"Bipartisan Safer Communities Act" AKA the Senate gun control bill.

Another pork bill and Guns aren't even mentioned until page 25. The bill would search juvenile records starting at age 16 for disqualifying behavior. They want each state and agency to remove outdated information. Ha. Red Flag law language added. Instead of calling them Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), they're now referring to them as "intervention programs." Obviously a PR move. It's important to note this allows you to have an attorney to defend your 2A rights, but you don't get a public defender. It's out of your own pocket.

80 page PDF

Blank check for Medicare?



A cool $100 mil for the FBI.




WoW.



$2.05 Billion for Dept of Education - Safe schools and Citizenship education. No money for hardening schools.

Senate Republicans who supported the pork bill include: Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Shelley Moore-Capito (WV), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Joni Ernst (IA), Lindsey Graham (SC), Mitch McConnell (KY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rob Portman (OH), Mitt Romney (UT), Thom Tillis (NC), Todd Young (IN), Pat Toomey (PA).

Simplified breakdown

So ... they blow more of everyone's tax dollars. I guess there'll be more blown on the Red Flag 'incentivization for States to violate the 5th Amendment.

Only way we're ever getting our country back is by taking the money away from them. Or give all of their fiat dollars back to 'em and use our own methods of exchange.

MIRANDA rights go away too?

Well...phuk

(06-22-2022, 10:59 PM)Snarl Wrote: So ... they blow more of everyone's tax dollars. I guess there'll be more blown on the Red Flag 'incentivization for States to violate the 5th Amendment.

Only way we're ever getting our country back is by taking the money away from them. Or give all of their fiat dollars back to 'em and use our own methods of exchange.

Exactly. Learn barter. I don't pay Federal tax any more, because I don't make any government-controlled fiat currency. I got a Social Security statement a couple weeks ago, and it said:  wages earned in 2021 - 0.00 dollars. What's the tax percentage on nothing again?

Now would be the time to build a "ghost gun" or 5 for burial, so it could be retrieved in an emergency. When the Red Flaggers come to confiscate your legally owned shit, they can't take what they can't find, and you cannot be forced to speak. The penalties in the last version of the bill I read only cover the "illegality" of your recovery of the guns they take, and does not cover any guns they didn't know about to take.

The so-called 'red flag" laws violate, at the very least, the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. If that ain't a "red flag" proving the government has gone rogue and no longer obeys it's own laws, I dunno what is. As George Bush said, they believe the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper". Actually, it's parchment, but let's not quibble over semantics when they violate it - whatever it is written on - with impunity.

"Red flag" laws involve warrantless searches and seizures, government "takings" without remuneration at all, much less fair remuneration, and a violation of the Second Amendment, all without due process. Remember, "due process" must be observed BEFORE the action is taken, not after, and so taking your shit and giving you a hearing 10 days down the road is a violation of Due Process. Arresting YOU for evaluation, but leaving your shit where it sits, is not illegal, but taking your shit and leaving you on the loose to wreak havoc on polite society after they piss you off well and truly by taking your shit without cause IS illegal. Both ways will separate you from your firearms, but only ONE is illegal according to the Constitution.

What "red flag" laws are is really nothing more than covert gun confiscation. It's their foot in the door.

.

(06-23-2022, 01:40 AM)Jinmi Wrote: MIRANDA rights go away too?

Well...phuk

Miranda Rights are only for Criminal Proceedings, not Civil Proceedings. You can't get a court appointed attorney because you are being sued, which this essentially is.

The Right to remain Silent remains in full force and effect (no one can ever force you to speak), and I urge everyone to avail themselves of it if they fall into this trap.

.

It's funny how politicians think that the way to solve problems is just to keep spending.

What gets us into problems is all the spending.

What a lovely little circle they have.

We need to reduce the federal government(employees/departments) by about 90 percent and the "budget" by about the same.

So each state will have their own version of Red Flag laws, eh? And on the look out for their share of Fed dollars. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

ATF just recently started hiring a ton of new field agents. Of course they are always reinterpreting their own rules on a weekly basis. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

Want to sell a gun now? Hold on Hass. You'll need to get an FFL for that. Used to be the law stated you only needed an FFL if you made a livelihood from selling guns. Now it states if you only intend to earn a profit. What does that mean? It doesn't matter!!! The ATF and the DOJ will interpret as they see fit. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

$15 Billion for mental health improvements. In government speak, that means $14.5 Billion in new bureaucracy, new offices, and new support contracts. Somewhere down the line, whatever is left over may go to help someone actually needing mental health attention. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

Anyone placing bets on how much this actually stops criminals using guns?

(06-23-2022, 05:55 PM)ABNARTY Wrote: So each state will have their own version of Red Flag laws, eh? And on the look out for their share of Fed dollars. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

ATF just recently started hiring a ton of new field agents. Of course they are always reinterpreting their own rules on a weekly basis. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

Want to sell a gun now? Hold on Hass. You'll need to get an FFL for that. Used to be the law stated you only needed an FFL if you made a livelihood from selling guns. Now it states if you only intend to earn a profit. What does that mean? It doesn't matter!!! The ATF and the DOJ will interpret as they see fit. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

$15 Billion for mental health improvements. In government speak, that means $14.5 Billion in new bureaucracy, new offices, and new support contracts. Somewhere down the line, whatever is left over may go to help someone actually needing mental health attention. Who ends up on the short end there I wonder? 

Anyone placing bets on how much this actually stops criminals using guns?

It might address guns, but it won't address crime, like murder and assault and whatnot. It's not intended to keep US safe, it's intended to keep THEM safe. We will still have to contend with crime and criminals, because the focus is GUNS rather than CRIME. Some of the poorer sort of criminals, without connections to get stolen and smuggled guns, will simply switch to other implements of destruction like knives, screwdrivers, hammers, crowbars, fingernail clippers (hat tip the the stalwart souls of airport TSA, keeping the world safe from fingernail clippers since 2003). and even swords. There are as many ways to kill people - even in mass - as there are killers to kill them.

I think, personally, that a better solution would be to get those potential killers off the streets and out of decent society for evaluation, rather than pissing them off even more by taking their shit and leaving them free to roam our streets all embittered. THAT is what they would do if they were truly in it to protect US, not set up new ways to disarm the victims.

So. These measures are not to protect US, they are to protect THEM. They don't give two fresh shits about US.

.

WAHOOOO!

That there is a variety of rebel yell, not a reference to the large hairy bipedal bigfoot-like thing.

The SCOTUS released a decision today that unequivocally states that US citizens have a right to carry firearms for self defense. Not just own, but CARRY. It was a case against New York, which requires one to prove a pressing need to carry for a specific threat before the carry license may be issued. SCOTUS says the 2nd does not allow for a "second test" after a purchase permit is issued in order to actually carry the gun you just bought.

"Progressive" heads are exploding across the nation.

Now that doesn't mean that you don't have to have a CCW to carry concealed (if your state, like mine, requires that sort of thing), but it DOES mean that if you apply for the CCW, New York (and presumably everywhere else) cannot deny it simply because you couldn't prove a "need" commensurate with THEIR criteria. If you are safe enough to own a gun (first test), then no second test (proof of need) is required to carry it.

I live in Virginia, and it is a "shall issue" state - in other words, if the State cannot prove a compelling reason you CAN'T carry concealed, they have to issue the permit. And most counties dropped the cost of the fees as a response to the legislature trying to disarm us. The local governments were responsive where the state government was detached from The People here. My county dropped the fees from the former 50 dollars down to 15 dollars, for example.

Now, I think this decision may just be the tip of the iceberg relating to SCOTUS 2A decisions. This session they tabled two other cases, one regarding "assault weapons" bans, and another regarding "high capacity ammunition feeding device" bans, for later hearing. I believe they may have wanted to set this precedent first to lay the groundwork for those hearings later.

One can hope.

And that may cause other Liberal heads to explode, but it is what it is. If Liberals can leave me alone to carry my gun, I can leave them alone to not carry one if that is what they choose. It's just a matter of coming to an equitable agreement. Live and let live, don't micromanage other folks' lives when you have one of your own to be running.

Horizontal Harris said that it was against the Constitution to make such a decision - I reckon that's why her job is playing second fiddle to a mentally defective boss, and the SCOTUS's jobs are to, you know, actually determine Constitutionality. they are qualified, she isn't, so I take what she says in light of that fact.

Now we have to circle the wagons around the SCOTUS and protect them - not allow them to be assassinated off, or diluted by court-packing with other unqualified people.

Game on. Home team one, visitors zero.

.