Jump to content

Senators Strike Bipartisan Gun Safety "Framework" Agreement


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/12/senators-strike-bipartisan-gun-safety-agreement-00039019

 

Senators strike bipartisan gun safety agreement

The emerging framework is a major breakthrough in talks following back-to-back mass shootings. Negotiators' next challenge: writing legislation that can get 60 votes.

 

By BURGESS EVERETT and MARIANNE LEVINE

 

 

Senators are preparing to release a bipartisan gun safety framework on Sunday, according to multiple people familiar with the negotiations. It would mark a significant breakthrough in Congress’ attempts to address recent back-to-back mass shootings.

 

The emerging package is anchored around extra scrutiny for gun buyers under the age of 21, grants to states to implement so-called red flag laws and new spending on mental health treatment and school security. While translating the agreement into legislation will take time, the group of senators is expected to announce that a significant number of lawmakers in both parties are behind their proposal responding to rising gun violence.

 

Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) are the lead negotiators on the proposal, which would need 60 votes to reach the Senate floor once legislative text is completed.

...

The most significant piece of the proposal would subject gun buyers 21 and younger to scrutiny of their criminal and mental health records as juveniles. It’s proved tricky to write because each state has different laws governing juvenile records.

 

In addition to provisions on red flag laws, which allow law enforcement to seek temporary removal of firearms from an individual who is a threat to himself or others, the package is also expected to close what’s known as the “boyfriend loophole” by broadening firearms restrictions on those who have abused their romantic partners.

 

The package also aims to crack down on straw purchasers and illegal unlicensed firearms dealers, according to a summary of the agreement.

...

Democrats would have preferred to expand background checks to more prospective gun buyers and ban assault rifles, though those moves lack the necessary support among Republicans.  ...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • mauserme changed the title to Senators Strike Bipartisan Gun Safety "Framework" Agreement
On 6/12/2022 at 12:18 PM, mauserme said:

...

The most significant piece of the proposal would subject gun buyers 21 and younger to scrutiny of their criminal and mental health records as juveniles. It’s proved tricky to write because each state has different laws governing juvenile records.

...

 

As some here may already know, a person 18-20 who has a juvenile record in IL for something (e.g., a crime) that would have made him a prohibited person still makes him a prohibited person until he's 21. Of course someone who had such a juvenile record probably isn't going to start obeying the law at 18, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have is with red flag laws. If someone is deemed "so dangerous" to themselves or others by a court that their constitutional rights are taken away, they need to be locked up and removed from society.

 

Similarly, I think felons should have their rights restored upon release. If they are too dangerous to be in society with all their rights, why do we even let them out?

 

Why did we ever get rid of asylums? Who's idea was it to let the mentally Ill, homeless, and people too dangerous to hold a spoon to just be out and about only to ever to be delt with by overworked cops and emts?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Why did we ever get rid of asylums? Who's idea was it tolet the mentally Ill, homeless, and people too dangerous to hold a spoon to just be out and about only to ever to be delt with by overworked cops and emts?”

 

Probably the same whack jobs that think we don’t need cops anymore 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, the devil will be in the details. All they put out are broad statements and talking points. Until we see the exact language in the bill and exactly what is being done, we know NOTHING! Still looks like nothing more than lousy political theater. AND expect fancy nancy to bring back her comment "we first must pass the bill so we can know what is in it". Hopefully it will die in the senate like it should and those so called republican senators pay a price for their stabbing us in the back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN

CNN said:

...

Reforms included in the agreement

 

'Red flag' laws

One of the most significant pieces of the framework is helping states create and implement so-called red flag laws, which are aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others. This legislation would provide significant funding to help states create new red flag laws, but the 19 states -- and Washington, DC -- that already have these laws on the books would also be eligible for funding to improve the effectiveness of their established programs.

 

Mental health and telehealth investment

The proposal also includes "major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery."

 

Members are going to be messaging these provisions carefully over the next several weeks because while Democrats view them as important, they want to emphasize that most people who struggle with mental illnesses are not violent.

 

Closing the so-called boyfriend loophole

The senators said the legislation will address the so-called boyfriend loophole, which deals with whether unmarried partners could keep guns if they were found guilty of violence against a dating partner.

...

Currently, only a person who has been married to, lived with or had a child with a partner they've been convicted of abusing are blocked from having a gun. Closing the loophole would mean that anyone who was deemed to have been in a serious dating relationship and convicted of domestic violence would no longer be eligible to own a gun.

 

Enhanced review process for buyers under 21

The other major change in the legislation is issuing a more thorough review process for people between ages 18 and 21 who go to buy a gun like an AR-15. Under a background check review, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System would have to also contact state and local law enforcement to search for any disqualifying mental health or juvenile records, according to the Democratic aide.

 

NICS would have to call the appropriate agency that adjudicates mental health records in each state. NICS would have up to 3 days to conduct the search, but it could be extended another seven days if the initial review raises concerns, meaning the process could take a total of 10 days.

