Senate Gun Bill Compromise Reached

[gboling]

The biggest problem with red flag laws is what the ruling party decides to place a red flag on. Diane Feinstein, several years ago, stated that all veterans who served in combat suffered PTSD and should all be denied firearms ownership.

This is the lady who, being denied permission to carry a concealed handgun on an airplane, had herself deputized a US Marshal.

 

[BigBelle]

November is not far off…….

Excellent point, The word around is that there are some new laws on gun purchases. Things as we know it may change soon.

 

[BAM-BAM]

We have a form of "Red Flag" now with involuntary commitments (Pa 302) if "one is a danger to themselves or others"..... hearing in 72 hours to extend commitment.

For Red Flag hearings we will have the "Amber Heard defense"...... She is the crazy one!

 

[WCCPHD]

This is not a compromise. Its a capitulation. The anti-gun people see it as a win and just a small step toward their goal.

Ever notice, every "compromise" takes away our rights and enacts more restrictions.

Death by a thousand cuts. They are patient. They are relentless. They are honest in what they intend to do.

 

[ladder13]

What they ought to do, but won't, is to impose criminal penalties for agencies and personnel who do not enter information into the background database to prevent known mentally dangerous people from being able to buy a firearm.

What a great idea, make govt agencies and officials legally responsible for their actions, just like they do for corporations and the general public.

 

[RCL-09]

The left leaning MSM is already lamenting that they didn't include an "assault weapon" ban and universal background checks.

I can't count how many times I have seen the MSM play video of fully automatic firearms while doing a story on semi autos.

 

[Racer X]

The left leaning MSM is already lamenting that they didn't include an "assault weapon" ban and universal background checks.

I can't count how many times I have seen the MSM play video of fully automatic firearms while doing a story on semi autos.

because there is no legal requirement that reporting be factual, and there is no criminal penalty when it is not.

 

[PHS327]

What they ought to do, but won't, is to impose criminal penalties for agencies and personnel who do not enter information into the background database to prevent known mentally dangerous people from being able to buy a firearm.

I don't know about criminal penalties but you're right, this is a problem. This process is an unfunded mandate is many states, and the ball does get dropped. That's why I was hoping they would fix the current background check system rather than expand it.

 

[cmj8591]

Red Flag is just another feel good piece of legislation. It really doesn't address anything other than political pandering. Lets say that a person becomes so mentally unstable that they can no longer be trusted with a gun. The court issues the order to confiscate the guns. So I go to the house and collect the guns. BUT THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE MENTALLY UNSTABLE PERSON! So we take the guns and leave all the sharp objects, gasoline, rope, motor vehicles, blunt objects and whatever else can turn into weapon and hope for the best. We might partition the court to have the person examined but unless they say they're going to kill all the neighbors and themselves, there is no chance that they will be committed. So the most we can hope for is that there is a mentally unstable person walking around that has to find another way to do damage. If anyone thinks that this is going to stop anything, they are in for some disappointment.

 

[Sevens]

^^all good points for sure, but what isn’t addressed is quite simply that the subject of that particular red flag order may very well have simply been average Joe Lunchbox with zero propensity for violence in ANY form and zero criminal history of any kind, and simply the next victim.

Like swatting, anyone can be the next victim of a red flag law. Could be a raging ex-girlfriend or an upset neighbor or a disappointed business partner, could be anyone motivated with revenge or mayhem and the next victim could be absolutely anyone, specifically including any one of us, anyone reading this discussion right here.

All it takes is for someone to know that you own and enjoy firearms, and someone with an axe to grind.

But don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll sort it all out later when all your firearms are piled up, scratched/damaged/lost/pilfered/destroyed or _______ and you’ve gone to great expense and time to prove your innocence with ZERO actual charges against you, just someone who elected to wave their newly issued “red flag” over YOUR head.

These laws are some of the worst I’ve ever imagined.

 

[BigBelle]

The biggest problem with red flag laws is what the ruling party decides to place a red flag on. Diane Feinstein, several years ago, stated that all veterans who served in combat suffered PTSD and should all be denied firearms ownership.

This is the lady who, being denied permission to carry a concealed handgun on an airplane, had herself deputized a US Marshal.

because they go into public office to prove they are better than everyone else SMH.

 

[Rustyt1953]

Like swatting, anyone can be the next victim of a red flag law.

