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

Yeah, overall, I think getting the feds involved in anything involving mental health adjudication is probably a pretty hideous idea.
I wonder... since everyone on the 2A side seems to ask for more mental health spending as some sort of magical solution - what will people ask for when the next shooting happens?
 
Mental health sounds great until you think about how it will 100% for sure be abused and act as a system to DQ undesirable people.

If we could trust those with the keys to the power it'd be a non issue. But obviously they can't be trusted with it. So it's a bad thing at the end.
We have a mental health problem for sure. I haven't heard any ideas to deal with it that I would endorse. Freedom has a price, but it's worth it.
 
They're going to include juvenile records in the background checks whereas currently, they're off-limits. I'm okay with that myself. If someone raped someone at 17 years old, that's not something that a blind eye should be turned to just because the assailant was under 18 at the time of the crime.
I do agree with that, at least violent crimes.

No reason some kid that got caught smoking weed or something else stupid should be disqualified.
 
We have a mental health problem for sure. I haven't heard any ideas to deal with it that I would endorse. Freedom has a price, but it's worth it.

Theres probably no solution for actual treatment that wont result in gross loss of rights.

If a person needs help they need to be honest with their provider. Their provider is a mandated reporter. Mandated reporters... well... you know report all sorts of shit to 3rd parties. This is in my opinion massively counter productive as many people, specifically fellow veterans know better than to ever tell a counselor what's really on their mind. because if they do it's off to the looney bin for a few days at a minimum. And if they don't want to go it's signed off by a judge and considered involuntary confined to a mental institution and you're federally F'd for life.

That's why a lot of people don't seek help. They don't seek it because they can't be honest about what's going on. And if they are they are essentially sent to jail and in a lot of cases become quasi felons for the rest of there life. 2nd class citizens.

Till that changes the "mental health debate" is a joke and waste of everyone's time.
 
So with red flag laws being law of the land, what protections are there for legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong but came across a rabid antigun SJW who wanted SWAT to show up and take away his collection by calling in an anon fake concerned report 'I overheard this guy said he would shoot up the mall and then blow his own brains out! Yes sir, he lives on xxxx street please do something officers!'
 
Juvenile records are already on the table for MA at least. I had to write a letter to my chief explaining a charge I had from 1985 when I was 14 years old. (It was also dismissed since I was not guilty, but the record never goes away.)

I’m not sure what the FBI looks at when the FFL calls in.

This is true about Mass. When I applied for my LTC several years ago in my current town, I disclosed a minor in possession of alchohol charge I had from when I was 18. I probably wouldn't have prior because I had thought all these years that it had been expunged. What I was told at the court at the time was if I plead guilty and paid the fine the charge would be expunged in a year. But fast forward 30 years and I have a CORI check done as I had volunteered to assistant coach for my son's hockey team and that charge shows right up. So lesson learned, Mass courts lie to you and in Mass you are always guilty of something.

In general, I am ok with opening up the childhood records for under 18 applicants as long as there's some due process around it.

If you're gonna redefine 'adult' as 21 years old and only allow 21 year olds and older the right to bear arms, better apply it to everything. No more poaching high school juniors and seniors to enlist in the military. You lose the overwhelmingly democrat votes of the 18-20 year old first time voting crowd. Also, full ban on porn with actors under 21. Anyone who still has 'barely 18' material goes to the slammer for child porn possession.

Absolutely, If you are going to push ability to own a firearm to 21 across the board then we need some discussion about what it means to be an adult in the US. You want minor aged women to be able to decide to get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent? Way more teens kill people in cars than with firearms, but you think it's ok for someone 18 or younger to drive an automobile? Then you say you want alcohol and firearms to be 21 because their brains aren't developed enough to be responsible before that? You can't have it both ways.
 
So with red flag laws being law of the land, what protections are there for legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong but came across a rabid antigun SJW who wanted SWAT to show up and take away his collection by calling in an anon fake concerned report 'I overheard this guy said he would shoot up the mall and then blow his own brains out! Yes sir, he lives on xxxx street please do something officers!'

Keep in mind that none of the legislation is written yet.

I'm doubtful that Red Flags will be the law of the land. I suspect gaining GOP/RINO support will mean pushing this whole "incentivizing the states" idea for ALL of these measures. That way, the feds can say, "We tried to pass meaningful gun reform, but Arkansas and Missouri just decided not to go along!" or something.

Everyone gets to look like a hero to their constituents. And that's what this is all about.
 
This compromise would have the effect of normalizing more restrictive MA/NY/CA/MD style acquisition and possession guidelines. Which is not going to be popular in the places where I used to buy guns.
Then those residents had better be voting like it's not popular.

They're going to include juvenile records in the background checks whereas currently, they're off-limits. I'm okay with that myself. If someone raped someone at 17 years old, that's not something that a blind eye should be turned to just because the assailant was under 18 at the time of the crime.
Hard-line NESer posts "what about teen rapists' Second Amendment rights?" in 3...2...1...

Not all of us here have just 3-5 years left to live. ...
Don't be too sure about that.

How many of us would the Left say fails a Red Flag Law........
How many of the Left would we say passes a Red Flag Law?

Juveniles are powerless to make their own legal decisions. Think a 14 year old kid can tell the parents paying the bill "No, I do not accept the deal for a conviction with a suspended sentence, I want a full trial - pay that retainer now. An innocent juvenile, in practice, does not even have a choice about taking the deal / copping a plea.
Is the defense counsel required to consult with the defendant in the parents' presence?
Does the court ask the defendant to stand up and confirm the deal that
they've ostensibly agreed with?

It would suck to play enough stupid games to get jacked up on charges while a minor.
It would really suck to get browbeat into sucking for a guilty plea by ones family.

A more reasoned approach would be to allow criminal records of juveniles whose cases were moved to adult court to have those records included, but not those handled by juvenile "closed to the public" proceedings.
You're not gonna think that once Soros DAs start brooming cases by
steering 26-yo's into "juvenile court".

Problem is setting up a system which does not solve the fatal flaw of giving the judge the choice between posting his/her reputation at risk by denying an order vs. assuring they cannot ever be lambasted for not issuing an order for someone who goes on to do evil.
If there's time to stage a confiscation "because dangerous",
there's time to detain the accused and force an prompt hearing, with defense counsel -
none of this "ex parte" crap that drags on for a week or two
while the cops use the optics that they confiscated
for meat tenderizers at the station house steak picnic.
 
This is true about Mass. When I applied for my LTC several years ago in my current town, I disclosed a minor in possession of alchohol charge I had from when I was 18. I probably wouldn't have prior because I had thought all these years that it had been expunged. What I was told at the court at the time was if I plead guilty and paid the fine the charge would be expunged in a year. But fast forward 30 years and I have a CORI check done as I had volunteered to assistant coach for my son's hockey team and that charge shows right up. So lesson learned, Mass courts lie to you and in Mass you are always guilty of something.

In general, I am ok with opening up the childhood records for under 18 applicants as long as there's some due process around it.



Absolutely, If you are going to push ability to own a firearm to 21 across the board then we need some discussion about what it means to be an adult in the US. You want minor aged women to be able to decide to get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent? Way more teens kill people in cars than with firearms, but you think it's ok for someone 18 or younger to drive an automobile? Then you say you want alcohol and firearms to be 21 because their brains aren't developed enough to be responsible before that? You can't have it both ways.
The mistake people make when trying to rationalize this insanity is to question how it is actually going to stop mass shootings. It’s not about that. The end goal is to ban all guns for the average citizen.

Also, if they manage to accomplish all of the above mentioned measures, it’s a HUGE win for them. ANY win no matter how small is huge for them because it’s one step closer to total disarmament.

Say they had only managed to ban those pink Rugers. Just pink Rugers and nothing else. Still a win. The money spent doesn’t matter because it’s not theirs. They also know there will be another mass shooting in the next couple of days and they can come back again.

If they manage to get some shitty law pushed through each time a kid gets shot, it’s a slow process, but each time they get closer to the goal.

With each win, we get more used to things being banned and we become less able to resist. It also continues to set a precedent that they can arbitrarily infringe on the 2A. It’s the long game and they will win it.

It’s not like these shit laws ever get repealed when the republicans hold the keys to the yard. The gun control crap only goes in one direction 99% of the time. When was the last time anything pro gun happened on the federal level? Heller?
 
Last edited:
The law of the land says "Shall Not Be Infringed" End of story.

Gun control or anything to do with guns and the people of the United States was specifically and deliberately placed beyond the purview of the federal government in the 2A. The fact that federal legislators even meet to discuss it is a violation of the Bill of Rights and other laws.

The federal government was never to be supreme over the individual states, with a few exceptions specifically enumerated and spelled out in the constitution.

The constitution "formed" the federal government AND the United States, and in doing so, the document also specifically enumerated what specific powers would be given to that federal government by the states and also specifically prohibited the federal government from doing certain things......and infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms was one of those specific prohibitions. Any authority that was not given to the federal government was reserved to the individual states and to the people.

