Schumer and Common sense gun control legislation
Yeah, I’m as surprised as you are that I’m here praising Chuck Schumer for gun control legislation. According to Mashable, he is introducing legislation to pay states that submit all of their NICS reports in a timely manner and punishing states that don’t.
The pair [Chuck and his cousin actress Amy] then called on the Department of Justice to write a report “comparing all states’ standards for involuntary mental health commitment,” and urged it to give “federal recommendations” for best practices.
Finally, the duo called on Congress to fund mental health and substance abuse programs that provide treatment to those who need it most. They also urged increased funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
If that’s the bill that goes to a vote, I don’t see any reason that anyone would oppose it. It’s what I’ve been advocating for years. Except that I disagree that states should be rewarded for doing what they already get paid to do. But if that’s what it takes to strengthen background checks, I’m all for it.
For some reason, the pair think that the NRA will oppose it, according to Deadline Hollywood;
Citing the NRA, Sen. Schumer also noted “we are up against a very powerful lobby.” Added the actress: “I’m expecting a backlash and I’ll handle it,” while revealing she has received death threats in the past.
Like I said, if that’s the bill that goes to a vote in Congress, I don’t see a reason that the NRA would oppose it. The real problem for them is protecting a clean bill from the gun grabbers who will see it as an opportunity to sneak registration into the bill.
Category: Guns
Lessee…an actress, a politician, the federal government, and more gun control legislation.
What’s not to love?
I would not praise that snail penis for doing anything except maybe RESIGNING!!
No arguments from me against that, if it in fact is all the Bill proposes. Strengthening that system is what needs to happen. States are not doing their part at all.
I do believe there needs to be a system in place though to ensure that Rights are not being stripped away for people wrongly committed.
By principle I oppousse any form of gun control.
Besides that, they are asking for more of our tax money for mental health and substance abuse?
In my opinion, they are trying to increase the burocracy in Washington, as if there were not enough burocrats already.
Hell no.
Government doesn’t do what it’s supposed to already, what’s to say this will help at all, and I wonder how many pols are waiting to attach “riders” to this that will make it utterly worthless?
You mean like registration, ammo and magazine bans, “assault” weapons bans? Because that’s what gun grabbers do.
I’ll be honest; I don’t trust Chuck Schumer. Period, end of story. I don’t know enough about Amy to give an opinion, but I do know Chuck.
With you. I trust Chuckie as far as I can throw him-less than arms length I’m sure.
I wouldn’t trust him to give me change for a $5 if I watched him count it 3 times.
Let’s see what Schumer’s proposal actually says. Often the text of a proposed bill is, shall we say, somewhat different than its PR announcement.
“We have to pass it so you can see what is in it !!!”
Yeah…
At this point I will be shocked if he doesn’t add more stuff to this bill. I wouldn’t put it past him to put in something like registration that he knows Republicans will say no to so that he can point fingers and say “see Republicans are evil and don’t want to stop gun violence”.
We all also know that if that happens the media would leave out the part about the additions to the bill and just pretend that it was a clean bill. It’s not like that has never happened before.
Yeah, well, I know that if we just say ‘no’ every time to gun control, eventually, someone is going to pass something really egregious that we can’t stop.
This one makes sense, finally. You can pout and stomp your feet all you want, but we are always telling the gun grabbers that their legislation will do nothing to stop gun violence, and this one will, if it works and if it stays clean.
Get pissed when they try to alter it, but not now, FFS.
Jonn,
“and if it stays clean.”
Them’s the magic words.
The biggest little word in the English language – “if”.
Death by a thousand cuts or by one big one. What’s the difference? You’re still dead. Support them passing many small infractions on our rights, so that they don’t pass one big one. It doesn’t matter, since you still arrive at the same place. Once they are gone you never get them back, either.
This attack is coming from a mental health angle. I mentioned before that the Medical Community is, by and large, very anti-gun. How hard do you think it will be to ban guns as a health issue, similar to lead paint and asbestos? REMEMBER THAT EVERY PSYCHIATRIST IN THE COUNTRY IS ALSO A MEDICAL DOCTOR.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/07/the-rise-of-gun-violence-as-a-public-health-issue
“This one makes sense, finally.”
There’s a lot of laws on the books in regards to firearm purchases that make sense. The questions on the Yellow Sheet Form 4473 that are supposed to disqualify purchasers make sense. The form states: “I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law”
I say they need to enforce the laws on the books and then get back to us if that action is insufficient. Otherwise, I have very good reason to suspect that this law being proposed to address Mass Shootings (0.02% of all gun homicides) by Schumer and his actress cousin in just another law that will not be enforced and/or prosecuted. I am not against it, I just feel like it is another dog/pony show in which they will later say, “We tried and it just wasn’t enough. Now bend over.”
In closing I want to mention that the gun used by the goat lover in Garland, TX at the cartoon contest was a gun that walked during Op Fast and Furious. It was a straw purchase gun. The purchaser lied, and very likely the ATF knew of the lie in real time, yet did nothing.
Somehow I think if that gun came from F&F it would be in every headline..please cite a source for that?
The LA Times reported it, for one. I believe it was on their front page a few days ago.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-garland-gun-20150801-story.html#page=1
Re-read the article – it says he bought a gun during F&F… it also says they have not publicly linked the gun he bought with the Garland incident. It is possible (and the article certainly implies it) that the gun was recovered in Garland but no one is confirming that – yet.
You said you hadn’t seen that, and asked for a source reporting same. I gave you one from the Left Coast. Would you like a link to the NY Post article too?
Don’t see what more you want. One of the 2 Garland DRT terrorists bought a gun at Lone Wolf during F&F. The FBI claims they are still “sorting out” whether or not that gun was recovered at the scene in Garland.
The Garland shooting occurred on 5 May – 3 months ago tomorrow. Somehow I’m not buying it taking 90+ days to check a list of 1400 serial numbers for a match. I might buy 90 minutes.
IMO they know damn well by now whether that weapon was recovered at the scene in Garland. They’d have no reason to stonewall unless it was a F&F weapon.
Hell, f&f was NOT reported in ‘every headline’. Why do you think one gun would be?
Problem is, Jonn, it’ll never be JUST that. They’ll throw so much bullshit and pork in there, the original idea will be lost and less than useless.
One page bill. Yea or nay. Simple. But that’s not the way shit works inside the Beltway.
I want to see the proposed bill’s text. I’ll decide after reading it and thinking about its implications whether it’s a bad idea or not.
As is most often the case, the “devil’s in the details” – and in the unintended consequences. And we’ve not yet seen the details.
Agreed, Hondo. What a political hack says in front of the cameras and what they put on the table in the “hallowed halls” of Congress are typically two different things. With the number of ‘gun control’ bills already proposed, this will go nowhere unless it is loaded up with goodies to bring in co-sponsors. A lot of secret spices end up in the sausage before all is said and done. I’ll post a list of current proposals to date (Chucky’s is not there yet) in a separate post.
Want common sense gun control?
Mandatory 5 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm
Mandatory 10 years for minor in possession of a firearm.
Mandatory 25 years for felon in possession of a firearm.
Mandatory 50 years for use of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
“Unlicensed firearm”? Care to explain that one a bit?
Mandatory 5 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm?
You must live, or have lived in a communist part of the country.
Not every state requires licensure or registration, and such would only make confiscation of firearms from gunowners easier.
We can’t trust the government already, as evidenced by the mass firearm confiscations from Hurricane Katrina, with the subsequent absence of police and increase in robberies, burglaries, and assaults from people unable to defend themselves.
Mandatory 10 years for minor in possession of a firearm?
I was hunting small game at 13 and large game at 16. This is how my family put food on the table. I first took my son out to the range at 9 years old with his .22 caliber Ruger 10/22.
Are you going to put a kid behind bars for 10 years for hunting or target shooting?
Also, please explain the need for “minor in possession” as a felony. That would appear to preclude target shooting, hunting, etc . . . , by anyone less than 18 years of age – to include any 17-year-old members of the US military.
IMO that’s absolutely unnecessary. Possession of a legal firearm in and of itself should not be subject to criminal sanctions. If it’s used in a crime, a juvenile offender can always be tried as an adult – for the crime committed, not for possession.
Minor in possession of a firearm – OK, are you even vaguely aware that the winter biathlon includes target shooting with a rifle? And that there is a division for junior (non-adult) competitors in biathlon at all levels, including the Olympic trials?
Are you going to make those ‘children’ felons because you have a hair up your backside about kids and guns?
In many states, minors who commit crimes with weapons are tried as adults if they are 16 or over.
Mandatory 5 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm
Buying a gun from an unlicensed dealer. In other words, not having a receipt with the dealer’s federal firearms license number on it. One that was purchased out of the back of a pickup. A firearm that was illegally sold, and you know it because you bought it that way.
Mandatory 10 years for minor in possession of a firearm.
I’m sure that you were hunting game at 13, but did you have an adult with you? What I’m talking about in this case, since some of you are jumping to conclusions, are the gangbangers who think it’s cool to have a gun on them. The teens who are caught by the police with a firearm. You know, common sense.
Oh, and if you think I mean the military, since all soldiers are allowed to carry their issued weapons with them at all times off post… oh, wait. Think before you type, please.
As for Olympic training, please tell me how many police are on a TRAINING RANGE. Or, do you mean those teenagers who practice for the biathlon around their homes and neighborhoods?
Also, last time I checked, you couldn’t purchase or own a handgun before the age of 18.
For those of you calling me a communist or whatnot, please go fornicate your anus with a saguaro.
US Biathlon: The Youth Instruction Group is for boys and girls ages 12-15 who are interested in learning more about biathlon.
You said ‘Mandatory 10 years for minor in possession of a firearm.’ You did not qualify that statement to mean gangbangers/teens engaged in criminal activity, while in possession of a gun.
Do you think that police don’t go to shooting ranges or participate in winter outdoor sports like hunting?
You made a broad statement, while forgetting that there are exceptions to it as there are to most broad statements.
No dice, Flag. 1. Whether you realize it or not, you’ve just proposed a blanket ban of private sales or gifts of existing, already owned weapons. That’s equivalent to requiring a person only to sell his/her car through an auto dealer. Sorry, I can’t buy that kind of blanket ban. What you appear to want is some proof of NICS check before a weapon may be legally transferred. If that’s what you actually want, so state. Firearms registration is a different thing entirely – and something I cannot support. What must be registered can also be tracked – and later confiscated. Not going to sign up for that. 2. “Minor in possession” doesn’t imply ownership – merely possession. And yes: where I grew up as I recall a fair number of kids less than 18 years of age often legally hunted solo. According to this link, a fair number of states still appear to allow youths between 15 and 18 to hunt unaccompanied today; presumably that’s hunting using a firearm. http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx What you appear to want is a ban on the purchase of firearms by minors, which I’m pretty sure already exists. I’d have to check, but I believe it’s also already a felony, at least for the seller (and probably for the buyer as well, if they misrepresent their age to a lawful dealer). Not sure if the sentence is 10 years or not. My point here is that your proposal regarding “minor in possession” has consequences far beyond what you envisioned. A blanket ban without exceptions – which is what you proposed – would make even supervised hunting and target shooting by minors unlawful (to say nothing of the unsupervised version of either); would prohibit any military training by persons less than 18 involving weapons; and would make a felon out of the 17-year-old who grabbed dad’s shotgun and shot someone trying to murder his mom. Why? Because in all of these cases, the individual would have to possess a weapon, albeit temporarily, even though they did not own it. Sorry, I can’t buy any of those situations… Read more »
It is no longer a right when you have to ask for government permission, registration and license. Common sense is to remove all restrictions. Criminals won’t pay attention to the laws anyways, and you only end up restricting law-abiding citizens. ‘Constitutional Carry’ should be the law of the land, IMHO.
When I mentioned common sense, I had completely forgotten that nobody had common sense anymore. My apologies for not writing 10 pages of legalese to explain every little part of my “common sense” ideas for guns. I’ll be sure to write up 10 pages of I don’t give a fuck.
If you think I mean any minor having a gun at any time during their lives, even competition shooting or sport shooting, then I don’t give a fuck.
If you think that I mean private sales and gifts, then you should be ready if that person isn’t as I don’t give a fuck.
Rather than understanding what it is I’m saying, you’d rather keep your head in your fourth point of contact and tear apart what I said. Well, enjoy the view.
Think you should remember that whatever you propose, if codified into law, will be prosecuted to the nth degree by an assortment of anti-gun DAs, police chiefs, and bureaucrats who will intentionally misinterpret and rationalize how every last nuance can be applied to support their worldview. Hondo isn’t doing a personal attack, just showing how in such a real-world situation what you proposed will be applied. You want proof? Look how many social enginering proposals have been rammed down our throats under the guise of “interstate commerce” by Congress. Observe how the SAFE Act in NY State banned police pistol magazines and the authors said “but we didn’t MEAN that”.
Possibly you live in a jurisdiction where
all guns must be licensed and you consider that normal – well, you should be aware that in most states that is not the case. Ad hominem attacks like “go fuck yourself” are uncalled for and if anything diminish your credibility… if that statement threatens your sensibilities… well, I can live with that.
Bingo. The legal system doesn’t go by “common sense”; it goes by the letter of the law AS WRITTEN. Further, the law generally means precisely what it says – not what the drafter intended but failed to say, or said inaccurately. And in law, the precise wording matters.
If a law is written depending on someone applying common sense to remove ambiguities – or without exploring the branches and foreseeable consequences ahead of time – then there’s a large risk of making things far worse instead of better.
Flag: see my reply to David above. No one here reads minds, so no – we don’t know what you meant. We can only know what you actually wrote.