I'm sure you recall the Viner case four years ago. Where an 18 yo online gamer from Cincinnati called and swatted a North College Hill neighbor who had offended him online. Fortunately it ended without incident.

The next day Viner got a fellow gamer from California to call and swat a gamer in Wichita because he owed Viner money. The incident ended with the death of an innocent man.

 

[Sevens]

Conservative podcaster and YouTuber Tim Pool has been swatted NINE times just so far in 2022. Most recently during a live show.

 

[Muss Muggins]

This is the lady who, being denied permission to carry a concealed handgun on an airplane, had herself deputized a US Marshal.

Totally didn’t happen, but if you have a real link to a real news source, I look forward to reading it. As for Red Flag laws, e’erbody realizes that the only authority the Feds have in this regard is to authorize (or restrict) funds to states who do or don’t enact Red Flag laws, right?

 

[Drm50]

Red Flag Laws aren’t good from many angles. The worst will be spite cases.
So if you make the complainant financially responsible then people will not want to stick their neck out. The “victim” having to pay legal fees for a fraudulent accusation ain’t right either.
These murdering scum are seldom in a vacuum. Friends and Family don’t want to drop a dime on them. The internet being full of fools taking about what they are going to do, doesn’t help either. It muddies the waters of screening out the real threats.
Number one is release of mental history , Juvie record and criminal records.
How many strikes are they giving this scum? I say one violent offense with involving a weapon and your birth certificate gets canceled …period.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

...R and D senators have reached a gun bill compromise announced a few minutes ago. Not as bad as I expected....

Compromise.
Read up on the "Hegelian Dialectic"
I'll give you a summary: Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis
I have an idea (thesis), you have a totally different idea (antithesis), we solve the problem through compromise (synthesis).


Here is how it works in the real world:
Person 1 "I want to take all your guns."
Person 2 "I do not want you to take any of my guns."
Compromise Person 1 takes some of Person 2's guns. Person 1 did not win completely, he only won partially. Person 2 won nothing. He merely lost less than he feared. This is the nature of compromise. And the best part is, today's synthesis is tomorrow's battleground. It starts all over with Person 1 saying, "I will now take the rest of your guns..." Person 1 only wins, Person 2 only loses.

 

[Drm50]

It should not be called a gun bill. It needs to be a Shooter bill. The people doing the shooting are 100% of the problem. Any Gun bill is strictly political agenda. It all comes down to holding people responsible for their actions.
Every time one of these shooting occur it seems there has been a whole chain of failures by authorities. Some are from people not doing their jobs others are for political purposes, as was Parkland.
The effort for those responsible for shooters getting through the system to shift the blame to the Gun is what is going on. It gives the public something to be outraged about while guilty parties slink away.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I am not married but I can see a ex-wife putting the screws to husband or ex boy friends.

In my experience it happens a LOT more than people might think. The domestic abuse statutes, albeit with a laudable goal have indeed been weaponized by spouses-I see it first hand every day.
Read USC 18:922(g)9
1117. Restrictions on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence | JM | Department of Justice

Scary indeed

 

[Bald1]

I agree with Badge130. Red Flag laws could be a major concern with someone's due process rights. Let's see how the final draft addresses that part.

Mathew McConaghy had one thing right. There should be swift and stiff penalties for anyone abusing red flag laws. Example,
ex spouse ex employee etc………

 

[rjroberts]

^^all good points for sure, but what isn’t addressed is quite simply that the subject of that particular red flag order may very well have simply been average Joe Lunchbox with zero propensity for violence in ANY form and zero criminal history of any kind, and simply the next victim.

Like swatting, anyone can be the next victim of a red flag law. Could be a raging ex-girlfriend or an upset neighbor or a disappointed business partner, could be anyone motivated with revenge or mayhem and the next victim could be absolutely anyone, specifically including any one of us, anyone reading this discussion right here.

All it takes is for someone to know that you own and enjoy firearms, and someone with an axe to grind.

But don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll sort it all out later when all your firearms are piled up, scratched/damaged/lost/pilfered/destroyed or _______ and you’ve gone to great expense and time to prove your innocence with ZERO actual charges against you, just someone who elected to wave their newly issued “red flag” over YOUR head.

These laws are some of the worst I’ve ever imagined.

Also, a dishonest piece of legislation. Who writes these laws? Staffers, some of whom may be lawyers, or passed by lawyers for review. They know very well about the possibilities of misuse, and want to stand by "innocently" while the legal processing system does the dirty work.