• 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.

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

Picton said:
We can duel with stats all day.

Point being, plenty of people see terrible stuff and DON'T get PTSD. If you think about evolution, and the horrible stuff our ancestors had to see and cope with and persevere in spite of? It makes more sense to me that the number of people who DO get debilitated by life's traumas is much lower than the number of people who don't. YMMV.
Click to expand...
My point is the mental evaluation everyone is talking about. It could very well go against former military members by default.
 
weekendracer said:
My point is the mental evaluation everyone is talking about. It could very well go against former military members by default.
Click to expand...
And it definitely would if the left had control over it's direction.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is all of this stuff has zero to do with less mass shootings, and everything to do with less people in general having access to firearms. With the goal being zero people.

People need to stop with the "common sense" stuff. Just stop. The left wants us all disarmed. That's their objective. And they're doing it by using "common sense" legislation.
 
weekendracer said:
My point is the mental evaluation everyone is talking about. It could very well go against former military members by default.
Click to expand...
This agreement doesn't include a mental health evaluation...

It searches for evidence of disqualifying conditions in 18-21 year olds. It doesn't evaluate them. I have no doubt there are many .mil people who avoid mental health counseling for a host of reasons, and yes this might provide another one.

By and large, it's hard for me to see how "providing money to increase access to mental health treatment" actually helps much. I think what this does do is provide a mechanism for the feds to call the states and ask (as part of an expanded NICS check) for disqualifying mental health history. I have zero doubt that if that's the way the legislation is set up, there will be several states who'll pass laws that prohibit cooperation with that check.

None of this matters, though, of course. It's ALL political grandstanding. None of it is likely to stop a shooter. All it does is put up barriers against citizens exercising a right. But I'm preaching to the choir there, I suspect.
 
The 18 to 21 year old, special background check part, I dunno. I'd like to see the law. I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up deemed unconstitutional either.

If it's saying a 16 year old who beat up his grandmother can't own a gun until he's 21, I'm kinda good with it.

If it's turning a brawl between two 16 year old boys where one got a bloody nose into a lifetime prohibition on owning guns, I think we've gone off the rails (hell that's many of us but nobody got charged for that shit when we were kids). But everything I read indicates the former narrow exception of "until you are > 21" they may use juvenile records of the heinous sort.

When high school kids getting wasted and crashing cars into trees, dying horrible deaths, was a big issue with a drinking age of 18 - they generally raised that to 21. They put a lot more enforcement around kids drinking, yanked licenses much quicker for DUIs or being caught with booze underage. I will say when I was a kid, although it certainly didn't stop us, it made it a lot harder generally to throw huge booze laden parties.

If you want to stop insane 18 year olds from arming up and shooting up a school - focusing laws on that age group has its merits. And if the special focus ends at 21, at least so does the infringement.
 
rcwhat said:
Not that I really want to know but I am curious, wtf is a touchhole? Lol
Click to expand...
Per wiki:
A touch hole, also called a vent, is a small hole at the rear (breech) portion of the barrel of a muzzleloading gun or cannon.

Cannon-diagram2.svg


:p
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Some states may actually, for real, "expunge" juvenile records after adulthood, making them non-discoverable in a database search. If that is the case, I wonder if the feds will start banning absolute expungement and require the MA style of the penetrable seal which only protects the records from most non-LE viewers.
Click to expand...
They're unlikely to be able to prohibit expungement.
What they'd do is mandate copies of all files
so they can build their own independent database.
  • Makes it easy for them to search.
  • Lets them broom any Clinton-type files at will.
  • Grows yet another level of bureaucracy.
  • Etc.
What's not for the Feds to like?

But again, don't be surprised if there's discoverable case law on-point somewhere on the Intarwebs.

Uzi2 said:
I'll bet in 10 years, the next group of most egregiously prohibited persons that starts popping up will be those who had a school yard fight in grades 6 -12 beginning 2022 forward.
Click to expand...
Invest in Ritalin pharma stocks.
Up next: G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate in the school HVAC.

Junior314 said:
Single point of entry with doors that auto close on their perimeter that will set off an alarm if propped open. Armed security etc.
Click to expand...
Propped-schmopped.
Pre-positioning a cache of guns underneath a pile of leaves, in a trash barrel, etc.
next to a fire door is the gold standard for how to smuggle them inside.

Even given modern cheap camera surveillance,
there needs to be a prompt investigation if any fire door is opened for so much as an instant.
Of course the alarm left ringing from the crash bar trip
would be a powerful incentive to send someone.
 
AHM said:
Even given modern cheap camera surveillance,
there needs to be a prompt investigation if any fire door is opened for so much as an instant.
Of course the alarm left ringing from the crash bar trip
would be a powerful incentive to send someone.
Click to expand...
Funny thing about fire doors.

Many years ago, I received a corporate email stating that all fire alarms are to be treated as real and evacuation is a requirement, not optional.

So, I respond with "If alarms are to be treated as real, does this mean use of the alarmed emergency exits is authorized"? Never did get an answer.
 
vickers said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. )
 
MaverickNH said:
A lot of kids do stupid shit when young that wasn’t a crime when I was growing up, or at least the cops wouldn’t arrest and book you. They just hauled you to the station, called your parents and they came and got you with the expectation you’d get walloped - a crime now too that justified a NICS denial.

WIll ATF come after 18-21 year olds that are denied on a NICS? Will they notify local LE? Will they notify colleges? Will they change the 4473 to notify people that expunged juvenile records must be disclosed as arrests? Is a suspension from school for behavioral issues an involuntary adjudication by in loco parentis judges (school administrators)?

