Bipartisan Gun Legislation: Read It For Yourself
The full text for the bipartisan gun legislation that the US Senate has been working on since the shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo is now up for consideration.
The package represents the first expansion to the category of Americans who are prohibited from owning guns in decades, a longtime political priority of Democrats. However, it also represents an expansion in funding for mental health and school security initiatives which Republicans have long favored as solutions to school shootings. The deal is likely to have political consequences for both parties as they approach the midterm elections in November.
The bill would make it illegal for anyone to knowingly sell guns or ammunition to anyone who has a juvenile record that includes a felony conviction, domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, or an involuntary commitment after the age of 16. Until now those prohibitions had only applied to adult records. However, the law does not amend the prohibition on gun possession to include those with disqualifying juvenile records.
So, the proposal would make it illegal to knowingly sell a gun or ammo to somebody of any age who has a disqualifying juvenile record but not for them to attempt to buy or possess a gun.
In the same provision, the bill also creates a special background check process for 18-to-20-year-olds. Under the special process, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) would be required to contact the juvenile criminal record system in the buyer’s state, the state’s mental health record custodian, and “a local law enforcement agency” where the buyer lives to check for disqualifying juvenile records. NICS then has three days to tell the gun dealer whether it found cause to further investigate the buyer’s background. If so, NICS can then take up to ten days to do that investigation.
After that point, the gun can be sold even if NICS has not made a determination.
The process is similar to the current procedure for when NICS identifies a potential disqualifying record it doesn’t have immediate access to. In those situations, the FBI can delay a sale for up to three days in order to further investigate the potentially disqualifying records. The text says NICS must return a result on whether it found reason to believe the buyer has disqualifying juvenile records “as soon as possible” but the new process appears likely to result in sales to 18-to-20-year-olds being delayed more often.
The entire specialized background check process is set to expire after 10 years. However, disqualifying juvenile records will remain still in NICS after that point.
The bill also expands the definition of domestic violence to include “dating relationships.” It applies to anyone who is convicted of a misdemeanor violent attack they are, or recently were, in “a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” The text says whether the relationship falls under this definition will be determined by its length, nature, as well as the “frequency and type of interaction between” those involved. It specifically rejects any “casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context” as part of the definition.
The updated definition would not be applied retroactively. Additionally, anybody barred under the new “dating relationship” provision would also be automatically eligible for their record to be expunged and removed from the background check system after five years if they don’t commit any further crimes during that time period. That clemency would not extend to the misdemeanor domestic violence offenses against spouses or children that are already prohibiting for life under federal law.
The expungement of “dating partner” records appear to be part of concessions made to Cornyn and other Republicans during the negotiations. His request to expand funding intended to encourage states to adopt Red Flag laws out to other kinds of state crisis intervention programs made it into the final deal as well.
States can request grant money for crisis intervention programs including “mental health courts,” “drug courts,” and “veterans courts” instead of Red Flag programs. Additionally, in order for a Red Flag law to qualify for funding it has to include “due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution,” have an evidentiary standard in line with similar federal court proceedings, and penalties for “abuse of the program.”
The bill also creates a new, and potentially redundant, crime for purchasing guns for others who can’t legally own them or for gun trafficking. Both of those offenses are already illegal under federal law, though critics often complain about low prosecution rates associated with the current prohibitions.
The deal also reworks the standard for when people legally selling firearms are required to obtain a federal license. The standard will be changed from those who sell guns “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to those who sell “predominantly” to “earn a profit.” The text further defines that as somebody who sells guns with the goal of “obtaining pecuniary gain” instead of somebody who has the goal of “improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.”
Reaction from the gun groups was swift and divergent. Gun-control groups praised the bill.
Read the full bill for yourself here:
gun legislationThe shorter talking points rip out can be read here:
gun legislation
Anybody care to bounce this bill against this ruling from the SC?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfReport
initial reads are the bill will potentially run afoul of the SCOTUS language. But I’m not the lawyer Burt or EM or CJ is, so . . . .
I do find it interesting that SCOTUS doesn’t want 2A regulation by states, but is fine sending Roe back and creating a messy hodge podge.Report
The key word in that sentence got abbreviated as “A”.Report
Because the Constitution clearly states that any rights not specifically enumerated aren’t actually rights.Report
So, what, no laws are possible? I mean, you’re implying that the lack of enumeration of the right to park next to fire hydrants means that states can’t pass laws against it, right?Report
I’m saying that the Constitutional right to an abortion is no different than the Constitutional right to firearms.Report
I know that’s what you’re saying. Now do parking next to a fire hydrant.Report
Keep in mind just how many regulations on firearms we have that the SC is cool with. Dumping the same on abortion is close to what they want.Report
Lemme guess… it clearly states this in the 9th?Report
There joke here is that not only do the people enjoy rights that aren’t enumerated but are contained in the emanations and penumbras, even the rights which ARE enumerated are still only discoverable through the same emanations and penumbra.
