I just saw the John Cornyn video clip. As far as I'm concerned, he's done. But the most amazing part to me is that he's from Texas. TEXAS!! How in hell did THAT happen?! Not to mention that North Carolina has two senators who are willing to go along with this Un-Constitutional lunacy. TWO. And then of course there's our old pal Lindsay Graham... old "Shoot 'em first, armed or unarmed, and then ask questions later. I am slow enough-and naive enough- that it was halfway thru Trump's first year before I realized how about HALF of the party he ran with was busy as beavers trying to cut his throat. Members of his own party! Well, the blinders are off now... and have been off for about six years. So here's my position: There's no way in hell that I will ever trust ALL of the democrat party and at least HALF the republican party. So as far as I'm concerned, Cornyn is DONE... along with about half the rest of the republican party. So Boys, go elsewhere for contributions for your Un-Constitutional activities. I'm done.

And one more thing: If it is not unreasonable for ANYONE to insist that I surrender ANY of my personal freedoms then surely it is not unreasonable for me to insist on keeping ALL of my Constitutional rights as they are being exercised today. As has been said by so many forum members with respect to this thread -> NOT ONE MORE DAMN INCH!! Not an inch.... Fred

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:

4. We can now legally own/carry full auto, post-86 firearms. Notice I mentioned “discovery”, in this brave new world, perhaps we can take some more responsibility for checking our firearms when we return from a trip, etc.

The problem is you are a logical well intentioned law abiding person. Your enemies intend to strip you of your rkba. They are not reasonable nor well intentioned. Any compromise you can think of will be twisted in a way to further take your rights. They would not agree to give something up unless they can take more and then take back what they gave away.

It makes sense to report theft, but as someone already posted it does absolutely nothing to recover the gun nor to prevent it being used in a future crime.

The reason the gun ban crowd wants you to report the theft is because that requirement ushers in new restrictions on you, such as mandatory storage requirements and registration. Yes, how do they know your gun was the one found in the criminal's possession unless you have already registered it?

Their goal is to eliminate private gun ownership, and you have to look at every proposal from that perspective.

I see that more people have ignored the obvious stipulation that for these, the NFA/GCA MUST BE REPEALED.

Also, please read the damn thread and realize that I killed #3 after consideration, and that “discover” and “moment of theft” are two very, very different things. EDIT: whoever it was deleted their post, but for anyone else who may be confused I’ll leave this up.

Guys, if tomorrow a Republican bill was presented, up or down, and said that NFA/GCA/FOPA is repealed, and all you had to agree to was to notify law enforcement within 24 hours of discovering that your firearm was stolen…

Again, read what I wrote, and there is no need to attack a fellow forum member.

Fly-Sig, I’m a bit tired of repeating this: Only if there is a full repeal. That’s it. Only if there is a full repeal of the NFA. I wrote my post as the only compromise I would be willing to make, and yet you and other posters have twisted this to say that I’d be willing to agree to 2-4 without anything else.

No. That’s not what I wrote. Feel free to attack that straw man, but have the decency to keep my name out of it, because that’s not my position in the slightest.

reloader has readdressed and clarified that point, and I appreciate what he said.

Ultimately I think we all agree that we're not open to giving up another damn thing. Let us purchase our full autos again like God intended, and yeah we might have an open ear once again to what you're proposing (doesn't mean we'll accept, but sure we might actually listen at that juncture), but the reality is we're on to you snakes. This is my pie, and if you try and take it from the window again, know I'm watching ready to defend every piece of it at any cost.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I would be in favor of exactly these legal changes, considering that most gun crime is committed with either straw purchase or stolen guns. Here’s the “compromise”:

1. Repeal the NFA

2. A straw purchase is a life sentence for both purchaser and intended recipient.

3. Guns must be securely stored, accessible only by the owner(s). If it is left unsecured, I.e. in a car, the owner is liable for the exact same punishment that the person who stole the gun is charged with. In other words, “unsecured truck gun” is stolen, used in a homicide - sorry bud.

4. Gun theft MUST be reported within 24 hours of discovery, else owner is liable.


This gives freedom back to lawful gun owners, but also shifts the onus of responsibility back on them. #3 is a tough one, but that cuts down on a shitload of of crime. Gun ownership, like voting, is a right but also a responsibility.

1, yes, the rest, no.

Give the grabbers nothing, they'll just be back tomorrow for more. That's the only compromise going on, how much they're willing to take today.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I see that more people have ignored the obvious stipulation that for these, the NFA/GCA MUST BE REPEALED.

Also, please read the damn thread and realize that I killed #3 after consideration, and that “discover” and “moment of theft” are two very, very different things. EDIT: whoever it was deleted their post, but for anyone else who may be confused I’ll leave this up.

Guys, if tomorrow a Republican bill was presented, up or down, and said that NFA/GCA/FOPA is repealed, and all you had to agree to was to notify law enforcement within 24 hours of discovering that your firearm was stolen…

Nope because the gun ban crowd will not give more than they take. There will be something that makes this a loss for gun rights overall. Again, you are logical and well intentioned. Your trade seems reasonable. But we will lose, somehow. They will make the new limitations so harsh that it will be harder to own the guns we are allowed already.

They are always thinking many steps ahead, and how to twist any law or regulation in ways not intended. You think your offer is a good trade, but they'll prove you wrong.

Looking at reports of what is in the "deal"...

From CNN, remarkably clear and non-hysterical:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12...agreement/index.html

'Red flag' laws

One of the most significant pieces of the framework is helping states create and implement so-called red flag laws, which are aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others. This legislation would provide significant funding to help states create new red flag laws, but the 19 states -- and Washington, DC -- that already have these laws on the books would also be eligible for funding to improve the effectiveness of their established programs.

Mental health and telehealth investment

The proposal also includes "major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery."

Members are going to be messaging these provisions carefully over the next several weeks because while Democrats view them as important, they want to emphasize that most people who struggle with mental illnesses are not violent.

Closing the so-called boyfriend loophole

The senators said the legislation will address the so-called boyfriend loophole, which deals with whether unmarried partners could keep guns if they were found guilty of violence against a dating partner.

Earlier this year, the Senate negotiators involved in the Violence Against Women Act dropped the provision because of objections from the National Rifle Association, dealing a huge blow to Democrats. But its inclusion in this framework signals that at least 10 Republicans are willing to buck the nation's largest gun lobby on an issue where they have a long-held position.

Currently, only a person who has been married to, lived with or had a child with a partner they've been convicted of abusing are blocked from having a gun. Closing the loophole would mean that anyone who was deemed to have been in a serious dating relationship and convicted of domestic violence would no longer be eligible to own a gun.

Enhanced review process for buyers under 21

The other major change in the legislation is issuing a more thorough review process for people between ages 18 and 21 who go to buy a gun like an AR-15. Under a background check review, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System would have to also contact state and local law enforcement to search for any disqualifying mental health or juvenile records, according to the Democratic aide.

NICS would have to call the appropriate agency that adjudicates mental health records in each state. NICS would have up to 3 days to conduct the search, but it could be extended another seven days if the initial review raises concerns, meaning the process could take a total of 10 days.
It is not an established waiting period since each individual's review could be vastly different from just a matter of hours to up to 10 days.

Clarifying the definition of a Federally Licensed Firearm Dealer

The language for this provision is still being debated, but it would require more firearm sellers who are proven to be "engaged in the business of selling firearms" to be put on notice that they need to register to become Federally Licensed Firearm dealers. It's significant because it means those dealers have to conduct background checks under federal law.

School security resources

The legislation would address an area Republicans have focused on in recent weeks: school security. The lawmakers said in their release that the proposal provides money "to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools," while also supporting "school violence prevention efforts" and training for school employees and students.

**************************************************

My comments:

Red Flag Laws

Funding and boilerplate legal language. Still these are state level laws that we have influence over with our state governments. People "flagged" unjustly will have to file cases and go through the courts. It will be difficult to reconcile these laws with Constitutional due process guaranties, and in the end, many such laws will likely be set aside. I would hope such laws require corroboration by more than one accuser, and evidence showing explicit discussion of intent to commit violence. Yes, lots of potential for abuse so there have to be penalties for "false red flagging" someone.

Mental Health and Telehealth Investment

Money giveaway to mostly ineffective social programs that line the pockets of "advocacy" groups.

Boyfriend Loophole

Domestic violence is state level law. Some states define domestic violence as violence against a spouse, live-in partner, or person you have a child with. Dating without cohabitation is not "domestic". In Indiana I believe an "intimate parter" counts as domestic so that's not exactly a high legal hurdle. Not sure how the federal restriction is worded and if it truly has a "loophole" or if state laws would need to be changed to define domestic as "serious dating relationship". Either way, does anyone here disagree that being convicted of violence against a girlfriend or FWB shouldn't be covered?

Enhanced Review of buyers under 21

This is vague - does it only apply to semi-automatic rifles? Or just scary looking semi-automatic rifles? Does it apply to a rimfire semi-auto like a 10/22? What about semi-auto shotguns? Sounds like all 18-20 would go to further review automatically. Is anyone opposed to juvenile records being used in a background check? I don't like the idea of a repeat juvenile offender getting a clean start when they turn 18. Improved access to legally disqualifying mental health records is something that would have helped in some cases. Of course, to be legally disqualified you need to be found mentally incompetent in court, or have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Pretty high hurdle, but it would have caught some of these nuts.

Clarifying FFL's

Assume this would apply to people selling guns at tables in gun shows as "private collectors" and people that buy and sell a lot of guns privately. Does this mean a limit on how many guns you can sell in a year? Need to see what the actual language is on this. Probably a back door of sorts to universal background checks because the limit on sales before being deemed a "dealer" will be very low.

School security resources

Probably won't be used on anything useful. There will be training on what to do if there's an active shooter, and how to spot suspicious people, and procedures, and plans. Hopefully it funds actual armed security officers, metal detectors, and interlocked doors.

Closing comments:

Of course, if this actually passes, the left will trumpet it as a great victory so they have something to campaign on this fall. They don't have anything else to talk about. It is interesting that it doesn't raise purchase age to 21 for all firearms, and doesn't ban anything, doesn't restrict magazine sizes, and doesn't require "universal" background checks, yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Nope because the gun ban crowd will not give more than they take. There will be something that makes this a loss for gun rights overall. Again, you are logical and well intentioned. Your trade seems reasonable. But we will lose, somehow. They will make the new limitations so harsh that it will be harder to own the guns we are allowed already.

They are always thinking many steps ahead, and how to twist any law or regulation in ways not intended. You think your offer is a good trade, but they'll prove you wrong.

Fly-Sig, you are thinking correctly, and I agree with you. Historically, every single compromise has been one-way, and we have lost our rights. That’s not what I am referring to.

Here’s the example: Ron Desantis is elected in 2024, and we have control of the House, the Democrats have the Senate by a slim majority. A Republican sponsored bill is presented, which eliminates the GCA/NFA/FOPA. In the Senate, all we need is one more Democrat, and Joe Manchin says he will come, but the only language is the addition of #4.

That’s my scenario, not one where you can pick or choose. (You are welcome to create that scenario, of course). It’s an all or nothing: Option 1 is status quo, with all of our waiting periods and background checks and red flags and pre-86 and NFA etc, and Option 2 is all of that is GONE, but we have to notify when we discover a theft.

That’s it. Up or down.

No one will repeal the existing laws.

It is ironic that gun owners constantly point to NFA 1934 and the lack of legal machine guns in crime due to the cost and difficulty in owning one. Usually it's used as a response to someone calling an AR-15 an "assault rifle" or implying it's a "machine gun".

But we are proving the point that NFA works to prevent the use of a class of guns in crime. By this logic, if all semi-auto rifles and shotguns were NFA items and only those of us that go through the process to own them possessed them, there would be fewer crimes committed with them. Slippery slope, isn't it?

The only way to repeal NFA 1934 is the courts. It has to be found unconstitutional. The Miller decision supports militia weapons as protected by the 2A and therefore the standard issue rifle of the military and national guard should be covered. And that's an M4.

There may be some ways to change GCA 1968 provisions, but only details. Constitutional challenges may have some success in light of Heller.

The 1989 import ban will not be supported by the domestic industry because it means more competition. The 1986 machine gun restriction will not be supported by owners of said machine guns because they would devalue overnight.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
My comments:

Red Flag Laws

Based on a recent 9-0 SCOTUS case/decision, these 'laws' are clearly unconstitutional. So the Federal government is bribing states to act unlawfully/unconstitutionally.

quote:

Mental Health and Telehealth Investment

The definition of "just do something legislation."

quote:

Enhanced Review of buyers under 21

Another clearly unconstitutional act. Equal treatment under the law is shot to hell with this requirement.

quote:

School security resources

More pissing away of taxpayer money to liberal constituencies with little if any value derived.

So in summary this is all just total and complete BS, accomplishes nothing other than to give the Dem's a win just before an election, and pisses away more taxpayer money while accomplishing....nothing. Why do Americans hate Washington? For stuff exactly like this.

It's the same 'do something' nonsense they trot out each time they have the political cover of a mass casualty event amplified by our broken media. Gun owners need to insist the country quit playing this ridiculous game. If gun control is something we all agree on, we should be able to legislate without all the drama and tears. None of this will make any difference and 'red flag' laws are a terrible tool to hand to the left...they will be abused and made unrecognizable in leftist bastions. We should be screaming about the gradual erosion of the second amendment, not playing along with these hysterical children.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
My comments:

Red Flag Laws

Based on a recent 9-0 SCOTUS case/decision, these 'laws' are clearly unconstitutional. So the Federal government is bribing states to act unlawfully/unconstitutionally.

quote:

Mental Health and Telehealth Investment

The definition of "just do something legislation."

quote:

Enhanced Review of buyers under 21

Another clearly unconstitutional act. Equal treatment under the law is shot to hell with this requirement.

quote:

School security resources

More pissing away of taxpayer money to liberal constituencies with little if any value derived.

So in summary this is all just total and complete BS, accomplishes nothing other than to give the Dem's a win just before an election, and pisses away more taxpayer money while accomplishing....nothing. Why do Americans hate Washington? For stuff exactly like this.

And as a further point, no traceability of any money spent. We all know how money for a given purpose always seems be "redirected"

Guns aren't the problem. Never have been. Back in the 50's a kid could order a .38 out of the Sears Roebuck catalog as easily as buying a pencil and the the world wasn't ended.
I don't want a single law specific to guns. You should be able to buy one as easily as buying a pair of shoes.
The Fudds need to STFU and quit cutting their own throats.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:

2. A straw purchase is a life sentence for both purchaser and intended recipient.



4. Gun theft MUST be reported within 24 hours of discovery, else owner is liable.

Life sentence? No. 8th Amendment.

No, no strict liability for crimes. Again, 8th Amendment. And why just guns? Why not make people report knife thefts? Hammers? Cars? (See the point?)

quote:

I just saw the John Cornyn video clip. As far as I'm concerned, he's done. But the most amazing part to me is that he's from Texas. TEXAS!!

Tucker played that John Cornyn clip ... and makes some good points:

Tucker Carlson Outlines the Problems of Unconstitutional Red Flag Laws

Tucker Carlson used his opening monologue tonight to point out the serious problems with federal “red flag laws” as proposed.
WATCH:

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I would be in favor of exactly these legal changes, considering that most gun crime is committed with either straw purchase or stolen guns. Here’s the “compromise”:

1. Repeal the NFA

2. A straw purchase is a life sentence for both purchaser and intended recipient.

3. Guns must be securely stored, accessible only by the owner(s). If it is left unsecured, I.e. in a car, the owner is liable for the exact same punishment that the person who stole the gun is charged with. In other words, “unsecured truck gun” is stolen, used in a homicide - sorry bud.

4. Gun theft MUST be reported within 24 hours of discovery, else owner is liable.

1. yes, the rest, no .

Except for #1 > HELL NO !

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I would be in favor of exactly these legal changes, considering that most gun crime is committed with either straw purchase or stolen guns. Here’s the “compromise”:

1. Repeal the NFA

2. A straw purchase is a life sentence for both purchaser and intended recipient.

3. Guns must be securely stored, accessible only by the owner(s). If it is left unsecured, I.e. in a car, the owner is liable for the exact same punishment that the person who stole the gun is charged with. In other words, “unsecured truck gun” is stolen, used in a homicide - sorry bud.

4. Gun theft MUST be reported within 24 hours of discovery, else owner is liable.

You shouldn't celebrate on July 4th as you would have complied and compromised with the tyranny rather than fight it. Enjoy pride month.

This will be my last post on this thread.

My points were NOT a “pick what you want”. It was an all or nothing compromise.

In other words, and sorry for the use of profanity:

OF COURSE I WANT THE FUCKING NFA/GCA/FOPA REPEALED WITH NO COMPROMISE

What I posted was the MAXIMUM I’d be willing to give, in a simple bill that repeals the NFA/GCA/FOPA in their entirety.

That’s it. Seriously, I’m beginning to wonder about the reading comprehension of my fellow members; the question is, if the ONLY options we have is keep the current state of regulations and checks and red flag bullshit and waiting times and bans on full auto etc etc, OR JUST these two points and EVERYTHING IS GONE.

I’d wager my life savings that 99% of you would be burning down your congressman’s phone lines to get a yes. Remember, ALL gun regulation is gone, go pick up whatever post-86 machine gun, suppressed, carry it without a cwp, etc etc. in exchange, you just have to notify if gets stolen (something an FFL already has to do, by the way: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...eft-or-loss-firearms)

I’m just taking the current FFL requirement, and giving the whole damn cake back. That’s it. Up or down.

Yes, I know this will never happen. This is the MAXIMUM I am willing to offer.

Edit: ryanp225, apologies for what I said. As a fellow member and American I shouldn’t have said that, as I know we are on the same side.

Well bless your Fudd heart.