[Nemo]

that many believe will pass. Rumors are that it will get 60+ in the Senate.

Intitial indications are its on Red Flag laws, increased community mental health, extending 3 day check time (not sure how long) for those under 21.

Nemo

Senate announces bipartisan framework for gun control package

A bipartisan group of senators announced an agreement for gun control following the devastating Uvalde shooting in Texas. The senators include John Cornyn and Kyrsten Sinema.

www.foxnews.com

Bipartisan group of senators announce agreement on gun control | CNN Politics

A bipartisan group of senators announced an agreement on principle for gun safety legislation Sunday, which includes "needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can't purchase...

www.cnn.com

 

[Phil1979]

Only an agreement of principles, not a bill yet.

The deviled details will be in the text they reveal.

I hope everyone that votes yes on further infringements gets voted out.

 

[seajay]

Until they start cracking down on school bullies and arming teachers and staff that are willing this still is not common sense. Nor will it accomplish anything to aid in the reduction of deaths if someone want to shoot up a school.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

From the CNN article:

One source with knowledge of the discussions said negotiators were hoping to get 10 Republican senators to sign on to the agreement before it was announced, in order to show they can overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In a Sunday morning statement, 10 senators in each party announced support for the deal.

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.

www.politico.com

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Ibid.

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. 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.

A broader bipartisan group has held its own regular meetings on guns over the past three weeks since the elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. And with Democrats controlling only 50 Senate seats, the approval of 10 Republicans is critical to moving forward.

In addition to the core four negotiators, the legislation is backed by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Chris Coons(D-Del.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). Portman, Toomey, Blunt and Burr are all retiring at the end of the year.

“Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities,” the 20 senators said.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

In its current form it's just a proposal. The devil is in the details. I believe something will pass since this is an election year and the republicans can proudly say that we did do something to curb gun violence.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In its current form it's just a proposal. The devil is in the details. I believe something will pass since this is an election year and the republicans can proudly say that we did do something to curb gun violence.

Yep, note from the first paragraph quoted, "It's proved tricky to write . . ."

 

[45_Fan]

The concept of mental health and juvenile records from 5 years prior to the date of purchase has my curiosity. I’m not sure if it could be done but if all other responsible adults are required to pass a background check I don’t think this is an additional burden so long as records of minors are otherwise sealed.

Say a minor teen wanted to join the armed forces but had felony battery or involuntary mental health stays, would either of those be limiters?

I’ll state that I don’t think stupid things done as a minor should follow a person the rest of their life. However, if there is an 18yr old with a domestic violence record from age 13 to age 17, 11 months, and 3 weeks is there a reason this should not flag at 18yrs and 2 weeks?

How about the same question but with involuntary commitment(s) for mental health?

What say the strict constitutionalists?

DISCLAIMER: I have perfectly normal and healthy niblings (sorry if you have to look that up, it’s to anonymize the specifics) that have demonstrated responsibility and shot my firearms and I have others that have police and mental health records and have never seen my firearms so say something if I’m too close to be objective about this.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Apparently Sen. C oo ns' name is so bad that the forum software automatically censors it with asterisks.


Who was it at the administrator level that thought this site had a problem with folks using language like that as a pejorative about an actual person?

 

[Nemo]

Big Prez Joe says not enough.

Nemo

President Biden urges Congress to pass bipartisan gun framework: '

President Joe Biden says the bipartisan gun safety framework is not enough, but he praised senators for drafting it and vowed to sign the legislation Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Big Prez Joe says not enough.

Nemo

President Biden urges Congress to pass bipartisan gun framework: '

President Joe Biden says the bipartisan gun safety framework is not enough, but he praised senators for drafting it and vowed to sign the legislation Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

Of course, but pass it, and then every time there is a tragedy, take advantage of it to pass a little more. It will take a while, but you'll get us all disarmed eventually.

 

[gunsmoker]

So, this is a firearms related site
where you can't talk about
**** hunting??

 

[gunsmoker]

So, somebody give me some suggestions about a couple of US Senators I can write to asking them to oppose these new gun control initiatives.

Talking to Ossoff or Warnock would be a waste of breath.

Are there any moderate Republicans that are generally pro Second Amendment but might be inclined to switch sides this time because of all these public mass shootings?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I think it is a mistake not to communicate with your own Senators. This is a bell I have been ringing for more than a decade and a half now, and here I am still ringing it.

Anyway, post #6 has the names of the 20 Senators in both parties, 10 from each, who have announced their support. Lindsey Graham, however, probably does not care much what some Georgian thinks on this issue. His job is to represent the interests of the state of South Carolina, not a voter from Georgia.




Well, since the adoption of the 17th Amendment, I suppose he represents the voters of his state, rather than the state itself, which was a hugely negative change to our Republic, but that is a discussion for another thread, and it has no significant impact on my point above since you are not a South Carolina voter.

 

[Nemo]

Don't waste your electrons on Warner or Kaine (both D) from VA. They are no doubt pushing to tighten this thing up much more than its initial appearances.

I will still be ranting trying to persuasively encourage them to be moderate though.

Nemo

 

[gunsmoker]

If I were to write to Senators from some other states,
it wouldn't be just to ask them to "vote no" because I think it's a bad bill. I Would not imply that they are my representative and should carry my will forward in DC.

I would instead try to convince them that the proposal is either unconstitutional or ineffective or too burdensome on law abidng citizens .

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

If I were to write to Senators from some other states,
it wouldn't be just to ask them to "vote no" because I think it's a bad bill. I Would not imply that they are my representative and should carry my will forward in DC.

I would instead try to convince them that the proposal is either unconstitutional or ineffective or too burdensome on law abidng citizens .

They already know that. They know this won't do crap. It's to placate the terrified masses.

 

[Nemo]

Overview (partial at least) of what is in and what is not in the new proposal.

Nemo

What's in the bipartisan gun deal and what's not

A bipartisan group of senators unveiled an agreement on principle for gun safety legislation Sunday, providing an overview of a forthcoming package of reforms to address one of the nation's most pressing and divisive issues in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.

www.cnn.com

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Overview (partial at least) of what is in and what is not in the new proposal.

Nemo

What's in the bipartisan gun deal and what's not

A bipartisan group of senators unveiled an agreement on principle for gun safety legislation Sunday, providing an overview of a forthcoming package of reforms to address one of the nation's most pressing and divisive issues in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.

www.cnn.com

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.
Earlier this year, the Senate negotiators involved in the Violence Against Women Act dropped the provisionbecause of objections from the National Rifle Association, dealing a huge blow to Democrats. But its inclusion in this framework signals that at least 10 Republicans are willing to buck the nation's largest gun lobby on an issue where they have a long-held position.
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.