General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSenators strike bipartisan gun deal, heralding potential breakthrough
While substantially weaker than the assault weapons ban, high-capacity ammunition magazine restrictions and broad background check expansions that most Democrats support, the gun provisions set out in the framework could, if enacted, represent the most significant new federal firearms restrictions enacted since the mid-1990s.
Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to establish red flag laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice records for the first time.
It does not include a provision supported by President Biden, congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that would raise the minimum age for the purchase of at least some rifles from 18 to 21. Handguns are already subject to a federal 21-and-over age limit.
Other provisions could funnel billions of new federal dollars into mental health care and into school security programs, funding new campus infrastructure and armed officers. Several senators last week said they expected one cornerstone of the deal would be legislation sponsored by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to establish a nationwide network of community behavioral health clinics.
Something is better than nothing.
EYESORE 9001
(25,907 posts)Until these events are regulated, everything else is moot. The only obstacle for an aspiring serial killer is the price of the weapon.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)GOP loves their gun show loophole
sir pball
(4,737 posts)Gun shows are not some magical arena where firearms laws don't exist all regulations apply equally whether it's a gun show or a sporting goods store.
Private sales, between two people who are not "predominantly engaged in the business of selling firearms", do not require a background check under Federal or most state laws. While shows do have a particular problem with people displaying tables of guns but claiming to be "private sellers", any laws specifically targeted at shows will still leave plenty of routes available for ineligible persons to buy weapons. When I lived in rural Maine, there was maybe 1 show a year but the Firearms section of the local Buy-Sell-Swap paper was always dozens of pages, hundreds and hundreds of guns all for sale person-to-person, with no checks. I bought a few deer rifles that way with no more scrutiny than I'd get with at a show
A simple "all firearms transfers must involve a background check" law, with no language specific to gun shows, will address your "loophole", along with a myriad of other ways to skirt background checks. It's a much needed law that I wholeheartedly support but alas even a thirty-second instant check is too onerous for NRA gun freaks.
Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)+10000
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)It's true half a loaf is better than no bread, but a photograph of a loaf is no better than none, even though it is something. Mere image ought never be applauded.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)1 state, Oklahoma, expressly forbids red flag laws
Beetwasher.
(2,967 posts)And even a token, symbolic gesture can be considered progress (and this bill would be somewhat more than that) as long as we keep applying the pressure. A couple of more Senators would be nice.
Ohio Joe
(21,726 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,584 posts)and GRAs will say, "See, gun regulations don't work."
I'll take the progress, though.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)midterm.
Marthe48
(16,894 posts)do not know when they will be a target. I could be armed, in a store doing my shopping, and I would not know which other shopper plans to shoot me. I just do not see how any of us 'good guys with guns' can be on guard 24/7/365. If the murderer makes a grand entrance to his abattoir, like driving a truck through barriers, there would be some warning. The people in Las Vegas had no clue that a murderer was aiming at them from a hotel room.
All of us who aren't planning to kill off fellow humans are like deer with the hunter in a tree stand.
While something is better than nothing, we need to raise the age for any gun purchase, and we need to do more to limit purchase of semi-automatic and fully automatic. While more access to mental health care is a good idea, the murderers with guns think they are fine. Remember Catch 22?
Joseph Heller: coined the term in his 1961 novel Catch-22, which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II. The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army psychiatrist who invokes "Catch-22" to explain why any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanityhoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missionsdemonstrates his own sanity in creating the request and thus cannot be declared insane. This phrase also means a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.[2]
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Teachers do not know when a shooter will show up. What will the teacher be armed with, a pistol? A pistol vs a AR15, good luck. Teachers would have to be highly trained so they don't shoot their own foot off in the panic. They would have to carry the pistol on them at all times.
I don't think kids would like being taught by people who are packing.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)are walking around with it on your person 24/7 then you are not likely to use it should someone get in your home. In fact, they may even take it from you. These scenarios never play out quite like people think they are going to.
There was a post on Nextdoor recently where a guy was asking people if it was legal to shoot people in his driveway. Thank god I don't live in that neighborhood.
Emile
(22,460 posts)being slaughtered in grade schools!
Takket
(21,526 posts)on the one hand, we have to start somewhere, and this won't save as many lives as major reform, but it will save some, if that's all the gop will allow.. on the other hand the gop have turned our schools into a bloodbath and defending those schools through major gun control is a winning issue for Democrats along with abortion rights in a midterms that has already been poisoned by inflation's effect on the economy. Basically by passing this bill we remove gun control from the narrative as something we can run on in November. Hard to say "elect us for more gun control. Save kids lives!" When the gop can say "but you Democrats already made a deal on this!"
karynnj
(59,495 posts)Reading quickly, one helpful thing given that 18 year olds can buy a weapon no one should be able to buy is that at least there is not the current loophole that they have a clean slate on their 18th birthday. This could stop some, like I think the Buffalo and maybe Ulvade killers because they would have juvenile records. For this alone, the legislation is worth passing while messaging that while good, it is not enough.
The rest seems very weak sauce, but it likely is the best that can be done without more Democrats. The need for more Democrats to strengthen the action is still there.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)It gives the GOP a pass.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)the mid terms. It also forwards their mental health will solve gun issues talking point.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)LAS14
(13,769 posts)... the GOP refusing to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. It's just beyond my imagining.
This kind of legislation just tosses the ball to our poor, only human health care and educational professionals.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)We will have to wait and see the details.
Emile
(22,460 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I would not do it...it does nothing. Usually, am for moving towards a goal but this gives the GOP a giant pass before the midterms. I say no.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)The Dems need a filibuster-proof majority for that to happen.
And Im apparently in the minority here, but Im not shitting on this just yet. Its a start.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)it's OK to stand alone in favor of some incremental steps. Bird in the hand vs 2 in our dreams.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)
and accept looking hypocritical.
We were not going to get everything we demanded on the first pass. Even Chris Murphy admits that. We dont have the support in the Senate for sweeping change right now.
It is ultimately up to the voters to change the toxicity in the Senate, and it is also up to us all to keep the pressure on. It does not stop here, but reading a lot of these posts, it sounds like it does. It is a start. I can just imagine it if Murphy and Cornyn had not reached any agreement.
With the way government works, the fact that there is any kind of deal in so short a time is remarkable.
Its obvious we wont agree on this issue, and thats fine by me.
Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)Make them either vote against stuff they love or vote for serious gun reform.
Play.
Fucking.
Hardball.
Hotler
(11,392 posts)This little bit of bipartisanship is not much to be proud of. I hope they are not patting themselves on the back.
MarcA
(2,195 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)midterm. This bill won't save any lives ...it basically is status quo with a bunch of bullshit that isn't paid for and won't happen.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)Emile
(22,460 posts)with this passing?
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)because they are likely to lose some red state Dems like Manchin and Tester
BannonsLiver
(16,288 posts)My very red state already has preemptively banned red flag laws, an idea our legislature probably got from another red state. How many have other laws on the books?
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)but the slaughter of innocents will continue.
Golf claps on this piece of legislation.
DFW
(54,268 posts)Even is she was a co-signor to the compromise, if her concerns are not addressed, she will not vote for it. If she develops some concerns later on, she won't vote for it anyway.
GoodRaisin
(8,905 posts)than a bucket of shit.
Any agreement that doesnt include strengthened background checks and waiting periods isnt going to make much of a dent in the Republican sanctioned shootings.