Big Push For Gun Control Is Coming To Congress In September

[MechAg94]

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/08/27/carno-gun-control-congress?__twitter_impression=true


I came across this link.  A quick look at gun control bills that will be looked at in the House in September.

On Sept. 4, there will be mark-ups presented and hearings conducted on three new gun control bills:

The “Keep Americans Safe Act,” which would ban any ammunition magazines over 10 rounds.
The “Extreme Risk Protection Orders Act of 2019,” which would remove access to firearms from people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.
The “Disarm Hate Act,” which would prevent someone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime from obtaining a firearm.
The committee is also slated to take up a hearing on “military style assault weapons” later in the month.

[sumpnz]

Which have enough RINO support to have half a chance of passing?

[kgbsquirrel]

I would like to point out that he Founders put up with immense amounts of abuse for decades before they revolted.

The British Crown created numerous, onerous, laws without any communication with those to whom would be subjected to said laws.
So we sent letters and envoys, to plead our case nonviolently.
Parallel: today's entrenched government bureaucratic fiefdoms.

The British Crown imposed extortionate, even punitive taxes on common and essential items.
So we drastically changed our cultural habits, giving up wear of wigs for instance (wig powder tax).
Parallel: today's excessive taxation of everything to include energy and food.

The British Crown decreed that we would purchase only from their monopolies.
So we threw their overpriced tea in the harbor.
Parallel: compulsory purchase of private financial products.

The British Crown decided that they should have a monopoly on violent force so they tried to capture the community magazine where the privately owned cannons, rifles, muskets and gun powder was stored (storing gun powder was finicky back then.)
So we started shooting them.

[Ben]

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/08/27/carno-gun-control-congress?__twitter_impression=true


I came across this link.  A quick look at gun control bills that will be looked at in the House in September.

Interesting that "universal background checks" isn't on the list. I just saw this article regarding the Texas shooter, who apparently got his gun in a private party sale. I'm thinking it will be front and center in the "do something" push, and also something Trump might see as "reasonable" that wouldn't affect his base much.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-odessa-gunman-mentally-unfit-buy-firearms-gun-law-loophole-background-check

[MechAg94]

Interesting that "universal background checks" isn't on the list. I just saw this article regarding the Texas shooter, who apparently got his gun in a private party sale. I'm thinking it will be front and center in the "do something" push, and also something Trump might see as "reasonable" that wouldn't affect his base much.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-odessa-gunman-mentally-unfit-buy-firearms-gun-law-loophole-background-check

I saw Texas Gov Abbott say something about a legislative package they are working on.  I am not sure what they are doing, but I am a little concerned.

I am not sure I should get too worried.  Abbott has been pro-gun in the past and we won't have a regular legislative session until 2021.  I guess it is just the language I hear him use.

[DittoHead]

I think this was meant to be insulting to him 

Whatever, it's accurate.

[MechAg94]

I certainly hope that is correct. 

[Ben]

So this is interesting if they are using the Odessa shooter to push UBC:

There are reports that the private party sale was illegal. This could be good, or bad. They are saying it was illegal because it was "an illegally manufactured AR15". The bad is if they are equating buying a perfectly legal kit or parts to build a gun with an illegal act. I'd like to know what's illegal about the rifle used.

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/09/05/narrative-busted-report-the-private-sale-through-which-odessa-gunman-obtained-his-weapon-may-have-been-completely-illegal/

[T.O.M.]

My bet...

Universal background checks is going to happen.
Toss up on mag limits and AWB
No chance on mandatory buybacks.

[RoadKingLarry]

I'm also expecting a big push on "Red Flag" laws.

[Ben]

My bet:

UBC: Maybe, maybe not, and MUCH of it will depend on the language.

Red flag laws: I think they have a much better chance of getting through because many, including conservatives, don't see them as "gun laws", and we have many Rs (the Peter King example) who are perfectly happy with police state stuff "for our safety". Again, MUCH will depend on language.

AWB: Right now I'm betting it's a no go. Ask me again after 2020.

Standard cap mags: I'm not sure, but am right now saying probably not.

[Hawkmoon]

So this is interesting if they are using the Odessa shooter to push UBC:

There are reports that the private party sale was illegal. This could be good, or bad. They are saying it was illegal because it was "an illegally manufactured AR15". The bad is if they are equating buying a perfectly legal kit or parts to build a gun with an illegal act. I'd like to know what's illegal about the rifle used.

Two separate issues.

IF the seller was illegally manufacturing AR-15s, most likely he was completing 80% receivers and then selling them. It's legal to build your own firearm, under both federal and state laws. However, under federal law it's illegal to build a firearm with the intent to sell it unless you have a license as a manufacturer.

But let's look at the sale as if the AR-15 was a Bushmaster -- no "illegal manufacturing" involved. Was it legal for a private party in Texas to sell an AR-15 to another private party in Texas? Unless the seller knew or had reason to believe the buyer was prohibited, the answer is "Yes. It was legal." Was it legal for the shooter to buy an AR-15 (or any firearm) from another private party in a face-to-face sale? The buyer knew he had been denied a purchase in the past, so he knew he was prohibited. The paradox is that the sale was legal for the seller, but not for the buyer.

[Triphammer]

This UBC thing is especially worrisome to me. It seems the least imposing & even sounds reasonable even though we all know it won't stop crazy or evil people. There are currently millions of firearms  that have changed hands from the original purchasers & many millions that pre-date the GCA 68. This is a way to find & track all of these unknowns. Lists of gun owners is illegal  lists of gun locations? I'm not sure. With the advent of online NICS checks who doesn't believe these lists are kept.

[Brad Johnson]

If the UBC issue was pushed with the addendum of deleting any reference to the firearm-of-transfer, I would be slightly less intolerant of the issue. As currently formatted, a 4473 is functions as a de facto gun registration. Strip that part out and make the process a simple check to see if the person falls under any restricted provision. Make it a process of buyer status verification only, strict and streamlined, with no reference to the firearm type or quantity. Maybe even make it publicly accessible somehow. I don't know. I'd have to give that part a lot of thought as it precipitates a whole host of potential issues.

I'd have to give a system like that some serious thought before passing judgement on UBC. As it currently stands, hell no.

Brad

[DittoHead]

Trump's proposals will likely include expediting the death penalty for mass shooters, releasing troubled teenagers’ previously sealed records to the background-check database after they become adults and requiring the FBI to notify local authorities when a potential buyer fails a background check, according to people familiar with the weekslong discussions.

[Brad Johnson]

Quote from: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/05/trump-gun-background-check-proposals-1481823

Trump's proposals will likely include expediting the death penalty for mass shooters, releasing troubled teenagers’ previously sealed records to the background-check database after they become adults and requiring the FBI to notify local authorities when a potential buyer fails a background check, according to people familiar with the weekslong discussions.

Knee-jerk reaction is that I could live with those. I need to give it a modicum of thought before coming to a decision, though.

Brad

[kgbsquirrel]

Here's a wild idea, how about no?  No more gun control.

[TommyGunn]

Here's a wild idea, how about no?  No more gun control.

[Hawkmoon]

Here's a wild idea, how about no?  No more gun control.

You mean like ... respect the Constitution? That's crazy talk.

[MechAg94]

Knee-jerk reaction is that I could live with those. I need to give it a modicum of thought before coming to a decision, though.

Brad

The FBI notifying local authorities about a failed background check would bother me if it is one of the many false positives. On the part about minor health records, I am not sure what to think.

[sumpnz]

If the UBC issue was pushed with the addendum of deleting any reference to the firearm-of-transfer, I would be slightly less intolerant of the issue. As currently formatted, a 4473 is functions as a de facto gun registration. Strip that part out and make the process a simple check to see if the person falls under any restricted provision. Make it a process of buyer status verification only, strict and streamlined, with no reference to the firearm type or quantity. Maybe even make it publicly accessible somehow. I don't know. I'd have to give that part a lot of thought as it precipitates a whole host of potential issues.

I'd have to give a system like that some serious thought before passing judgement on UBC. As it currently stands, hell no.

Brad

Read an article recently that laid out a good compromise.  Have a background check system that anyone can use, for any purpose.  What to sell someone a gun?  Hire a new babysitter, or landscaper or handyman?  Or any other reason you might want to know someone's criminal history?  Call a number for something similar to NICS, pay a fee (so people don't abuse the system) and find out if they have a relevant history.  You get a confirmation number that you did conduct the check (satisfies any legal requirements in some jurisdictions), but nothing is given (so nothing can be retained) that specifies if was even a gun purchase check vs anything else, never mind the type of gun, quantity of guns, etc. 

Libs get their "universal background check" conservatives get the elimination of 4473 based effective registration.

[MechAg94]

That doesn't sound too bad.  At least it would be an actual compromise versus just giving up rights.  Potential problem is that if someone has your information, they could background check you.  Maybe some notification could be done.  

I was also thinking the background check could be done by someone on themselves.  Get a dated receipt to show a seller.  Not sure how the receipt would work.  Maybe there would be a way to get that done at a police station.  The local police station has done some fingerprint cards for me so it isn't like they don't know who I am.  The $10 fee to do fingerprint cards might be reasonable.  If you are requesting it on yourself, it eliminates privacy concerns. 

[Angel Eyes]

[TommyGunn]

[Jamisjockey]

I expect the quisling GOP to cave on universal background checks and the more nefarious red flag laws next.
Red flag laws are the natural progression of the right's darling patriot act.