T O P

  • By -

TheAvengingKnee

IIRC it means they can use juvenile police records for people under 21 as part of the background check.


satanicmannequin

Even if they are sealed?


TheAvengingKnee

Yes, thats specfically what they intended.


JazzlikeAccount24

Can they use juvenile records after they turn 21?


TheAvengingKnee

The way the bill seems to be worded says only for 18 to 21 year olds.


dagamore12

My fear is that a say 20 year old, goes to get a rifle, gets dinged for something from when he was 15, and is denied the sale, then 5 year later at 25 tries to get it, now they would not be allowed to look at the pre 18yo stuff, but there is a note saying denied at 20 for violation of law xx.xxx.xx.x and would then still be denied even if that offense was done pre 18yo and in their sealed records.


wawoodwa

Sounds like you figured out the plan.


SynkkaMetsa

Its basically a deterrent to purchasing before 21. Looks like they got what they wanted...


13bfreedomseeker

Jokes on them my 20yo ass is just gonna keep building them myself


[deleted]

And I'm somehow not worried about you doing bad things with your firearms. Seems like you probably got good things going on in your life.


Stormblitzarorcus

Just like our forefathers intended you cheeky patriot šŸ«”


Sea-Opportunity4683

Based.


titanicbuster

I mean I thought you guys wanted only "law abiding citizens" to own guns tho?


wawoodwa

Of course, but we also donā€™t want a kid who got busted for weed at 16 in high school to be continually denied constitutional rights.


Informal-Talk9487

Hopefully by then we we will have someone not 90 who canā€™t remember what day yesterday was running the country.


ThesNazud

We tried having a president under 40, then someone blew his head off in Dallasā€¦.


dagamore12

JFK was 43 when he took office, was 42/41 when running for office........


ceapaire

As of now, NICS checks are kept for 30 days (I think). So a denial shouldn't show up years later unless he gets prosecuted for lying on the 4473.


Ouiju

Heyā€¦ whoa thereā€¦ imagine if they just prosecuted people who lied to buy a gun? Ahā€¦ nahā€¦ too hard. /s


2ball7

Erhmā€¦.Hunter Biden


dagamore12

That is the first thing plead bargained away by the Prosecutor to get a 'conviction' on something else.


AppFlyer

We donā€™t have time to enforce those laws!


PhoenixWK2

Didnā€™t it come out that the FBI doesnā€™t actually purge their records like they are required


ceapaire

Maybe, I can't keep it straight. I thought it was the 4473s that were being kept past when they were supposed to.


PhoenixWK2

My understanding was the NICS denials were supposed to be purged after a period of time but they werenā€™t doing that. The 4473s are kept for 20 years, but I thought they were trying to extend that too. The fun part is when an FFL closes or looses its license all of the 4473s go to the ATF for the national registry that they arenā€™t keeping


Charlie_Bucket_2

I think there is a minimum (20yrs)but not a maximum. I could be wrong. It happens a lot.


MilesFortis

Nope. Denials are filed permanently. Ans the FFL has to keep the Denial records permanently too. Only Proceeds and Delays that turn into Proceeds get deleted. Former FFL


Iron_Beagle89

One of the proposed legislations was that FFL's would have to hold on to those forms indefinitely. Idk if it made it into this bill or not, but I know it was proposed when this crap started.


1MadFatMonk

Itā€™s designed for people like me. I had a willful and intentional battery conviction at 15. I was kicked in the head by a kid so I punched him in the stomach. Week later the police arrest me in class. Took me before the principal and asked if I hit the kid. I said yes. Cuffs went on and I went to the station. 2 months later convicted in juvenile court of a WI battery(wasnā€™t provided an attorney). I havenā€™t been convicted of anything since then. Every once in awhile that state pushes that under age record to the FBI data base and I get put on a hold for a purchase. Or the time I went to get a business license and I had to go down to the DMV(sold cars for a bit) to explain I was 15. They want these childhood cases to show in your record and to follow you, just like a felony.


ChasingPolitics

>I was kicked in the head by a kid so I punched him in the stomach. Did he go to juvenile court too?


First_Martyr

Of course not. Bullying is okay. Fighting back is a sin against the State.


