A Couple Of Interesting Aspects of New Gun Law

[LongJim]

I think this law definitely generates some unintended consequences.  And, as a lot of prohibitive laws do--will disproportionately affect members of society that the law was perhaps ostensibly designed to protect.

The high points are below.

The law expands background-check requirements for gun buyers younger than 21, widens the categories of people who are not allowed to buy firearms, and provides federal funding for states with "red flag" laws, which authorize court orders prohibiting gun possession by people who are deemed a threat to themselves or others.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act raises the maximum sentence to 15 years and prescribes the same penalties for "trafficking in firearms," which is defined broadly enough to include receipt of a gun by someone who is legally disqualified from owning one.

• The latter provision covers not only people with felony records but also cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana
• Anyone who has ever been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, whether or not he was deemed a threat to others
• And other categories of people who have never done anything to indicate that they are dangerous

Since receiving a gun is a felony for them, it also qualifies as "trafficking in firearms" and can send them to prison for both offenses if they are caught.

[Cr1028]

2 hours ago, LongJim said:

I think this law definitely generates some unintended consequences.  And, as a lot of prohibitive laws do--will disproportionately affect members of society that the law was perhaps ostensibly designed to protect.

The high points are below.

The law expands background-check requirements for gun buyers younger than 21, widens the categories of people who are not allowed to buy firearms, and provides federal funding for states with "red flag" laws, which authorize court orders prohibiting gun possession by people who are deemed a threat to themselves or others.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act raises the maximum sentence to 15 years and prescribes the same penalties for "trafficking in firearms," which is defined broadly enough to include receipt of a gun by someone who is legally disqualified from owning one.

• The latter provision covers not only people with felony records but also cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana
• Anyone who has ever been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, whether or not he was deemed a threat to others
• And other categories of people who have never done anything to indicate that they are dangerous

Since receiving a gun is a felony for them, it also qualifies as "trafficking in firearms" and can send them to prison for both offenses if they are caught.

Wait, so you are saying that simply being a cannabis user makes it a crime for you to own or possess a firearm? This can’t be right, can it?

[LongJim]

8 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

Wait, so you are saying that simply being a cannabis user makes it a crime for you to own or possess a firearm? This can’t be right, can it?

Sure can.  That has been the federal law for a few years, which a lot of people aren't aware of. 

The point is that now, you can be prosecuted for the second offense of "trafficking in firearms" as well.

[Cr1028]

29 minutes ago, LongJim said:

Sure can.  That has been the federal law for a few years, which a lot of people aren't aware of. 

The point is that now, you can be prosecuted for the second offense of "trafficking in firearms" as well.

Just another reason for them to federally legalize cannabis then.

[Rudy]

The issue with mental health is that it is not a crime.  When you are taking away someone's constitutional right when they have not committed a crime, that is a slippery slope, and that is a problem.  I've dealt with a lot of people that have MHMR issues, and honestly, have no business owning firearms, but they have not committed a crime.  I have yet to see anyone address this in any of these gun control bills.  There is a fine line that they don't want to address, and everyone wants to always blame mental health.  It's not always mental health.  Some people are just assholes, and some people are just evil.  

[greenminer]

59 minutes ago, Rudy said:

The issue with mental health is that it is not a crime.  When you are taking away someone's constitutional right when they have not committed a crime, that is a slippery slope, and that is a problem.  I've dealt with a lot of people that have MHMR issues, and honestly, have no business owning firearms, but they have not committed a crime.  I have yet to see anyone address this in any of these gun control bills.  There is a fine line that they don't want to address, and everyone wants to always blame mental health.  It's not always mental health.  Some people are just assholes, and some people are just evil.  

I've never felt like mass shootings should be lumped into the same conversation as general crime.  IMO, they should be addressed differently by our lawmakers.  I don't gather that our politicians grasp this, and I wish more of them would.

[El Paso Eagle]

53 minutes ago, Rudy said:

The issue with mental health is that it is not a crime.  When you are taking away someone's constitutional right when they have not committed a crime, that is a slippery slope, and that is a problem.  I've dealt with a lot of people that have MHMR issues, and honestly, have no business owning firearms, but they have not committed a crime.  I have yet to see anyone address this in any of these gun control bills.  There is a fine line that they don't want to address, and everyone wants to always blame mental health.  It's not always mental health.  Some people are just assholes, and some people are just evil.  

These are great points. It seems too many people want to use gun control to go after the people they don't like, the assholes, and too many seems to want to help and do what is necessary to help those who are a true danger

[Coffee and TV]

If the issue is that you can't legislate evil or assholes, why do you all wish for them to have practically no restrictions in obtaining as big of an arsenal as they want? 

[Coffee and TV]

16 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

Just another reason for them to federally legalize cannabis then.

Finally someone's speaking some sense around here. 

[NT93]

I don’t disagree that maybe guns need to be a little bit more difficult to buy, but if someone is hell bent on killing people, they will find away.  While I don’t know the profile of mass killers, it seems as though none of these types of massacres are a spur of the moment decision.  

[GMG_Dallas]

50 minutes ago, NT93 said:

if someone is hell bent on killing people, they will find away.  

