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Debbie Stabenow, and Pat Toomey.
 
3 minutes…lays out the major points as we know them now
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
The senators include: Chris Murphy, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis , Kyrsten Sinema, Richard Blumenthal, Roy Blunt, Cory Booker, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Chris Coons, Lindsey Graham, Martin Heinrich, Mark Kelly, Angus King, Joe Manchin, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Debbie Stabenow, and Pat Toomey.
Click to expand...
Glad Blunt's retiring, but know nothing about potential replacements.
 
On one hand I hate that republicans are going along with any form of gun control (or "reform," as the democrats want to call it) but on the other hand, if we didn't at least participate in the talks, the democrats would try to do away completely with the 2nd amendment.

From what I can see so far, it looks like they want to expand on mental health checks, and include juvenile records of all background checks on people under 21. Even though they refer to the weapons used in the last few shootings as "AR-15-style military assault rifles," there is not a ban on them, nor does it raise the age to buy one to 21- YET.

I am glad they seem to be going after people control of those who can purchase guns, instead of going after the guns themselves, my biggest fear is that they will get a watered-down version passed into law, then come back later and amend all the other stuff into it. They seem to be trying to limit who can purchase a gun, which is good, but no law will stop criminals, who by definition, do not obey laws.

I still don't like it.
 
From the OPs linked article:

The framework of the agreement encourages states to enact red-flag laws, to expand mental health services in all 50 states, as well as allow searches of juvenile records during background checks for those under 21 and increase funds for school security and mental health programs.

The Feds will use funding to try and bring the states in line with their wishes.
 
How about the 8 or 9 states that already have red flag laws, are they going to repeal them so they can reintroduce them to steal more money from us?
 
Button Pusher said:
What good is a red flag when folks did not say something until after a person goes shooting? This includes the FBI and local law enforcement.
Click to expand...

There was actually a really good study done by a few statisticians at Five Thirty Eight.

They looked at decades’ worth of 4+ victim shootings not associated with gang violence. One of the few statistically significant factors, beyond the shooter being male, was “consistent homicidal and suicidal ideation expressed to family and friends in the month prior to the shooting.”

They also found that, when people raised the issue to LE, LE responses were either ignoring it completely or saying there was nothing they could do. At best, the family would get told to find a psychiatrist or therapist.

Temporarily removing guns from a suicidal person or a person with sociopathic dissociation, without dealing with the actual problem, is just dumb. Great, you took away the gas-operated rockchuckers from a broken or breaking brain. Surely they won’t find another means of acting out…
 
Red flag laws will be abused to disarm anyone that an angry liberal gets mad at. It will disarm people that may not be able to work the system properly to get them back. I agree Republicans should be at the table, but they should be there just to tell them to screw themselves.
 
ChickenHawk said:
Red flag laws will be abused to disarm anyone that an angry liberal gets mad at.
Click to expand...

In every state that’s enacted these laws, this is criminal—no different than seeking a frivolous DV restraining order or SWATing someone. A frivolous red flag request would require submitting a false affidavit to a court, at a minimum, plus any liability for whatever happens after.

People will still do it, but it’s a crime.

My bigger fear is LE screwing up on home addresses or using inappropriate tactics. The less possible interaction between LE and random armed homeowners at night, the better.
 
JRV said:
In every state that’s enacted these laws, this is criminal—no different than seeking a frivolous DV restraining order or SWATing someone. A frivolous red flag request would require submitting a false affidavit to a court, at a minimum, plus any liability for whatever happens after.

People will still do it, but it’s a crime.

My bigger fear is LE screwing up on home addresses or using inappropriate tactics. The less possible interaction between LE and random armed homeowners at night, the better.
Click to expand...
Can you show me statistics on how many times they have prosecuted someone for doing this? Just like women that scream rape very rarely get in trouble for their false accusations.
 
JRV said:
In every state that’s enacted these laws, this is criminal—no different than seeking a frivolous DV restraining order or SWATing someone. A frivolous red flag request would require submitting a false affidavit to a court, at a minimum, plus any liability for whatever happens after.

People will still do it, but it’s a crime.

My bigger fear is LE screwing up on home addresses or using inappropriate tactics. The less possible interaction between LE and random armed homeowners at night, the better.
Click to expand...

This is what makes my stomach queasy.... I have a siren on my home alarm to make sure I wake up in emergency, I can see that blocking out police screaming police, my child screaming when she hears door kicked open, and shots being fired in the confusion... 😥😥😥
 
JRV said:
In every state that’s enacted these laws, this is criminal—no different than seeking a frivolous DV restraining order or SWATing someone. A frivolous red flag request would require submitting a false affidavit to a court, at a minimum, plus any liability for whatever happens after.

People will still do it, but it’s a crime.

My bigger fear is LE screwing up on home addresses or using inappropriate tactics. The less possible interaction between LE and random armed homeowners at night, the better.
Click to expand...
Ya, it may be criminal, but how often are they prosecuted? - It's no different than false rape accusations (which is a felony).
They wont ever prosecute out of fear of discouraging "real" tips.
 
ChickenHawk said:
Can you show me statistics on how many times they have prosecuted someone for doing this? Just like women that scream rape very rarely get in trouble for their false accusations.
Click to expand...

That would be impossible to find. Only certain jurisdictions voluntarily report certain crimes to DOJ/BJS for tracking (typically violent crimes). That’s the data that makes it into the UCR.

There’s no centralized “database” of state/county/municipal criminal charges for false reports or perjury arrests. There’s also no comprehensive database of civil verdicts for defamation or abuse of process torts arising from false reports. Everything else you might see cited is just nerds guessing and extrapolating.

Studies on false reports have been done, but they are just that. Studies, surveys, etc., limited in scope, duration, and sample size. Best guess, only something like 2% of unsuccessful sexual assault prosecutions are deemed to be “unfounded allegations,” and that 2% includes malicious false reports, reports made too late for physical/medical evidence, and reports of conduct that wasn’t technically a crime but was reported in good faith—with malicious false reports being the rarest.

Didn’t take much searching to find a recent example, though. Stories like that tend to make local news.
 
JRV said:
That would be impossible to find. Only certain jurisdictions voluntarily report certain crimes to DOJ/BJS for tracking (typically violent crimes). That’s the data that makes it into the UCR.

There’s no centralized “database” of state/county/municipal criminal charges for false reports or perjury arrests. There’s also no comprehensive database of civil verdicts for defamation or abuse of process torts arising from false reports. Everything else you might see cited is just nerds guessing and extrapolating.

Studies on false reports have been done, but they are just that. Studies, surveys, etc., limited in scope, duration, and sample size. Best guess, only something like 2% of unsuccessful sexual assault prosecutions are deemed to be “unfounded allegations,” and that 2% includes malicious false reports, reports made too late for physical/medical evidence, and reports of conduct that wasn’t technically a crime but was reported in good faith—with malicious false reports being the rarest.

Didn’t take much searching to find a recent example, though. Stories like that tend to make local news.
Click to expand...
That is one out of many. That is why I said usually. In the case you linked it doesn't seem like it was hard to get the woman to admit to lying, and it still took two years for it to be made right. I hope it doesn't take two years to get your guns back if they are taken under a false accusation. There is no way you can justify this to make it ok.
 
Tim Poole (Timcast show) has been swatted 9 times this year alone and many have been captured on his live streams. Jeremy at The Quartering has been swatted multiple times as well. Both are well know on YouTube and other video mediums and have large audiences. Not one arrest, much less a prosecution, and their local police/first responders know they are swatting targets and still go full out with each one of these that gets reported. Poor ole Joe Schmoes out here won’t stand a chance with these anonymous red flag reports…oh, and they’ll be able to clean your house of weapons while you fight to get your God given rights restored. It seems that places that have these laws already that restoring your rights tend to be like civil asset forfeiture…prove you are innocent and that the money/property we took was actually yours. Yeah, it will be real simple to undo the damage, I’m sure! All of this is assuming you don’t get lit up during the red flag raid.

Yes, current swatting and false reports are/will be illegal, but if you think that‘s going to stop someone from breaking laws and reporting you because “evil guns”, I’ve got some idiotic common sense gun laws for you that’ll you’ll love!