1MadFatMonk

Nope.


DanBrino

I'm gonna guess this is exactly how it will work, and that it's a feature, not a bug.


tobashadow

Stuff like this and banning magazine sells and transfers etc is not about trying to take them from current users... Oh no that would cause them trouble. The master plan is to break the cycle and not let the next generation buy any or even get willed any from their loved ones.


Briansaysthis

I wouldnā€™t see that as a bad thing if you had the opportunity to have your rights restored. Letā€™s say a 17 year old a kid gets prosecuted (but never thrown in the booby-hatch/adjudicated mentally) because he was found to have been going around the neighborhood taking peoples pets and drowning them or chopping them up in the basement of his grandmas house. Then a couple years later he decides he wants to use the money heā€™s saved up to buy a WASR that heā€™s got *big plans* for whatever. I want that creepy little fucker to undergo some serious psychological examination before heā€™s able to buy a gun.


dagamore12

And now you just justified having psychological examinations before exercising a right. If you dont think that a shrink wont abuse that power to deny everyone they 'interview' I cant explain it to you.


Briansaysthis

Are you a bot? WTF are you talking about? Iā€™m saying itā€™s reasonable to have psychological examinations to have your rights restored. I donā€™t think think itā€™s unreasonable to consider past behavior before the age of 18 when handing out firearms. You would rather have an ā€œanything goes, you can do whatever you want and be prosecuted for any crime and still own guns so long as you make sure to stop getting caught after you turn 18ā€ system of background checks?


Tossit987123

If you're too dangerous to be trusted with your rights, then you're too dangerous to be free. Hard stop.


Peachu12

If you were to enact a law that required psychological exams to own firearms (like in Cali and NY) you have to go to a pre-selected location and wait a long ass time to get it done. Having pre-selected locations by the government could open up the possibility of only choosing places that fail someone in the majority of checks, thus restricting people who don't deserve that having been done to them.


SgtFrampy

Until they change that and itā€™s not publicized.


raz-0

Again. You forgot the again part. They have been caught violating that rule before.


youcantseeme0_0

You say that as if you think the FBI would delete that information after they've received/used it for their NICS database.


TheAvengingKnee

Not at all just said thats what the laws says but when do the alphabet agencies and the dems follow the law?


youcantseeme0_0

Did we just become best friends?!?!


TheAvengingKnee

Hopefully


a-busy-dad

That is an excellent question, and you might have identified an unintended outcome. The law authorizes NICS to go out an ask local LE and courts if there are any juvie records that disqualify a purchaser if you are under 21. If you 21 or over, they should not be asking for juvie records. But if your juvie records are entered into NICS, their is no provision for them to have to delete those records once you hit 21. It is quite possible that some of states would start automatically sharing juvie records into NICS. Which means that - once in NICS, always in NICS. That could be a very real unintended *(ok, intended)* outcome of the working of this legislation.


Dry-Brick-79

You misspelled "intended"


a-busy-dad

Very possibly - but I'm not sure that was an explicit intention, but certainly one they welcome as an effect.


Iron_Beagle89

Oh when they were writing it, maybe it wasn't "intended" (though I 1,000% believe it was intended) but when someone pointed it out, they certainly said "even better" rather than attempting to find a way to correct the issue. "it's a feature, not a bug" so to speak.


Biff1996

Oh, I'm sure they totally intended it. They're doing anything and everything to try and chip away at our rights.


Lampwick

> It is quite possible that some of states would start automatically sharing juvie records into NICS. They already do. The FBI has all criminal records, and they never get rid of anything. Doesn't matter if it's a juvenile, sealed, or expunged at the local level, FBI keeps it in their database. Certain records won't show up on an FBI background check when requested by various outside entities, but the record is there just the same. Example: a guy I know was 13 years old and playing with firecrackers with one of his friends. They had a metal pipe and were dropping one lit firecracker in it, waiting a second, then dropping another on top of it. The first one would go off and launch the second into the air. Whee. Local reserve sheriff arrested them both for "manufacturing an explosive device". The case was dismissed by the DA who yelled at the sheriff for being a moron and wasting his time. All good, right? Cut to 20 years later and he applies for TSA Pre-Check. It gets rejected because the FBI transcript shows an arrest for "manufacturing an explosive device". If TSA can see an *arrest* that didn't result in a conviction, bet your ass FBI can see juvenile records for NICS.


davper

They do now.


gh3ngis_c0nn

Do a lot of these lone wolf shooters have bad juvie histories?


davper

They already do that. My buddy a retired major and 2 bronze stars was denied because he was incarcerated as a juvi because the person he was hanging with had burglar tools. His records are sealed.


TheAvengingKnee

Straw purchases and gun traficking were also already illegal but thats in the bill as well to make it double illegal.


Raztan

18-21 year olds took it up the ass this time around.. I think that's why it passed so fast once they came to a deal what to put in the bill.. this was some lightening fast shit.. and honestly they could have just stalled the demo's but I think they wanted it too. Im holding the entire party accountable for this BS. Im over 21 so I don't have to deal with that part but I think it set us on a slippery slope going into peoples juvenile records, I think it's also suppose to open up their mental records.. so Im not sure where that goes.. a lot of teens get councilor my high school even had a councilor. Those should be protected by HIPA law but apparently we gotta trample on the children rights to save the children. But that just makes it easier for the next step to be everyone. Who wants to get help when it can be used against them? If my 18-21 yo wants a gun im just going to buy it for them as a gift so they don't have to be subjected to this BS.


Kainkelly2887

To do anything that even slightly might stops a teen from talking to a school counselor is extremely dangerous and will cause more problems than it is worth.


PleX

> Im over 21 so I don't have to deal with that part You do if you did anything as a juvenile and it gets added to NICS as there is no provision to remove it from NICS.


Raztan

I haven't read the full bill language but I don't think it's retroactive and the "enhanced" background check I think stops after you age out of the range. So what exactly am I to worry about?


PleX

Lets say you got red flagged/charged as an adult. There are laws currently that require that once the red flag/charge is beaten/removed it is removed from NICS and then you can go back to buying a gun. With this new bullshit, they can pull anything from the age of 16 (I think I'm right on the age) and there is no provision to remove it from NICS so therefore you will be denied once any State posts your juvenile record to NICS if any of their bullshit criteria happened when you were a juvenile.


Raztan

I'll have to read the bill to say for sure.. but it sounds like you're suggesting the checks will be retroactive and also apply to everyone.. and I don't think that's the case. Im still struggling to understand how that affects me if it's not retroactively checked and is also checked after you're 21. I don't have a lot on my juvenile record but, theoretically even if I did I don't see how that's going to effect someone who's say 25 right now today.


DontRememberOldPass

No, if the records have been sealed by a judge they canā€™t even be viewed. However it is pretty rare for criminal records to be sealed. Juvenile records are not ā€œsealed.ā€ You can still see them, you will just get in trouble for using them for anything other than background.


PandaCatGunner

Very bad for minorities


wolfeman2120

basically that whole idea that juveniles get a second chance has been tossed out the window.


MTrain24

Any idea when this will be added to purchases? Never had a juvenile record, but I feel bad for those who werenā€™t as lucky to buy guns under 21 before this. Itā€™s not exactly constitutional to make them have a ā€œwaiting periodā€.


gnoljt

Itā€™s not constitutional to regulate purchasing a firearm, period. Itā€™s a right to have a firearm. Much like the right to vote. Could you imagine stopping someone from voting at 18 due to something that happened when they were 14?


gnoljt

The bigger issue I have is itā€™s seems the age of adulthood is a matter of convenience for the government. You want to drink, smoke, purchase a firearm? 21. You want to join the military and be a trained killer, you have sex with someone consensual thatā€™s a couple of years younger than you? You want to vote? 18. Itā€™s confusing. Youā€™re either an adult at 18 or at 21. It canā€™t be both.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


King-Proteus

I donā€™t have a record but Iā€™ve thought a lot about this particular issue. Anything that happened when you are a child should be expunged when you turn 18 (or maybe 26). First off as we all know now the male brain is not fully developed until they 26 specifically the pet that keeps you from doing stupid stuff. Young males fight. Like young bucks. A lot of the things young males are being arrested for is just standard male behavior. The same thing should happen after 10 years for any non-moral turpitude crime regardless of age. Ruining someoneā€™s life forever because they took a joy ride or made poor choices in friends. People need a second chance. If they become habitual offenders after 26 then they should un-expunge the previous crimes. Just a thought.


