On the new gun control legislation
In other news (besides Dobbs, which is the huge news of the day), Congress seems to be passing a new gun control law, with the cooperation of some Republicans.
This is the legislation I already discussed in #2 of this roundup. Concern centers around the fact that so-called “red flag” gun control provisions are ripe for possible abuse by angry and vengeful relatives (or others, depending on the details) or even by police. Thing is – and I don’t know if most people understand this – the bill apparently does not require states to adopt red flag laws, it merely provides funding for them:
The bipartisan gun bill that is on a fast track through Congress and backed by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn includes new state grants to incentivize red flag laws, which allow judges to temporarily seize firearms from people who are deemed dangerous.
That means it’ll be up to states as to whether they want to take advantage of one of the key provisions of the landmark gun legislation…
It includes $750 million that states can use to implement and maintain red flag programs. Generally, red flag laws allow the authorities to ask a court to take guns away from someone they believe is an imminent danger. In some cases, people beside the police — family members, for example, can petition a court.
But the funding could also be used for other crisis-intervention programs in states that do not currently have red flag laws or are unlikely to enact them anytime soon — like Texas.
So each state should be free to accept or decline, and if they accept, it seems they can enact as many protections against abuse that they can come up with. And SCOTUS can decide whether red flag laws for gun control violate the 2nd Amendment or due process, on a state-by-state basis depending on the details of each law.
florida, already has a red flag program but much like obamacare, the money is used to entice, now we haven’t fallen for ‘the big shiny’ but other states like Arizona have, and we see what an inconstant governor Ducey has been,
Colorado already has a Red Flag Law, and it was abused immediately. But the Court that had Jurisdiction said NO. Do not know of other cases but there must be some.
We also have Abortion On Demand up to including Birth. I do not know of any stats on the abortions in the state
After a decade of vowing to stay in CA and stubbornly resist … I am begnning to waver. Red Flag laws will make it very dangerous to be a dissident.
Plus, even someone who decides to violently resist will only suffer “death by cop”. And potentially have a gun fight with “Good German” law enforcement, not even getting a chance to revenge on the instigators.
Time to start evaluating Red states…
JimNorCal, Idaho is a nice place.
Red flag laws can be abused. It’s up to voters and legislators in each state to make sure anything that’s passed doesn’t infringe on basic rights or on due process requirements.
does not require states to adopt red flag laws, it merely provides funding for them:
So how many state legislators will pass up the chance to snag Federal bucks for ‘common-sense gun control’? If nothing else, they can grease all sorts of partisan wheels with it.
For about 25 years, from 1970 when I left the Army I was not really a gun guy, I had been growing up and I don’t think I owned over 6 or 7 or maybe 8 guns during that time and I did a bit of shooting with my son but we did a lot of other things and I voted Democrat most of the time. If I were still in the frame of mind I would probably support a lot of the ‘Red Flag’ stuff however, I also know now that it can and will be misused as a political tool. Halfway through the Clinton administration I veered to the Right and also took up hunting and then competition shooting in the latter 1990’s. My goodness what a difference in my point of view and my little collection of nice firearms grew (too bad they fell overboard while I was in my fishing boat) now 25 years later I was so pleased to see the decision about the right to bear arms today and kind of sad to see a ‘Red Flag’ law that could be used to confiscate firearms of people who disagree at a school board meeting.
The karmic irony of Democrats’ minority report on report.
JimNorCal:
It appears that California already has a red flag law. It passed in 2016. Are you aware of that? I would imagine that most blue states already have such laws. The only thing I think this federal bill changes for California is that states will get more funds to implement such laws.
On the surface, I don’t have any issue with the concept of red flag laws.
But if they are to be passed, they need to provide a very very VERY strong degree of protections from malicious intent in terms of very rapid responses by both the court and the police to identify the reality of things. Provide for zero cost — legal or otherwise — on the part of successful defense against the claim, and very extreme penalties for anyone bearing any kind of false witness in regards to them. I am talking criminal penalties starting at 10y for making claims that you are clearly lying about (as in the case of the woman who claimed her ex had beaten her, when said ex was demonstrably out of the state) or verifiably false and the claimant knew it (e.g., a hypothetical case where they were not with the defendant at a given time claimed, and witnesses can be presented to prove it).
Short of very carefully defined laws, no. Just No.
The best post on the dangers of abuse of the Red* Flag laws came from Ammo Grrlll today.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/06/thoughts-from-the-ammo-line-434.php
It’s a pretty extensive list of hypothetical and actual accounts.
Then the commenters started telling their stories about abuse of the laws.
OBH is right: Just Say No.
*Red Flag as in “red state,” because we all know that no Democrats or their operatives (BLM, Antifa) will ever be inconvenienced by the laws, either because they raise Red Flags themselves or because they falsely accuse others.
AesopFan:
I really enjoy Ammo Grrrll’s posts; she’s funny and smart. But I have to say that this makes little sense: “But neither have I ever read that such laws have STOPPED a school shooter in his tracks.”
How would we ever read that? If such a person was stopped by a red flag law because he or she couldn’t get a gun, it wouldn’t be something anyone except that person would know (or maybe a therapist, who wouldn’t be blaring it to the world either). The result would just be that a shooting that would otherwise have occurred would not occur.
“It’s up to voters and legislators in each state to make sure anything that’s passed doesn’t infringe on basic rights or on due process requirements.” Kate
Since democrats want to outlaw gun ownership, we can be confident that any Red Flag law will be abused in democrat controlled States.
O’BloodyHell offers a common sense approach. That said, leftist judges and prosecutors will abuse even the most carefully constructed of laws.
Another aspect of the gun control law that is overlooked is that it redefines who is a dealer. A firerarms dealear is required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) which requires a lengthy, convoluted, and expensive process before one gets licensed. A dealer used to be someone who sold guns for “livelihood and profit.” Now it’s just defined as someone who sells guns for “profit.”
So if someone liquidates a gun collection in whole or in part they can be deemed a “dealer” and either will be required to go through the hassle and expense of getting an FFL or will simply be charged as an unlicensed dealer. The bill is short and vague, leaving this a legal grey area. By design.
First, some firearms are purchased as investments. Lost in the dust up over the made-up category of “assault weapons” (there is no definition of assault weapon; Josh Sugarman made up the term to, as he put it back in 1988 when he worked for the Brady’s at Handgun Control International, take advantage of the average American’s ignorance and convince them if a firearm looks like a machine gun it is a machine gun even if it isn’t but only has the appearance of one) actual machine guns are legal to own and fire. Per the National Firearm Act of 1934 they are categorized as class III weapons (along with silencers, short barreled rifles short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices) and require more paperwork (certification of good character by local police chief/sheriff, $200 tax stamp which was a lot in 1934, extra ATF forms, and a 3-5 month wait for approval) in order to purchase and own.
These are very expensive weapons. You can buy an AR-15 self-loader (semi auto, one round for each trigger pull) for a few hundred dollars. To get an actual M-16 (automatic fire, keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger back; a machine gun) you have to pay a staggering amount of money on top of the licensing requirements.
https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/nfa/class-iii-nfa-full-auto.c539_p1_o6.cfm
Seller: jesse Area Code: 540 $42,000.00
One of the few issues I had with Reagan is that in order to get the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 passed he compromised with the gun grabbers; no automatic weapon manufactured after 1984 will be available for commercial sale. Older weapons can be repaired, repair parts can be manufactured for them, but no newer weapon can be sold.
So the prices will only go up. Consequently many are bought by trusts and corporations (which do not need Chief Law Enforcement approval; only individuals need their sign-off) as pure investments. They’re too valuable to shoot. They go into a vault with the Picasso.
‘
There are other firearms that are equally collectible. For instance bespoke British sporting arms, especially those hand made for hunting the largest African game during (or newly manufactured in an attempt to relive) the golden age of Safari.
https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/rifles/holland-holland-rifles.c411_p1_o6.cfm
A Newly Manufactured Holland & Holland .500-bore ‘Royal’ Deluxe Double Rifle at our Dallas Showroom. Back-action and bolstered, hand-detachable sidelock design. Two triggers – the front articulate …Click for more info
Seller: Holland & Holland Area Code: 203 P.U.R
NEW THIS WEEK!
Holland & Holland .500/450 ‘Dominon’ Double Rifle with 24 inch barrels and two triggers GI#: 101978853
A pre-owned .500/450 bore Holland & Holland ‘Dominon’ Double Rifle with 24 inch barrels at our Dallas Showroom. Back-action Non- Ejector, Two triggers, extended top strap, with non automatic safet …Click for more info
Seller: Holland & Holland Area Code: 203 $27,500.00
That “Dominion” grade double rifle was not $27.5 when it was bought new. And when the H&H showroom in Dallas (where I live nearby; don’t miss the Dallas Safari Club convention every January) isn’t advertising the price on the new “Royal Deluxe” grade double rifle it’s one of those, “If you have to ask you can’t afford it” situations. Six figures at least. It will only go up in value. It may never be fired, even though whoever buys it is surely able to fly his/her private jet to Africa and go on Safari.
So, will whoever buys guns as investments have to get a FFL to sell it. According to a plain reading of the text, yes. Of course the devil will be in the details. Hence my, “By design” comment earlier.
I followed the trajectory of New York’s so-called SAFE Act as it evolved back in 2015. One of the “features” of it’s “universal background check” provisions was that everyone had to go to a gun dealer and submit to a National Instant Check System (NICS) background check before every “transfer.” Note: not sale but transfer. As defined by the bill (I don’t know if it made into the final form, but it’s still instructive) a transfer was defined as simply letting someone hold or shoot the firearm. That was only legal at a shooting range. If you simply handed your firearm for someone to hold or shoot that was a transfer, and before you could do that outside of a shooting range you had to go a firearms dealer and undergo a NICS check.
This would have made hunting a crime. The gun grabbers are using the term “gun safety reforms” for everything except gun safety. When hunting with a buddy and you get to an obstacle like a fence firearms safety requires one hunter to hand his firearm to his buddy, climb across the obstacle, then the second hunter hands both firearms to the first guy, cross the obstacle, and continue on each with their own gun.
Felony! That was a transfer according to the mendaciously mislabeled SAFE act, and the hungers who weren’t at an establishment licensed as a shooting range didn’t bother with the NICS check.
I’m not exaggerating either. As the SAFE act was going through the legislative process a Democrat accidentally left a page of his hand written notes taken during one of their in-caucus meetings. He had written down that the goal of the SAFE act was to make owning a firearm so complicated that no one could avoid eventually violating the law. Then they’d be a felon, hence a prohibited person (like an addict/user of illegal drugs and yes I’m looking at you Hunter Biden) who could never own firearms again.
Kali is similar. If you leave your home with a firearm you are technically in violation of the law unless you fall into an exemption. Fortunately the exemptions are numerous and broad enough that unless you are leaving home with the intent of committing an illegal act you’ll fall into one of the exemptions. Still, the presumption of guilt unless exempt is galling. One of the reasons I moved to the free state of Texas.
I’m looking at this “bipartisan” legislation with the same jaundiced eye. Thanks to fools like my own Senator Cornyn the Democrats now have carte blanche to write a lot of devils into the details.
yes any deal with the chris ‘the gimp’ murphy is not worth making, this is why I debate whether cornyn is a bad lizard, it didn’t stop buffalo or any number of incidents before, it’s not supposed to, 27 k for s rifle, omg,
Neo @ 7:01: “… The result would just be that a shooting that would otherwise have occurred would not occur.”. I read Ammo Grrrl and admire her logic and humor. And I was (momentarily) nonplussed by her remark, on which you and AesopFan (@5:33) also paused. But on reflection I think she’s making an excellent point: these laws are perverse not only because they usually focus on the wrong thing, but because if they succeed we simply hear nothing (“another school shooting didn’t happen today! The would-be killer told police and media that it had just gotten too difficult to stage a slaughter, and he blamed the new law for that.”) We hear nothing of the nothing that happens, and we hear nothing of the costs —chronic and considerable— that fall on all the innocent and law-abiding people due to the new law.
And if the new law *doesn’t* always succeed? Then the Progs tell us “It’s just not strong enough. So we must try harder!”
It’s an asymmetrical framing.
So I read Ammo Grrl’s comment about never hearing of success with such laws, as being just slightly tongue in cheek and designed to provoke our reflection on these errors in rhetoric and critical thinking.
it appears to me, that more incidents seem to emerge after that ‘assault weapons’ law was passed, jonesboro, columbine are just that come to mind, two years apart, the latter was just the first of the ones where police response was not optimum, of course that didn’t stop ‘the mouth of the flint river’* to push for more restrictions, in waiting for columbine and other fare,
*michael moore,
What’s seldom acknowledged is that ‘red flag’ laws have been conceived in order to allow the seizure of firearms from individuals who wouldn’t otherwise be subject to involuntary psychiatric commitment a/o similarly predicated protective orders. And those can often be initiated with little if any court review – e.g. upon the formal recommendation of a psychiatrist.
In other words, there are existing and readily accessible means of controlling someone’s access to firearms in cases where mental illness may motivate their illegal use. It’s true that accomplishing that can be onerous in some jurisdictions, typically due to prohibitive standards and practices introduced by mental health advocates. But that’s an argument for reforming unreasonable a/o unworkable commitment standards, not for introducing practices that skirt those standards entirely.
Many years ago, I did a deep dive on the 2nd Amendment and came to these conclusions:
a) The 2nd Amendment is the “Middle Ground”, and the middle ground is a desirable objective because it has a good chance of being a “stable” solution (i.e., the polar opposite boundary of ‘no citizen can own a gun’ is not the 2nd Amendment, it is ‘all citizens must own a gun’).
b) It is illogical to include ‘People’ in the amendment, if the amendment does not apply to ‘People’ (e.g., none of the other amendments explicitly include a party that is not covered by the amendment).
c) It is illogical to conclude in this amendment the word “right” does not apply to the party explicitly noted, when the word “right” does apply to the party explicitly noted in the other amendments. (e.g., 7 other amendments explicitly define a party that is covered by the amendment, none of the other amendments have this logic contradiction).
d) The amendments are delineated by separate “concepts”, and some of the amendments have multiple specifications. However, removing one of the specifications does not invalidate the amendment or eliminate the remaining specifications.
***
The reason the Negotiation Framework is important to 2nd Amendment negotiations is because if the 2nd Amendment is defined as one boundary, then it can be described as “extreme”. Because by definition – and concession – it is now the most distant/ extreme boundary. And those trying to see that the 2nd Amendment protection is not reduced can be portrayed as protecting an “extreme position”.
While those trying to reduce the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment can claim they are seeking a “common sense” solution in the “middle ground”. That is both a winning message and a position that has been winning (see history of reduction/ restrictions to the 2nd Amendment protection).
***
Negotiation Framework:
• One boundary is: No adult civilian* can own a gun
• The other boundary is: All adult civilians must own a gun
* = civilian is defined as: Not a member of Law Enforcement or Military
The 2nd Amendment is in the middle ground: The right to decide if you wish to own – or not own – a gun.
Which is why the 2nd Amendment has been a stable, common sense solution that has been widely accepted by the public for generations.
However, the public’ perception can change if the definition of what is extreme takes root (see every other issue that you support that has now been labeled extreme).
This bill is a disaster. The text of the Senate bill can be found at:
https://thehill.com/homenews/3531905-read-text-of-the-senates-bipartisan-gun-safety-bill/
…although they don’t make it easy.
Again, why is profit a bad word when the confiscatory bureaucrats are living large by stealing the fat of the land. I’m reminded of FDR’s mandatory gold “buy back” of 1933 at the height of the Great Depression. Or depth. Most people were forced to sell most of their gold to the government at a fraction of the market price.
Don’t think for a minute that the ideology that wants to confiscate guns won’t look hungrily at what you have, no matter what opinions you have on guns.
@ Owen > “So I read Ammo Grrl’s comment about never hearing of success with such laws, as being just slightly tongue in cheek and designed to provoke our reflection on these errors in rhetoric and critical thinking.”
That’s how I read her remark; you explained the emanations of its penumbra very well. 🙂
Under the new legislation-
to close “the boyfriend loophole”, if I have a girlfriend/ a significant other, or if I had one recently, my s.o. can have my guns taken away if- I have been convicted of [a domestic violence misdemeanor].
OK, and I’m asking everyone-
HOW EASY is it for me to get – a domestic violence misdemeanor?
(This law, for a DVM, would get my guns taken away, from me, for 5 years.)
You have Congress running hearings as a pre-trial stomping all over rules that would protect against their Kangaroo Court. What makes yo think every county or state DA can’t tromp all over Red Flag rules?