Murphy and Cornyn seem to have agreed on some New Gun Control...

It looks like Democrats are looking to declare a victory and let the details settle out later…


”The passage of time could scale back the compromise even more. The bare-bones framework announced Sunday won the endorsement of 10 Republicans, indicating that if all 50 Democrats go along, the package could clear a Senate filibuster and win passage. But the actual bill has yet to be written, and many of the details—including the question of how much the legislation will cost and where the money will come from—have yet to be ironed out. Senators are hopeful that a bill could be ready for a vote within a few weeks, but similar “framework agreements” have taken much longer to finish in the past.”

In 2017, the Fix NICS Act added 11.5 million records (that would presumably lead to a denial) to the database. That an additional ~4.5% of the US adult population. And yet - not perceptible impact.

“Murphy and Cornyn have worked together on gun measures several times in recent years. They used as a template their successful talks on smaller tweaks to the background-check system after another Texas mass shooting, the church massacre of more than two dozen people in Sutherland Springs in 2017. Those negotiations resulted in the enactment of the Fix NICS Act as part of a broader spending bill in 2018. The law created carrots and sticks to encourage federal agencies and the military to upload records to the federal background-check system; it also included money that Republicans sought to beef up school security. That the law has not stopped or even meaningfully reduced mass shootings is evident; Cornyn, however, said it has led to the uploading of 11.5 million additional records to the federal background-check system, which represented a 30 percent increase for one database.”
 
Last edited:
In God We Trust said:
Mental health? I’m good with that.

Hardening schools? Good with that also.

Enhanced BG checks for 18-21? Not sure what that entails, but I don’t really see the need for it.

Red flag laws? I’d be ok with them except for the opportunity for abuse. On face value it makes sense to a point. If my neighbor has been smoking meth all day and has a pistol in his waistband while talking to satan, I’d call the cops before someone got hurt. Yeah the cops might shoot him, but I have no control over that.
Click to expand...

If this afternoon, you saw someone smoking meth with a pistol in their waistband and you called the cops, they ought to come, determine the person is intoxicated and armed and arrest him. I have to believe that it's illegal in some way.

Red Flag Laws will ONLY be used because someone's grandkid wants leverage to put pops in the nursing home, some Karen is frightened by her neighbor that hunts deer or other abuses.

There are other systemic problems that do allow people to slip through cracks, like catch and release.

Making something more illegaller won't stop future tragedies.
 
namedpipes said:
If this afternoon, you saw someone smoking meth with a pistol in their waistband and you called the cops, they ought to come, determine the person is intoxicated and armed and arrest him. I have to believe that it's illegal in some way.

Red Flag Laws will ONLY be used because someone's grandkid wants leverage to put pops in the nursing home, some Karen is frightened by her neighbor that hunts deer or other abuses.

There are other systemic problems that do allow people to slip through cracks, like catch and release.

Making something more illegaller won't stop future tragedies.
Click to expand...
What I was trying to say was that absent the inevitable abuse, it’s a good idea. Even if you take guns out of the equation, there should be a mechanism to seek help for someone you know who is at risk of hurting themselves or others.
 
In God We Trust said:
What I was trying to say was that absent the inevitable abuse, it’s a good idea. Even if you take guns out of the equation, there should be a mechanism to seek help for someone you know who is at risk of hurting themselves or others.
Click to expand...
This already exists in most states, called an emergency involuntary 72 hour hold. Joe Blow states he wants to kill himself to his therapist. Joe and his therapist process his feelings for a bit and it’s clear that he is actively suicidal and has a plan. Therapist tells Joe that he wants him to voluntarily go the ED to have a psych eval to determine if he needs to go inpatient psych. Joe refuses and runs off into the night, police are called, and section 12 is issued. When the cops find Joe, they drag him to the ED to be evaluated. If he doesn’t meet inpatient level of care, they let him go with follow up appointments. If he does meet level of care, off he goes to a psych facility.
 
sig shooter said:
This already exists in most states, called an emergency involuntary 72 hour hold. Joe Blow states he wants to kill himself to his therapist. Joe and his therapist process his feelings for a bit and it’s clear that he is actively suicidal and has a plan. Therapist tells Joe that he wants him to voluntarily go the ED to have a psych eval to determine if he needs to go inpatient psych. Joe refuses and runs off into the night, police are called, and section 12 is issued. When the cops find Joe, they drag him to the ED to be evaluated. If he doesn’t meet inpatient level of care, they let him go with follow up appointments. If he does meet level of care, off he goes to a psych facility.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, can this Section 12 currently be issued at the request of family? Unrelated, "concerned" neighbors? Teachers? Or just a clinician?
 
