Biden’s Gun Policies In His Own Words

[Bartholomew Roberts]

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/#

End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.


Hold adults accountable for giving minors access to firearms. Biden supports legislation holding adults criminally and civilly liable for directly or negligently giving a minor access to a firearm, regardless of whether the minor actually gains possession of the firearm.


Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. Biden will incentivize the adoption of these laws by giving states funds to implement them. And, he’ll direct the U.S. Department of Justice to issue best practices and offer technical assistance to states interested in enacting an extreme risk law.


Close the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston loophole allows people to complete a firearms purchase if their background check is not completed within three business days. Biden supports the proposal in the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which extends the timeline from three to 10 business days.



Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm.


Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.

[Nathan]

This is soooo transparent....omg.

[Double Naught Spy]

It doesn't appear that Joe Biden wrote any of that. It all appears to be the work of campaign staff writers. That may be his intent, but not his actual words.

[FITASC]

Biden didn't write this - he doesn't remember where he is half the time; so who actually wrote it?

[44 AMP]

Doesn't matter who wrote it. Biden approved it, or, if he didn't, and is actually unaware of it, then he's the wrong guy to choose, for just that reason alone.

What really bothers me most is the line about Federal Law protecting ducks more than children...

that is just so wrong....

of course, Biden is the guy who said to shoot through the door or just fire your shotgun in the air to defend yourself...

one that I personally saw was when he was VP and was asked directly why the administration prosecuted so few people for illegally trying to buy a gun from a dealer.

His answer was a dismissive hand wave and the statement, "We don't have time for that".

[CleanDean]

Whatever Biden has approved of , or endorsed for the citizens of the USA is minimal and minuscule.
His agenda for years has only been self serving, & to find loopholes in standing laws ,only to further his own finances.
One of the most corrupt " professional politicians" of all time !

[Aguila Blanca]

From the special rules applicable to this discussion area:

Discussions in this forum will be centered upon legal issues as they relate to the 2nd Amendment and other Civil Rights. Constitutional law (which would encompass separation of powers, the impairment of contracts clause, the full faith and credit clause, etc., as well as the Bill of Rights) will also be on topic. Straight political discussions or partisan politics will be off topic. Our primary test for partisan politics in this forum is the mention of candidate's or party names. While some political discussion will necessarily crop up as an adjunct to the civil rights issue(s) of the individual thread(s), we expect that this will be a much smaller part of the discussion at hand.

(Emphasis added)

Closed.

[Aguila Blanca]

Re-opened. After discussion, the staff feels that this election is sufficiently pivotal that we'll allow the discussion to proceed.

[BarryLee]

While we may end up with a Second Amendment friendly court might even they find that these laws do not violate the 2A? I realize the proposals are onerous and useless, but again are they technically a violation of the 2A?

[Rangerrich99]

Part of the problem is that the SCOTUS hasn't even seen a 2nd Amendment case in years. They pretty much just refuse to do so. At least up to now.

So CA or NY or IL can pass these types of laws and effectively get away with it, simply because the SCOTUS won't hear a case having to do with the 2nd.

And what that party intends to do is make CA/NY types of gun control laws operable at the federal level. In effect, they want to criminalize the ownership of 99% of guns/ammo/reloading equipment currently manufactured/owned by the private citizen.

Every single person a gun forum could become a felon at the stroke of a pen. Biden/Harris have already said that they would use EOs if Congress didn't enact the type of legislation listed above within 100 days of their taking office.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

While we may end up with a Second Amendment friendly court might even they find that these laws do not violate the 2A? I realize the proposals are onerous and useless, but again are they technically a violation of the 2A?

What laws?

Biden hasn't proposed any laws, nor has the House or the Senate. What's on the table at the moment is campaign rhetoric. The SCOTUS doesn't rule on concepts, it rules on specific laws. It's useless to speculate on the constitutionality of any of Biden's proposals until they have been cast as specific language in specific, proposed legislation.

[Mike38]

So CA or NY or IL can pass these types of laws and effectively get away with it,...

Not at all true about Illinois. I live in Illinois and....

I just bought a pistol off of Gallery of Guns.

Recently had two cases of ammo delivered directly to my front porch. Transaction through Target Sports USA.

Own an "Evil Black Rifle" and dozens of 30 round magazines for it.

Chicago doesn't cover the entire state. I don't care one bit what they do in Chicago. There are just as many people down state as there are in that city.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by Mike38

Not at all true about Illinois. I live in Illinois and....

I just bought a pistol off of Gallery of Guns.

Recently had two cases of ammo delivered directly to my front porch. Transaction through Target Sports USA.

Own an "Evil Black Rifle" and dozens of 30 round magazines for it.

Chicago doesn't cover the entire state. I don't care one bit what they do in Chicago. There are just as many people down state as there are in that city.

Really?

Is there a mandated 'waiting period' when buying a firearm?

Do you require a license or FOID card to buy or sell a gun?

Are you legally responsible if you unwittingly sell a gun to a mentally challenged person?

What requirements must be met to carry concealed?

Who decides how long you must wait and what conditions must be met to buy/sell/carry a gun?

[Geezerbiker]

I wouldn't be surprised Robert (beto) O'Rork wrote that. I recall Biden saying he would appoint him to be his gun Czar.

Tony

[44 AMP]

OK, we have Biden's gun policies, "straight from the horse's mouth". Or the other end of the horse, ..opinions vary...

So, this is where he is. What is there to discuss?? Your (and my) opinion of the man, his health, mental state, fitness for office and things like that are all OFF TOPIC here.

A political candidate's policies are pipe dreams, until that candidate attains office, AND then tries to turn them into reality. At that point they become bills hoping to be passed into law. Until that point, and not before, they become something real, and not just political posturing.

we are near the end of one of the most vitriolic election campaigns in living memory. Both sides are spouting their most extreme and adversarial rhetoric now, and will be up until the election. And probably after...

That IS politics and we don't do politics in THIS forum. Not because we think it shouldn't be discussed, but because past experience has shown it shouldn't be discussed HERE.

The internet is full of other places for that. Go there and express yourself.

If you're going to post here, in the Law & Civil Rights forum, keep within the rules. ALL of them.
The rules in L& CR aren't the same as other websites, and aren't the same as other forums on the Firing Line. They are strict, and we have reason for that. Read them, BEFORE you post.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I am not understanding this reluctance to discuss what (name omitted) if elected will do and what that means. Seems like a topic tailor made for this forum which is LAW and CIVIL RIGHTS.

So, I'll guess we'll just have to wait till (name omitted) or (name omitted) wins and gets into office and what they do or don't do. Puzzling to me though.

[Thomas Clarke]

With the Senate's approval of the appointment to the Supreme Court of Judge Barrett, there is virtually no chance that the Second Amendment will be reduced. Her appointment gives a clear Pro-Gun majority to the court, greater than any seen since the 1890s which gave Separate But Equal a very long run. The only way the Second Amendment haters can win in the long run is the death or resignation of 3 of the 6 Justices.

[Mike38]

Rangerrich99 wrote: Really?

Yes really. You claimed the 6 items in the original post are mandated or law in the state of Illinois. That is false.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by Mike38

Yes really. You claimed the 6 items in the original post are mandated or law in the state of Illinois. That is false.

Uh, no.

what I said was that states like NY, CA, IL (and whatever others because I was too lazy to list them all) have had the ability to pass "these types of laws." et cetera and so forth.

I generalized.

I did not say or even imply that those states had passed all and every one of those 'laws' specifically.


You're trying to be specific for some reason.

[44 AMP]

I am not understanding this reluctance to discuss what (name omitted) if elected will do and what that means. Seems like a topic tailor made for this forum which is LAW and CIVIL RIGHTS.

Consider that the points given are what the candidate is promising to do, and we should all know by now what campaign promises are worth. Less than what we pay for them, generally...

Consider that those points are what the candidate MAY TRY to do IF he gets elected. MAY...TRY...IF....

Not reality, NOT a forgone conclusion.

Might as well waste our time discussing the trigger pull weight of a Glock double stack .50 BMG pocket pistol.

Wait..what? There is no such thing??
yep. And there may never be...

its like the zombie apocky-cliips and other TEOTWAWKI ideas, some folks like to discuss things that aren't reality, and there's lots of places for that. Just not here.

We're not completely inflexible, but we're no longer as tolerant as we were when we saw the Legal & Political forum melt down in 2008.

we had rules then, but too many people got too involved with not only the "what ifs" but also uncivil political rants and arguments.

In the end drastic measures were required. There is no longer a Legal & Political forum (though it is archived for your viewing). There is now Law & Civil Rights forum. NOT the same as the old forum, and apparently not what some posters think it is, or should be.

As I see it, wasting time discussion what a candidate hopes to do is just that, a waste of time. Discussing what they CAN do, is something for specific evaluation.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

With the Senate's approval of the appointment to the Supreme Court of Judge Barrett, there is virtually no chance that the Second Amendment will be reduced. Her appointment gives a clear Pro-Gun majority to the court, greater than any seen since the 1890s which gave Separate But Equal a very long run. The only way the Second Amendment haters can win in the long run is the death or resignation of 3 of the 6 Justices.

I'm pleased by the prospect of Barrett's confirmation, however you can foresee another couple of vacancies within the next four years. I hope you are right, but I see the need to for something better than a 6-3 majority friendly to the COTUS. I'll settle for 9-0.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Discussing what they CAN do, is something for specific evaluation.

I think that is what I and others are saying. I get it about the personal attacks. I was there in 2008. However, a big blue tsunami might be headed our way in a few days and maybe we should take what that side says they are going to do seriously now? When President (name omitted) signs the AR-15 "buyback" then what?

This isn't TEOTWAWKI and no one has mentioned zombies (Except you) and so this is not a flight of fancy. A real sea change may be coming if (name omitted) loses and the Senate goes blue. Isn't that worth discussion now? Or do we wait till the bills are signed?

[Aguila Blanca]

This isn't TEOTWAWKI and no one has mentioned zombies (Except you) and so this is not a flight of fancy. A real sea change may be coming if (name omitted) loses and the Senate goes blue. Isn't that worth discussion now? Or do we wait till the bills are signed?

I prefer to wait until the bills are proposed. Then we have something concrete to discuss and to respond to. Until then ... it's like Don Quixote, jousting against windmills.

[doofus47]

Considering Uncle Joe's running mate, I would expect any gun legislation proposed in his possible term to closely resemble that from California.
And long mandatory sentences...
Just a guess.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I prefer to wait until the bills are proposed

I think that horse has left the barn? https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/# and then https://democrats.org/where-we-stand...-gun-violence/.

So, when can we talk about this. Just my personal opinion but if you let the pendulum swing too far the other way, censoring too much discussion, will make for a rather dull and uninteresting forum. Nevertheless, it's not my board so that is just an observation.

When did you join the company as a mod anyway?