They were saying on the radio this morning that the democrats made it so it cannot be amended, it was just a straight vote.
Rand Paul vows to introduce amendments to gun safety bill
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday condemned parts of the recently announced bipartisan gun safety deal, describing some provisions as “constitutional deficiencies” and vowing to introduce amendme…thehill.com
Not the way I figured it would play out - I was betting on the Dems pushing unfriendly amendments.
"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday condemned parts of the recently announced bipartisan gun safety deal, describing some provisions as “constitutional deficiencies” and vowing to introduce amendments as it comes to the Senate floor…"Looking at the recent criminal past of anyone is a good idea before assessing gun ownership,” Paul said. “However, that idea was paired with many questionable or bad ones in this legislation.”
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Murphy and Cornyn seem to have agreed on some New Gun Control...
- Thread starter Picton
- Start date
Republicans had a part in that too. Once any legislation reaches this point, it can no longer be amended. Pass/fail as it stands in a vote this coming week and the slippery slope begins.
I’m not sure how any of this gets solved peacefully, but I really hope someone can enlighten me.
AllaSnackbah
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,294
- Likes
- 11,509
Red flag laws should not exist period.
AllaSnackbah
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,294
- Likes
- 11,509
Man a whole lotta people "okay with" f***ing infringement in this thread, not surprised from the incrementalismassachussetts crowd. No wonder you live where you live, youve been slow cooked into thinking this shit is ok because to you its minor, well i assure you its not.
The size of the penis in your colon isnt the metric of how big a fag you are, its the mere presence of one. Jump on the wagon and quit being a fag.
The size of the penis in your colon isnt the metric of how big a fag you are, its the mere presence of one. Jump on the wagon and quit being a fag.
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
With regard to selling firearms, section 12002 changes the definition of "engaged in the business"
from
‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’
to
‘‘to predominantly earn a profit.’’
There is no need to even say that will be abused because the letter of the bill simply and plainly states if you sell ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’ you need to have an FFL--and without specifying a quantity or frequency. The changes to 921(a)(22) regarding the definition of ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’ do not appear to provide legal cover.
This is alarming few around the country, apparently.
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf
from
‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’
to
‘‘to predominantly earn a profit.’’
There is no need to even say that will be abused because the letter of the bill simply and plainly states if you sell ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’ you need to have an FFL--and without specifying a quantity or frequency. The changes to 921(a)(22) regarding the definition of ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’ do not appear to provide legal cover.
This is alarming few around the country, apparently.
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf
pdm
NES Member
Simple, they want to be able to use the law against non-FFLs and claim they are acting as an FFL without a license.
rep308
NES Member
If they want to restrict the rights of young adults 21-25, how about the voting age? The ballot box has caused more destruction that the cartridge box over the past few decades.
This is sarcasm people, in case you sarcasm meter needs calibration
This is sarcasm people, in case you sarcasm meter needs calibration
snax
NES Member
Alot of laws shouldn't exist. Not just for guns.
inkdesigner
NES Member
They don't have to do that to eliminate private sales. All they need is UBC, which will force every sale to go thru a FFL, since the commoner doesn't have access to the NICS database.
I don't see why want to add anything that INCREASES the number of FFLs, unless they are just looking at the cash they can collect from all the new licenses
Young adults should have full rights or they should have no rights and be exempt from the draft and taxes. It's as simple as that.
kevin9
NES Member
IMNSHO UBCs have enough visibility that they'll get pushback. This approach is sliding under the radar. I doubt there's any desire to actually increase the number of FFLs per say. Any increase in revenue is purely incidental.
No problem for me. Anytime I've had to sell, it's to pay bills and I've lost money every time.
It shouldn't be sarcastic. Very few young voters are conservative. If you threatened to actually raise it to 21 (to match AR sales) those little $#1+'s in "March For Our Lives" would STFU pretty quickly (after screaming, crying, and having melt-downs). What's fair for one is fair for the other. While you're at it, raise the driving age to 21, since those are "deadly weapons" and "young brains aren't as mature" for those, either.
AHM
NES Member
BTW, how do people
(not necessarily you)
imagine that AFT computes a profit-loss for non-FFLs?
The price isn't on the eFA-10 or 4473,
and some of you flippers don't even keep a bill of sale.
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,576
- Likes
- 40,183
Who’s gonna be the first red flag here…
Senate passes bipartisan gun control bill
The Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan gun bill late Thursday night in a 65-33 vote. The bill now heads to the House.www.foxnews.com
SFC13557
NES Member
The Senate Gun Bill Is Terrible
Liberals and conservatives alike should oppose it.
By
Robert Leider
June 23, 2022 1:10 pm ET
From today's WSJ.
"When mass shootings such as Uvalde happen, a rallying cry emerges for Congress to do something—anything—to prevent such tragedies in the future. On Tuesday senators introduced the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act—their effort to do something. But when your sole rallying cry is to do something, the thing you do may be worse than the status quo. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is a terrible bill, and in its current form, it ought to be defeated by a bipartisan political coalition of Congress.
