Senate Gun Deal announced

[c45man]

I find it hard to believe that Democrats like Booker would support this and not demand more, unless there is some sneaky underhanded plan to get around the filibuster.

Because of the 60 vote required, this package is the best booker and the other fools could get and they took it.

[c45man]

This is a joke. The Democrats want a semi auto and magazine ban. They will not be happy with this bill. They may pass it but they will be back very shortly with their gun banning efforts.

They will be back very shortly after the next school shooting.

[Ilikebuckets]

On the surface it does not look bad. But it is giving an inch. That’s an inch less they have to work for next time as they go after more.

Death by a thousand cuts.

[KCJones]

Basically just reiterates things already on the books.

I say "no"... Why pass pointless legislation that does nothing except give the D's a 'talking point' for November.

If there was a significant "win" for the right side, I might feel differently. But this feels... totally neutral. We gain basically nothing and we give basically nothing. It's JUST a way for the opposition to show a 'win'.

[esh21167]

A handful of senators have created a bill. First, there's not one real R in that group, and second, it's just a bill.

But I understand that the 10 so called R's would vote for it if it makes it to the floor, which is concerning, but it may never even get out of committee.

The article makes it sound like legislation has been passed.

[57springer]

[QUOTE=c45man;4633344]They will be back very shortly after the next school shooting.[/Q I think so !

[PickingPA]

This is just the basic framework that they agreed to. No detail or language of what will eventually come up for a vote.

The Dems are willing to agree on this now because it’s a foot in the door from a negotiation standpoint. They will want more and more small cuts added as the legislation is crafted and the Republicans will not want to lose the bipartisan deal by picking a bill to die on. Besides, the ones involved in this are squishes to begin with

This is a ruse to make 2A supporters believe that they (gov) honestly want to address school shootings without infringing. They want us to turn down the heat on them and stop paying close attention, that way they can sneak some stuff in there

[Xringshooter]

Clarification of Definition of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer
* Cracks down on criminals who illegally evade licensing requirements.

THE CURRENT LAWS AREADY DO THIS - ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS, WE DON'T NEED MORE NONSENASICAL, NON ENFORCED LAWS.

I also believe this is a ruse to try to make people think they are doning something good "for the people" IT'S LAUGHABLE, THE AVERAGE AND EVEN BELOW AVERAGE INTELLIGENT PERSON CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT. WELL, SORRY, THE AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE IQ DEMOCRAT CAN'T, NOR DO THEY WANT TO TRY.

[JenniferG]

Where's the revocation of 40 billion to Ukraine to be used to beef up school security to protect the children instead of leaving them as helpless victims?

[Wild Eagle]

Ok, their new euphemism is "Intervention Orders", which means Red Flag Laws, which are absolutely unconstitutional, because there is no Due Process.

They badly want a national Red Flag Law, and the first step is legislation that endorses and provides for that, first for for blue states, under the states' rights doctrine.
The "court" that determines this will be just one judge issuing the weapons confiscation warrant. They will say that there is "due process" because you can "protest and petition" the so-called court after the fact.

The "resources" can be anything, money for goon squads or to hire lobbying attorneys, or for surveillance squads. But NOTHING for security at the schools!!! That's where armed guards are needed!!!
But they don't care....they want to an excuse to chip away at the 2nd amendment.

Intervention Orders
● Provides resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others, consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections.