From the AP . . .
President Joe Biden on Saturday signed the most sweeping gun control bill in decades, a bipartisan compromise that seemed unimaginable until a recent series of mass shootings, including the massacre of 19 students and two teachers at a Texas elementary school.
“Lives will be saved,” he said at the White House. Citing the families of shooting victims, the president said, “Their message to us was to do something. Well today, we did.”
The House gave final approval Friday, following Senate passage Thursday, and Biden acted just before leaving Washington for two summits in Europe.
The legislation will toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders and help states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous.
Most of its $13 billion cost will help bolster mental health programs and aid schools, which have been targeted in Newtown, Connecticut, and Parkland, Florida, and elsewhere in mass shootings.
Biden said the compromise hammered out by a bipartisan group of senators “doesn’t do everything I want” but “it does include actions I’ve long called for that are going to save lives.”
“I know there’s much more work to do, and I’m never going to give up, but this is a monumental day,” said the president, who was joined by his wife, Jill, a teacher, for the signing.
He said they will host an event on July 11 for lawmakers and families affected by gun violence.
Biden signed the measure two days after the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday striking down a New York law that restricted peoples’ ability to carry concealed weapons.
Enough congressional Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the steps after recent rampages in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas. It took weeks of closed-door talks but senators emerged with a compromise.
There is nothing in that law that is going to stop the crazies and criminals from getting firearms and killing people. As long as we have open borders, defund the police, no bale for criminals, lack laws against shoplifting and other crimes, liberal DA’s who don’t follow the laws we are going to have violence and non-defensive shooting. On the other hand if crime decreases overall it will be because of more good guys having guns and criminals being confronted when they try to commit their crimes. In every state that allowed Make MY Day and Castle Domain laws home burglaries declined. Now that “may carry” is the rule more people will be armed and I would project crime may decline because of that and more of these mass shooters wills risk beign put down so lives will be saved not because of gun control laws.
Agree. More people carrying will just mean the criminals will be even more likely to shoot each other. Win win.
I’ve noticed recently there are more stories about law-abiding citizens defending themselves with firearms. You are correct in predicting it will serve as a deterrent to criminals. I believe those that are most vocal about disagreeing with widespread carry will be some of the first to purchase a firearm and carry it.
I like your typo – you meant bail, and typed bale.
I think we should just bale up all the criminals, put them on a ship, and dump them in the Marianas Trench.
There’s an awful lot of politicians. Might fill the Trench.
Why would we want to dump raw sewage in the Marianas Trench? While some of the deep sea creatures would enjoy a free meal, thing of all the toxicity that would result from dumping Biden, or Robert” Beta Male” O’Roarke.
Not to mention the rise in sea level from all of those bloated corpses which would immediately be attributed to global warming.
I think that at this point we should try to be honest enough to admit that rates of violent crime are mostly independent of the number of guns in an area regardless of how you count those guns.
Stripping away the rights of people to arm themselves won’t drop crime rates but allowing them to carry arms won’t directly suppress crime either. The factors driving crime are elsewhere and also legion.
Stripping guns away from the law abiding won’t increase crime rates in general. It will increase the success rate of criminals in certain *professions*.
Guns are just a simple solution for both sides of a political divide to hand wave about because they serve as a litmus test for in/out group dynamics.
To butcher a Star Wars quote “These are not the root causes you are looking for”. (contains actual hand-waving).
It’s all optics, on their side, anyways.
Saw yesterday (somewhere) that California has promised a whole slew of new gun control as a response to the ‘Bruen’ decision.
That will be interesting to watch play out, that’s for sure.
The one Biden just signed will get challenged. At this point, the new hot industry will be firearm law litigation, on both sides…
We already know how to curb violent crime. We did it in the 90s. Now Democrats are doing the opposite of that, and we have more violent crime as a direct result of their actions. They have blood on their hands. The Left is actually pretty good with Jedi mind tricks. They hide the truth and push nonstop propaganda.
Now Democrats are doing the opposite of that, and we have more violent crime as a direct result of their actions.
Yet no one bothers to ask why this is their chosen course of action.
Curious, that.
And what did they do in the 90s for crime? I was born in 91 so I’m not that aware. In my eyes having more guns won’t suppress crime and less guns won’t create more crime. The root cause of the VIOLENCE is what we need to focus on. As a young black male who never been in the streets and don’t intend to, I’ve talked to many people and there is hopelessness, lack of opportunities, etc that drives crime. Unhappy and miserable, desperate people commit crimes for various reasons. Some just do it just because that’s what they’re taught, others do it because they don’t make enough to cover their expenses which any of that isn’t an excuse but reasons.
Freedom,
We locked the violent criminals up. It turns out, criminals can only hurt other criminals when they’re behind bars. Instead of encouraging crime, we discouraged it. As for what causes people to turn to crime in the first place, there are several reasons. The root cause for most of those reasons involves your family, how you were raised, and the culture you were raised in. People come to this country without a penny to their name and make it without turning to crime. Poverty isn’t what drives crime.
I agree that we should focus on the root cause. Democrats won’t do that because it hurts them politically. Their false narratives would fall apart. In the meantime, as we focus on the root cause, violent criminals have to be locked up in order to save everyone else.
Lives will be lost.
What about the government’s negligence?
It does appear that it’s only negligence if done by a conservative and/or can be blamed on trump
Almost like they aren’t worried about votes at all…
Meh, there’s more truth in what Jane Says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Q_8q3XXrQ
If not for ebil gunz this would end up being looked back on in ten years the way the Dems look back on the crime bill. They’ll completely forget it was their bill and cry about how it disproportionately affected the poors and POC’s hindering their participation in society. Grandmas red-flagging their gangbanger grandkids because they don’t want them to get shot will just increase police activity in those populations.
But, gunz so that’ll never happen. Not unless the Dems suddenly start caring about the Bill of Rights.
Another $13 pizzed away, because no one was enforcing existing laws. Mass shooters are reported for terroristic threats, cops interview him, and let him go so he can actually do a mass shooting just months later. Other terrorists are reported by foreign governments, and those terrorists are allowed to go on to bomb a marathon. Some creepy turd threatens another school, the FBI actually interviews him, and sends him on his way to shoot up a school.
The only thing good about this new law, law enforcement can look at juvenile records when determining whether a kid can have a gun. Will they actually look?
Probably not . . .
Let’s not forget that a big incentive for the last two major mass murders was internet fame. Social media is driving this. Ban social media? Background checks for internet access? Is there a right to use the internet?
Let’s remind the Life Saving Jim Crow Gun Control kkk nazi joe how his incompetence blotched the exit from Afghanistan and destroyed the lives of families of those lost serving in The US Military along with hundreds of innocent Afghanistan Citizens. And remind joe about the mountains of munitions he left in the hands of terrorists in Afghanistan.
Obviously if you want to keep your loved ones safe you keep them far, far away from the incompetent azzhat Jim Crow Gun Control kkk nazi joe.
“Lives will be saved,” he said at the White House.
No…. They won’t.
So you just post advertisemrnts and propaganda now?
“Your comment is awaiting moderation” …
“TTAG contributor”
Either a Republican Party aide contacted TTAG and incentivized them to post this piece of one of TTAG’s writers is an even bigger RINO than I thought possible if you ostensibly believe in gun rights.
Think more harder.
“Either a Republican Party aide contacted TTAG and incentivized them to post this piece of one of TTAG’s writers is an even bigger RINO than I thought possible if you ostensibly believe in gun rights.”
Observation: When you start a sentence with “Either”, there must be a following, “Or”.
“Their message to us was to do something,” said the president. “Technically, this is something. F**k it,” he added. “By signing this bill, we’re sending a message to all those sugar gliders who would steal a dab of our toothpaste. If this saves even one dab of toothpaste, it’ll be worth it.”
This scene plays in my head every time I hear a politician spout some form of “we must do something”
https://youtu.be/jLO7VrRij_M
Jebus, that didn’t take long….
And Negotiating Rights Away paid $43000000 to get this “law” passed…
Get it to the Supreme Court asap. When it’s shown as unconstitutional the submit articles of impeachment on everyone that voted for it and barak’s puppett. may not get anywhere with it but it sure would rattle some cages.
Whew! I feel so much safer now. Thank you Brandon and RINO’s…
Tyrant lives will be saved. Leftist political positions will be cemented further and saved. Corruption will increase and become more sophisticated and sanctioned. The lives of law-abiding and patriotic citizens and other innocents will suffer now more than ever. The only true justice that stands to come out of this is the eventual inevitability of those that worked hardest to create and support the tyrannical monster of red flag laws will suffer being consumed by that monster first and foremost above and instead of all others.
Translation – Biden thanks you for his “Political Victory” to suppress the rights of 18 year old adults, making them a second class of citizen. In addition, the $13 Billion in funding will largely go to DemoRat friends and supporters, with no way to measure any success, besides their personals enrichment from federal funding.
Since 15 RINOs caved without getting anything (the left still hates you) in return for their vote, like National CCW Reciprocity, taking SBR’s and Suppressor out of the NFA Registry, etc. The DemoRats will now start planning their next round of “Common Sense” gun control, waiting like Vultures for the next bodies to drop, without, ever addressing the failures of their own system, etc.
Way to go RINOs, evidently “Born to Lose”.
