Senators strike bipartisan gun deal, heralding potential breakthrough

[IronLionZion]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/12/senate-gun-deal-framework/



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]

1. Any mention of regulating gun shows?

Until these events are regulated, everything else is moot. The only obstacle for an aspiring serial killer is the price of the weapon.

[IronLionZion]

3. We need lots more Dem Senators for something like that

GOP loves their gun show loophole

[sir pball]

31. No, there was no talk of Universal Background Checks.

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]

2. It's bullshit and not better than nothing.

[Demsrule86]

18. We should not do it...it solves nothing. We got nothing and gives the GOP a pass.

+10000

[The Magistrate]

4. Not Always, Sir

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]

19. Great point...how many gun states will do red flag laws...none. Democrats don't do this.

[IronLionZion]

39. 19 states have it already including Florida

1 state, Oklahoma, expressly forbids red flag laws

[Beetwasher.]

26. Indeed, however, the mere acknowledgment by the other side that something more needs to be done

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]

40. +1 - nt

[Wounded Bear]

5. It'll be weak sauce...

and GRAs will say, "See, gun regulations don't work."



I'll take the progress, though.

[Demsrule86]

20. I would normally agree. But not this time. We get nothing and they need this bill before the

midterm.

[Marthe48]

6. Targets of gun violence, even armed,

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 insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates 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]

10. This is why the idea of arming teachers is so stupid.

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]

37. That applies to guns for home protection as well. I often try to explain to people that unless you

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]

7. Is this suppose to be a fucking joke? What the hell are they doing, kids are

being slaughtered in grade schools!

[Takket]

8. hmmm... mixed feelings...

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]

11. We do not remove gun control. This is just a first step and a weak one at that

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]

22. This bill does nothing. Usually I would agree. But not this time.

It gives the GOP a pass.

[gldstwmn]

34. Yes and it sets the GOP up to look good in

the mid terms. It also forwards their mental health will solve gun issues talking point.

[Demsrule86]

35. I don't like it but if Biden wants it and thinks it helps...I am going to support it.

[LAS14]

9. I'm afraid all this psych profiling legislation just makes me more furious about....

... 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]

12. It's being called a good first step. Biden said he ready to sign it.

We will have to wait and see the details.

[Emile]

14. What details? Give states a choice on red flag laws. Whoopie e do

[Demsrule86]

13. This is a bullshit bill that does nothing...encourages states? And there will be no funding.

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]

15. Can you all really see any tougher restrictions getting past the Senate?

The Dems need a filibuster-proof majority for that to happen.

And I’m apparently in the minority here, but I’m not shitting on this just yet. It’s a start.

[IronLionZion]

24. I've been a minority my whole life

it's OK to stand alone in favor of some incremental steps. Bird in the hand vs 2 in our dreams.

[Demsrule86]

27. Then refuse to pass anything...it gives the GOP a pass for the midterm. Why would we do that?

[AngryOldDem]

29. Then just stop with the demands...

…and accept looking hypocritical.

We were not going to get everything we demanded on the first pass. Even Chris Murphy admits that. We don’t 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.

It’s obvious we won’t agree on this issue, and that’s fine by me.

[Voltaire2]

32. Yes. Tie AWB to every bill.

Make them either vote against stuff they love or vote for serious gun reform.

Play.
Fucking.
Hardball.

[Hotler]

16. Wow, that's weak.

This little bit of bipartisanship is not much to be proud of. I hope they are not patting themselves on the back.

[MarcA]

17. A small first step on the road to where we use to be. n/t

[Demsrule86]

28. What step? name one thing that helps...it is no step. And the GOP should not get cover for the

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]

21. Well, this certainly gives Republicans some cover.

[Emile]

23. They sure they have all the Democratic and Independent Senators on board

with this passing?

[IronLionZion]

25. That's why they needed some Repubs

because they are likely to lose some red state Dems like Manchin and Tester

[BannonsLiver]

30. This is a joke

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]

33. It will happen again. I don't know when or where

but the slaughter of innocents will continue.
Golf claps on this piece of legislation.

[DFW]

36. Does the compromise bill address the concerns of Susan Collins?

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]

38. Looks like we got slightly better

than a bucket of shit.

Any agreement that doesn’t include strengthened background checks and waiting periods isn’t going to make much of a dent in the Republican sanctioned shootings.