Constitution…pfffftttttttt!

Also, I can’t see many states being able to withstand the lure of mo‘ money from fed.gov either. Limpy Grabhand here in SC has been after red flags for years and now he’ll get some bribery money for them as well! 😖☹️

Like I’ve said before, red flag laws will just become legalized swatting.

Also, once these things get on the books, it’ll only get worse. The first shooting after and we’ll have to have better red flag, boyfriend loopholes, common sense blah-blah…they never get less restrictive
 
Last edited:
Stogies said:
So what are we getting in return for this "compromise"?
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing. For years, the gutless republicans have been trying to slowly give away every right we have. Constantly compromising with uncompromising people (liberals) has always been a bad idea but one that establishment Republicans seem to have embraced. Someday, we will finally reach the end of this slow death of incrementalism and will have no more rights than the rest of the world.
 
Dale Gribble said:
The senators include: Chris Murphy, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis , Kyrsten Sinema, Richard Blumenthal, Roy Blunt, Cory Booker, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Chris Coons, Lindsey Graham, Martin Heinrich, Mark Kelly, Angus King, Joe Manchin, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Debbie Stabenow, and Pat Toomey.
Click to expand...

Those Republican names certainly instill confidence ... of betrayal.
 
Stogies said:
So what are we getting in return for this "compromise"?
Click to expand...
That's what I want to know. Did the Republicans on the panel insist on 50-state carry reciprocity in return for signing on? Did they insist that all "may issue " states convert to "shall issue"? Do we get a more liberal safe travel law so we can at least drive through MD, NJ, NY and other states without worrying about becoming a felon?

Of course not. More "compromise" that is not compromise at all, but capitulation.
 
JRV said:
There was actually a really good study done by a few statisticians at Five Thirty Eight.

They looked at decades’ worth of 4+ victim shootings not associated with gang violence. One of the few statistically significant factors, beyond the shooter being male, was “consistent homicidal and suicidal ideation expressed to family and friends in the month prior to the shooting.”

They also found that, when people raised the issue to LE, LE responses were either ignoring it completely or saying there was nothing they could do. At best, the family would get told to find a psychiatrist or therapist.

Temporarily removing guns from a suicidal person or a person with sociopathic dissociation, without dealing with the actual problem, is just dumb. Great, you took away the gas-operated rockchuckers from a broken or breaking brain. Surely they won’t find another means of acting out…
Click to expand...
Sure glad we got rid of nut houses
 
ChickenHawk said:
That is one out of many. That is why I said usually. In the case you linked it doesn't seem like it was hard to get the woman to admit to lying, and it still took two years for it to be made right. I hope it doesn't take two years to get your guns back if they are taken under a false accusation. There is no way you can justify this to make it ok.
Click to expand...

I’m not justifying false reports or red flag bills. I’m not “pro” endangering gun owners, or stupid seizure orders that would leave a so-called “imminent danger to others” out and about in society because “well, at least we took the guns.”

Saying “red flag laws will equal false reports” is the same fear as “more people carrying guns will equal blood in the streets.” Red flag laws don’t legalize or enable illegal (and extremely rare) false reports—the same way constitutional carry laws don’t legalize or enable murder. The same craphole subhuman that SWATs someone, makes a frivolous 911 call, fakes a DV complaint, etc. is going to do that type of thing anyways with or without red flag laws. All of those crimes put amped-up cops at the doorstep of gun owners’ houses on false pretenses.

If a freaked-out Karen commie wanted cops stacked up on your door, it can be done multiple ways—right now—that don’t need red flag laws.

What will happen under red flag laws, based on what LE and criminals do already:
- LE will screw up service addresses
- LE will serve the restraining orders at unsafe times using unsafe methods
- The people who are actual dangers to others will keep guns hidden in places family and LE don’t know to look
- People who are having mental breakdowns will be no closer to receiving needed mental healthcare
- People who are deemed “safe” following the court’s review will lack the resources to navigate bureaucracy and ensure full restoration of rights
 
Last edited:
I'm not opposed to more funding for mental health, and for mental health resources to be pushed down into the schools. They only need to cut one or two pet pork projects to fund it.

Everything else? Nah.
 
A compromise would be including removal of silencers from the NFA.
While they're at it they can amend the NFA and mandate that the ATF has 30 days to complete the review process and failure to do so results in a refund of the $200.

One of the issues with swatting is that most of the people doing it are either smart enough to use a vpn or actually in another country. This is what the issue with most of swatting incidents that go after streamers and whatnot.
You're local PD is obligated to investigate reports and they likely have no way of knowing that the person that called was using a VOIP phone and VPN and is actually in Europe. Neither does the 911 dispatcher.
 
Prudii said:
A compromise would be including removal of silencers from the NFA.
Click to expand...
+1

I hope once the bill is written the Republicans drive a hard bargain and get something in return. A jujitsu move might be to embrace the Dems idea of training and education, and require that all public school students have 20 hours of firearms proficiency training, similar to the way drivers ed is taught in the schools.
 
Stogies said:
So what are we getting in return for this "compromise"?
Click to expand...
"We" being the side of reality and reason get "expand mental health services in all 50 states", "increase funds for school security and mental health programs". Those are good things, at least on the surface. "We" as in gun rights, nothing.

I'm holding back a sigh of relief until I see the real thing. I was afraid they made a deal to take away private sales but I don't see that mentioned.
 
Last edited:
JRV said:
I’m not justifying false reports or red flag bills. I’m not “pro” endangering gun owners, or stupid seizure orders that would leave a so-called “imminent danger to others” out and about in society because “well, at least we took the guns.”

Saying “red flag laws will equal false reports” is the same fear as “more people carrying guns will equal blood in the streets.” Red flag laws don’t legalize or enable illegal (and extremely rare) false reports—the same way constitutional carry laws don’t legalize or enable murder. The same craphole subhuman that SWATs someone, makes a frivolous 911 call, fakes a DV complaint, etc. is going to do that type of thing anyways with or without red flag laws. All of those crimes put amped-up cops at the doorstep of gun owners’ houses on false pretenses.

If a freaked-out Karen commie wanted cops stacked up on your door, it can be done multiple ways—right now—that don’t need red flag laws.

What will happen under red flag laws, based on what LE and criminals do already:
- LE will screw up service addresses
- LE will serve the restraining orders at unsafe times using unsafe methods
- The people who are actual dangers to others will keep guns hidden in places family and LE don’t know to look
- People who are having mental breakdowns will be no closer to receiving needed mental healthcare
- People who are deemed “safe” following the court’s review will lack the resources to navigate bureaucracy and ensure full restoration of rights
Click to expand...
I can appreciate this. I think many people have a deep down concern that someone they know may report them as a danger. And they will face this. But I’m truth, we all also know crazed ex girlfriends who could just as easily screamed “rape” or “abuse” way after the fact in order to screw us over.

My main concern, all along, has been not the positive move of shedding light on mental issues, but further forcing people who legit need help to further hide their issues for fear of losing their rights.

Imagine someone who is generally fine, but takes an anti-depressant due to some issues they are having. But now they have to worry about that being used against you. “He is on meds, he might be unstable” or “if you are on these medications you will be denied a purchase permit or have your carry license revoked.

While currently not an issue (as far as I know). I do know it is a legit concern. And for me, I worry that people will fail to seek treatment for mental issues because of these fears, which exacerbates the problem.
 
Totally surprised the Republicans did not give in to total ban on semi auto until 21 years of age. I thought this would be the biggy.
 
Fat Lady hasn't sang yet, so I'm waiting on the surprise ending.
 
BlackGun said:
Totally surprised the Republicans did not give in to total ban on semi auto until 21 years of age. I thought this would be the biggy.
Click to expand...
I'm still learning about all this, but my guess is that the recent ruling by the 9th US circuit court of appeal raises the bar against new legislation restricting age of ownership.

California's under-21 gun sales ban is unconstitutional, court says​

May 11, 20228:20 PM ET
Click to expand...
In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the law violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and a San Diego judge should have blocked what it called "an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles" for young adults.
Click to expand...
www.npr.org

California's under-21 gun sales ban is unconstitutional, court says

A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the law violates the right to bear arms.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom