Jump to content

Text of the Senate Gun Control Bill (Bipartisan Safer Communities Act)


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

Much is made of protecting rights included in the Bill of Rights.  We'll see ...

 

In regard to straw purchases, sentences of not more than 15 years are included, except not more than 25 years if it's know the firearm will be used to commit a felony.

 

Trafficking includes provisions similar to straw purchases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based upon my understanding of existing IL law this seems fairly benign. The dealer license law, red flag law, and 21 years of age law already exist at the state level.

States with a more open view of gun ownership stand to see some encroachment. The guys that flip guns sold on classified ads are not going to be amused. The kids that were looking forward to their 18th birthday are being told to wait a little longer. I'm thinking that states that wanted red flags already have them, and other intervention type programs may spring up in the ones that don't to grab some federal cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could've been better too...

Looks like once again the Republicans compromised our rights away and got nothing in return.

 

No rollbacks, and no clarifications that ensure understanding of rights. Sounds like we got nothing. A simple NO would've been satisfying.

 

No Republican participation in furthering gun controls, let the Dems own the issue.

Edited by rmart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 9:06 AM, Plinkermostly said:

And if the decision by SCOTUS (tomorrow?) is dramatic -- how will it impact this?

 

I keep asking myself this, especially in the rush to get anything gun-related passed: Are none of these people paying attention to SCOTUS? Are none of them asking the obvious question, "what happens if SCOTUS issues a strong pro-2A ruling?"

 

I mean, there's one, possibly two magazine cases pending at the court, along with the Bianchi AWB case out of Maryland, to say nothing of Bruen. If the court chooses to adopt a strict form of scrutiny or even GVR's the magazine and AWB cases, do they honestly think that their newly-passed bans won't get struck down by the courts?

 

Smart money would be to wait, then pull the "oh, the evil court told us no, how dare they!" trick. Instead, they run the risk of establishing a negative precedent within their circuit.

 

At least Lisa Madigan was smart enough not to appeal Moore. Has that been anyone else, they might've appealed it and been horrified when the decision got upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 9:23 AM, MrTriple said:

 

I keep asking myself this, especially in the rush to get anything gun-related passed: Are none of these people paying attention to SCOTUS? Are none of them asking the obvious question, "what happens if SCOTUS issues a strong pro-2A ruling?"

 

I mean, there's one, possibly two magazine cases pending at the court, along with the Bianchi AWB case out of Maryland, to say nothing of Bruen. If the court chooses to adopt a strict form of scrutiny or even GVR's the magazine and AWB cases, do they honestly think that their newly-passed bans won't get struck down by the courts?

 

Smart money would be to wait, then pull the "oh, the evil court told us no, how dare they!" trick. Instead, they run the risk of establishing a negative precedent within their circuit.

 

At least Lisa Madigan was smart enough not to appeal Moore. Has that been anyone else, they might've appealed it and been horrified when the decision got upheld.

What they want to do is get it passed into law so they can implement it quickly and when challenged in court, drag it out for as long as they can while screwing over the people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 9:10 AM, cybermgk said:

Well appears that Feinstein, in the house can't not be Feinstein, and added an amendment that might just sink it when it goes back to the Senate.  She had to add on the ban on mag size and semi-autos sales to under 21 EVEN after her own State's versin was struck down as Unconstitutional.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Q9H-eAxfY

She should be arrested for contempt of court or something! Pushing a law that has already been ruled as against the constitution!!! That is just pure pissing on the judges desk and saying it is raining

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll just leave this right here:

 

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling - To bait someone in a general sense is to make a comment with a purposeful intent to coerce some form of response from the individual. In some cases this device can be a useful tool of debate, eliciting responses to highlight a point or reveal an underlying truth concerning someone’s argument. However, in other cases the intent of the bait is less focused on debating. “Flamebaiting” is making statements intended to cause an angry or emotional response/flame from the person. Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”. This is deliberate act of making statements with an aim of diverting the topic of a thread significantly from its main focus. These negative forms of baiting constitute a rules violation that can potentially lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

"Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to "any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

Trolling is a diversionary tactic of those who “deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people” or those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions. [Wikipedia]. Ignorance, bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling, though at times they may appear similar due to the disingenuous nature of some trolls. Trolling is not allowed and can potentially lead to the suspension of posting privileges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 3:37 PM, BobPistol said:

Well, that was terrible news.  All the gun-hating Dems got enough RINOs to support another diminishment of gun rights of citizens.  And of course commie Biden was thrilled to sign it. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 10:26 PM, Xwing said:

Well, that was terrible news.  All the gun-hating Dems got enough RINOs to support another diminishment of gun rights of citizens.  And of course commie Biden was thrilled to sign it. :(

Illinois has had a (terrible) red flag law since 2019.  It is about an unconstitutional as they could make it.  
 

Look at how well it has worked in Chicago.  /Sarcasm off\. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 8:05 AM, mauserme said:

One of the Supreme Court justices intimated last year that red flag won't survive a constitutional challenge.  Likely even more so, now.

 

 

The Illinois red flag law that went into effect in 2019 is especially egregious.  PA 100-0607

 

Here is an example of a law that is clearly unconstitutional 

This passage in section 45 is the worst in my opinion:
 
 (1) The respondent shall have the burden of proving by 
    a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does 
    not pose a danger of causing personal injury to himself, 
    herself, or another in the near future by having in his or 
    her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or 

    receiving a firearm.
 


1. How do you prove a negative, that you are NOT a danger?
2. Presumed guilty until you can prove you innocence.  

 

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...