They did it. 15 Republicans voted and passed the supposed gun “safety” bill.
Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey did not vote to advance the bill to the floor on Tuesday.
Toomey voted for the bill on Thursday night.
65-33. This is so gross.
#BREAKING The Gun Control Bill Has Passed The Senate 65-33
Here Are The 15 Republicans Who Voted For It:
Blunt
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Ernst
GRAHAM
McConnell
Murkowski
Portman
Romney
Tillis
Toomey
Young pic.twitter.com/dFaSjCeHgE— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) June 24, 2022
Schumer, all smiles, gives McConnell a pat on the shoulder
— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) June 24, 2022
Senate votes 65–33 to approve the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the gun legislation negotiated by a bipartisan group of senators led by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chris Murphy (D-CT).https://t.co/g3FvsSK0tV pic.twitter.com/0hhD6vmGD5
— CSPAN (@cspan) June 24, 2022
Everyone says the bill will likely pass the House on Friday. I don’t know. It might be as extreme as some want it to be.
To us who understand the Constitution, we know it’s too extreme.
The bill will allow the removal of firearms if a person is determined a danger to him/herself or others. It would also “prohibit dating partners or recent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a firearm.”
But you can have your rights back “if 5 years have elapsed from the later of the judgment of conviction or the completion of the person’s custodial or supervisory sentence” or if you haven’t been convicted again.
A requirement for purchases for people between 18-and 21-year old gun purchasers. They need to review your juvenile and mental health records.
So in order for a LEGAL ADULT to purchase a gun, they have to consent for the government to look at their mental health records. It can take up to 10 days if the government finds “areas of concern.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How many of the 15 are on the ballot this year. If any, which ones?
Cassidy is not. He betrayed us as soon as he was reelected in 2020 and continues to betray us.
And I will make it a point to see that he is primaried out. He’s signed his own pink slip with this. And this will be the point that I will actually contribute to a campaign designed to get him out of office.
I intend to vote for the Democrat who is running against my Senator. Better to have a real terrorist in the Senate than a back stabbing Republican.
At least the Democrat supports the 2A.
Once out of office, I can then vote for a real American senate candidate in 6 years.
My single issue is not the 2A. My single issue is not to vote for any candidate who does not support the Constitution.
And please, save your partisan bullshit whine about “giving the Democrats the Senate majority!”
McCocksucker voted for this. So the republicans are merely a speed bump in the run to make America into Venezuela.
Fuck democrats. Fûck republicans.
Of those that haven’t announced their retirement: Murkowski this year. Romney in 2024. The rest in 2026. Pretty sure that’s accurate but double check as I am on my first cup of coffee.
Coffee: Silver lining!
I think only Murkowski.
I take it she’s pretty safe?
It’s like those old police fiascos…. shift the blame to guys with secure pensions. This is a sea change though as the GOPe has followed its donor$ at the cost of its members.. The Sure Thing “red wave” is a cover… even if they really don’t care to win.
The Party really needs to understand that factionalism doesn’t help. The Country Club faction is $elling the rest out. They are $wamp creatures.
You can already see this pandering headed for the SCOTUS
What part and on what grounds?
Its not that I disagree with you (In fact I agree- see my following post) but this bill was written to “not” violate anything ( and it doesn’t on its face).
There’s nothing in it to challenge. ( that’s deliberate)
How the states implement it is where any challenge will be.
Congress funding states to dodge fourth amendment for one?
Financing someone to break the law is not legal. Likewise, funding States to punish people for crimes they haven’t committed can not be legal, because it penalizes states that do not violate their citizens’ inalienable rights.
Nice to say but meaningless.
“Financing” people to break laws is done every day. (Sanctuary cities being an obvious example- there are thousands more)
Punishing people for crimes they didn’t commit is laughable as well- ask Trump, his people and the J6 crowd about that too.
People need to get off of these “hypothetical perfect world’ things that may seem “right” to them but are legally meaningless and start dealing with the FACTS AS THEY ARE.
If they don’t, the game is over.
Now back to what I said
SHOW ME ( by section, page and line #) something in this bill you “THINK” is “Unconstitutional” and i will correct you.
I await your challenge. (A lot of deliberate thought went into the selective wordsmithing of this bill)
I’m sorry but saying cities break the law constantly is a reason to simply ignore the law is plain surrender.
If you are already willing to do that with actions that are plainly illegal on their face, what value is there in debating you? Will you not simply state that they have done it anyways?
I didn’t ( and never) said a word about surrendering or not fighting.
You state “plainly illegal” yet do not show specifically “how” they are “illegal” and what “law” they are violating.
Here’s the value of the debate.
Stop opining about personal interpretations, false facts and strawmen arguments ( which is what the left wants you to consume all your energy and resources on)
START getting hard facts and data and fighting the ACTUAL FIGHT and win it.
Yes they have “done it” (and will continue to do it too) UNTIL WE STOP THEM.
We are not going to stop them by wishing them away or fighting theoretical fantasy battles.
Again, show me specifically and exactly what you believe is “illegal” or “unconstitutional” in the Senate bill as voted on by section/page and line and i will show you where its not.
FINALLY someone who gets it.
What conservatives need to avoid:
-Arguments based loosely on the law and heavy on the emotional investment in our concepts of patriotism and “the way it should be”
-Losing arguments quickly with ad hominem due to impatience and frustration
Your enemies are playing the long game….start acting like you want to stop them.
Cities do not break the law constantly. Sanctuary cities are perfectly legal. They are exercising their states’ constitutional right to refuse to assist federal law enforcement. That right is just as sacred as the RKBA.
Taurus appears to be correct — there is nothing in the wording of this bill that is obviously unconstitutional. It was carefully written to avoid that, and yet do as much violence as possible to people’s rights.
Well, this clearly establishes a list of RINO’s to be culled during the next election cycle.
Unlike other legislation which could have grey areas, this legislation is clearly designed for abuse and is a trojan horse.
It was specifically designed that way with both the desire and intent.
Its not accidental, a mistake or a misunderstanding.
This is a true power play between the RINO GOPe and MAGA. (McConnell V. Trump)
The bill on its face is not “technically” unconstitutional ( not in plain language) but the final applications ( still have to go through the house) could be.
Problem is, that will require victims and money to challenge at that point.
I do caution people- the articles written on the bill (accidental or deliberate) report “interpretations” of what the bill says- I STRONGLY SUGGEST you download a copy and read the actual wording prior to forming an opinion or expounding on one. ( you will see where its written in stealth language when you do)
The biggest fundamental weakness ( flaw) is the nebulous/undefined scenarios it lists. It does not establish clear definitions, tests or anything else. Its written like a grade school book report written from cliff notes.
That’s not accidental- they did that to keep the bill from being legally challenged. On the flip side- that leaves it open to an individual state or other body to interpret. ( again, by design)
The reason is clear and evident as to why they did that. (Rand Paul touched on it)
Now there will be 50 different applications to challenge ( as opposed to repealing a single bill) and there is a financial incentive for states to adopt harsh red flag laws ( like Covid payments).
All doubts should be erased now- the GOPe is clearly in league with the left and need to be dealt with accordingly and quickly.
The establishment needs a challenge. Get active in your County r party. Either run or help elect folks to County r party positions. These are the people who collectively decide on State r party issues and positions. The State r party officials have a good deal of power and influence.
We have to stop being complacent and waiting for someone else to do something. If we don’t like the decisions made then we need to start acting to fix the problems. Think of the r party officials as a sort of standing electoral collage. Do we know the name of our county r chair or the State Chair? These are people who facilitate the establishment control of our party.
I actually do believe red flag laws are good. If you are reported to be a mentally unstable person that is a danger to others, you should be removed from society. If it is discovered that you are sane, you must have legal recourse against your false accuser. I believe this is the way it worked several decades ago before we had mass murders. It’s a shame (and a sham) that they are using this new bill to grab our means of self defense.
As long as there is due process and you have a chance to defend yourself and present evidence which this bill bypasses.
You forgot in that bill as to who PAYS for that “due process”- its the accused
Due process is for those who can afford it.
No vet, you are wrong on every count.
In any scenario. a “red flag” law is like the movie “Timecop” using the metrics of Climate change.
Its a “looks like” guess based on on a hypothetical model to determine what a person “might” do and then criminally punish that person as if they actually did it.
Its an impossible scenario with an impossible defense but the damage to the individual is VERY REAL.
The concept of “holding the false accuser accountable is pure BULLSHIT and 99.99% IMPOSSIBLE under law.
First- the “state” brings the charge (in the criminal sense) and as sovereign has absolute immunity ( with a few tort exclusions which have astronomically high to impossible burdens to meet. Go check out the Duke Rape Case and see how that accountability went)
Second- the “accuser”- under law, if the accuser” believed” ( that’s nearly impossible also to disprove) what they were accusing then they cannot be charged even when they lose ( with a few rare exceptions)
The US legal system has NEVER been any other way.