Liberals should hate the bill because most of its gun-control provisions are antithetical to their criminal-justice reform agenda. The law expands the categories of those to whom it is unlawful to sell a gun or ammunition to include anyone convicted of a felony as a juvenile. This will ensnare many because the modern definition of a “felony” is exceptionally broad and includes offenses that aren’t particularly serious. The bill also changes the federal prohibition on selling firearms to those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. While it excludes involuntary commitments before age 16, the bill significantly strengthens the enforcement of the prohibition against those involuntarily committed between 16 and 18.
We should be cautious before we make it impossible for children to live normal adult lives. As liberals often point out (particularly when the death penalty is involved), children and teenagers lack maturity and impulse control. If this bill becomes law, a 12-year-old who joyrides in a car may find that he may never be allowed to purchase a gun or ammunition. Although liberals may not cry at the thought of fewer people being able to own guns, they should be concerned. A gun ban for youthful indiscretions means that these juveniles will become unemployable as adults in many security, law-enforcement and military positions that require firearm possession. And this ban will affect them no matter how much time has passed since their juvenile convictions.
The gun ban would have significant racial and socioeconomic disparities. Wealthy communities will find ways around the gun ban for their children: having robust pretrial diversion programs that don’t result in technical convictions, accessing pardons through the political process, and hiring lawyers to expunge convictions. In poorer communities, children will simply be forced to take pleas that will forever alter their futures. The same goes on the mental-health side: Wealthy parents can seek voluntary treatment for their children in circumstances that may cause poorer families to seek involuntary commitment. The bill also raises the maximum prison term for unlawful firearm possession from 10 years to 15, and these regulatory offenses—as liberals often complain—disproportionately affect poor and minority communities.
Conservatives and gun owners should hate the bill, too. Gun owners who have committed juvenile indiscretions will find that they are no longer able to purchase firearms or ammunition. The bill also has strange technical defects. It prohibits the sale of guns and ammunition to those convicted of juvenile offenses, but it doesn’t explicitly ban possession—a loophole that someone will clamor to close later. For adults who had involuntary commitments before they were 16, the reverse is true: The bill allows firearms to be sold to them, but it doesn’t decriminalize their possession of a firearm.
The most significant provision in the bill is the prohibition against firearm possession by those convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime against a dating partner—closing the “boyfriend loophole.” But the senators who negotiated this bill evidently couldn’t agree on the definition of a dating partner. They define “dating relationship” as a “relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” But relationships come in all forms, and this definition provides little guidance. The senators provided three criteria for consideration: (1) the length of the relationship, (2) the nature of the relationship and (3) the frequency and type of interaction between the people involved in the relationship. This means that a “continuing serious relationship” will be some function of quantity of dates, length of time and physical intimacy. But these vague factors don’t provide fair notice and are susceptible to inconsistent application.
By failing to define “dating relationship” adequately, Congress is effectively delegating the critical question of who falls within this ban. To whom it is delegating the hard details remains to be determined. Perhaps it will be the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has regulatory authority over firearms. Or the courts may decide as they resolve cases. Either way, Congress has yet again handed off its responsibility for defining crimes to unelected bureaucrats and judges.
Until a specific definition exists, it is unclear how the federal government will implement this prohibition. Suppose a criminal-records check indicates that a potential purchaser has committed assault or battery. What next? Maybe the trial record will show that the defendant was in a relationship with the complaining witness. Or maybe it won’t. If such information is available, how is the examiner supposed to gauge the relationship? The available records likely won’t provide the precise details of the relationship. Even if they do, the examiner still has to decide whether the relationship was serious enough to trigger the gun disability. The Senate compromise feeds many prospective gun owners to the bureaucratic wolves.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will likely pass because members of Congress feel enormous pressure to do something. But it is not a good bill, and it deserves further deliberation and refinement. The Senate’s job is to help draft good laws by cooling the passions of the moment. Right now, it is failing."
Mr. Leider is an assistant professor at Antonin Scalia Law School.
SFC13557
NES Member
Democrats Lose ‘Gun Control’
This week’s Senate compromise reflects a recognition of legal and political reality.
ByKimberley A. Strassel
From today's WSJ.
"If this week’s Senate gun compromise and Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen highlight anything, it’s how much gun politics has changed since 1994. The left’s 30-year campaign for sweeping “gun control” is hitting an ever-taller wall.
The media is hailing the Senate bill as the first federal gun breakthrough in decades—since President Clinton signed the short-lived “assault weapons” ban. The more honest headlines concede an all-important point: This is a “gun safety” compromise. It’s an acknowledgment of what isn’t in the bill—not a single flagship provision of the left’s gun-control agenda. No universal licensing. No bans on classes of firearms or types of magazines. No raising of the purchase age or limits on firearms purchases. No national database to track gun owners.
Instead, the overwhelming bulk of this “gun” bill consists of provisions aimed at mental health, school safety and tougher prosecution of gun crimes—precisely where conservatives have insisted for years that the federal focus needs to be. When even Democrats admit their standard prescriptions are nonstarters and make a deal anyway, that’s a notable political moment.