“help states put in place red flag laws”
You mean coerce states into using red flag laws with magic federal money.
“It took weeks of closed-door talks but senators emerged with a compromise.”
Explain the compromise.
Explain the compromise.
Keeping Feinstein’s gun grab ban of 90% of all semi-auto rifles and Braindeads ban of 9mm handguns along with the ever popular “high capacity magazine” ban out of the bill.
Compromise means both sides make concessions. What did our dear leaders get for their voter base? Were Republicans elected to use the power of the federal government to coerce states into enacting red flag laws?
A compromise would mean we ask for both the Hearing Protection Act and concealed carry reciprocity, but only get one of them. In return, the neocommies ask for a federal red flag push and “mental health” funding, but only get one of them. I wouldn’t call what they did a compromise. I’d call it a sellout.
You are invoking the true spirit of compromise which has no relationship what-so-ever with the political version of compromise.. This whole thing is just an “at least we tried” clown show exercise in futility that will most likely get shot down anyway when it hits SCOTUS..
The under age 21 purchase/possession thing is going to get gutted at SCOTUS if a case gets there. Aside from denying under age 21 already being previously, for hand guns, ruled unconstitutional in 2021 (4th US Circuit Court of Appeals), it violates the standard set in Buren by, as 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Julius N. Richardson put it in the majority opinion, relegating “either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status” and further he wrote “Looking through this historical lens to the text and structure of the Constitution reveals that 18- to 20-year-olds have Second Amendment rights, …. Virtually every other constitutional right applies whatever the age. And the Second Amendment is no different.”
Isn’t there a similar case regarding red flag laws?
hmmmm… ya know there might be. I remember seeing something. I’ll look later.
I know there was the Caniglia v. Strom case concerning the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Maybe that’s what i’m thinking about. When it was over it was touted to be “Red Flag Laws Have Already Been Ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court” but the case wasn’t about red flag laws per se’ so that claim was somewhat premature but in a way the SCOTUS ruling did delegitimize Red Flag Laws.
Basically; The SCOTUS case involved police seizure of a firearm from a private residence after the man’s wife told police he was acting erratically. The court unanimously held the seizure was illegal because it violated the Fourth Amendment. In reaching that conclusion, the Court reaffirmed a long-standing principle that a private dwelling enjoys the very highest level of protection under the Fourth Amendment. So, the constitutional requirements to enter one must be strictly followed.
Caniglia v. Strom > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-157#:~:text=Caniglia%20v.%20Strom%20at%20118%E2%80%9319.%20A%20marital%20conflict,table%20and%20asked%20Mrs.%20Caniglia%20to%20shoot%20him.
Supreme Court Ruling Delegitimizes Red Flag Laws > https://libertas.org/personal-freedom/supreme-court-ruling-delegitimizes-red-flag-laws/
Yes and thank you very much as that was the case I was looking for and thought was previously referenced on air by Tucker On FOX.
To date, the lower courts have (mostly) applied the interest-balancing test in which judges weigh the goals of a gun control measure against the burdens they may create. With the new Bruen decision SCOTUS clarified that “to justify [a] regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
So, for example, California may no longer exploit the interest-balancing test and now must show what they want is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and almost all of California gun laws are not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”. The “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”” is defined in the ruling and it does not include those.
The “historical tradition” standard now in place through the Bruen decision will probably jeopardize a lot of gun laws, for example, in California and all may-issue states.
Under the ‘historical tradition’ test, red flag laws (focused on firearms) should be unconstitutional as well because the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation as defined in the decision does not include the concept or enactment of ‘red flag laws’ focused on firearms. But its not just this simple and we need to wait for the cases.
A Democrat funding mental health is like a rodent funding D-Con.
Call it what it really is, The Victim Disarmament/ EX Wife Revenge Act.
You think Amber Turd wouldn’t have used this if it had been available?
Anyone else notice how Bidens administration and the media and the anti-gun groups and the left is spinning this bill as a “gun safety bill” ?
Yes indeed. First new thing I noticed after Buffalo and Uvalde.
The focus groups were less apprehensive about gun safety compared to gun control.
Oh I see how it works, to get .gov assistance money you’ve got to have a few mass shootzings in that State.
Kinda like how does a poor country become rich? Declare war on the U.S.A. Then we go in blow them up and give them freebies until Americas people are bankrupt.
Let’s Go Brandon
This new law will not save a life. None. Zip. Nada, Zilch.
But joe burden knew that when he signed it.
‘Lives Will Be Saved’
Does this mean the Federales from the FBI are going to stop poking mentally ill people with a stick until they break?
No. It just means you wont have a stick to poke back with.
