Senate Democrats Unveil Gun Control Legislation

[babylonsister]

http://time.com/4066111/senate-democrats-gun-control/

Senate Democrats Unveil Gun Control Legislation
Tessa Berenson @tcberenson
8:57 AM ET



Senate Democrats will begin a push Thursday for new gun control legislation in the wake of last week’s deadly Oregon shooting with a threat to block other measures until it is brought to the floor.

The bill package includes a version of an earlier proposal to expand background checks, but now also includes online gun purchases and firearms bought from unlicensed dealers at gun shows, the New York Times reports.

It also includes a bill announced by Connecticut’s senators last week, which would bar gun sales until background checks are complete. Currently, if a background check is not completed within 72 hours, the sale can go forward.

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut was incensed at the press conference last week when he unveiled his legislation with fellow Sen. Richard Blumenthal. “Congress has become an accomplice in these murders,” he said. “We are quietly endorsing this mass slaughter by refusing to act … I don’t care how many members of Congress send out tweets saying they’re sorry. You aren’t sorry, you aren’t truly sympathetic if you’re not willing to act.”

The Democrats have said they will block other measures until this new gun control package gets a vote, but it is still very unlikely the legislation would pass the Republican-controlled House.

[Fred Sanders]

1. These Senators need the loud support of the vast majority of citizens wanting these laws.

[CrispyQ]

2. Good for Chris Murphy!

I thought his name sounded familiar.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy takes to New Haven streets to learn about homelessness

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20131230/connecticut-sen-chris-murphy-takes-to-new-haven-streets-to-learn-about-homelessness

snip...

Murphy shadowed a homeless man, following the transient from the Columbus House Inc. shelter on Ella T. Grasso Boulevard to a methadone clinic, an impromptu meeting with other homeless men on the New Haven Green and an Alcoholic’s Anonymous meeting.

“There is just a limit to what you can understand about the reality of homelessness when you are around a conference table,” Murphy said.

The article says he also lived on SNAP assistance for 5 days & claims he lost 6 pounds.

This is absolutely spot on:

“Congress has become an accomplice in these murders,” he said. “We are quietly endorsing this mass slaughter by refusing to act … I don’t care how many members of Congress send out tweets saying they’re sorry. You aren’t sorry, you aren’t truly sympathetic if you’re not willing to act.”

And then there's this:

...but it is still very unlikely the legislation would pass the Republican-controlled House.

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. As a gun owner...

...I approve of these measures.

It may be tricky mandating universal background checks at the federal level: intrastate sales don't generally fall under federal purview. but surely there's a way forward (if only through compelling incentives for states to pass such requirements, like my home state of Oregon recently did).

I also approve of getting rid of the "no response from the system in 72 hours means default approval" system. There needs to be a way to ensure deliberate delays aren't used as a means of denying legitimate transfers, but that shouldn't be difficult to incorporate.

These are precisely the sort of measures I think of when someone invokes "common sense gun control."

[branford]

5. The 72 hour rule was the mechanism to ensure deliberate delays

weren't used to deny legitimate transfers. Delays in applications for permits and licenses, often outside state statutory guidelines, are still are problem in many jurisdictions, particularly those with "may issue" protocols.

Under the current rules, a store need not complete the sale after 72 hours, it's discretionary, and there's nothing stopping BAFTE from contacting a FFL with any legitimate concerns. A background check, however, is not an open-ended fishing expedition. Unknown database errors from months or years earlier are not going to be corrected by giving an extra day or two to the authorities.

The vast majority of backgrounds checks are concluded within minutes as there only needs to be a check for objective disqualifiers against standard databases. Is there actually a statistical problem of completed sales after 72 hours where the buyer was otherwise objectively disqualified and the authorities were unable to take corrective action? Is this a solution looking for a problem, or even a disguised means to permit or encourage anti-gun jurisdictions to make gun ownership more burdensome without otherwise facing inevitable lawsuits for previously impermissible delays?

Further, these bills are being offered by senators known for their support of draconian gun control measures and views, and they've added yet more provisions to the UBC proposal when it couldn't pass a Democratic Senate with fewer restrictions. I would not even consider offering support until I've seen all the minutia of the legislation, and there's no indication they've dealt with the national registration or other myriad transfer issues that ensured the law was previously unpalatable. Always remember that the devils in the details, particularly gun control legislation.

Lastly, what are the sponsors offering in compromise to the more conservative gun rights senators to ensure passage if they indeed believe this bill is indispensable (I'm thinking concealed carry reciprocity as it received the most votes during the last gun control push)?

Is this really just more gun control theater without any true expectations of or hard work needed to actually legislate true gun safety policy?

[Rex]

7. Same here looks good, especially the part about 72 hr approval.

A time crunch should not mean someone automatically gets the firearm. Bad policy.

[branford]

9. Was there a gun control proposal you haven't thought was acceptable? nt

[Rex]

16. Sorry but go find someone else to bother.

I'm here to talk to actual posters. Thanks.

[branford]

19. Thanks for proving my point.

Just as Democrats realize the transparent attempts at incrementalism when it comes to Republican abortion restrictions, gun rights supporters recognize the same strategy being employed by gun control advocates, as they have done for decades. If each new restriction is seen as "a good first step" or "just the beginning," why would they ever considering giving an inch?

[Rex]

22. LOL. You insult me and then expect me to be nice to you?

Please, you have no point but pushing tired NRA talking points. Nobody will waste time on you, are you sadz now?

[branford]

35. You haven't been "nice" to me or anyone else who who

supports gun rights, routinely accuse of of being NRA shills, not caring about anyone else, and far worse, and notably my comment came after you suggested I'm not even an "actual poster."

I also don't know what you're actually insulted about. You appear to quite proudly support any and all firearm restrictions, and seem to believe any incremental or more moderate gun control proposals are indeed only a good start. Do you disagree?

[Rex]

40. Wrong you must not actually read any of these replies.

You are wrong about what I support so stop pretending to be able to read my mind it is embarrassing and pathetic.

I'm not going to tell you what I think, because I don't believe you actually care and just want to play some stupid game. So have fun with that crap.

Me. I will be talking to real people here, like I have been doing.

[NickB79]

4. Doesn't look bad at all. Pretty innocuous, common-sense measures

Neither one would do much to combat mass shootings, but would probably help keep guns out of the hands of a lot of criminals. It doesn't infringe on anyone's legal right to own a gun, or make it onerous for a law-abiding citizen to purchase one. All in all, a win-win situation all around.

Hopefully it's passed.

One question: does it open up the NICS for ordinary citizens to call in to do background checks when selling a gun, or do you have to bring it to a gun store for them to do the background check for you?

[Rex]

6. Ever notice how GOPers never want any kind of gun control?

And when any kind of policy comes up, they always poo poo on it as if they can do better. They NEVER do or even come up with any policy!

[0rganism]

8. make them vote against it

even if it gets through the senate, it won't pass in the house, hell it probably won't get out of committee
but anyone who votes against it has a large smelly albatross hanging around their electoral neck

[branford]

10. Do you really believe that a no vote would really negatively impact

Republican senators given the polling on gun control in the states they represent?

Forcing a vote is far more likely to hurt Democratic senators in purple competitive states.

[0rganism]

11. we'll see

there are plenty of R senators who came in from blue-to-bluish states in the 2010 teabagger wave election
they'll be up for re in 2016, and the electorate isn't going to be what got them there in the first place
but you're right - there are probably some Democrats who would be hurt by a "yes" vote too
so i'd say go ahead, vote against it if the harm it does to your electoral chances are too great to support it and catch ya on the flip side
i'm sure those senators have done the polling, enough to know what the cost of taking an unpopular stand either way will be

[branford]

13. Too many senators got burned when they had to vote on the last set of bills after Sandy Hook.

That's why we haven't heard recently from essential "moderates" on the issue like Manchin and Toomey.

The polling on gun control has to substantially change before there'll be new, truly serious legislation and votes in Congress. President Obama essentially conceded as much.

We'll see a few bills offered here and there by representatives in very safe states and districts for show at home, but no real gun control efforts.

[Rex]

17. Excellent idea.

[sarisataka]

12. Mostly good

But what will replace the 72 hour limit?

[branford]

36. Likely nothing, and I believe they consider it a feature, not a bug.

It would essentially nationalize "may issue," particularly since both historically and now in certain jurisdictions, delay was used as de facto license and permit denials.

[CTyankee]

14. This is why I put pro-gunners here at DU on Ignore and trashed the gun group.

Too many saying "I'm sorry for your loss," like it's a mantra when I tell of losing a family member to gun violence. I say "No, you are not and don't tell me that you are."

[Rex]

18. I just ignore them, no need to waste an ignore slot imo.

They are not even worthy of a real ignore spot imo. LOL.

[CTyankee]

20. Yes, they are all on ignore and the gun threads (both of them) are trashed...

I can no longer take them.

I like Ignore because it rids DU of an infection of bad stuff. I have but one life to live, thank you very much...and it is happier because of Ignore and Trash gun groups.

[Rex]

21. Each to their own.

I guess I have a higher tolerance to buffoonery. It is a shame the admins are not into banning gun trolls anymore, they use to do it with some frequency.

[CTyankee]

25. My philosophy is why would I not put up with people who are obnoxious in my private life

but not on DU? What is the difference? Stupid is stupid. It ain't gonna change. Life gets so much better when the air is cleaner and so is DU. I'm not gonna change and they're not gonna change. What's the point?

What is so bad about that kind of attitude?

[Rex]

26. Nothing, that is a great one.

I might have to try it myself, you do make a convincing argument about not wasting time.

[CTyankee]

28. At my age, it's a matter of what is important what I do with my time.

I know what that is. When you think about it, it becomes obvious....

[CTyankee]

29. I'm also trying to do meditation evey day. It zones me out for a bit and helps me deal with

shit that I don't have to care about that much. It keeps me centered.

All of this is connected, I am convinced....

[Rex]

31. It is all connected.

Just think of your body as it's own microverse. I've learned to be more callous toward every little thing in life, because I am neurotic and it was causing more problems then I knew what to do with.

[CTyankee]

33. I'm not neurotic, just anxious and older. You get less bold as you get older, due to stress

both physical and mental. I just try to cope...

[villager]

27. Exactly. They could scarcely give less of a shit as long as Great God Gun is still readily available

I too had to trash the gun forum. If I wanted an NRA message board, I'd go find one....

[Eleanors38]

15. Most of this is OK in theory...

The UBC provisions will have to get by the ICC, but there is nothing to prevent any state from enacting some kind of UBG check right now.

The 72 hour limit should be a virtual Ice Age of time in today's technological climate, but it seems the Brady checks and the creeky state of reporting is perplexingly still stuck in the era of punch-card computation. I would be willing to extend the time, but this open-ended time limit invites prohibitionist subterfuge and abuse, a la Jim (large, raucous black bird) laws. There should also be a line-item assurance that BG checks WILL NOT be used as a national registry.

In general...

[davidn3600]

23. So when you pass this law and another mass shooting occurs...

Do we do pass more laws? Where does it end?

Because I don't see how this law would have stopped any of these mass shooters. Practically all of them passed background checks.

Right now, no one trusts that background checks will be enough for gun control advocates. With every shooting there will be demands for more laws and more restrictions.

[madville]

24. It's a nice gesture

And not likely to prevent much on it's own. Does anyone know how it addresses the reporting of individuals with mental illness and violent tendencies into the background check system?

[GGJohn]

30. These are all very reasonable laws that won't infringe on lawful citizens 2A eom.

[JonathanRackham]

32. Mandatory Enforcement

If a felon attempts to circumvent the background check system and fails, mandatory strike two time in prison, no plea bargain. Authorities mandated to follow up no exceptions.

[Lee-Lee]

38. In 2010 76,000 people were denied in the NICS check. Less than 100 were prosecuted

48,000 of them were either felons or fugitives.

The rest were a variety of reasons- mental health, dishonorable discharge, ineligible alien, etc.

No matter what, unless the NICS denial was in error the person denied committed a felony by filling out the 4473 and saying they were eligble- that must be done before the check. Had they been honest on the form the dealer never would have made the call and just sent them away.

It a ridiculously easy crime to prosecute- NICS keeps records of denials and the dealer must keep the form. All they have to do is go get the form and they have concrete proof of Federal perjury- right with the person signature under a statement saying they understand that lying on the form is perjury.

[JonathanRackham]

39. So the evidence is cut and dried?

It seems the fix is simple. Why bother to expand background checks if no one will enforce them? Paper tiger enforcement agencies.

[spanone]

34. K&R...

[Lee-Lee]

37. Need to see the details

UBC sounds good in principle- but how its done can be a good thing or onerous to the point of making me oppose it.

Machin-Toomey implemented UBC in a way that was overboard- like making two people loaning/borrowing a gun to go hunting travel to a gun shop, spend 30-45 minutes on paperwork and a check, and pay $25-75 to the shop for doing the paperwork and check just hand the gun over for a weekend hunting, then at the end of the weekend loan do it all over again to hand it back to the original owner. No matter if both parties already owned guns, no matter if both parties were exempt from the NICS check because they had CCW permits.

Yeah, the law said it exempted hunting loans- but the exemption specifically applied only at places and times where hunting was legal- so that means unless the parties loaning the gun walked into the field and waited for sunrise to pass the gun off it wasn't legal. Couldn't make the loan the day before the season opened, couldn't have the gun except in daylight hours because night hunting isn't allowed in most places, couldn't have it at home or in the car because hunting isn't allowed in town or within specific distance from public roads in most places- so because the people behind that bill didn't know anything about gun laws or hunting they wrote a hunting loan exemption that was virtually impossible to use. Or maybe that was intentional, who knows.

That is a bad law and bad way to implement UBC. People will see the absurdity in it and not respect it, or not even consider that what they are doing is now a felony and inadvertently become criminals- that leads to lack of support and respect for the law and low compliance.

Instead of making everyone trudge to a dealer and pay them for running the check and the paperwork, they need to just open NICS up to everyone. Much easier, and when you make the law easier to comply with it will have more people follow it. That gives gun control proponents UBC while not pushing an onerous process for selling or loaning a gun that won;t accomplish anything more.

An unintended consequence of mandating everyone go to dealers for every sale will be... more, bigger and richer dealers by forcing business to them. Not sure of gun control proponents have thought that through.....

As for the 72 hour rule, instead of not addressing the problem and just allowing them to just delay someone indefinitely they need to fix the damm system so that instant checks are, in fact, instant. The system is broken in that regard- I have a CCW so I am exempt now, but before I had it I was delayed EVERY SINGLE TIME because the way they do it is broken. You would expect that if they had to do a delay and look deeper at my info once they would make a note in the system for the next time. Nope, there is someone with a similar name to mine with a record and every single time, even when I give my SSN that is optional, I get delayed. Its been as short as 5 minutes and sometimes the 72 hours has run out. The system can't record the "we looked at the issue that flags and she is clear" they have to look at the same stuff deeper every time. I was a deputy and passed that check and held a secret clearance for the army but NICS could never get my info right without delay and extra work. That is inefficient and a waste of manpower.

Fix the system so the 72 hour rule isn't an issue. There is no excuse for our nations background check system to be run like a 1980's call center in 2015.