It is so sad that it seems everyone is happy living with the crazies that dominate our society. I remember a time when people WERE locked up ( the 50s and 60s and before) when their words and actions put civilized society at risk. It appears we no longer have a civil population and it seems most people are glad about it. They want the entertainment it provides, I guess. I was lucky enough to have lived in better times.
No, it’s a deliberately rigged game.
There have always been crazies in society, but society had the means to freely defend themselves again their depredations.. and when they did, the courts applied common sense and understanding.
The left has been using the law to gradually grow the geography within which law-abiding citizens are forcibly disarmed, so as to make them vulnerable to the crazies, whose acts they use to justify even more disarmament.
Inside schools. Post offices. Airports. Federal buildings. Amtrak. Colleges. Within 1,000 feet of any school property, even if you’re driving by on a public highway or a raised Interstate. Malls. Medical offices. Banks… oh wait, NOT banks—that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
Red herring.
No one should be locked up or have their freedoms negated because YOU or anyone else thinks someone is crazy.
I believe you are nuts for your comments, but I don’t believe your rights should be taken away for it.
Who gets to decide who is or is not insane? YOU? Fûck that nonsense. I refuse to put my civil rights and my ability to defend myself in your hands, or the hands of any other “do-gooder!”
Should it be some girlfriend who gets pissed off because someone stuck their dïck in another twat? I have had many unhinged girlfriends who would love to have that kind of control over me. They had sweet asses and fucked like rabbits, but I did’t want them around forever. Many turned out to be liberal nut cases.
Psychologists? Anyone who is a psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, or in another mental health field has their own mental issues. I won’t put my trust in them.
A doctor? VA physicians LOVE LOVE LOVE to take weapons away from veterans.
I’ll take my chances. If a nut job wants to kill me, I get equal capability to dead the person. If someone commits a crime with a weapon, then we can adjudicate.
But YOU nor anyone else gets to RED FLAG me because you “think” I may do something wrong.
Get bent asshat.
Yep. My comment, My rant, my right.
What is the percentage of Iraq/Afghanistan vets diagnosed with PTSD? 20%?
“Thank you for your service, now hand over your guns.”
Minor quibble: you’re describing “Minority Report,” with its “Precrime” apprehensions… not “Timecop.”
I heard that in Comic Book Guy’s voice and I chuckled.
And who determines what “unstable person” means? Mothers (aka domestic terrorists) complaining at school board meetings? War veterans (who, together with police, were listed by Homeland Security to be the highest risk for domestic terrorism)?
These people consider gun ownership itself to be a mental disorder.
No, infringement of any kind creates an entry point for clever lawyers and evil politicians to leverage into nullification of gun rights. This is the best time to deal with it… nip in the bud. It’s not like we are dealing with people who deserve to be trusted. They just lie about everything as they take into tyranny.
Outstanding response.
Red flag laws are bad, bad, bad.
They are one-sided, unconstitutional hearings. The burden of proof is stupidly low – gee, someone says you’re a danger and shouldn’t have guns? Good enough for a hearing. Can’t afford a lawyer? Too bad. Want to challenge those claims against you? Sorry.
Did you know there are already laws in every single state that allows authorities to take away guns from the mentally ill, which also give you the chance to defend yourself properly?
^^^ This. That last paragraph. Crickets on this in the news. Why, it’s almost deliberate.
If the “mentally ill” categorization has been properly adjudicated, fine. What is “properly adjudicated”? Not some shrink. Had a longtime friend that was a psychologist. Told me that 3 percent of the population is diagnosable as nuts. Not a danger to themselves, or anyone else–that number is a lot lower–but nuts. Suspect I was in that category.
What you are describing is a process of involuntary commitment. This has much higher standards than how red flag laws operate. Generally red flag laws work initially ex parte with a Judge hearing only from a prosecutor similar to how a grand jury only hears from a prosecutor. The defendant has no advocate at this stage.
After a Judge signs off, and they will because the incentives are for them to do so, then LEO comes and takes the weapons. LEO showing up is often the first knowledge the defendant has that this process has begun. That’s a recipe for disaster; the person has weapons, a CT issued a ruling they are dangerous so get ready for a kitted out squad size dynamic raid.
After that the defendant can obtain counsel and challenge the initial ruling. Judges don’t like reversing themselves so again the incentive is to uphold the initial ruling. No one wants to be Judge that made an incorrect decision and didn’t act against a truly deranged, violent person.
“…a Judge hearing only from a prosecutor similar to how a grand jury only hears from a prosecutor.”
And the prosecutor hearing only from witnesses that are identical in every way to the witnesses who brought accusations against Kavanaugh.
Not to mention that the possibility of a vindictive and scorned ‘crazy ex’ wasn’t addressed. The example of Amber Heard is fresh in everyone’s mind and ignored yet again.