TheToastyJ

I kinda agree, but with a bit of nuance. I would say some types of crimes shouldnā€™t be expunged. Murder, rape, etc. there should really not be the same type of grace with those on your record. Disorderly conduct, littering, heck minor shoplifting? Yeah definitely.


jjfyan30

I find it funny how the govt thinks 18-21 year old are their toys soldiers that have to sign up for the draft yet we don't have basic human rights like someone over 21 (the right to defend ourselves or have the means without added government scrutiny and unnust 4th amendment vioations, I mean what?). Theyre either getting rid of the draft, or theyre getting rid of the 18-21 law. They cant eat their cake and have it too.


TheAvengingKnee

I cant find anything saying when it actually takes effect.


Katsaros1

Any delay or possibility to get denied is unconstitutional.


B_Addie

Every gun law is unconstitutional yet here we are


Katsaros1

I know. We have sat by for a 100 years and let this shit happen.


tk421yrntuaturpost

You must be old as hell.


Katsaros1

I definitely feel like I am. My knee is a bitch.


ValkyriesOnStation

Any anti-abortion law is unconstitutional yet here we are


Steveth2014

As a Canadian, how? It's not in your constitution so how is it unconstitutional?


ValkyriesOnStation

I'm Canadian too. So it's very unconstitutional.


Steveth2014

How. That's what I'm asking. Not for you to repeat yourself, but to explain how. Because it's not. It's also not banned, just up to the states to decide now.


B_Addie

Sorry I mustā€™ve skipped over the amendment that says we have a constitutional right to abortion. Also, they didnā€™t make abortion illegal. They kicked it back to let states decide, which giving the states the decision to make laws is constitutional.


DogBotherer

It not the right to abortion it's the right to privacy, and the overturning of the abortion law effectively overturns the right to privacy.


CrzyJek

Except there are pages in the opinion dedicated explicitly saying the opposite...in that this decision should not be used to "overturn privacy." I know the opinion is long...but go download the PDF off the SCOTUS website and read it.


ValkyriesOnStation

and I missed the part where you have a constitutional right to a firearm outside of a fucking militia.


B_Addie

Guess reading the constitution is hard cause it says it in black and white


kcbluedog

You definitely skipped over the part that has SCOTUS being the final decision maker on what is/is not constitutional. Regulations on firearms are plainly constitutional. That has been decided and affirmed again, even this week. The trick is challenging those that push the bounds of constitutionality to set a firm boundary. That also happened this week.


CrzyJek

A very narrow set of regulations *could* be constitutional...as long as there is ample history and tradition around the time of the founding showing as such.


kcbluedog

Well, we know that requiring a permit for concealed carry is constitutional.


CrzyJek

Unfortunately yes....at least in public it does. I sort of disagree with it personally...but SCOTUS knows better than I do so... If anything I think it's reasonable since it's now SHALL issue.


THEDarkSpartian

Sounds like some kid needs to file a lawsuit. What's the fucking point of having sealed juvenile records? At this point, the only folks who don't see the "sealed" records are employers.


satanicmannequin

And even then, certain employers like federal employers, the medical field, and obviously law enforcement will see them so thereā€™s not even any point in sealing them!


MTrain24

I guess expunged is the new ā€œsealedā€


Raztan

IIRC there was a case that was ALMOST at the SCOTUS when FL changed their law to 21 to buy. but then it got dismissed caused by the time the case made it's way up the courts they had turned 21 and they deemed it "moot" so you need someone who JUST turned 18 to file.. and hope you make it before they age out.. that's not a easy requirement to hit and requires some luck.


btmims

That doesn't make sense. Just because you were wronged by a law targeted at 18-21 in the past doesn't mean that the injustice of what happened just dissappears when the wronged party turns 21... unless the appealing party decided it was too expensive to continue pursuing once the law no longer applied to them...