The whole power and authority structure of this country has been turned upside down, to the point where people now think that governments grant rights and that laws allow things or actions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The 2A does not say "Well if enough leftists cry, a little infringement is ok and it is ok to take away or infringe on the other 349,998,000 people's rights because of the actions of a couple of deranged kids."

If this insanity of multitudes of people losing rights over the actions of individuals persists, there can no longer be a claim of individual rights at all.

It is time to take this country back and put the federal government back in it's cage where it belongs, under the control of the people.
 
Last edited:
They're going to include juvenile records in the background checks whereas currently, they're off-limits. I'm okay with that myself. If someone raped someone at 17 years old, that's not something that a blind eye should be turned to just because the assailant was under 18 at the time of the crime.
Depends on the juvenile record. A violent felony? Maybe. Something like shoplifting that just happened to be felony status because it was a certain price? Naw. Kids do stupid things and that shouldn’t make them prohibited persons for life.
 
I hope Cornyn gets primaried.

EDIT: Needed to correctly spell the spineless critter's name.
New verb: "Corn-hole-yn": When a politician does exactly that to his/her constituents.
At this point are these folks even Republicans?
Nope.
That's why a lot of people don't seek help. They don't seek it because they can't be honest about what's going on. And if they are they are essentially sent to jail and in a lot of cases become quasi felons for the rest of there life. 2nd class citizens.
Exactly.
 
Is the defense counsel required to consult with the defendant in the parents' presence?
Does the court ask the defendant to stand up and confirm the deal that
they've ostensibly agreed with?
Does the judge advise the defendant as to the lifelong consequences of pleading guilty?

When they had the Tonya Harding sentencing on TV, the judge asked many "do you understand that by pleading guilty ....." questions - and included "lose the right to possess firearms for the rest of your life".
 
Last edited:
The gun control crap only goes in one direction 99% of the time. When was the last time anything pro gun happened on the federal level? Heller?

Yes. This exactly.

Letting the AWB sunset, I think, was the very last time the legislative branch did anything that wasn't in some way anti-gun. And sadly, I think that if the sunset provision wasn't written into the AWB, they'd never have found the spine to reverse it on their own.

All federal legislation dealing with enumerated rights ought to be similarly sunsetted. If it's working, and not inhibiting freedoms, great, give it another year or two or five or whatever. But if not? It goes away.
 
The mistake people make when trying to rationalize this insanity is to question how it is actually going to stop mass shootings. It’s not about that. The end goal is to ban all guns for the average citizen.

Also, if they manage to accomplish all of the above mentioned measures, it’s a HUGE win for them. ANY win no matter how small is huge for them because it’s one step closer to total disarmament.

Say they had only managed to ban those pink Rugers. Just pink Rugers and nothing else. Still a win. The money spent doesn’t matter because it’s not theirs. They also know there will be another mass shooting in the next couple of days and they can come back again.

If they manage to get some shitty law pushed through each time a kid gets shot, it’s a slow process, but each time they get closer to the goal.

With each win, we get more used to things being banned and we become less able to resist. It also continues to set a precedent that they can arbitrarily infringe on the 2A. It’s the long game and they will win it.

It’s not like these shit laws ever get repealed when the republicans hold the keys to the yard. The gun control crap only goes in one direction 99% of the time. When was the last time anything pro gun happened on the federal level? Heller?
Yup, it's about taking territory. Handguns proved to be a hard target because commoners identified with self defense, but EBRs and magazines were softer target, so go after them now. Notice that EVERY compromise comes with nothing for our side - they are not compromises but either surrenders or victories for the other side depending on the circumstances.

As to the second point - just look at how "felons should not have guns" has worked it's way into common acceptance.

As to #3 - CO 15 round mag limit motivated 3 recall elections (one turned into a resignation to protect the seat for a D appointment) but efforts to recall the law were DOA.
 
Last edited:
They're going to include juvenile records in the background checks whereas currently, they're off-limits. I'm okay with that myself. If someone raped someone at 17 years old, that's not something that a blind eye should be turned to just because the assailant was under 18 at the time of the crime.

Lol it's more feel good bullshit, all this really means if they actually do it is more delays and probably more false denials. Great.

Theres probably no solution for actual treatment that wont result in gross loss of rights.

If a person needs help they need to be honest with their provider. Their provider is a mandated reporter. Mandated reporters... well... you know report all sorts of shit to 3rd parties. This is in my opinion massively counter productive as many people, specifically fellow veterans know better than to ever tell a counselor what's really on their mind. because if they do it's off to the looney bin for a few days at a minimum. And if they don't want to go it's signed off by a judge and considered involuntary confined to a mental institution and you're federally F'd for life.