Very True!
Your scenario has already happened.
The Democrats want Amber Heard scenarios. Though I’m sure it occasionally happens, I can’t think of a single case where a man scorned lied to authorities to harass a woman, and I can think of numerous reported cases where a woman lied to get the cops to harass a man. The whole point of this law is to enable harassment.
I vaguely recall a season (?) under Obama/Obamacare where physicians were pushed to ask whether their patients had guns, or, and whether or not they were depressed. My physician never did, but I noticed on a recent “after visit summary” for my wife that the doctor had recorded my wife as “depressed”. We’d just been through a lockdown and bout with Covid, and she was battling hyperparathyroidism which was quite painful for her. She is not nor has she ever been on an anti-depressant – in fact, after her parathyroid surgery is back to her joyful self.
But try to get that “depressed” diagnosis removed hasn’t been successful. In fact, it remains and forms the basis to claim a “history” of depression. With the memory of Obama or his health czar pushing docs to ask about depression and guns, we’re leery to offer up any information about our emotional state. I’m particularly alarmed that they’re making such assessments as a “shot from the hip” without any standardized evaluation and cooperation/consent of the patient.
I fear red flag laws will be used by anti-gun operatives in a “swat” like attack on gun owners. “My neighbor is railing like a madman and HE’S GOT GUNS!” Or a doctors hip-shot diagnosis is the basis for triggering a red-flag intervention. I would not be suprised to see some LEOs and innocent gun owners killed by red flag actions, which I imagine the leftists will cite as proof the action was righteous.
This has been long understood in the gun community.
When asking for mental help jeopardizes your liberties, fewer people will seek mental help.
This red flag law is Soviet “psychiatric” law, pure and simple.
I hereby report you as a mentally unstable person that is a danger to others.
By your own logic, you now must be removed from society.
No one will examine you for sanity.
You must pay to have that done… if you can find someone to do it.
“Blimey! This redistribution of wealth stuff is trickier than it seems!” — Monty Python
“I believe this is the way it worked several decades ago before we had mass murders.”
And nobody ever removed those laws — you could use them today, if you wanted.
Unfortunately, they require Real Due Process… which the Marxists now wish to end-run because red flag laws are way more easy to abuse.
Red Flag is like Red Queen — “Sentence first, trial afterwards!”
If you want an example of how the left thinks Red Flag laws should be implemented, just look at the Jan 6 hearings.
Superb response!
Those firearms thst the LEOs steal under the cover of this law will, depending on value:
1) Go into someone’s collection of rare firearms. The Chief always wanted a Purdy shotgun.
2) Find their way home in Patrolman Kelly’s POV.
3) Junk guns will go in the pile used for planted evidence.
Cynical? You bet I am!
Not at all, you are describing one case already pending. Guy surrenders his collection based on initial ex parte decision. When he had his turn with representation another Judge reversed for lack of evidence.
Cops refused to give him back his collection. Now he is paying to sue the Cops to get his property back that was erroneously confiscated.
This bill spends a lot of money, seems like it should originate in the House…
It’s not spending bills that have to originate there, it’s taxing bills.
Didn’t a federal appeals court just overrule a case out of California which restricted gun purchases by age?
You beat me to it….Yes. Jones vs Bonta.
The 9th Circus (3-judge panel, 2-1) ruled the age restriction stopping 18 to 21 year old citizens from possessing center-fire rifles is unconstitutional. A District court had earlier ruled it did not violate the constitution and the plaintiff appealed. This is their win. The decision was issued 5/11/22.. So blanket age restrictions are out. This may make the special treatment of this age group for “mental health issues” likewise unconstitutional.
In May the CA AG said they were “reviewing” options for appeal. In light of yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling, their hopes might have dimmed substantially.
The SCOTUS ruled against “red flag laws” 9-0 last year
Caniglia v Strom –
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/caniglia-v-strom/
Now McCarthy is rallying the troops for a rousing round of failure theatre.
After keeping his mouth completely shut for weeks and waiting until he’s completely sure he can’t affect the outcome, he’s suddenly acting tough about how he’s going to vote against it.
God I hate RINO scum with every fiber of my being.
Just give it a couple days, and somebody here will be sure to post how lucky we are to have him in Congress.
Which pretty much means, with Biden’s ATF, that the government will find “areas of concern” on everybody and make a 10 day wait the standard.
Clarence Thomas’s very well referenced and explicit decision overturning New York’s Sullivan Laws would seem to moot this latest gun control bill before it even makes it out of Congress. Gee maybe they should have listened to Rand Paul?