Truer words…
“red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous”. I respectfully disagree with the author. When a legal proceeding only presents one side, I do not believe it can be considered “adjudged” in a true sense of the word. From what I have read, about half of the ‘Red Flags’ have turned out to be false, may people had their firearms returned withing two weeks, but during that time they were falsely denied their 2ND Amendment Rights. Others were falsely accused, and it took longer to have their firearms returned.
Then there are cities like Chicago where it is reported that only about 5% of firearm crime gets prosecuted. These laws aren’t needed to protect the citizens there, enforcing existing laws would do leaps and bounds to do that.
I realize the Texas shooter was arrested four years earlier for threatening to shoot up a school when he was 18. Maybe the arrest of that nature should follow him into adulthood, until such time as he is considered to be safe mentally. The Parkland shooter was the same way.
@Randy Jones
Over 90% of ‘red flag’ law implementations are based on false reports or false accusation – or in some cases contrived police activity reasoning so they will have an excuse for bad or errant or incorrect/improper behavior.
This is it right here. They want to use it for justification for no-knock warrants thinking they can more easily justify doing so under the umbrella of officer safety and survival. You say something someone doesn’t like (1st. Amendment control) and they report it claiming credible fear, law enforcement presents it to a judge for review, the judge gives the green light and the cops enter on that authority only as a no-knock warrant to search and confiscate your weapons and hold them without further due process (2nd., 4th. Amendment controls). You have to cover your own legal fees for both the entire case and initially without confronting your accuser and living unarmed and unprotected until you’ve been adjudicated not guilty. Then it’s still up to a possible gun-hating judge to return your firearms. If this doesn’t restrict your freedoms enough I don’t know what will.
The only lives that this bill might save is none. This bill resolves NOTHING.
Anyone who thinks “Bruen” settled anything only need to take note of this action that happened immediately after the Bruen decision was released. There is no connection between SC decisions, and acts of the legislature. A wave of new gun controls can be enacted (not sure why the anti-gun mafia spends time crying, instead of rushing a herd of new gun control legislation). The Murpyh-Cornyn law must now be litigated against the Bruen decision.
And so it is that every piece of gun control legislation must be dealt with, one law suit at a time.
BTW, there is no personal penalty to be paid by lawmakers who pass gun control legislation (after Bruen), nor for law enforcement personnel who implement anti-gun legislation. “Bruen” did not settle anything; only created a new phase of lawfare.
But there is this faint, dim, intergalactically distant hope: it could lead to a formal recognition that there already exists a Common Sense Gun Law™, one that literally forbids overreach: the Second Amendment of the United States of America. Yeah, I know, but a guy can dream, even way up here…
*Sigh* Another fine bill from your conservative representatives in Texas. And you Republicans wonder why Libertarians hate you as much as Democrats.
“And you Republicans wonder why Libertarians hate you as much as Democrats.”
“We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way;
“…there is no one righteous; not even one;…”
ROFLMAO … How damn hilarious can you get? I don’t know of any Republicans that remotely care about what America’s communist party, the Democrat Party, nor the lunatic Libertarians. The Democrats are absolute totalitarian woke snotballs and all the lunatic Libertarians do is run interference for them, with most Libertarians being actual undercover Democrats anyway. Such people are absolutely ridiculous.
Tldr: Baaa. Baaa. Mooo. Mooo.
Oink oink, ribbet.
The Buffalo shooter said he wanted to see more gun control passed…so Biden is basically meeting the request of a murderer…
“…and make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous.”
If people are too dangerous to possess a firearm, what the FUCK are they doing free out and about in society in the first place?
We’re living in the age of muddled rights. At 18 you can vote and die for ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶r̶y̶ imperialistic corporate interests, but you can’t buy alcohol, cigarettes or a handgun. When are we legally adults? 18 or 21? Pick one.
Same goes for being free. Do we have rights or not? If we lose them due to being convicted of some crime, if we’re so dangerous to own a gun, why let us free to begin with?
Banning all swimming pools would save lives. Banning tobacco products would save lives. Clamping down to reduce PREVENTABLE Medical Mistakes, which by many estimates is as high as all tobacco deaths in the USA would save lives.
While the red flag law undoubtedly will save lives, the number will be insignificant.
The new law is do nothing feel good legislation so politicians can appear to have done something when in reality they have done nothing. It also gives Juice-Lip Biden a win but he won’t remember it tomorrow and will continue to complain about his poll numbers which are lower than his IQ.
How is this a compromise?
With a compromise I get something.
Gun owners go nothing.
This is a concession.
And don’t forget; you never get your rights back. That’s not how our government works.
“Gun owners go nothing.”
Gun owners got avoidance of a complete ban on firearms. We must be ready, willing and able to sacrifice anything in order to avoid a complete ban on firearms.
Hey….think I just created a press release for the Republicrats.
Comments are closed.