Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-12-2019, 7:29 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 972
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Cory Booker's 14 or 15 or 16 Point Gun Control Plan Detailed

This was touched on, to various degrees, in several threads last month...

Cory Booker is all in
Cory Booker lays out gun control agenda
Booker's "if I'm elected" Gun Plan
Booker /Spartacus genius: Federal License

Unfortunately, none of those threads seems to lay out all 16 points in any kind of detail. (Most articles note "14 points." A couple mention "15 points." But, there appears to be 16.) Booker actually appears to have a site which does. If you click that link, you can peruse his explanation for each of the following...
  • Keep guns out of the wrong hands with gun licensing
  • Bring real regulation and oversight to gun manufacturers
  • End legal immunity that prevents victims of gun violence from seeking justice
  • Require handgun microstamping
  • Close the “Boyfriend Loophole”
  • Ensure a background check on every gun sale by closing the loophole on guns show and online sales and the so-called “Charleston Loophole”
  • Ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks
  • Provide dedicated funding for research on gun violence as a public health issue
  • Modernize and strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)
  • Support extreme risk prevention order laws
  • Limit gun buyers to one handgun per month
  • Require firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms
  • Ramp up funding for community-based violence intervention programs
  • Increase trauma support for survivors and communities impacted by gun violence
  • Call on the IRS to conduct an investigation into the NRA’s tax status
  • Finally, beginning on Day One in office, Cory will take executive action to build on ongoing efforts and take concrete steps forward — closing dangerous loopholes in gun sales, cracking down on unscrupulous dealers and gun manufacturers, and investing in communities impacted by gun violence.

The sad part is that, here in California, we already seem to have many of these in place. It's very possible that Booker simply took many of the laws from places such as California, Washington, New York, New Jersey, et al. and put them in a list. But, that says something as well.

While Booker sits at a resounding 2.5% Real Clear Politics Average, well behind the likes of Biden (32.8%) and Sanders (16.8%), you have to wonder how many of these will be picked up on by the eventual nominee and/or their running mate. Bear in mind that these are Constitutional proposals - at least according to some 'experts.'

Let's just say that, if Democrats regain the White House and Senate, while maintaining control of the House, we could be in for a 'troubling' era when it comes to the rights recognized and protected by the Second Amendment.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-12-2019 at 7:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-12-2019, 7:56 PM
CGZ's Avatar
CGZ CGZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 660
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Close the “Boyfriend Loophole”


What is a "Boyfriend Loophole" sounds like straw purchases, and how is legislation going to stop that. It's already illegal, let's make it more illegal
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-12-2019, 8:38 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 972
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGZ View Post
Close the “Boyfriend Loophole”


What is a "Boyfriend Loophole" sounds like straw purchases, and how is legislation going to stop that. It's already illegal, let's make it more illegal
Uh... No.

I provided the link where you can read what it's about; but, suffice to say it has to do with "non-felony abuse at the hands of dating partners or former dating partners."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-12-2019, 9:03 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,503
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Uh... No.

I provided the link where you can read what it's about; but, suffice to say it has to do with "non-felony abuse at the hands of dating partners or former dating partners."
Abuse of any form is already illegal too.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-12-2019, 9:36 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 972
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
Abuse of any form is already illegal too.
The point? The "Boyfriend Loophole" isn't about straw purchases.

Insofar as "non-felony" abuse being a disqualification for owning firearms, it's not, currently, "abuse in any form" at the Federal level.

Quote:
Qualifying Offenses: As enacted the statute defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) as any state or federal misdemeanor that -

"has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."

This definition includes all misdemeanors that involve the use or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery), if the offense is committed by one of the defined parties. This is true whether or not the statute specifically defines the offense as a domestic violence misdemeanor...
(emphasis added)

Once again, Booker claims a need for further coverage: "non-felony abuse at the hands of dating partners or former dating partners."

Remember, we're talking about Federal, not California or any State level, legislation. Also bear in mind that there have been 'warnings' that the female members of SCOTUS have expressed a desire to expand the definition of 'abuse.'
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-13-2019, 9:04 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 13,547
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What makes him think congress would go along with any of that?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:09 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 3,228
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
What makes him think congress would go along with any of that?
Presumably he thinks the D's have a chance at taking the Senate to give him a free ride, and using executive orders to do the rest.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:38 PM
I take shots I take shots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Uh... No.

I provided the link where you can read what it's about; but, suffice to say it has to do with "non-felony abuse at the hands of dating partners or former dating partners."
You would think a Democrat presidential candidate would have the sense to use gender neutral language.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-14-2019, 1:21 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 972
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
What makes him think congress would go along with any of that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss
Presumably he thinks the D's have a chance at taking the Senate to give him a free ride, and using executive orders to do the rest.
Why the 2020 Senate map looks better than it actually is for Democrats

Quote:
At first glance, 2020 looks like the year where Democrats should take back the Senate majority... But unless and until those things happen, a Democratic Senate majority come 2021 looks like a long-ish shot.
There is a general perception that Democrats have a chance at taking back the Senate; but, drilling down, it doesn't look as good as it might be perceived. In other words, the Senate is in play, but it's not as much of a 'given' that Democrats will take it back as some might like/fear. Still, if you're a Presidential candidate, you always hope to get an 'unified' Government.

In fact, that was one of the problems Trump had. During his first two years, Republicans held the Senate and the House. Yet, not only did many refuse to work with Trump, in some cases, they couldn't even work with each other.

In many respects, Democrats are currently in a similar position. There are divisions in the Party and even Pelosi, who is touted as running a tight ship as Speaker, is having trouble holding things together the way she used to. There's also the fact that many of the Democrats are getting to a point where they will, likely, be 'aged out,' and there is an younger generation slavering for a 'radical change.'

Pelosi will be 82 when her current term ends. However, in the Senate... Schumer will be 73 at the end of his current term. Patrick Leahy is 79 right now and his term doesn't end until 2023. Dianne Feinstein is a week short of turning 86 and her current term ends in January 2025. You do the math.

By the way, Republicans face similar demographics with their more powerful members. McConnell is 77. Lamar Alexander is 78. John Cornyn is 67. Chuck Grassley is 85.

The bottom line is that changes are coming to the Senate, regardless of politics. While having D's or R's with a majority in either chamber is not a guarantee, Democrats appear much more united in their feelings about some subjects; e.g., abortion, guns, immigration, climate change, etc. It's just that some are even more 'radical' than others. Now, couple that with RINO's and is it all that unreasonable for any of the Democrat candidates to be hopeful of an amendable Legislature?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:11 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.