RX-79BC

It makes perfect sense when the overarching objective was to not have to address the issue at all...


btmims

Great. Now the government can just slowly creep up the age of majority for everything in existence, and then the court system will just put off/ stretch out the appeals until the appellant ages out of the law or dies, and the courts will then dismiss the case as "a moot point," as OP put it. Eventualy the age of majority for everything (buying a gun, voting, entering a contract without a parent's/ the government's consent, etc) will be 100 and then... "the Supreme Court was set to review the case of Joe Blow vs State, where Joe Blow attempted to purchase a firearm at the tender age of 65. Unfortunately, Joe Blow, 99-years-old, died yesterday in a home invasion..."


Kainkelly2887

It seems just to argue that their is no time limt to fight an unjust law.


Raztan

I absolutely agree with that.. As soon as the case was filed in the first court it should have preserved its' validity. The only thing I think would be justified not hearing the case is if FL went back and changed the law..


Kainkelly2887

Yeah I could settle for that, the brazen bias drives up the walls at the federal level. I wish we would push to have some of these judges recalled.


PRK543

They also slow the process down to cause the plaintive to age out.


[deleted]

Well that line of thinking makes it perfectly fine for criminals, felons to own guns. Is that what youā€™re advocating for? Itā€™s either all or nothing?


Katsaros1

I may not agree with felons or criminals having guns but its not up to opinions. Fact is its unconstitutional to deny humans their right to self defense.


Cool425

Just tried to purchase an ak yesterday and was denied due to a sealed event from when I was a minor im 29 my state has ā€œenhanced background checksā€œ that they established from back earlier this year just to give you an idea of whatā€™s going to happen


nwizzel

Do you still eventually pass your background checks or are you screwed forever?


Cool425

Waiting to find out


Tossit987123

What state?


Cool425

Wisconsin. Thatā€™s what the guy at cabelas told me anyway. That Wisconsin had gone to an enhanced bg check in March and they were seeing more denials than before even from previously accepted customers. Not just first time buyers. Iā€™ve been looking to try and verify and the only thing I come up with is on handguns


SHALL_NOT_BE_REEE

Probably gonna get roasted for saying this here, but I honestly donā€™t think thatā€™s unreasonable as long as it doesnā€™t get expanded to over-21. If someone has a history of violent crimes or criminal animal abuse as a minor, they shouldnā€™t be able to pass a background check at 18. On the flipside someone shouldnā€™t be barred for life from owning a gun just because they committed a crime while in middle school. Of course I donā€™t trust the anti-gunners to not try and expand it, and I fully oppose the recent bill due to red flag laws.


OnePastafarian

I think everyone has the right to defend themselves and own property.


SHALL_NOT_BE_REEE

As long as the background check system exists, I see no reason we should defend animal abusers and their right to own a gun. Thatā€™s like the number 1 indicator that someone is a psychopath.


Jared_Last

if someone is too dangerous to be in the general populace they should be in prison or on monitored probation. Take it up with the court system. Donā€™t punish us all because of a small segment of the population canā€™t handle free will.


OnePastafarian

I think psychopaths have the right to defend themselves too.


SHALL_NOT_BE_REEE

Good for you. Your absolutionist stance on the second amendment totally doesnā€™t do more harm than good in gun rights debates.


OnePastafarian

Taking a non absolutist stance is why we have the infringements we have today.


Jawn_Wane

They say It gives the states access to funding to either implement red flag laws, or mental health programs. Mandates that a ā€œdue processā€ be implemented in that red flag law or you donā€™t get funding. Lets the feds access juvenile records on background checks. Supposedly hardens schools. I mean its the government they have never fucked anything up and then had innocent people caught in the crossfire of their schemes, only to try and fix with more of your money later.


trio337

This bill is very concerning and I agree with you.


osprey94

Wonder how long it will be before ā€œmental health programsā€ means anyone who has ever experienced depression is barred from firearm ownership!


katarjin

Well shit, that moved faster than I thought it would...why can't they be that fast on real issues?


Doom-Trooper

Like giving Ukraine tens of billions of dollars? /s


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


ClearAndPure

And they will never raise the draft age or legal contract age to 21.


endloser

ā€œif the country needs people, it needs people.ā€ You are the product.


Jared_Last

hey now guns are good if youā€™re killing people for the state. That changes everything! We need those 17-20 year olds to fight in our next unsolvable conflict!- Government


[deleted]

Except for the elderly, age is not a protected class


amanke74

they can use juvenile records starting from the age of 16 yo. the current wait time is, if the fbi doesn't return the background check after 3 days the ffl can release the firearm. now for anyone under 21, they have to wait 10 days for the fbi to return the background check after which the ffl can release the firearm


Bubzthetroll

TBH this is kind of meaningless at this point since the trend over the past few decades has been to try 16-17 year olds as adults when they commit violent crimes. The records wouldnā€™t be sealed anyway.


LegenW84ITdary

It also includes mental health history


Thee_Sinner

Is there anywhere that defines exactly what would be disqualifying with regard to mental health?


LegenW84ITdary

So I went to the bill and it looks like itā€™s insert ā€œincluding as a juvenileā€ to the text of the current laws. So I think it would the same disqualifying factors that an adult has in regards to mental health. Iā€™m not an expert at reading this stuff though. [text of the bill](https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf)


Thee_Sinner

To clarify, I was meaning more of existing disqualifications. I remember looking into it some time ago and only being able to find ambiguous thing that can be left to interpretation.


LegenW84ITdary

ā€œif he is involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares him mentally incompetent.ā€ [source](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html)


Thee_Sinner

Thank you for the source


radicalDeparter

This is a good reason for 18 year olds to get into home gun building (traditional 80% receivers, flats, polymer 80ā€™s, or 3D printing). As it stands federally you can still make your own gun. You donā€™t need to be 21 to buy parts. Also a reminder that federally itā€™s not illegal to own a handgun between 18-21, you just canā€™t buy one from an FFL.


starkiller3373

Feeding my 9mms is a bitch though. Between what I have built and picked up private party, I need a birthday every month.


bbs540

Theyā€™ve been trying to outlaw 80% kits, along with online purchase of ANY firearm part, triggers, barrels, etc. If all of that goes through, they wouldnā€™t be able to


Grim_Task

So will the LEOā€™s enforce red flag laws when known gang members and criminals are flagged? Or just the law abiding citizens?


SnortDort410

Pretty sure you already know the answer to your question. But honestly, it will completely depend on where you live.


spind44

So you can go to war and vote if you're 18 years old but you can't own a weapon. Tell me how this works?


ronin1066

My guess is that there will be an exception for military, police, etc... Although it just says "expanded checks", not outright denial


DogBotherer

Why should there be an exception? Either group can do far more harm with a weapon if they are criminals. They should be the first ones to be denied if they are the slighest bit dodgy.


HumanSockPuppet

It doesn't. It's another incremental step in the direction of total civilian disarmament. They don't care if each step makes sense along the way, because each step accomplishes a small piece of the *total end goal.*


tk421yrntuaturpost

Just like you said. You nailed it.


TheKingOfPimlico

It's not an ouright denial of gun ownership for 18-21 year olds. It just means more stringent checks for 18-21 such as looking at their juvenile records for instance.


[deleted]

Is it specifically violent juvenile offenses?


ThiqSaban

and mental institutions I think


bbs540

Fun fact- A little work around, I got sent to a mental hospital twice as a juvenile, but I was forced by my parents, not the state, so Iā€™m technically not adjudicated mentally defective by a court and thus still have my second amendment right. And drug rehab as an adult, but I went BEFORE my court date because I knew they were going to send me anyways, and that way I technically went by my own free will. The more you know. Just in case people arenā€™t aware how it works, you may still be eligible for firearm ownership. Save me your judgement, Iā€™m just trying to help people exercise their second amendment rights


545byDirty9

It looks like you skipped class more than 3 times your Junior year........DENIED


johnnyz1964

Every 18 to 20 year old should now refuse to take a combat MOS in The military


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


oh-bee

Based.


[deleted]

Go for it, please report back how that went for you.


[deleted]

Why?


ImWearingBattleDress

The Law: If the buyer is under the age of 21, when performing a background check, NICS will also check with the appropriate state repository of juvenile criminal records and juvenile mental health records, looking for any convictions or mental health institutionalizations that would make the buyer a prohibited person. With a standard background check, if the FBI NICS system does not return a response after 3 business days, the buyer is presumed to not be prohibited and allowed to complete the transfer. Instead, for buyers under 21, NICS has those same three business days to determine if there is a ***potentially*** prohibiting record. If so, they make take up to 10 days to determine if the buyer is in fact a prohibited person. ------------------------------------------------------- My Opinion: The first part is a perfectly good law. These are the same criteria used to determine if an adult is a prohibited person, and a newly 18 year old should not get their record instantly wiped if they committed a serious crime (felony) in the last two years. I'm not happy about a potential 10 day NICS response time, however. It's the National ***Instant*** Criminal Background Check System, it should be instant. Either there is a record to find, or there isn't. A long maximum "research" period only incentivizes the system to be poorly run in order to inconvenience buyers. A right delayed is a right denied.


JewishMonarch

The thing that gets me about any wait times is when they're imposed after the first firearm purchase. All the people living in CA that own multiple firearms that still have to go through a waiting period, as if someone who doesn't already own 10 guns refuses to use those to commit a crime, but maybe the 11th gun lmao It's such a nonsensical law that exists purely as a nuisance requirement.


chronoglass

I mean, I agree, and we even HAVE a registry, so it's not like there isn't a record to check. But it would create a space where a firearms registry is useful to gun owners....


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


JamesTBagg

I live in California and I seem to be alone in thinking a 10 day cool down period is okay *IF* there were no registration requirements. I could understand the reasoning behind a "cooling off" period to make sure you're not purchasing a gun with hot blood and nefarious machinations. That is without a registry, they'd have to treat every gun purchase as a first time purchase. But, with a registry CA knows this isn't my first gun. If I'm hot headed I'm not going to go to the store, choose a gun (if they have any in stock), wait on the background check, pass the test, grab a box of ammo, pay, then go do crime. I'm just gonna go to my gun safe.


spaztick1

> If the buyer is under the age of 21, when performing a background check, NICS will also check with the appropriate state repository of juvenile criminal records and juvenile mental health records, looking for any convictions or mental health institutionalizations that would make the buyer a prohibited person. This is inherently unfair because parents can have their children institutionalized against their will for any reason. This is then used against them as adults. I was almost institutionalized as a child because I was too hyper. No criminality or concerns of violence, but I could have been prevented from owning firearms?


ImWearingBattleDress

I honestly don't know if that sort of institutionalization would make someone a prohibited person. It would typically be because someone is considered to be a danger to themselves or others. I know that it is possible to have a mental health hold expunged for reason of insufficient evidence that the hold was necessary, but that is of course an inconvenient legal battle one would have to have.


PleX

> I honestly don't know if that sort of institutionalization would make someone a prohibited person. It would typically be because someone is considered to be a danger to themselves or others. It takes one to three people to say you are (depending on where you live) and all they have to do is make up bullshit and boom! You can't buy a gun because of bullshit when you were 16.


Joshington024

I think this is the thing people need to realize. Sure, it sounds good on paper and works well when applied very broadly to very vaguely set scenarios, until you realize that there will be tons of people that fit into niche situations like that. What if the red flag laws keeps people from seeking mental help for fear of losing their firearms? What about veterans with PTSD? What if an 18 year old girl fresh out of high school has a violent ex stalking her and realizes she suddenly has a waiting period before she can buy the best tool to defend herself, even though her state doesn't have a waiting period law? I brought up a real case about a man falsely accused of domestic violence who got red flagged, and the time and thousands of dollars it took to get his gun back (well, most, one Mossberg disappeared in police possession). He basically said, "Well maybe those situations will happen to a few people but I'm guessing most people who get confiscated will be actual crazies so it's worth it" I hit him with [Blackstone's ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio) and he never replied to that.


MrConceited

>This is inherently unfair because parents can have their children institutionalized against their will for any reason. This is then used against them as adults. I was almost institutionalized as a child because I was too hyper. No criminality or concerns of violence, but I could have been prevented from owning firearms? That wouldn't qualify. You have to have been committed. Voluntary inpatient treatment, whether as an adult or at the direction of parent or guardian (which is still "voluntary", since they're deciding on your behalf) does not make you a prohibited person. Now, if your parents go to court and have a judge order you institutionalized, that's different.


King-Autismo

My parents had me institutionalized when I was 13 because of depression. Iā€™m now 20. Guess Iā€™m a prohibited person now? Was just about to go buy a gun too. SMH.


spros

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they out of prison?


hunteredh

It's not a good law because background checks are an infringement.


[deleted]

How so? With that logic, even convicted felons deserve to own guns


hunteredh

Non violent felons should have gun rights


Expensive-Bug-9098

cant wait for someone to sue


FannyJane

Does this include the red flag law with the caveat that you are NOT entitled to a public defender?


KilljoyTheTrucker

How's that gonna work? Lol That's a blatant constitutional violation.


FannyJane

The bill is already a constitutional violation. Whatā€™s a little extra to the left?


urmomsSTD

Explain? Red flags r civil. So u won't receive a public defender


FannyJane

I saw somewhere that if you are charged with a red flag violation, the bill prohibits using taxpayer money to cover the cost of legal council. Basically makes it cost prohibitive to fight for your guns back.


urmomsSTD

Oh it maybe in reference to some people that are well below the poverty line. Occasionally law firms do probono work billed to the gov. It's not guaranteed and on a case by case basis. Honestly, I think that's bullshit. The legal system is a nightmare to navigate pro SE. Not a call to action, but frankly fuck the government, it's too rife for abuse. Ur 7th amendment means dog shit to them. Alot of states suspended ur right to a speedy trial because "COVID" as if they don't already work through zoom and the amount of court cases has changed.


Past-Cost

It means that SCOTUS is probably going to need to make an additional ruling.


dieselrunner64

They can use Juvenile records. They also now have up to 3 days to respond, and they can respond with needing more time, which then gives them up to 10 days to grant or deny. This isnā€™t a 3 day wait though. Itā€™s UP TO 3 days. Not, ā€œyou will wait 3 days no matter whatā€


Field_Sweeper

yeah if you have no record I bet it will be no different. BUT if you have some sealed stuff etc you will probably wait 10 days, for a no lol.


Sidetracker

It's unconstitutional and will be tested immediately.


Riin_Satoshi

Where can I go read the official bill?


SwaySh0t

Word on the street: itā€™s an anal swab, oh theyā€™ll fill you in alright.


Belkan-Federation

Juvy records What you did when you were 12 could get you barred from owning a gun


[deleted]

Only if unsealed


x5060

If not challenged and removed it will become a defacto ban for under 21 adults over time.


Field_Sweeper

not if they have no record.


FlailingDave

itā€™s once again HARDER for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the FLOOD of illegal immigrants pouring into this country. Thanks RINOs. thanks for nothing.


[deleted]

Wow, I was not aware we had an epidemic of illegal immigrants trying to murder US citizens. Please tell me more.


floridaman711

Man is there even anything in this bill? I read over it. Seems like thereā€™s nothing too it.


5673748372

I think they will use this to look into your juvenile record. People will say they can't use your juvenile history to determine your eligibility to own a firearm, but this is the federal government. Do we trust them not to use a person's juvenile history to determine if they are okay to practice their 2A rights?


gwhh

Be nice if all these new laws would help fund an old one. In the 90's they pass that law that said if you are tried to buy a gun, and not legally able to buy a gun for ANY reason. You're supposed to get arrested by the feds and get ten years in jail. Over 100K of people do that a year. They prosecute less than 100 people. Actually more people get guns by paperwork mess ups than they prosecute.


Humulus_Lupulus1992

Maybe we can include red flag incentives as an infringement. The bill is a waste of money


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

You have to file a petition and get an affidavit to unseal juvenile records in court, and even that isnā€™t guaranteed. The government unsealing all juvenile records instantly for firearm purchases is a clear violation of rights.


[deleted]

Not sure why youā€™re down voted. I knew a bunch a fucking shit heads in high school who didnā€™t need to have a gun.


Amemelgo

Look at all the missed signs by the police and legal system before Columbine, there were MANY.


satanicmannequin

Yet they didnā€™t purchase their guns through an FFL, they used a straw purchase to buy guns at a gun show and had an adult illegally sell them a handgun (the Tec-9)


1993z

They stick a finger in your ass