This be the issue. A few years ago, a guy told me he could buy a gun off the streets for $150 in Oak Cliff. You've got illegal gun dealers all over the place. Illegal drugs are smuggled into the country in droves daily. The same will happen with guns, and frankly, probably already are.

[MeanGreenTexan]

51 minutes ago, NT93 said:

I don’t disagree that maybe guns need to be a little bit more difficult to buy, but if someone is hell bent on killing people, they will find away.  While I don’t know the profile of mass killers, it seems as though none of these types of massacres are a spur of the moment decision.  

While this isn't wrong logic, have you seen these dudes that are carrying out these massacres?   They're hardly the kinds of guys from the streets that would know how to obtain illegal weapons.  And if they did wind up in the wrong part of town looking to buy flush with cash, they'd likely be a mark, and make another criminal richer while winding up dead in the process.
I don't necessarily think these idiots are "hell bent on killing", rather, "hell bent on needing attention".   So I really don't think they'll "find a way" to kill people.  Instead, if it's too difficult to get the guns, they'd just find another way to get the attention they so desperately crave.

What Congress recently enacted (although, IMO, not enough) is a very good thing.   It shows that there's a slight turning of the tide.   People are starting to finally agree enough is enough.    I highly doubt that it will be enough to keep this from happening again though.   So hopefully there are additional measures enacted if/when it happens again.

[Coffee and TV]

1 hour ago, NT93 said:

I don’t disagree that maybe guns need to be a little bit more difficult to buy, but if someone is hell bent on killing people, they will find away.  

I mean if you apply this logic universally we can just do away with laws and regulations altogether for anything.

[MeanGreenTexan]

8 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

This be the issue. A few years ago, a guy told me he could buy a gun off the streets for $150 in Oak Cliff. You've got illegal gun dealers all over the place. Illegal drugs are smuggled into the country in droves daily. The same will happen with guns, and frankly, probably already are.

As stated above...
Take a look at these guys:








Imagine them going to "Oak Cliff" to purchase a weapon of any kind with a pocket full of cash.

[KingDL1]

They all look capable of making pipe bombs. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

4 hours ago, Rudy said:

The issue with mental health is that it is not a crime.  When you are taking away someone's constitutional right when they have not committed a crime, that is a slippery slope, and that is a problem.  I've dealt with a lot of people that have MHMR issues, and honestly, have no business owning firearms, but they have not committed a crime.  I have yet to see anyone address this in any of these gun control bills.  There is a fine line that they don't want to address, and everyone wants to always blame mental health.  It's not always mental health.  Some people are just assholes, and some people are just evil.  

No man.
If you have the gumption to shoot a bunch of kids in a school, it is ALWAYS a mental health issue.
It's not the same as a pre-meditated murder for revenge, money, etc..., or even street criminals who kill (or be killed) due to their environment.  There is Evil, and then there's Disturbed.  They're very different.   The evil assholes aren't shooting up schools.

[MeanGreenTexan]

3 minutes ago, KingDL1 said:

They all look capable of making pipe bombs. 

Pipe bombs don't accomplish what they're looking for in their moments of mania.

[Coffee and TV]

Just now, MeanGreenTexan said:

Pipe bombs don't accomplish what they're looking for in their moments of mania.

It's slightly harder after OKC too, because laws and regulations were passed to set off red flags. 

[UNTLifer]

23 minutes ago, Coffee and TV said:

It's slightly harder after OKC too, because laws and regulations were passed to set off red flags. 

Laws and regulations were in place and set off red flags for the Uvalde shooter.  Someone dropped the ball.

[NT93]

37 minutes ago, KingDL1 said:

They all look capable of making pipe bombs. 

This was my point.  I didn’t say they would find a gun, I said they’d find a way to carry out their twisted plan.

Again, I don’t disagree with some stricter gun laws.  Stricter laws could prevent impulse murders, but I think it’s unlikely to prevent premeditated mass killings unfortunately. 

FWIW, I don’t own a gun, but my concern with strict gun laws is that criminals will always have guns.  You’re not taking the guns away from the people who are committing crimes with them.

Edited July 21, 2022 by NT93

[MeanGreenTexan]

3 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Laws and regulations were in place and set off red flags for the Uvalde shooter.  Someone dropped the ball.

Huh?   Texas has no Red Flag laws on the books.   Who dropped the proverbial ball?

[UNTLifer]

13 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Huh?   Texas has no Red Flag laws on the books.   Who dropped the proverbial ball?

My bad.  I went back to find the article and it was "red flags" about his past, home life, etc.  that should have cued people in to looking out for him.

[Coffee and TV]

21 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Laws and regulations were in place and set off red flags for the Uvalde shooter.  Someone dropped the ball.

Which ones got missed by the gun seller in this scenario? 

[MeanGreenTexan]

22 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

My bad.  I went back to find the article and it was "red flags" about his past, home life, etc.  that should have cued people in to looking out for him.

Yeah, these are the common sense convictions that tell us, "hey, this dude should not own a firearm".   We  have them, but there's not really an enforceable way to put them into action to ensure he doesn't get to arbitrarily purchase them... yet.

[Rudy]

26 minutes ago, Coffee and TV said:

Which ones got missed by the gun seller in this scenario? 

So now gun dealers are supposed to be mental health professionals?  Not sure what you expect them to do?