So, I just skimmed the gun violence bill, which is probably more than your senator has done by now.
Title I is an expansion of children and family mental health services. Out of my wheelhouse. Could be useful. Could be your standard federal money pit. Could be useless as those old GWOT PTSD tests that accused you of alcoholism if you touched a drop of demon rum. Could go any way.
Title II has the bulk of the gun stuff.
First section allows for juvenile records to be checked under NICS.
Fair enough at first look.
Second section redefines "engaged in the business" by changing "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" to "to predominately earn a profit."
In other words, it's requiring people who flip guns the way people flip houses to be FFL holders. It does make exceptions for people improving or liquidating personal collections. But it also adds language about criminal and terrorist purposes. This is probably to add a federal charge of operating an FFL to anyone who bankrolls the armory of a gang or a terror cell.
Third section allows for Byrne grants to implement state crisis prevention programs.
And here's where I call fuckery.
It claims to insist that such programs account for due process. But then claims the accused have the right to counsel at no expense to the government.
In other words, prove you're innocent on your own dime, uppity peasant.
"we're not infringing on anyone. We're just giving money to states who do it for us."
Thanks, pal. When I get ventilated and my cat gets splattered against the wall by a SWAT team in the dead of night because some jackwagon red-flags me over pics of my next range trip, I'm gonna be real comforted that it was done by a state administration instead of the fed. I'm feeling cozy already.
Fourth section ups the penalties for straw purposes.
Normally I'd be cool with this, especially if I thought it would be enforced. But it also spells out that civil asset forfeiture is a part of the bargain.
There's also a subsection prohibiting DOJ agents from giving guns to known cartel members. Decade late and a dollar short there, but I suppose it's good to know that's one page of the Obama white house playbook that can't be used again.
Section five closes the "boyfriend loophole."
This was always going to be a tough one, but the language they have is workable.
"The term ‘dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature... Whether a relationship constitutes a dating relationship under subparagraph (A) shall be determined based on consideration of— (i) the length of the relationship; (ii) the nature of the relationship; and (iii) the frequency and type of interaction between the individuals involved in the relationship."
Unfortunately the rest of the subsection becomes Lawdog's cake. DV Offenders in a dating relationship have their 2A rights restored five years after their sentence has been completed, but dv offenders in any other domestic relationship still have those rights permanently stricken.
I can see the question of "why should any dv offenders have the right to own a weapon again ever?"
Same reason we argue over whether convicted felons should be able to vote again.
It's an enumerated right that was taken from an individual upon conviction, and whether or not that right can be restored when they have paid their debt to society is on the table whether we like it or not.
This was a chance for the Democrats to prove they weren't interested in another slice of lawdog's cake.
Instead, they proved that when it comes to gun control, they are all take or no give.
They may have convinced themselves that not insisting on an assault weapons ban or magazine ban were concessions on their end. But to be honest, that was merely not asking for more instead of offering an exchange.
Title III is other matters. What looks like some medicare pork. And provisions for school safety.
Again, a lot of it is outside my wheelhouse. I'd like to think it would help with some school safety measures (like vetting RSO's not to be useless). But for all I know, it's just going to give reason to target kids who like loud music, horror movies, and crappy poetry again.
TBH, I think the straw purchase and boyfriend loopholes are useful, if only to punish actual straw purchasers for once. But the red flag provisions are kicking that can to the states, which will lead to state-by-state fuckery.
Take care of yourselves out there.
Title I is an expansion of children and family mental health services. Out of my wheelhouse. Could be useful. Could be your standard federal money pit. Could be useless as those old GWOT PTSD tests that accused you of alcoholism if you touched a drop of demon rum. Could go any way.
Title II has the bulk of the gun stuff.
First section allows for juvenile records to be checked under NICS.
Fair enough at first look.
Second section redefines "engaged in the business" by changing "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" to "to predominately earn a profit."
In other words, it's requiring people who flip guns the way people flip houses to be FFL holders. It does make exceptions for people improving or liquidating personal collections. But it also adds language about criminal and terrorist purposes. This is probably to add a federal charge of operating an FFL to anyone who bankrolls the armory of a gang or a terror cell.
Third section allows for Byrne grants to implement state crisis prevention programs.
And here's where I call fuckery.
It claims to insist that such programs account for due process. But then claims the accused have the right to counsel at no expense to the government.
In other words, prove you're innocent on your own dime, uppity peasant.
"we're not infringing on anyone. We're just giving money to states who do it for us."
Thanks, pal. When I get ventilated and my cat gets splattered against the wall by a SWAT team in the dead of night because some jackwagon red-flags me over pics of my next range trip, I'm gonna be real comforted that it was done by a state administration instead of the fed. I'm feeling cozy already.
Fourth section ups the penalties for straw purposes.
Normally I'd be cool with this, especially if I thought it would be enforced. But it also spells out that civil asset forfeiture is a part of the bargain.
There's also a subsection prohibiting DOJ agents from giving guns to known cartel members. Decade late and a dollar short there, but I suppose it's good to know that's one page of the Obama white house playbook that can't be used again.
Section five closes the "boyfriend loophole."
This was always going to be a tough one, but the language they have is workable.
"The term ‘dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature... Whether a relationship constitutes a dating relationship under subparagraph (A) shall be determined based on consideration of— (i) the length of the relationship; (ii) the nature of the relationship; and (iii) the frequency and type of interaction between the individuals involved in the relationship."
Unfortunately the rest of the subsection becomes Lawdog's cake. DV Offenders in a dating relationship have their 2A rights restored five years after their sentence has been completed, but dv offenders in any other domestic relationship still have those rights permanently stricken.
I can see the question of "why should any dv offenders have the right to own a weapon again ever?"
Same reason we argue over whether convicted felons should be able to vote again.
It's an enumerated right that was taken from an individual upon conviction, and whether or not that right can be restored when they have paid their debt to society is on the table whether we like it or not.
This was a chance for the Democrats to prove they weren't interested in another slice of lawdog's cake.
Instead, they proved that when it comes to gun control, they are all take or no give.
They may have convinced themselves that not insisting on an assault weapons ban or magazine ban were concessions on their end. But to be honest, that was merely not asking for more instead of offering an exchange.
Title III is other matters. What looks like some medicare pork. And provisions for school safety.
Again, a lot of it is outside my wheelhouse. I'd like to think it would help with some school safety measures (like vetting RSO's not to be useless). But for all I know, it's just going to give reason to target kids who like loud music, horror movies, and crappy poetry again.
TBH, I think the straw purchase and boyfriend loopholes are useful, if only to punish actual straw purchasers for once. But the red flag provisions are kicking that can to the states, which will lead to state-by-state fuckery.
Take care of yourselves out there.
RSS Feed