That is, there is no obvious and unassailable meaning to ANY part of the Constitution. That’s why SCOTUS exists.
So Phillips point stands, that it’s bizarre that one right is to be decided by the states but another is not.
The assertion that one is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment and the other isn’t is meaningless.Report
That is, there is no obvious and unassailable meaning to ANY part of the Constitution. That’s why SCOTUS exists.
Well, the Grand Marshall of the Supreme Court has his opinion.
If we’re now saying “but that’s obviously wrong!”, well… I think that there are a lot of cases that need to be revisited myself.
You have my sympathies.Report
The same Grand Marshall who asserts a near universal QI for law enforcement, that one?Report
That part was actually a pun based on a misquotation of Andrew Jackson.
But, yes. The court gets a lot of crap wrong. Obviously so.
So you think that this is one of the rulings?
Personally, I think it’s high time for a constitutional amendment that allows for something like Judicial Review but for legislation. “This is unconstitutional”, the Supreme Court can say.
Then we can pass a law that says “We Want It Anyway”.
Maybe it’ll need 75% or something to pass. Sure.Report
Or, people could just decide that voting for Democrats gets better SCOTUS rulings than does voting for Republicans.
Which is why you’ll keep hearing me say that “elections have consequences.”.Report
Hey, maybe we’ll see that happen come November.
All the Democrats have to do is hope that the economy turns around, gas prices go back down under $3, and something about inflation.Report
A republic, if you can keep it.Report
Hey, I’m just glad that we’ve conclusively demonstrated the need to go back and overturn Wickard.Report
Pretty sure we have that, and we have done so at least 27 times in the past.Report
I could think of worse next things than a Constitutional Convention.
Maybe we could get rid of the 2nd Amendment.Report
I am of the opinion that I’d rather an amendment striking it, than legislation nibbling away at it.Report
If you’re applying for a permit, “may issue” has moved to “shall issue”.
If you’re trying to buy the gun for the permit, well, you have a *LOT* of hoops to jump through first.
That’s my guess from what I’m picking up on the twitters.Report
The key would seem to be in this section:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.htmlReport
So Tommyguns can remain illegal.Report
The founders never envisioned a phased plasma rifle in a 40 watt range.Report
Five bucks says Franklin did.Report
Touché.Report
“Tommyguns” are not illegal. The Thompson submachine gun, aka, the “Tommygun” is a restricted weapon that requires a whole lot more paperwork, but they are legal to have.Report
The historical tradition of abortion is that it’s legal pre-quickening,Report
Kavanaugh’s concurrence:
“In contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”
I don’t think there is likely any problem, but I note that a number of provisions are conditioned on things like due process or convictions which are doing a lot of the lifting here.Report
I’m hesitant to speculate too much seeing as how a pro-2nd Amendment SCOTUS is a novel development, however my read is that the fatal flaw is the discretion granted to a state official, not the existence of conditions.Report
I’m sure how you’d implement the conditions absent governmental official discretion.Report
I don’t think a lot of discretion is required for the items PD Shaw quoted from the concurrence.Report
It’s that whole objective vs. subjective criteria thing.Report
Yeah, I agree. And given that Kavanaugh’s concurrence is joined by the Chief Justice, it reads to me as the controlling opinion, written specifically to emphasize the unique context. Future litigants will focus on the swing justices even if they joined Thomas’ opinion.Report
On a tangential note in relation to this case, I saw someone in the Twitter feed repeat the myth that John Marshall invented judicial review. In reality, judicial review is nothing more than an exercise of the Court’s authority to rule on all cases arising under the Constitution.
There’s a common misconception that judicial review entails erasing a law from the US or state code, but it’s really just a declaration that the Court will rule against the state in all future attempts to enforce the law. The state is free to try to enforce the law again, but doesn’t do so because it would be a waste of time. If the makeup of the Court changes, the state might try again for a different decision.
If the Court claimed the power to issue a writ of erasure—to take the law off the books so that no future attempts could be made to enforce it without the legislature passing it again—that would be overreaching the powers granted in the Constitution. But it doesn’t actually work that way.
Really, it’s not clear how the Court could exercise its power to decide cases arising under the Constitution without performing something functionally equivalent to judicial review. What else are they going to do, say “We rule against the state because the law is unconstitutional, but next time anything could happen?”
Aside from being illogical, this claim appears to be grossly ahistorical. I haven’t checked all the references, but this Wikipedia article provides extensive evidence that judicial review was an intended feature of the Constitution that was discussed at length prior to ratification. It also lists numerous pre-Marbury cases involving judicial review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_StatesReport
Honestly, we might be better off if the courts _did_ have the power of erasure, considering that obvious dead-letter laws have been used to harass people who the government knows cannot fight back.
However, yes, if the courts can say ‘This law is not allowed to be enforced’, then they can clearly say ‘And we will keep saying that in the future’. That’s not an independent power.
But I think there is an aspect of judicial review that does sorta exist independent of that, in that the government enforcing the bad law no longer has a presumption of ‘accident’. The first time, possibly the government didn’t know the law was unconstitutional.
Whereas it’s clearly deliberate malice of the government if tries to do something with a law it has already been explicitly told cannot get past a court, and thus a) it’s easier for someone wrongly charged under such a law to get free, and b) it feels like it would be easier to win a civil rights lawsuit? I don’t know if it actually is, but it feels like a jury should have an easier time there.
Ie, I think it’s a good thing the system can sorta do that formally.Report
Once again, straw purchases won’t be prosecuted as long as drug convictions are more valuable to LE & DAs, because the vast bulk of straw purchases are connected to the drug trade and it’s easier to plead a gun conviction in order to get a drug conviction.Report
And at the same time SCOTUS seems to have reaffirmed Qualified Immunity, what with quashing civil lawsuits related to Miranda and all.Report
Seems like the best recourse would be to pass laws like Colorado’s “Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity” law.
I think that you could get more than half of the states to pass such a law.
I mean, if I wanted evidence that “Defund” was out of gas, I’d point to stuff like Stacy Abrams:
Report
Jaybird on Abrams: Why does she want to give the police this much money?
Jaybird on Boudin: Don’t Democrats realize how toxic defund the police is and that they should fear a backlash?Report
Actually, Saul, I wrote an entire essay about Boudin. My main criticism of him was that he tried to usher in sweeping change but, instead, made things worse.
One of the things outside of his control that I pointed out in my essay was that the police had an unofficial work slowdown that resulted in an increase in petty crimes. Like, my pointing that out wasn’t me siding with the police.
I mostly pointed out that if you want to be the face of a Big Change, you’d better make the trains run on time.
Because if you take power and then everything starts falling apart, even the stuff outside of your power, then you will not only find yourself out of power in short order but you will also discredit your bold vision.
Hey, Saul: Defund has been pretty discredited.
(I understand that there are people out there who don’t think that Chesa was, though.)Report
I see that John Cole at Balloon Juice is now on the page of DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE EVER, in upper case. He’s even worse than the talk my children got when they headed off to college. (Said talk delivered because I had/have one foot still stuck in the 60s.)Report
This has been sound and smart advice for the entirety of my life.Report
There’s another option:
Report
Well, Nicholas John Roske DID attempt to kill a member of the Supreme Court. I’m sure Keith supports that kinda thing…..
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61735321Report
Related:
Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low
25% of Americans have confidence in Supreme Court, down from 36% in 2021
https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx
27% is the famous Crazification Factor.Report
It’s almost like America is a bad marriage.
Game this out? What do you see happening?
My money’s on “Divorce or War” but I’ve been saying this for a while now.Report
If you’re talking money, set an over/under line so everyone else can play too.Report
$20.
If I described the summer of 2020 as a bunch of “skirmishes”, we’d probably have to hammer out what “war” would actually look like. A minor kinetic event with one fairly powerful person gravely kineticized? A medium kinetic event that happens to kineticize a half dozen?
If property damage counts, would we want to set a dollar amount?
How’s about $2 Billion in property damage?Report
You just don’t understand gambling, do you? That’s not what an over/under is.Report
Nah, not really. Good clean livin’, you know how it is.
But if we do an over/under, we can say “fewer than 12.5 people dead in organized protests in a two week period” and “less than $2 billion in property damage by (date)” or something like that.
Heck, you can name the numbers that would sound sweetest to you, if you want instead if you look at those and say “that’s something that is obviously going to happen anyway! It’s not a *WAR* until …”
And you can give your numbers.Report
It’s your proposition, not mine. Put it out there and see if it draws any action. It’s not as pretentious as “divorce or war,” but it’s at least a bettable proposition.Report
Oh, I did. It’s right there.
$20.
Let’s say by… Labor Day next year.
And organized protests (of the sort we saw over the summer of 2020).
You down? If we don’t want to trade addresses, we can use North as our main dude. He’s cool.
Or we can donate to a charity of the other guy’s choice. INCLUDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD.Report
Its up to the Republicans.
So far one group of Republicans have threatened to inflict violence on anyone who stands in their way.
The other group of Republicans are standing around dithering and pretending not to notice.
You’re a good example- are YOU ready to vote Democrat yet?
If not, what sort of things would need to happen change that?Report
As I’ve said, my vote is easy to get:
1. Legalize Pot at the Federal Level
2. Eliminate DST
Please tell the Democrats to do something that will actually win votes instead of the bullshit with the Juul pods and whatnot.Report
So your policy preferences, in order of most to least desirable:
1. The end of democracy and the rule of law;
2. Voting for a Democrat.
And you wonder why I say you’re an authoritarian?Report
I’ve told you my price and you’ve told me that you will not pay it.
Good luck with those principles.
Hey, maybe other people will be persuaded by the whole “agree with me or I will call you bad” thing.
It worked in 2020!Report
A person whos support for or against democracy can be bought for a nickle bag will always and forever be in the service of authoritarians.Report
You’d think that such a small price to pay for such a very important outcome would be worth paying.
Alas.Report
Collective rights require the destruction of individual rights.
Team Blue is obsessed with collective rights.
Pot, meet kettle.Report
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
But, as I will be asking more in the coming months-
Are YOU ready to vote Democratic yet?Report
Against Trump? Sure.
In general? No, they’d need to dump their “collective rights” / “burn down the economy” platforms.Report
A woman’s right to choose is very much an individual right. So, for that matter, is a kid’s right to not die in a school shooting. Both have collective benefits, but they start and end with a person, not a group.Report
There have long been efforts to try to split the individual from the group, like the theory of positive and negative rights, or in this case, individual and collective rights.
But they all fail because all rights only exist after a collective body is formed and chooses to recognize and enforce them.Report
It can be hard to separate the two in all situations.
That doesn’t change that collect rights create nasty outcomes like dismantling equality before the law. We prevent Asian Americans from going to colleges that they’d trivially qualify for if they were a different race in the name of racial justice.
Collective outcomes require individuals to take it on the chin, normally at the hands of the government.Report
You have a solid point about a woman’s right to choose, although largely this comes down to calling a fetus an “individual” and claiming it has rights.
“It’s for the children” is a way to put fig leaves on bad ideas. And what you mean is “all children in general” not any specific child in the future.Report
I mean my kids, three of whom are in schools. If they are deprived of life because weak kneed politicians care more about campaign contributions then kids I will not take kindly to that.Report
The fault in that logic is the concept that a little bit of gun control would deal with the problem.
We’re going to go back to outlawing green guns that have bayonet fixtures and then be shocked when that doesn’t work.
The most “relevant” solution suggested for our current nut is making him wait longer before legally buying a gun. Clearly, even though he waited for 8+ months, there’s no way he would have waited more.Report
Good news! The DOJ has said that they disagree!
Report
Checks and balances.Report
The ol’ “Kim Davis” option? Yeah, I can see how that might appeal to people.
What is the court going to do if people pretend that the ruling hadn’t been made? “How many divisions has the court?”Report
1 division, between the loony six and the sane three.Report
“You know what the most dangerous thing in America is, right? A [black man] with a copy of the Constitution.”Report
I don’t believe there’s a lot here for USDOJ to enforce/not enforce.
Edit to add, the same type of scheme was held unconstitutional in DC 5 years ago without much fanfare or any apparent reverberations, so far (Wrenn v. District of Columbia).Report
Almost none of this bill seems useful.
It closes the boyfriend loophole, which honestly is somethat that should have been closed decades ago. Like, seriously, it is still completely absurd that domestic violence sometimes doesn’t ‘count’ based on a marriage license.
I think maybe the changed requirements for someone to qualify as a dealer might also help.
But…none of this seems to do anything about the most recent shooting.Report
its not designed to because the authors – on both sides – don’t want to wrangle with the real issues of a gun soaked nation that still has a pioneer Men first culture.Report
1) Disarm everyone.
2) Live with it.
3) Stop making mass murderers celebs.
At the moment we’re not willing to do any of those.Report
That’s normally the observation of the pro-gun group of various proposals after a shooting.
There’s a disconnect between “SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!” and “what law would people actually obey that would help?”Report
I mean, I don’t _object_ to any of this, and looking into it, depending on how the changed requirements for the ‘who must have a FDL’ might be very good are interpreted, it could be very good. ‘Is the reason you are selling this gun mostly to make a profit?’ seems like a pretty wide question and basically puts the nail in the coffin of all off-books resellers, aka, the gun show loophole.
You want to sell a gun anymore without an FDL/background check, you better have some explanation of where you got that gun that isn’t ‘I just bought at a store for 10% less’ and is more like ‘I bought it ten years ago and just upgraded so selling the old one’ or ‘I am moving to somewhere where I cannot own it’ or ‘I inherited it and don’t want a gun’.
It’s just…that has nothing to do with mass shootings at all.Report