What you actually wrote initially left much to be desired as public policy, because it had a number of unintended consequences you obviously didn’t realize. When that was brought to your attention, rather than discussing the matter rationally you first became defensive, then lashed out.
FWIW: your last comment above was, frankly, immature as hell. No one is immune from mistakes, or of coming up with an idea that turns out to be unworkable in practice. But a mature individual accepts the fact that they occasionally “blow it” and learns from the experience.
I expected better than that last from you.
“…while revealing she has received death threats in the past.” Is her acting that bad?
Now that you ask….. 🙂
She’s average at best.
And not very funny.
The midnight legislation is what to pay attention to here.
They’ll have this one page bill ready to be voted on and at 2am 1000 provisions will get added to it increasing gun control laws and requirements punishing states and citizens for legally owning firearms.
Barak the Won and Bernie Sanders are both advocating for “common sense” gun control. So my reaction is “oh, hell no” when I see “common sense” and “gun control” in the same sentence. Not to mention the name “Schumer” attached to it.
Looking at the patchwork of Involuntary Treatment Authority across the USA is probably not a bad idea in and of itself. But the Feds doing anything more than recommending best practices is just asking for a gross violation of the 10th Amendment.
The system that works in Washington today, won’t necessarily work in Maryland or Colorado, nor should we expect it to. Just because an individual had to be seen on a involuntary basis, doesn’t mean that he/she should have his/her right to possess a firearm taken away.
After retiring I worked for one of the larger inpatient psychiatric hospitals in the western US. On more than a few occasions we had to get a patient into the hospital under the auspices of “involuntary treatment authority” as the only way we could get paid. We would get nothing if we accepted the patient if they came in voluntarily, but we at least would get paid the Medicare/Medicaid rate if they were an involuntary patient.
Also, just because an individual needs help today, doesn’t mean that they represent a risk to themselves or the public at some future date.
While this sounds good in the sound bite, I’d be wary.
And then if you don’t want to talk to the shrink, you’re suspect, too.
Only in the military, or perhaps law enforcement/first responder.
We used to have patients released out of involuntary treatment all the time (God I wouldn’t want some to have a toothbrush, much less a firearm). The standard to be committed to involuntary treatment is extremely high, as it should be as we are taking away a persons right.
I look at this perhaps a little differently, as I see that the bar for taking away a persons right to have a firearm is to low currently, if we just go by the wording of Form 4473 and enforce it to the letter. For instance, if you ever had an alcohol related incident or turned you self in for detox or residential alcohol treatment (that counts as a mental institution in most states).
And many shrinks will go to the wall with declaring veterans unfit to carry/possess firearms because of their inbred political leanings. Unless due process is built into the system, this will be the vehicle for the disarming of all veterans. hell some shrinks believe that even wanting to own a firearm is a sign of mental illness.
The devil is in the details… like “universal background checks will only work with a universal registration database” DING DING DING!!!!
Schumer is on record as one of the most virulently anti-gun, pro-confiscation guys out there, and has supported EVERY gun-control, confiscation, magazine limit, background check, and bluntly Draconian restrictions possible. Propose a law restricting ownership to Type O left-handed Capricorns born in June and he’ll co-sponsor it. On the surface, his proposal sounds OK… but realize this: you will be letting someone like CDC write the standards for what constitutes mental illness to withhold funds from states who don’t cooperate. “Obviously anyone who refuses to answer a physician’s questions about gun ownership is in a state of hostile denial and could be a hazard to himself and the community”.
The only grimly humorous aspect of this is that technically transgendered are still considered mentally ill… and ineligible to own a gun. Petard, hoist, etc.
Sorry. Well, not really, but when the words “Shumer” and “gun control” appear in the same sentence my First Alert Bullshit Detector spikes.
Chucky has been awfully quiet about the Iran A-bomb deal. Wonder why?
20,000+ gun laws on the books now. Why would this one work any better?
Had Schumer proposed to strengthen existing laws, and vow to uphold current gun laws, I might…just barely, might….deem this particular suggestion as a go.
But, yeah. It’s Schumer. He wants you in jail for thinking about guns, and freedom, and the Constitution. So…no. This is nothing more than liberal theater, wrapped around another push to destroy the Bill Of Rights.
It seems to me that the people who are the most worried about other people who own guns legally are the nastiest control freaks alive. They also seem to be a bit paranoid. That’s rather sad.
How about we just enforce the laws that are already on the books and get cops out of cars and back on the beat?
Oh, wait – that means police would know their neighborhoods and the people in them. My bad. I forgot – there has to be that canyon between us and them.
