Senate Gun Deal – what does it do?

Twenty U.S. Senators, ten of them Republicans, announced on Sunday what we can call the Senate Gun Deal. Conservative commentators have expressed suspicion of any “bipartisan compromise” on the Second Amendment. The Senate Gun Deal does have an element that should concern everyone. But it contains other things that at worst do nothing more than address already bad laws. It also contains things that one might accept – if the basic principles were constitutional.

The Gang of Twenty for the Senate Gun Deal

Who are those twenty Senators? Breitbart carries their joint press release and a complete roster.

• Democrats:
  • Chris Murphy (Conn.)
  • Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.)
  • Richard Blumenthal (Conn.)
  • Cory Booker (N.J.)
  • Chris Coons (Del.)
  • Martin Heinrich (N.M.)
  • Mark Kelly (Ariz.)
  • Joe Manchin (W.Va.)
  • Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
• Republicans:
  • John Cornyn (Texas)
  • Thom Tillis (N.C.)
  • Roy Blunt (Mo.)
  • Richard Burr (N.C.)
  • Bill Cassidy (La.)
  • Susan Collins (Maine)
  • Lindsay Graham (S.C.)
  • Rob Portman (Ohio)
  • Mitt Romney (Utah)
  • Pat Toomey (Pa.)
• Independent:
  • Angus King (Maine)

In other words, this Gang of Twenty contains the full delegations from Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, and North Carolina. It also includes RINOs from Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, and, of course, Utah.

Of the ten Republicans, Senators Blunt, Burr, Portman and Toomey are not even seeking re-election this Midterms. (Neither is Senator Richard Shelby, R-Ala.) The other six Senators are not up for re-election anyway. That makes four lame ducks and six hoping to skate through either to the Presidential election or the next Midterms.

What does the Senate Gun Deal contain?

It’s easier to list what the Senate Gun Deal does not contain. It does not ban any class of weapons, whether by the name “assault weapons” or any other name. Nor does it raise the minimum age to buy a rifle to 21. Nor does it make anyone wait to buy a gun. Apparently the Republicans in the Gang refused to sign on to any such thing.

Nor, contrary to rumor, does it support a federal Red Flag Law. But it does provide for federal support for State and Tribal Red Flag Laws.

A Red Flag Law, also known as a Crisis Intervention Order, directs a court to enjoin, from purchasing or even possessing a firearm or firearms, any person who, in the opinion of law enforcement, might pose a danger to himself or others. Law enforcement could base that opinion on warnings from “family, friends, coworkers, or others,” according to Georgia commentator Erick-Woods Erickson.

The problem: leftists could raise a “red flag” against their political or ideological enemies. As Erick Swalwell explicitly threatened to do against Ben Shapiro on Twitter.

Please tell me this lunatic does not own a gun. Reason 1,578 America needs Red Flag Laws.Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)

For that reason alone, Erickson – yes, that Erickson, the Never-Trumper – wants the Senate to vote against any “resources to states and tribes to create and enforce” Red Flag Laws.

What else is in that deal?

• Expansion of community mental-health clinics,
• Adding individuals to the National Instant Check System upon conviction for domestic violence, or issuance of a restraining order.
• Funding for mental-health services in school,
• Enhancement of school safety,
• Clarification of who is, and who is not, a Federal Firearms License holder,
• “Telehealth” programs for remote counseling,
• A background check to include a juvenile record search for anyone under 21 buying a rifle, and
• Enhanced enforcement of the law against “straw purchases” of guns.

Note that federal law already disallows anyone under 21 to buy a handgun.

How “radical” is this deal? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) seems to think it’s radical enough as it is. The support for State and tribal Red Flag Laws would present the biggest problem. More to the point, Rep. Greene seems to take the position – and it is a position that CNAV certainly shares – that a free person has the right to arm himself at least as well as, if not better than, an infantryman. And that the best protection against criminals or mentally compromised individuals carrying deadly weapons, is greater numbers of law-abiding citizens carrying such weapons.

Would the Senate Gun Deal pass?

Actually that’s doubtful. The other thirty-nine Senate Democrats (plus Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.) include “progressives” who definitely want no person, except:

• A law-enforcement officer,
• An active-duty military service member,
• A Very Important Person, or
• Said person’s bodyguard,

to own, carry, or so much as touch, much less discharge, a firearm.

In the last century, especially during the Clinton administration, Democrats might pull together to pass an “incremental step” toward that total confiscation regime of which they all dream. But today the game seems different. And if so much as one Democrat in the Senate decides that the Senate Gun Deal doesn’t go far enough, that Democrat, and the other Republicans, could block any bill. The same holds for Senator Sanders. Remember: the Senate Gun Deal does not even have any legislative text. We have a framework for a new law – and nothing more.

The House of Representatives gives the Gang of Twenty a worse problem. They recently passed a measure that does raise the minimum age for buying a rifle to 21. It also bans ammunition magazines holding 15 or more rounds.

Mr. Jim Mullen called the measure “war on Americans and the Constitution.”

The point is: a House of Representatives that would pass such a measure, might not accept the Senate Gun Deal in Conference. Or would they? Would they conclude that this was the best deal they could get before Midterms?

A loose cannon

Even so, the House Democratic Conference already has at least one loose cannon on the gundeck, besides The Squad. Rep. Donald Beyer (D-Va.) has actually proposed a 1000 percent excise tax on “assault weapons” (whatever they are). Worse, he wants to pass this through budget reconciliation. Which means: debate is already de facto limited. Forty-eight Senate Democrats, plus Senators Sanders and King, could form a tie – and Vice-President Harris would then break it.

But would Senators King, Sinema, and Manchin go along with it? That is the doubtful question.

In any event, the Democrats might ruin their own chances to get anything like the Senate Gun Deal through.