Kamala Harris announces new office to implement ‘red flag’ gun control laws
Kamala Harris announces new office to implement ‘red flag’ gun control laws
Vice-president launches national resource center at site of 2018 Florida school shooting where 17 were killed
You're viewing a single thread.
Operated through the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, and paid for by a justice department grant, Erpo is designed to help state and local governments, law enforcement, and others – including behavioral health and social service providers – “optimize” the use of red flag laws, Harris said.
It will provide training and technical assistance, including educational opportunities and workshops “for a wide variety of stakeholders”. But the vice-president also acknowledged that red flag laws, which facilitate the temporary removal of firearms from a person a court believes capable of harming themselves or others, are not universally popular.
We need actual gun controll on a federal level. Even just a register and requirement for private sales to go thru an FFL for a background check would be huge.
Until we close the private sale loophole, gun laws do t mean shit.
There's a reason "new in box" guns get sold at a markup on the private market.
Hint: people that can't but at a store will pay a premium.
I like guns, but I have too many buddies who buy guns, then sell them less than a year later and brag about how good of businessmen they are for making profit. All theyre doing is likely funneling guns to people who can't pass background checks. There's just the plausible deniability on their end that if it's not legit, it's not their fault.
What I don't get is why not open up the 4473 form to people doing private sales? You could have it on a phone app even. It's not like an FFL isn't doing anything special, just calling in and reading your answers off the damn form.
Because lots of personal information ends up on there--often a social security number--and the seller/transferor is required to retain copies of the form in perpetuity. (I believe that when a gun store closes they are obligated to turn over their paper copies to the BATF.) It's paper intentionally, because they wanted to prevent the system from becoming a back-door registry; doing it electronically would mean that, either records wouldn't be retained, or you would be creating a de facto registry. Personally, I don't want some guy I met off Gun Broker to have a paper copy of all my PII floating around in his home forever.
There have been proposals that address this. The way it was handled is that the buyer puts their own info in the system on their end and it returns a token/code that is given to the seller. The seller enters the token and name then system gives a red light or green light. It doesn’t include the serial number of the gun or the identity of the seller, there is no retained record to be entered in a database. Just a go/no go response for the seller.
The proposal was rejected by democrats for not going far enough so instead we have nothing.
Ha. Yeah, rejected by Dems sounds about right. In my general experience, establishment Dems aren't going to be seriously on-board with anything that doesn't involve bans on models, features, or entire types of firearms. Kinda like Republicans aren't willing to accept any compromise on "border security" that doesn't completely ban non-white/non-christian people.
TBH, I'm deeply frustrated that Dems appear unwilling to seriously work for the kinds of changes in material circumstances that would affect rates of violent crime without enacting bans and registries. Even "liberal" cities like San Francisco are backsliding sharply.
I moved from the Seattle area to rural Oklahoma a year and a half ago. 5 years in WA made me not actually be mad about OK.
Probably because that would actually be effective.
There is no reason to add extra expense through an FFL. Just open the system up for all.
Oh, so you hate small businesses?
It's like $30 to run a background check thru a FFL, often less.
Like, what do you envision the process would be if people just looked themselves or potential buyer up?
Does the seller get the private information of the buyer and run it? Does the buyer just show up with a printout and a matching ID and we pretend that can't be faked?
There's a cheap and easy system already in existence that works, just use it.
Does the seller get the private information of the buyer and run it? Does the buyer just show up with a printout and a matching ID and we pretend that can't be faked?
Buyer gets pre-approved via NICS and is given a token Seller confirms that token with NICS
What's quicker to do?
Use the existing system or create the perfect one you're dreaming of?
Because in case you haven't noticed, this is kind of a time sensitive situation.
And I remember a decade ago people saying we can't require background checks on private sale because we should do what you're describing.
But it never happens.
Because in case you haven’t noticed, this is kind of a time sensitive situation.
Lol no it's not. None of the mass shooters that I'm aware of got their guns through private sales. So what's the time sensitive nature here?
You think the only kind of gun violence is mass shootings?
Where the fuck do you live that is a thing?
A magical forest with talking animals?
Does the seller get the private information of the buyer and run it?
Businesses are free to steal that information but your average Joe can't?
Does the buyer just show up with a printout and a matching ID and we pretend that can’t be faked?
Why couldn't they fake that at the gun store?
Oh, so you hate small businesses?
Please don't start things with bad faith arguments.
So you've never had a background check?
Or you've just forgotten how they work?
Yes I've done many background checks in the past. No I don't care about giving that info to an individual who I'm buying a firearm from. I would trust the individual more with this information than any business. I don't buy guns the same way I buy an xbox off of Facebook Marketplace.
Side note: The last few times I've been they've actually encouraged me to lie when filling out the form. So it's not even like they give two shits. And ironically they're right next door to a homeland security office.
Side note: The last few times I’ve been they’ve actually encouraged me to lie when filling out the form.
But you haven't reported it to authorities?
Yeah, you seem like you really care about gun laws and take this seriously.
Guess I should pay more attention to usernames and listen to what people are telling me.
But you haven’t reported it to authorities?
Yeah, you seem like you really care about gun laws and take this seriously.
All gun laws are unconstitutional.
Guess I should pay more attention to usernames and listen to what people are telling me.
Ah yes, ad hominem attacks based off of a username of all things.
All gun laws are unconstitutional.
And there it is.
Just start with that next time so people don't waste time before disregarding your opinion on gun laws.
Have a great weekend @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble
Until we close the private sale loophole, gun laws do t mean shit.
This really isn't the loophole that people think it is. If you buy new firearms with the intent to sell it, you're committing a felony. There was an airport executive killed in a gunfight with the BATF just this past week over just this (the BATF was serving a warrant because he was alleged to have been buying firearms with the intent of reselling them, despite not being an FFL holder and doing background checks; he opened fire on them, and predictably did not survive). This is the essence of what a straw purchase is.
Yes, but straw purchase laws are almost impossible to enforce. Buying with the intent to sell to a prohibited buyer is illegal, but good luck proving it.
Requiring all transfers to go through a background check makes it much more difficult. And it doesn't even have to involve an FFL - just either open NICS up to the public. Allow someone wanting to buy a gun to generate a code that's good for X days that they can give to a seller that can be verified along with their name in place of a background check.
It protects privacy by not allowing checks on random people, but does allow for background checks for private sales.
I used to work in gun sales, and the reality is that I was probably involved in a few straws. I actively tried to stop them, and even caught a few people trying it, but if someone just came in, passed a background check, and bought a gun I wouldn't have known any better. It was the people with the sketchy friend nodding and shaking their heads as I went from product to product or people exchanging cash on camera in front of the store that we caught. People who weren't idiots about it had no trouble.
Red flag laws do help a bit and they are the only real tool we have. Even if you’re saving a tiny fraction of the lives you could with real enforcement, you gotta do something. There’s just no path to federal gun control now
Exactly. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Today's congress would be needed for more sweeping reforms (not going to happen right now) and the judiciary on that side too (not going to happen for a long time). They're doing what they can. It isn't much, but it's what they can do.
Explain like I'm a European -- what are red flag laws, and how do they hold up against 2A?
what are red flag laws
The short version is one is banned from owning or possessing guns based on accusations from others. The accusation does not necessarily need to be of a crime nor does evidence need to be provided. The accusation simply needs to be a 'red flag' (a term which means many different things in different areas). A common one is accusing one of being likely to commit a crime in the future.
how do they hold up against 2A
They are not likely to fail a 2A challenge as the 5A challenge will be much easier to argue for a defendant. Barring one from exercising a right who has not been convicted of a crime is basically guaranteed to fail a 5A challenge.
and they are the only real tool we have
Because when people give a common sense recommendation for more tools, some people want to insist we can't do anything new...
Like, do you just not understand what people mean when they say:
We need more gun control
Because it's a real basic sentence....
There’s just no path to federal gun control now
Just give up without trying because it's not guaranteed to work...
Fucking trump banned bumpstocks on a whim, but when it's a Dem in charge suddenly anything being accomplished is impossible. That shit gets old quick.
Biden can do things, he's just so obsessed with getting Republicans to vote for him that he won't.
They just tried to remove the speaker for passing a fuckin budget dude. They’d kidnap his children and murder them on a livestream if he agreed to gun control. That’s the MAGA reality. They’re radicals.
We can't do anything about gun violence because people with guns will use violence...
You're basically arguing that not only do we negotiate with terrorists, we have to endanger everyone else to keep the terrorists happy
Did you never learn how it worked out when people tried to appease nazis?
Spoilers: they never stay appeased long.
Walk me through the math on gun control. Which GOP reps will support it in the house and senate? Tell me their names. I’ll assume that all dems and independents will go along with it
In 2021 Dems controlled the House, Senate, and presidency... It wasn't till 2023 the Republicans had the House.
So why do you assume it wasn't done during those two years?
Walk me through the Senate math as to how they could have achieved the 60 votes in 2021 then
Yesterday's compromise is tomorrow's loophole...
We don't need more gun control, we need 'criminal control'. If you commit a serious violent crime, you need to go away and not come back out, ever. Taking away the rights of the people who don't commit crimes is never the answer.
What kind of distopian nightmare are you wishing for? All crimes come with a life sentence?
You better hope you never make a mistake in your life and fear as all criminals now have everything to lose if they get caught.
A simple robbery? Might as well turn it into multiple homicide. Can't leave witnesses behind and risk life.
We do not give people the right to own nuclear warheads, despite the plain text of the 2nd amendment suggesting we have that right (the right to arms, not just guns). Compelling public interest requires a limit on this right. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with this premise. The question comes down to what level of potential body count/property damage constitutes a compelling public interest? Focusing on guns specifically is a distraction. If we invented a firearm that could level a city would everyone have a right to own one?