Motivated killers find guns.

The Left is convinced that the 5+ million new “lawful” gun owners 2019-2021, who became 1st time gun owners when buying a gun via a NICS background check, are culpable for the 30% increase in murder during that period. That in itself tips their hand - it’s not a NICS UBC that matters to them - it’s the part about owning a gun that they don’t like about gun owners. But we know, if they take our guns away, they still won’t like us.
Click to expand...
Adjudication in regard to being mentally defective is done by a court. It needs opposing counsel, a judge..ect. I’ve worked in mental health for most of my life, so I have an intimate knowledge.
 
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...
The same Evil people grooming kids that won't tell you what a "women" is are going to rapidly move to tell you what a "child" isn't when it suits them in the bedroom.

The same people calling 'compromise' getting half of what they want while you get nothing are going to have a field day with your kids. Cause it's a 'compromise' for them to get diddled at 15 when you didn't want them touched at all.

Not even engaging in hyperbole anymore. This is the Evil shit the left wants. You disarmed and lawfully helpless while they pillage your family without recourse.
 
Picton said:
This agreement doesn't include a mental health evaluation...

It searches for evidence of disqualifying conditions in 18-21 year olds. It doesn't evaluate them. I have no doubt there are many .mil people who avoid mental health counseling for a host of reasons, and yes this might provide another one.

By and large, it's hard for me to see how "providing money to increase access to mental health treatment" actually helps much. I think what this does do is provide a mechanism for the feds to call the states and ask (as part of an expanded NICS check) for disqualifying mental health history. I have zero doubt that if that's the way the legislation is set up, there will be several states who'll pass laws that prohibit cooperation with that check.

None of this matters, though, of course. It's ALL political grandstanding. None of it is likely to stop a shooter. All it does is put up barriers against citizens exercising a right. But I'm preaching to the choir there, I suspect.
Click to expand...
They’ll be able to take their time combing through commitment/adjudication records. When states report a person a person that is prohibited, all of the patient info is redacted except the flagged prohibitor and demographic info. I’m not supporting it, just giving an explanation. All of this is empty and doesn’t change much. Giving the illusion their doing something, to please the masses.
 
sig shooter said:
They’ll be able to take their time combing through commitment/adjudication records. All of the patient info is redacted except the flagged prohibitor. I’m not supporting it, just giving an explanation. All of this is empty and doesn’t change much. Giving the illusion their doing something, to please the masses.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suspect the federal mechanism will be a combination of encouraging states to establish and share juvie-record databases for criminal and psychological flags, mixed with a longer-than-72-hour period for the NICS check to come back before the FFL can proceed.

Some states will not comply. Others will do so minimally. Most will try to comply, but their records will be in some way flawed or compromised. So... the new system won't work perfectly, which is to say it won't really work at all. Because, to be effective, it needs to work perfectly.
 
Picton said:
Yes, I suspect the federal mechanism will be a combination of encouraging states to establish and share juvie-record databases for criminal and psychological flags, mixed with a longer-than-72-hour period for the NICS check to come back before the FFL can proceed.

Some states will not comply. Others will do so minimally. Most will try to comply, but their records will be in some way flawed or compromised. So... the new system won't work perfectly, which is to say it won't really work at all. Because, to be effective, it needs to work perfectly.
Click to expand...
Every day there is not a mass shooting perpetrated by a 18-21 year old will be proof the law works. There’s no way statistics bears out efficacy of laws in 1-in-a-million events.

Any mass shootings by 18-21 year olds will be proof we need even more laws targeting that age group. Any mass shootings by 21+ year olds will just confirm the need for still more new laws.
 
Again they can all.Fk off...thats the additude I have with these walking piles of shit these days. They're the nut jobs that should be flagged and tossed in rubber rooms and lose the keys. Over paid drama queens..

yawning-bored.gif
 
sig shooter said:
Looks like they will make selling a firearm to someone who is adjudicated (court hearing) a danger to themselves and/or others, double illegal. The extended investigative period for a under 21 purchase with give them extra time to drag ass. It will be similar to being delayed during a NICS check. Hopefully, this all goes to shit during the draft of the bill. You and I know that the leftys will try and insert some crazy shit.
Click to expand...
Our own state is the perfect example of how they abuse their authority .
Delays , unwarrented denials , unwarrented restrictions , red towns , green towns, just the sort of shit mess they would love nationwide.
 
G4Y4HK said:
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!'
Click to expand...

drgrant said:
That's really part of #4, if you dont design a set of laws with the "hatch welded shut" they will just take it and f*** it up to suit their political needs that month.
Click to expand...
The problem is it's already almost entirely opinion based. The petitioner's opinion (or desire) is for you to be disarmed. The judge rubberstamps it. One thing I never see on these bills is the requirement for "new proof" for a renewal of the order. Example "I kicked my husband out for banging the baby sitter, and I want his guns taken because I'm scared he'll come after me for kicking him out". Judge approves. 1 year later if there is NO RECORD of the husband doing anything and NO EVIDENCE is presented to the court, the letter of the law is the guns MUST be returned. The current RO/209A shit is a good example of this.
 

Similar threads

NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
985
StevieP
StevieP
Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
537
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
New England gun tourism
Replies
26
Views
608
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
So rappers are going to bust rhymes on gun control.
Replies
11
Views
367
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
13
Views
280
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom