Senate reaches bipartisan agreement on gun control.

[testcase]

RgrF wrote:
Once again Chuck Schumer demonstrates his lack of leadership skills.

you've hit the nail on the head.




"So it won't help all that much because it lacks teeth"

I've got to disagree with you on this point.

A neighbor, family member or anybody else who simply doesn't like you can "report" you. Without ANY evidence or proof of wrongdoing, YOU'VE just been made the bad guy! Try to prove that in fact, you're not. :banghead:

[Lemon Drop]

testcase wrote:
[quote=RgrF]
Once again Chuck Schumer demonstrates his lack of leadership skills.

you've hit the nail on the head.




"So it won't help all that much because it lacks teeth"

I've got to disagree with you on this point.

A neighbor, family member or anybody else who simply doesn't like you can "report" you. Without ANY evidence or proof of wrongdoing, YOU'VE just been made the bad guy! Try to prove that in fact, you're not. :banghead:
Are you referring to Red Flag laws? First of all, that is not how they work. 19 states have these laws now.
As I inderstand this Senate framework, they are going to offer money to states who want this law, not require it or make it federal law.
A judge determines, based on evidence, if someone loses their weapons due to the threat of violence against themselves or others. There is due process.

Closing the "boyfriend loophole" is another important step that is included in the framework. This makes it unlawful for convicted domestic abusers to get weapons. That will save women's lives.

[$tevie]

Lemon Drop wrote: Closing the "boyfriend loophole" is another important step that is included in the framework. This makes it unlawful for convicted domestic abusers to get weapons. That will save women's lives.

I wish that asking for a restraining order would trigger the abuse portion. I think waiting for conviction is going to mean a lot of abusers will be able to get a weapon because they were never convicted of anything.

[Lemon Drop]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]Closing the "boyfriend loophole" is another important step that is included in the framework. This makes it unlawful for convicted domestic abusers to get weapons. That will save women's lives.

I wish that asking for a restraining order would trigger the abuse portion. I think waiting for conviction is going to mean a lot of abusers will be able to get a weapon because they were never convicted of anything.
It does get triggered by a permanent restraining order. There doesn't have to be a conviction. Sorry i wasn't clear on that.

Currently though the federal law only applies to domestic partners, if you are in a relationship but don't live with or have kids with the abuser, they are not covered by this and could keep their weapons. So closing this loophole will save lives.

[kj]

pdq wrote:
As Liz Warren said, something is better than nothing.

When someone uses this phrase, I think the "something" indicated is almost always worse than nothing. If nothing else, wasted time, effort, etc. for lip service is a loss. And if it releases the tension that has built up, it's even worse.

[testcase]

"Are you referring to Red Flag laws? First of all, that is not how they work. 19 states have these laws now.

I retired as a LEO in NY over a decade ago. Back then, the agency I worked for issued a directive that officers WOULD confiscate firearms at the scene of ANY "Domestic Disturbance". The onus on getting personal property released was totally on the owner (cue the Mission Impossible music). I SAW cases where the female CLEARLY stated that she did NOT want police to take firearms (ALL firearms were to be "collected", even those owned by said female). Officers following said directive were, in my opinion, CLEARLY depriving citizens who had NOT been convicted of ANY offense, were UNLAWFULLY deprived of their property rights.

Lets see, a person WITH A GUN who was UNLAWFULLY taking property from another. In the NYS Pebal Code, that's the definition of ROBBERY (a FELONY). Buy hey, it's OK, the "perp" is wearing a uniform.

Finally, NY Law Enforcement Agencies have a long track record of "making up" laws they then choose to enforce. Eventually, an agency gets hauled into court where, when it becomes obvious that they WILL lose, they reverse course and somehow manage to get the suit dismissed because the issue has been "fixed". A case against a NY Police Agency has finally made it to SCOTUS. It should be interesting to watch, especially if SCOTUS actually follows the U.S. Constitution. :oldfogey:

[RgrF]

testcase wrote:
"Are you referring to Red Flag laws? First of all, that is not how they work. 19 states have these laws now.

I retired as a LEO in NY over a decade ago. Back then, the agency I worked for issued a directive that officers WOULD confiscate firearms at the scene of ANY "Domestic Disturbance". The onus on getting personal property released was totally on the owner (cue the Mission Impossible music). I SAW cases where the female CLEARLY stated that she did NOT want police to take firearms (ALL firearms were to be "collected", even those owned by said female). Officers following said directive were, in my opinion, CLEARLY depriving citizens who had NOT been convicted of ANY offense, were UNLAWFULLY deprived of their property rights.

Lets see, a person WITH A GUN who was UNLAWFULLY taking property from another. In the NYS Pebal Code, that's the definition of ROBBERY (a FELONY). Buy hey, it's OK, the "perp" is wearing a uniform.

Finally, NY Law Enforcement Agencies have a long track record of "making up" laws they then choose to enforce. Eventually, an agency gets hauled into court where, when it becomes obvious that they WILL lose, they reverse course and somehow manage to get the suit dismissed because the issue has been "fixed". A case against a NY Police Agency has finally made it to SCOTUS. It should be interesting to watch, especially if SCOTUS actually follows the U.S. Constitution. :oldfogey:

Someone should find a way to make this happen with most state forfeiture laws.

[Lemon Drop]

testcase wrote:
"Are you referring to Red Flag laws? First of all, that is not how they work. 19 states have these laws now.

I retired as a LEO in NY over a decade ago. Back then, the agency I worked for issued a directive that officers WOULD confiscate firearms at the scene of ANY "Domestic Disturbance". The onus on getting personal property released was totally on the owner (cue the Mission Impossible music). I SAW cases where the female CLEARLY stated that she did NOT want police to take firearms (ALL firearms were to be "collected", even those owned by said female). Officers following said directive were, in my opinion, CLEARLY depriving citizens who had NOT been convicted of ANY offense, were UNLAWFULLY deprived of their property rights.

Lets see, a person WITH A GUN who was UNLAWFULLY taking property from another. In the NYS Pebal Code, that's the definition of ROBBERY (a FELONY). Buy hey, it's OK, the "perp" is wearing a uniform.

Finally, NY Law Enforcement Agencies have a long track record of "making up" laws they then choose to enforce. Eventually, an agency gets hauled into court where, when it becomes obvious that they WILL lose, they reverse course and somehow manage to get the suit dismissed because the issue has been "fixed". A case against a NY Police Agency has finally made it to SCOTUS. It should be interesting to watch, especially if SCOTUS actually follows the U.S. Constitution. :oldfogey:

The guns must be happy that you ard more concerned with them than about the safety of women and children.

Your anecdotes don't jive with what I know about how frequently police FAIL to remove firearms from domestic abusers.
In New York state.
Protective orders are important and they save lives but police and judges have to follow through on them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120094/

And the New York gun case before SCOTUS now is not about red flag laws. It's about whether it should be easier in New York to get a concealed carry permit.
It is a complex case and experiences in other states that have made it easier to conceal carry show an increase in gun crime

Good summary of the issues here
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/nyreg...t-nyc.html.

[DeusxMac]

testcase wrote:
Lets see, a person WITH A GUN who was UNLAWFULLY taking property from another. In the NYS Pebal Code, that's the definition of ROBBERY (a FELONY). Buy hey, it's OK, the "perp" is wearing a uniform.

I think it’s disingenuous to categorize LEOs as simply a “person with a gun” “wearing a uniform”.

We have police, and judges, and courts, to serve specific societal purposes, and we intentionally and purposely endow them with authority and powers that ordinary citizens do not have.

How, where and when they exercise that authority and use those powers is, of course, always subject to legitimate review by the citizenry.

[testcase]

I’ve lost count of the number of times female “victims” failed to follow through on their original complaints. I locked one schmuck up FOUR TIMES because he kept falling for his girlfriend’s calls to come over because she “missed him”. As soon as he provided her with drugs, money, booze or whatever she wanted / needed at the moment, she’d dial 911 and claimed he violated her “Stay Away” order. I explained to him the game she was playing (his lawyer did so also) BUT, obviously his “little head” was doing all the thinking.

As for “guns being happy”, that had NOTHING to do with it. What pissed me off were the games idiots were allowed to get away with scott free. ALL taxpayers should likewise be pissed off by this wasteful abuse of VERY limited resources.