 

It is not an established waiting period since each individual's review could be vastly different from just a matter of hours to up to 10 days.

 

Clarifying the definition of a Federally Licensed Firearm Dealer

The language for this provision is still being debated, but it would require more firearm sellers who are proven to be "engaged in the business of selling firearms" to be put on notice that they need to register to become Federally Licensed Firearm dealers. It's significant because it means those dealers have to conduct background checks under federal law.

 

School security resources

The legislation would address an area Republicans have focused on in recent weeks: school security. The lawmakers said in their release that the proposal provides money "to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools," while also supporting "school violence prevention efforts" and training for school employees and students.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 1:25 AM, Sweeper13 said:

What the heck... boyfriend loophole?

 

It theoretically could also be called the "girlfriend loophole" or the "family loophole" or the "roommate loophole." The loophole doesn't exist in Illinois (nor in most other states), but it does in federal law.

 

Federal law prohibits people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms only if they attacked their spouse (or ex-spouse) or someone with whom they have a child. A violent crime conviction against someone who was never married to the victim and never had a child with the victim doesn't make the attacker prohibited.

 

It has to do with how "domestic violence" is defined in federal law. If two people live together, are not married, and don't have children together, under federal law they're not considered to be in a domestic relationship, hence the name "boyfriend loophole." Federal law also exempts a child who attacks a parent or sibling. Most states don't put conditions (or as many conditions) on how people live together to consider the violence to be domestic. Presumably the proposed legislation removes those conditions in federal law.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally the final legislation will be sufficient to slightly displease both sides while still providing ample opportunity for making sound-bites about it to run in pre-election commercials to their constituents. Which does seem to me to be the goal for most things our lawmakers create to continue their rule over us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been writing emails to the 10 RINO's all morning. Also contacted Joe Manchin and Synama is next <sp?> 

 

The key is to be respectful, to the point, and articulate. Even though they aren't our Senators we need volumes of respectful emails and polite phone calls going out to them. The more of us that reach out, the better our chances of getting one or two of them to vote no. Let's go, it can't hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 3:22 PM, tbrooks said:

Writing letters and making calls don't really work. Maybe locally but at the federal level, they can really give two craps about what we disagree with.

This.  Why would Oven Mitt suddenly decide to become  an actual Republican when morons in Utah will vote for him no matter what Dem initiatives he latches onto?  He makes John McCain look like Ted Cruz, and it's not as if nobody in Utah would be surprised when he carpet-bagged the state after having screwed Massachusetts with "RomneyCare."  Graham was "the Maverick's" RINO sidekick for years, but at least McCain got to be the Cisco Kid, as opposed to Lindsey's pathetic Pancho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 5:38 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Republicans need to relearn what it means to compromise.  They get something, we get something.   They get red flags, we get suppressors removed from the NFA.  Not this you got screwed but not as bad as you could have been screwed nonsense.

 

 

That was one of the things that President Trump did that startled and surprised the Left - he fought back.  It is a lesson that other Republicans should learn to emulate as the more and better we fight back, the more desperate and despicable the Left becomes.  When they start doing that, they "get stupid" and make mistakes, mistakes we can utilize to show the people who and what they are and how dangerous they can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there were some lawyers in congress.  How do they think a constitution right can be different between legal American adults? Didn't the 18 year vs a 21 year old buying a handgun just fail constitutional rights? How about we just ban woman or democrats the right to own a firearm? This just can't fly long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is that these are the same hypocritical, self-serving amoralists who are trying to give 17 year olds the right to vote, because they have the majority of that age group pretty much indoctrinated.  They also demand that 14 year olds be given birth control, abortions and sex transition treatment without parental knowledge, let alone consent.  But suddenly, 20 year olds are too immature to buy scary looking black rifles and handguns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2022 at 1:59 PM, Dx54r said:

 

 

Why did we ever get rid of asylums? Who's idea was it to let the mentally Ill, homeless, and people too dangerous to hold a spoon to just be out and about only to ever to be delt with by overworked cops and emts?

 

 

 

All that money saved by closing asylums was funneled to cronies.    That was a feature, not a bug. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2022 at 3:59 PM, Dx54r said:

Why did we ever get rid of asylums? Who's idea was it to let the mentally Ill, homeless, and people too dangerous to hold a spoon to just be out and about only to ever to be dealt with by overworked cops and EMTs?

 

Same guy who brought gun control to California...

 

Quote

The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was United States legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan, who had made major efforts during his Governorship to reduce funding and enlistment for California mental institutions, pushed a political effort through the U.S. Congress to repeal most of MHSA.[1] The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 12:20 PM, Smallbore said:

The mentally ill are not the problem. How many anti2 legislatures would pass a mental test?

 

But some ARE the problem. Cuomo and DeBlasio moved their undesirable criminals, gang members, and mentally ill to smaller cities around the state. Spikes in violent crime, petty crimes, assaults, property damage to low-income housing, and filthy public spaces ruined several red counties where I have relatives.  Just one more way that Democrats give the middle finger to "deplorables".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...