GOP gripes aside, what small changes the bill makes to existing gun laws are items even Second Amendment stalwarts (like this columnist) can support. Uploading juvenile adjudications and mental-health records to the background-check system is a no-brainer; blowing out 18 candles doesn’t suddenly make one a law-abiding citizen. Concerned that red-flag laws in blue states are a constitutional train wreck? This bill might help. It contains no mandates, and what grant money it offers is conditioned on states incorporating stronger due-process provisions in red-flag laws.
The modesty of the bill is an admission that despite Democrats’ campaign to leverage mass shootings into gun bans, there remain nowhere near 60 votes in the Senate for more gun control. And that’s a reflection of just how deeply ingrained Second Amendment rights have become in recent decades—partly thanks to the Supreme Court. Despite the press using every mass shooting to highlight liberal states that respond with more gun laws, those states remain the distinct minority.
Most of the country has gone the opposite direction. As Thursday’s 6-3 decision striking down a New York gun law noted, only six states and the District of Columbia still had what are called “may issue” laws—in which gun licenses are left to the discretion of public officials. Forty-three have “shall issue” laws, under which licenses are provided to anyone who meets established, objective criteria. That number has been steadily rising since the late 1980s.
More notable, 24 of those 43—along with Vermont, which has no permitting system for guns at all—are “constitutional carry” states, which allow law-abiding adults to purchase and carry firearms without a license. Alaska’s decision in 2003 to rescind its permit requirement opened a floodgate that continues today. A dozen states have passed or expanded constitutional carry in the past three years alone.
Gun ownership is on the rise, and across new demographics. In an online survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, firearms retailers who saw an increase in sales reported that they sold 58% more guns to African-American customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier. The figures were 49% for Hispanics and 43% for Asian-Americans. Some 5.4 million people bought a firearm for the first time in 2021—30% of all purchases. For all the media touting of surveys that purport to show Americans want “gun control,” that support is concentrated in pockets of urban America. The message is a harder sell across most districts and states, where the conversation these days is increasingly about prosecutors’ failure to enforce existing laws and jail criminal gun offenders.
Meanwhile, even the left understands that the high court’s rulings since District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) potentially kill key parts of its gun agenda. In Bruen, the justices reiterated that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in “common use.” As the media never ceases to remind us, AR-15s—and other “assault weapons” the left wants to ban—are pretty common these days. Would the Supreme Court agree to a law raising the purchase age to 21, given the long history of 18-year-olds fighting and dying for America?
What politics drove the bipartisan Senate deal? Republicans had an obvious interest in moving beyond the gun debate and returning the midterm focus to inflation. The Democratic motivation is more complex. Party leaders wanted to show that Democrats can govern and to give vulnerable members something fresh to advertise to constituents. But the decision to compromise was also an acceptance of political and legal reality. The notion that “ ‘we’ll get more later’ is just rank bulls—,” an anonymous Democratic senator told Politico this week. “For the foreseeable future, I think this will be the high-water mark.”
That could change if progressives manage to destroy the filibuster, or if the high court’s composition alters. But neither is on the immediate horizon, meaning Democrats need to rethink. Federal “gun control”—for now and for some time—is a dead letter."
Horrible
NES Member
Pile of crap passed the House. More RINOS jumping on board
www.breitbart.com
Congress Sends Gun Control Bill to Biden - Breitbart
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House sent President Joe Biden the most wide-ranging gun violence bill Congress has passed in decades on Friday, a measured
www.breitbart.com
MaverickNH
NES Member
WSJ: “More than half of the $15 billion allocated over 10 years would go for mental-health services, including allowing more states to test commu-nity-based behavioral health centers with round-the-clock emergency psychiatric services. It provides grants for school security and violence-prevention programs.”
Aside from school security, the other spend is just more sand down the rathole. I review manuscripts related to “gun violence” for medical journals and see reports on such programs frequently. Outcomes are very limited and poor. Intervention is voluntary and only about 1/3 enroll in programs, with most measures of “violence” not reduced in that group. About 1/4 of those paid as peer-councilors end up jailed for violent crime themselves.
The most effectively served group are girlfriends who are given encouragement, money and a bus ticket to leave their gangbanger boyfriends and move in with a relative in another city. If spent only on that, the $1.5 billion annual spend might actually do some good.
Aside from school security, the other spend is just more sand down the rathole. I review manuscripts related to “gun violence” for medical journals and see reports on such programs frequently. Outcomes are very limited and poor. Intervention is voluntary and only about 1/3 enroll in programs, with most measures of “violence” not reduced in that group. About 1/4 of those paid as peer-councilors end up jailed for violent crime themselves.
The most effectively served group are girlfriends who are given encouragement, money and a bus ticket to leave their gangbanger boyfriends and move in with a relative in another city. If spent only on that, the $1.5 billion annual spend might actually do some good.
Ok, then the State needs to supply the money for the storage. And pay for any damages to the weapons while in the State's hands. If we're going to lose, we might as well get something that makes losing taste less like a crap sandwich.BTW
"It's temporary," says Wolf. Yeah but why would you give back guns to someone you foiled in a plot?
The mere fact that Gov. Wolf is emphasizing the "temporary" nature of the confiscations is because they know confiscation will come first due process and exoneration second.
They know now there will be countless false charges and confiscations.
Similar threads