Yes, exactly. I will catch shit for this but there should be 110% immunity for mental health professionals, not mandated reporter BS. You cannot get people to seek treatment if they
are afraid of the Waffen SS jumping out of the bushes and taking their shit away because they said something "controversial". They need to be able to trust the person they are getting
help from, otherwise, they intentionally will often avoid seeking that help.
 
Mental health sounds great until you think about how it will 100% for sure be abused and act as a system to DQ undesirable people.

If we could trust those with the keys to the power it'd be a non issue. But obviously they can't be trusted with it. So it's a bad thing at the end.

We have a mental health problem for sure. I haven't heard any ideas to deal with it that I would endorse. Freedom has a price, but it's worth it.

Theres probably no solution for actual treatment that wont result in gross loss of rights.

If a person needs help they need to be honest with their provider. Their provider is a mandated reporter. Mandated reporters... well... you know report all sorts of shit to 3rd parties. This is in my opinion massively counter productive as many people, specifically fellow veterans know better than to ever tell a counselor what's really on their mind. because if they do it's off to the looney bin for a few days at a minimum. And if they don't want to go it's signed off by a judge and considered involuntary confined to a mental institution and you're federally F'd for life.

That's why a lot of people don't seek help. They don't seek it because they can't be honest about what's going on. And if they are they are essentially sent to jail and in a lot of cases become quasi felons for the rest of there life. 2nd class citizens.

Till that changes the "mental health debate" is a joke and waste of everyone's time.

The only thing “mental health” legislation will do is disincentivize gun owners from seeking mental health treatment. That’s one subject you just don’t want to bring up w a therapist and if you’re holding back in therapy it’s really not going to accomplish much.
 
So pretty much we are dependent on Manchin or Sinema voting no on this and Manchin is best buds with Toomey.

Got to love how 'compromise' means the DNC gets everything is wants at the brothel & buffet while the GoP base gets to pay the bill.

Mitch McConnel is a worthless sack of shit with zero leadership. Putting a hold on a SCotUS nominee is his only 'achievement' and any other semi-competent leader would have done the same.
 
I will catch shit for this but there should be 110% immunity for mental health professionals, not mandated reporter BS. You cannot get people to seek treatment if they
are afraid of the Waffen SS jumping out of the bushes and taking their shit away because they said something "controversial". They need to be able to trust the person they are getting
help from, otherwise, they intentionally will often avoid seeking that help.

I'm a mandated reporter. I know nothing about the medical or psychiatric side, but from the teacher side? If there were no mandated reporter statute, 99% of teachers would never report anything. They'd be too afraid of "getting it wrong" and breaking up a family.

I could be wrong; the number might be closer to 98%. But judging from the conversations I have with my coworkers, there is a REAL resistance to reporting in teaching.

And to the extent that a lot of juvenile CHINS requests originate at schools, that's a bad thing in terms of mental health surveillance and treatment. It's not an easy fix, and this "agreement" won't make it any easier.
 
Are there any ex-post-facto issues associated with increasing the adverse consequences of a conviction or guilty plea by using records the defendant was told were totally sealed or expunged at age of majority. Implementation of the Lautenberg amendment would suggest the answer is no.
 
Mental health sounds great until you think about how it will 100% for sure be abused and act as a system to DQ undesirable people.

If we could trust those with the keys to the power it'd be a non issue. But obviously they can't be trusted with it. So it's a bad thing at the end.

I think there are ways to design a system with safeguards in it that work well for both sides, but the problems are four-fold:

1- Nobody wants to pay for it (to do this properly will cost a lot of money, AKA the american skinflint conundrum, although we seem to skip that problem when bailing out negligent borrowers or bombing brown people, but I digress)

2- Nobody has the balls to actually try to implement it- it involves some risks and complexity.

3-Anti gunners wont profit enough from it because it likely wouldnt increase the # of disqualified persons that much, and if done properly it would facilitiate certain groups of people to own
firearms again that had become DQed previously.

4- Government is generally shit and has this fun habit of f***ing up and contorting everything it touches, especially when most laws are shit and poorly written in a vague manner that allows for a lot of interpretation by (insert some shitty federal agency that should probably be shut down or cut in half here). Then we get executive office faggotry where every time the president changes suddenly the posture of the entire mental health system will change. Thats completely and utterly f***ed.
 
Back
Top Bottom