US Senate votes 65-33 in favour of Gun Control Bill

[rifleman 61]

Senate votes in favour of bi-partisan gun control bill

It seems that politicians, at least in the Senate, are less concerned with owning the other side and more concerned about working together to reduce the number of mass shootings.

 

[Phil1111 905]

Like a Florida Keys deer. Not enough meat for one good hamburger. It may delay the odd under 18 year old from getting a gun for three years. Maybe.

"Democrats also agreed to allow the enhanced background check requirement for younger buyers to expire after 10 years, leaving future Congresses to haggle over whether it should be extended. A similar “sunset” provision allowed the federal assault weapons ban enacted in 1994 to lapse in 2004, to the dismay of Democrats, who have never been able to muster enough support to revive it.

And there is a limit on how long authorities would be able to reach back into a buyer’s mental health history; such records from before a potential buyer turned 16 could not disqualify them from buying a gun.

What was left out: The bill does not include more sweeping measures to impose universal background checks or ban the sale of large-capacity magazines. Republicans also said they refused to consider any mandatory waiting period for gun sales or a license requirement to purchase an assault weapon."

Then the republican owned SC will get ahold of it. "Why is Washington wanting to discriminate against 18-21 year olds? They need AR-15s to defend themselves. They need Glocks to defend themselves. Just like everyone else.

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Like a Florida Keys deer. Not enough meat for one good hamburger. It may delay the odd under 18 year old from getting a gun for three years. Maybe.

"Democrats also agreed to allow the enhanced background check requirement for younger buyers to expire after 10 years, leaving future Congresses to haggle over whether it should be extended. A similar “sunset” provision allowed the federal assault weapons ban enacted in 1994 to lapse in 2004, to the dismay of Democrats, who have never been able to muster enough support to revive it.

And there is a limit on how long authorities would be able to reach back into a buyer’s mental health history; such records from before a potential buyer turned 16 could not disqualify them from buying a gun.

What was left out: The bill does not include more sweeping measures to impose universal background checks or ban the sale of large-capacity magazines. Republicans also said they refused to consider any mandatory waiting period for gun sales or a license requirement to purchase an assault weapon."

Then the republican owned SC will get ahold of it. "Why is Washington wanting to discriminate against 18-21 year olds? They need AR-15s to defend themselves. They need Glocks to defend themselves. Just like everyone else.

It has come to my attention that people under 21 have been supplied with fully automatic firearms, pistols, cannons and flame throwers.  This is insanity.

I propose that the U.S. Government should ban anyone under the age of 21 from touching such instruments of violence as a matter of common sense, regardless of their job description.

I will not rest easily until guns are as illegal and hard to obtain by miscreants as are heroin and cocaine.

While we're at it, why has nobody thought of simply making murder illegal?  That would nip all this in the bud.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[Phil1111 905]

9 minutes ago, winsor said:

It has come to my attention that people under 21 have been supplied with fully automatic firearms, pistols, cannons and flame throwers.  This is insanity.

I propose that the U.S. Government should ban anyone under the age of 21 from touching such instruments of violence as a matter of common sense, regardless of their job description.

I will not rest easily until guns are as illegal and hard to obtain by miscreants as are heroin and cocaine.

While we're at it, why has nobody thought of simply making murder illegal?  That would nip all this in the bud.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Not to worry. Your SC will soon address those deficiencies. Soon anti-woke ruling will be out. What about men's college sports subsidizing women's sports? Soon to be struck.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

Well, in a 'not terribly surprising' development, there are candidates for sheriff in parts of Colorado running on a 'constitutional sheriff' platform.
Where they get to decide which laws are 'constitutional' and which aren't.
Obviously, they won't enforce the ones they think are 'unconstitutional'. 

You know, like gun laws.

 

https://coloradosun.com/2022/06/22/colorado-constitutional-sheriff-races/?pico=clean&utm_source=The+Colorado+Sun+Newsletters&utm_campaign=SUNRISER_20220624&utm_medium=email

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, in a 'not terribly surprising' development, there are candidates for sheriff in parts of Colorado running on a 'constitutional sheriff' platform.
Where they get to decide which laws are 'constitutional' and which aren't.
Obviously, they won't enforce the ones they think are 'unconstitutional'. 

You know, like gun laws.

 

https://coloradosun.com/2022/06/22/colorado-constitutional-sheriff-races/?pico=clean&utm_source=The+Colorado+Sun+Newsletters&utm_campaign=SUNRISER_20220624&utm_medium=email

Hi Joe,

This why I advocate that all heads of LEO organizations in a state be appointed & not elected.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I am also an advocate that the head of a LEO organization need not be a certificated LEO.  It is a management position.

Edited June 24, 2022 by JerryBaumchen

[billeisele 122]

On 6/24/2022 at 12:17 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

This why I advocate that all heads of LEO organizations in a state be appointed & not elected.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I am also an advocate that the head of a LEO organization need not be a certificated LEO.  It is a management position.

Appointment vs election is an ongoing discussion. It works well when the appointee makes a good decision, otherwise not. 

Just like a school principal, it's primarily a management position. Some cops and teachers can handle it but most can't. A good manager can work wonders but there are plenty of bad ones.

[ryoder 1,380]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:17 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

This why I advocate that all heads of LEO organizations in a state be appointed & not elected.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I am also an advocate that the head of a LEO organization need not be a certificated LEO.  It is a management position.

Also an argument for why every state should absorb all of its LEOs into the state police, so every LEO gets the same training and operates under the same policies.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

6 hours ago, ryoder said:

Also an argument for why every state should absorb all of its LEOs into the state police, so every LEO gets the same training and operates under the same policies.

Hi Robert,

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

Re:  so every LEO gets the same training and operates under the same policies.

We have that here in Oregon.  Except for operates under the same policies.

I am a total believer that there should only be one LEO organization in a state.  It provides continuity in enforcement.  I would think we all would want that.

While, here in Oregon, all LEO's have to go thru the state-run academy, the enforcement is left to the organization that they belong to.

Jerry Baumchen 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

7 hours ago, billeisele said:

Appointment vs election is an ongoing discussion. It works well when the appointee makes a good decision, otherwise not. 

Just like a school principal, it's primarily a management position. Some cops and teachers can handle it but most can't. A good manager can work wonders but there are plenty of bad ones.

Hi Bill,

Very true.  But, it is much easier to get rid of an appointed mgr than an elected one.

That is why I support the concept of appointment.

None of us are perfect; but, some of us are really bad.

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 558]

We sort-of have standardized police training in Canada.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Depot in Regina trains all the federal police officers, plus some of the provincial police and a few municipal police. The RCMP contracts to provide provincial police (e.g. highway patrol) in many provinces. The RCMP also contracts to provide municipal police for many cities.

One advantage is that RCMP provide uniform training, plus access to federal crime labs, etc. A disadvantage is taking an RCMP constable from a remote, rural detachment in Alberta or the Yukon, then transferring him to downtown Maple Ridge. Hint: downtown Maple Ridge is over-run with poor folks and drug addicts ousted from Vancouver's downtown east side.

The City of Vancouver (major port city) has had their own distinct police force for a century. Vancouver trains their own police constables.

More controversial is the nearby City of Surrey converting from RCMP contract policing to their own dedicated Surrey Municipal Police Force. That controversial conversion is taking many years and costing many millions of dollars. The simplest way to hire a new police force is for the City of Surrey to offer contracts to individual RCMP officers who are currently serving in Surrey.

A couple of provinces (e.g. Quebec) have a provincial police academy while a few others (e.g. Ontario) mostly hire graduates of LEO or criminology diploma programs at technical colleges (e.g. Algonquin College near Ottawa, Ontario).

[riggerrob 558]

I agree with the concept of "sunset clauses" on laws. Any law should be reviewed every 20-ish years. 

The alternative is having hundreds of non-enforced laws cluttering up the law books, courts, etc. 

One of my pet peeves is all the dozens of traffic laws that are still on the Canadian books, but not enforced. For example, in Vancouver, you will only get ticketed for an illegal left-hand turn AFTER you collide with another car. That left-hand turn was illegal the other 364 days of the year, but cops did not bother to enforce it.

[wmw999 2,114]

That’s something that Texas gets right: they have a sunset commission that’s supposed to review agencies for continued relevance. It’s not at the law level, but it beats nothing.

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,619]

18 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

 

None of us are perfect; but, some of us are really bad.

 

Speak for yourself.