Senate Gun Deal
Factbox-What's in, and what's out, of the U.S. Senate's gun safety framework
Sun, June 12, 2022 at 3:08 PM
(Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators said on Sunday they had reached an agreement on a framework for gun safety legislation, potentially the first significant new U.S. gun law in decades, following a string of recent high-profile mass shootings.
Below are some highlights of what is and what is not covered by the agreement, according to a statement from the group of lawmakers that includes 10 Republicans, enough to overcome the Senate's "filibuster" rule:
IN: STATE CRISIS INTERVENTION SUPPORT
The proposal would provide resources to states and Native American tribes to create and administer "red flag" measures intended to ensure weapons are kept out of the hands of people whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others. These measures would be consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections.
OUT: ASSAULT-WEAPONS BAN
During an impassioned June 2 speech, Democratic President Joe Biden urged Congress to re-impose the federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and the transfer and possession of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. That measure faces staunch opposition from Republicans in Congress and is not in the framework agreement released on Sunday.
IN: ENHANCED REVIEW PROCESS FOR BUYERS UNDER 21
The framework calls for an investigative period to review the juvenile criminal and mental health records for gun buyers under 21 years of age. This would include checks with state databases and local law enforcement.
OUT: HIGHER AGE REQUIREMENT TO BUY SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES
The proposal does not include a provision to raise the age for buying a semiautomatic rifle to 21 nationwide. Currently the minimum age to buy is 18. Federal law already prohibits anyone younger than 21 legally buying a handgun.
IN: PENALTIES FOR STRAW PURCHASES
If passed, the new law would crack down on criminals who illegally straw purchase and traffic guns. A straw purchase occurs when a person buys a weapon for someone who is not legally allowed to buy one.
OUT: FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK EXPANSION
The framework does not include proposals to expand federal background checks to buy a weapon from three to 10 days. It also does not close a loophole in federal law that allows many sales over the internet and at gun shows to go unchecked.
IN: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, TELEHEALTH INVESTMENTS
The proposal would expand community behavioral health center models and makes investments to increase mental health and suicide prevention program access. It also would help fund crisis and trauma intervention and recovery services and makes investments in programs that increase access to mental and behavioral health services for youth and families in crisis via telehealth.
OUT: REPEAL OF LIABILITY SHIELD
The proposed framework makes no mention of amending or repealing a federal liability shield that protects gun manufacturers from being sued for violence carried out by people carrying, and shooting, their guns.
IN: CLARIFICATION ON DEFINITION OF LICENSED DEALER
The framework would also clarify the definition of a federally licensed firearms dealer and crack down on criminals who illegally evade licensing requirements.
IN: PROTECTIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS
Those who are convicted of domestic violence crimes and face domestic violence restraining orders would be subject to criminal background checks for gun purchases under the proposal.
IN: SCHOOL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES FUNDING
The proposed framework calls for funding to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including early identification and intervention programs.
IN: SCHOOL SAFETY RESOURCE FUNDING
Under the proposal, federal funds would go to programs that help primary and secondary schools create safety measures, support school violence prevention efforts and provide training to school personnel and students.
Additional proposed highlights from me.
OUT: ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL VOTING IN FAVOR OF MAKING THINGS "MORE ILLEGAL"
A "No" vote at election time for any Senator or Representative voting in favor of making another act illegal, if it is already covered by another law that already makes the same act illegal.
They have to add that stuff to make it look like they are doing something. Both the straw purchase and not being able to purchase if a court judges you a significant danger are pretty much all ready covered. But let's just add them to the thousands of "feel good" ineffective gun laws that we already have, courtesy of those same politicians. Instead of creating more laws why not figure out how to enforce the ones you already have? Bob
More money spent for mental health evaluations blah blah blah and of course Federal funding for schools.
They need to enforce laws already on the book and go after lackadaisical DAs that dont enforce these laws. Straw purchases have been against the law for years.
BTW: red flag laws are unconstitutional. Court challenge is a certainty.
But then again, since when did these Senators cared about the US CONs.
When did the supreme court care about the constitution?
They need to call in all the coins (money) and remove in God We Trust. The Constitution is only as good as our leaders and there ain't any there anymore.
Many times I have wondered the same thing. What idiot dreamed up the notion that there had to be "balance" on the court? That there would be X number of conservatives and X number of liberals, and one a..hole in the middle playing god. The only judges who should populate the Supreme Court are strict constructionists because the only winner in any case brought before the Court should be the Constitution. It should be that way in all Courts, particularly in Federal Courts. They all swear an oath to the Constitution and failure to comply should be grounds for immediate expulsion from the courts for life.
Assuming you meant constitutionalist instead constructionist, I'm inclined to agree with you @wifetrained.
I think he means the courts makes new definitions of words and it's meanings from the bench like when the leftist want to say the second amendment is for forming militias and it's a collective right & not an individual right. Thus constructionist means interpretations of rule of law and making up new rules and definitions .
Like when the supreme court ruled a marriage can be between people of the same sex. They are just doing what they are told by oligarchical powers. It's just a twisted world now. The high court is a joke and a delivery boy for the powers to be.
You would be correct, I meant constitutionalist. I do not believe judges should practice judicial activism while on the bench. Though strict Constitutional Constructionism limits or restricts interpreting the meaning only to the exact wording of the law, namely the Constitution as written
Well, when 4 judges vote one way, and 5 vote the other way, there is something seriously wrong. Might as well have 9 chimps throwing poo at a target, the one closest wins.
As far as some of the decisions, if you read the actual decision on the actual case it applies to, you would see that it does not apply wholesale to everybody, just in that one case. That is why Kavenaugh was a bad choice. He believed in precedent not actual law. Gorsuch was overwhelmingly chosen by democrats in his earlier positions, and women should not be allowed on the supreme court. Those were Trumps pics, and they will get him in the end.
Ginsberg should have been in jail for her comments about Trump, I expect better from this level of the judicial branch.