As I’ve said, when you have enough officers in cars to actually handle calls for service, foot patrol is a great idea. Unfortunately, I doubt that many would want to pay the necessary taxes to do that. In the months that we weren’t ass-deep in snow drifts, I answered, on average, 20-25 calls for service per night, in a 10 hour shift.
And, how many foot beats for a medium-sized city? I worked in a city of about 200,000 people, at the height of the use of foot beats, the city had maybe 7 or 8.
Those who have guns and own them for protection ONLY, will NEVER surrender them to those who wish to emulate Hitler’s march to POWER. Those who willingly surrender will end up drinking the kool aid and wishing they had indeed stood up to be counted. It’s called the path of self destruction. Wishing wells are for the weak and gullible.
The reaction to this would be easy if the GOP was smart enough to see the play unfold and turn it into a blitz quite easily.
All they have to do is demand that all federal firearm statutes are followed.
Felons in possession of a gun in a crime should get a minimum of ten years in the pen.
DA’s almost always plea bargain that down so they can get a conviction and the liberal judges let the thugs slide with probation after pulling a gun on someone in a robbery.
Invariably 90% of those people continue to practice thuggery as it is the only form of employment they have learned.
If they just enforced those laws the crime rate would drop significantly.
Right on the mark, WE DON’T NEED more laws, effective enforcement of the ones in place is what we need, and there are a few we could get rid of as well! Gun Control Laws and the politicians that pass them do little more than aid, abet, and embolden violent criminals by assuring them via legislation that law-abiding people will be conveniently unarmed VICTIMS. Schumer is about as trustworthy as Hitlery Clinton or Nanny Lugosi!
Here’s an idea: revoke all federal gun control laws on the books now, add one that supports and enhances the 2nd amendment and make legal citizenship a requirement for gun ownership.
Oh, and while we’re at it, tell cities run by wimpy mayors like Rahmbo that if they expect to get federal funding for things like O’Hare and Midway airport and DOT repair, they’d better start firing the sociopaths who get hired as cops. Those lawsuits are expensive. I don’t think taxpayers should be expected to fund them.
Geez, I’m glad I don’t live in Chicago any more.
“Finally, the duo called on Congress to fund mental health and substance abuse programs that provide treatment to those who need it most. They also urged increased funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.”
In other words…PORK! If, unless I am reading this incorrectly, this is not part of the gun control bill being posited by Schumer.
This is my one and only issue with this otherwise sensible bill. If it is passed as is, I agree with Jonn it is the most sensible one to come down the pike in decades. My issue is when all is said and done I hope it is not just 1 million in funding for the gun legislation a 50 million for other, tacked on by the Democrats to agree to pass it, pork projects. As Jonn said, IF they keep it clean, neat and to the point of the issue at hand, a sensible gun control bill, it sounds good. If passed as it appears it could quell the gun grabbers for a long time. Well, I take that back, nothing will ever satisfy them short of no guns at all. But there will at least be legislation to shove their pointy little heads to when they bark.
Here’s the list of current ‘Gun Control’ legislation pending. For Chucky’s to rise above the noise, he will have to add all sorts of goodies to attract co-sponsors or his will die in committee like 99% of these. Either that or it is a calculated PR stunt. Any time Dems call out the NRA as a special interest group when it is in fact made up of millions of AMERICAN CITIZENS, my BS meter is immediately on alert. H.R.2612 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention. Sponsor: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12] (Introduced 06/02/2015) S.1473 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) A bill to authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention. Sponsor: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] (Introduced 06/02/2015) H.R.47 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) To ensure secure gun storage and gun safety devices. Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 01/06/2015) S.1529 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Crime Gun Tracing Act of 2015 Sponsor: Sen. Durbin, Richard [D-IL] (Introduced 06/09/2015) H.R.1858 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Crime Gun Tracing Act Sponsor: Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2] (Introduced 04/16/2015) H.R.226 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act Sponsor: Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2] (Introduced 01/08/2015) H.R.2374 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Detectives Nemorin, Andrews and Moore Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 2015 Sponsor: Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-2] (Introduced 05/15/2015) H.R.368 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Safe and Responsible Gun Transfer Act Sponsor: Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-21] (Introduced 01/14/2015) H.R.3224 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Gun Look-Alike Case Act Sponsor: Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16] (Introduced 07/27/2015) S.1760 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act of 2015 Sponsor: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] (Introduced 07/14/2015) H.R.2871 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Keeping Guns From Criminals Act Sponsor: Rep. Beyer, Donald S., Jr. [D-VA-8] (Introduced 06/24/2015) H.R.2939 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Enforce Existing Gun Laws Act Sponsor:… Read more »