Picton said:
Out of curiosity, can this Section 12 currently be issued at the request of family? Unrelated, "concerned" neighbors? Teachers? Or just a clinician?
Click to expand...
all it takes is a 'conclusion' of some 'designated clinician' the family can pursue.
and, of course - the social workers - the verbiage is just a swan song - remember, it is an 'involuntary incarceration' we talk about here, no judge, no sentence:

  • If you receive a call from a client and you assess/determine that the person should be "sectioned" can you authorize it even though you have not met with the client in person, but talked to them on the phone?
Answer: Because of the refusal of the person to consent to such examination, the...social worker on the basis of the facts and circumstances may determine that hospitalization is necessary and may apply therefore.” It is therefore not enough to rely solely on someone else’s evaluation. There must be both an emergency and the patient must explicitly refuse to be evaluated by the LICSW. If both conditions are met, and if the LICSW believes the source of information concerning the patient's condition is reliable, there would be sufficient basis for signing a section 12(a).
 
sig shooter said:
This already exists in most states, called an emergency involuntary 72 hour hold. Joe Blow states he wants to kill himself to his therapist. Joe and his therapist process his feelings for a bit and it’s clear that he is actively suicidal and has a plan. Therapist tells Joe that he wants him to voluntarily go the ED to have a psych eval to determine if he needs to go inpatient psych. Joe refuses and runs off into the night, police are called, and section 12 is issued. When the cops find Joe, they drag him to the ED to be evaluated. If he doesn’t meet inpatient level of care, they let him go with follow up appointments. If he does meet level of care, off he goes to a psych facility.
Click to expand...

If Joe Blow is serious enough and wants to kill "himself", Joe Blow will find a way and just do it. Everything in between Joe's incarceration and "treatment" and his final action is just a "legal out" for those involved in the process.
 
Re: involuntary committals.

Dr. Drew Pinsky commented in a podcast about California's homeless problem
some seasons back that he witnessed family after family pleading with Sacramento
in hearings to make it easier for them to get their mentally ill loved ones
committed to involuntary care. Because it's virtually impossible today.

The legislature's effective reaction: "yeah, we'll jump right on that".

Michael Shellenberger has been hammering Newsom hard on this
(which I only know because Scott "Dilbert" Adams has been retweeting
a load of Shellenberger's stuff).

And in the Deep South (at least), the number of beds in the State Nervous Hospital system
is a sliver of what's actually needed to house all the insane people.
I don't think there are enough beds anywhere in the nation.

ETA: But considering how many prisoners are insane,
there's a slightly roomier place for someone that really acts out...

Reptile said:
Dreaded Rear Admiral to you.
Click to expand...
FTFY.

Dench said:
barnabus said:
Click to expand...

isnt that @Broccoli Iglesias
Click to expand...

Eyes not limpid enough.
Looks more like @namedpipes.
 
Uzi2 said:
And your point is?
Click to expand...
The argument of "lets move the driving age to 21 as well" is fundamentally different than those about moving other adult only limits (signing binding contracts, making own decisions about medical care, etc.) to 21.
 
Uzi2 said:
If Joe Blow is serious enough and wants to kill "himself", Joe Blow will find a way and just do it. Everything in between Joe's incarceration and "treatment" and his final action is just a "legal out" for those involved in the process.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to demonstrate that a process is in already in place and we don’t need red flag laws. If someone really wants to off themselves, they will find a way.
 
fshalor said:
Honestly, might as well make 21 the driving age. And add owning property, everything else.

That would manage to inconvience people enough to pay attention. (at least those who have kids. )
Click to expand...

Also need to rescind 19A and the various property rights laws passed around the turn of the last century. No good came from any of that! It was a good experiment but it's time to get them back in the kitchen!
 
bearingarms.com

Cornyn says "issues" remain in Senate gun deal

bearingarms.com bearingarms.com

If making federal laws is difficult, handing out money to state to make laws is harder. No legislator wants to see their taxpayers give money to other states and get none themselves - that’s electoral suicide.

In this case, it’s about states who actually do have mental health services - should they get no Red Flag Law money if they don’t pass a law that includes gun confiscation? We’re all about treating symptoms and not diseases in politics, but this is a valid point. Gun grabbers want guns grabbed and nothing more. But many are wising up to realize that’s not treating the disease and doesn’t even really treat the symptoms either.
 

Similar threads

What not to do with your new gun.
Replies
20
Views
421
houdini
houdini
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
551
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
New England gun tourism
Replies
26
Views
650
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
So rappers are going to bust rhymes on gun control.
Replies
11
Views
384
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Back
Top Bottom