Correction: Sen. Murkowski was not one of 10 Republicans to announce support for new gun control measures. Murkowski said the group’s announcement was an encouraging step, but she has not yet given it her backing.
On June 14, Sen. Lisa Murkowski signaled that she may be open enacting gun control measures, after a group of 10 Republicans joined nine Democrats and one independent in announcing proposed restrictions on firearm buyers, owners and sellers.
The measures, announced on June 12 and still in draft form, proport to incentivize states to pass red flag laws, fund mental health and school safety programs, increase background check protocols for those under age 21, make it more difficult for someone to purchase a gun for another person and allocate crisis intervention resources, among other issues.
While still under construction the legislative package has already drawn support from many Democrats who have long wanted to impose new gun restrictions across the country. It doesn’t contain every gun control measure that Democrats want, but President Joe Biden said on Sunday that it would be “the most significant gun safety legislation to pass Congress in decades.”
If Democrats can peel off at least 10 Republicans to support the legislation it would be filibuster proof.
Earlier this month, Murkowski told shooting survivor and gun-control activist David Hogg that Congress “owes some steps” regarding gun violence as senators negotiate a bipartisan deal. On June 16, Murkowski’s Communications Director Karina Borger told the Watchman that Murkowski called the group’s announcement on a framework agreement “an encouraging step and that she will view the details of its final form, once legislative text is finalized, but has not given her support.”
These laws have been criticized as unconstitutional because they impower judges to ignore due process laws and violate the rights of citizens who have committed no crimes.
Kelly Tshibaka, who is running against Murkowski this year, blasted the proposal as an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
“It’s bad enough that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has blessed the negotiations with Democrats over which constitutional rights they can legislate away, but now our senior U.S. senator from Alaska is telling anti-gun activists that she’s open to their demands,” Tshibaka said in a June 12 statement. “Lawful ownership of firearms under the 2nd Amendment is central to our identity as Alaskans, as we use it to provide food for our families and for self-defense. We must address the root causes of violent attacks, such as mental health, rather than blaming inanimate objects. This can’t be understated: Leftists are coming for our guns and after more than 20 years in the Senate, Lisa Murkowski has pledged to help them.”
The plan aims to enact an “enhanced review process” for gun buyers under age 21, while also mandating reviews of a juvenile’s mental health records, including cross references with state databases, before they can purchase a gun.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the legislation is the inclusion of a “red flag” framework, which lets states enact and enforce laws aimed at keeping firearms away from those who have never committed a crime but are nonetheless deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.
These laws have been criticized as unconstitutional because they impower judges to ignore due process laws and violate the rights of citizens who have committed no crimes.
The Republicans who support the proposal include Senators Richard Burr (N.C.), Pat Toomey (PA), Rob Portman (OH), Susan Collins (Maine), Roy Blunt (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Bill Cassidy (LA), John Cornyn (TX), Mitt Romney (Utah) and Lindsey Graham (SC).
13 Comments
So, what’s new ? I mean,.. we’re talking about Rhinokowsky.. We can’t vote her out of office soon enough… Too bad we can’t do it retroactively.
Lisa knows she going to lose her seat. Good Riddance
Thank God.
My understanding of the red-flag provision is federal funding for states and localities to establish their own red-flag laws. Isn’t that true? No one-size-fits-all federal law? And this bill features no manufacturing ban and no assault rifle ban? It offers money for suicide prevention and mental health treatment? Can the Watchman publish the details of this bill, please?
Reggie – when have the states EVER not taken federal monies to set up any programs. The details of the gun grabbing bill are in hundreds of articles and youtube videos. By your comment you are deflecting from RINO Lisa’s support of another Progressive policy.
My comment doesn’t support Senator Murkowski. I want her retired. As a voting Life Member of the NRA for the past 38 years, I also oppose “gun control”. However, I also oppose the possession of weapons by violent felons and the mentally ill, which is “gun control”. This article does not in any way describe the details of the bill, which features no assault rifle ban, no magazine capacity ban, no handgun ban, no gun purchase ban, no gun buyback, no one-size-fits-all federal measure, etc. It offers funding for state and localities specifically for mental health measures (at a time when the entire planet appears to gave gone insane) and red flag measures. The right, classically, has immediately risen in opposition, fueled during this political campaign season by political “news articles” like this one. The point should be what to do about limiting mayhem caused by the mentally ill with firearms. I suppose folks might consider yet another ding in Murkowski’s political life to be progress, but I’m more concerned about my grandchildren’s future navigating through this increasingly insane, armed world.
I haven’t seen the text of the bill(s).. I imagine it’s no short read, but, if it’s treated the same as federal funding for public education, or most everything else they have stuck their hands in, the feds will then demand that they have a say (control) in how things are implemented. Situations that are not necessarily spelled out in the bill(s).. Maybe I am wrong, but we will see.
“……..if it’s treated the same as federal funding for public education, or most everything else they have stuck their hands in, the feds will then demand that they have a say (control) in how things are implemented………”
Then don’t take the money. But it’s still wise to seize the guns from unstable people, especially if they threaten to shoot up a school, no?
Absolutely.. If one makes a threat to shoot up ANY school, home, or business, their weapons should be taken, and due process should always be followed…. When it comes to mental instability, that legally requires due process, and that process has been abused as well… Your spouse can complain, or report you as mentally instable, or a threat because you are in a disagreement, and your spouse is taking revenge.. This has happened many times, and we don’t trample on the rights of American citizens in an un-lawful manner for the sole purpose of revenge..
“…….Your spouse can complain, or report you as mentally instable, or a threat because you are in a disagreement, and your spouse is taking revenge…….”
Yup, and acts like that should be discovered through the due process, known as court proceedings. However, since you bring up “possibilities”, Salvador Ramos didn’t have a spouse. He was an 18 year old high school dropout with no job, and everybody who knew him knew he was troubled. There is a strong possibility that a red flag law could have prevented those 19 deaths. Frankly, I have zero concern about the 2nd Amendment rights of Mr. Ramos or the millions of thugs like him. They threaten everybody, even us many thousands of miles from Uvalde.
What it says deep in the bill is anyone anonymously can call in and question your sanity and start the process of gun confiscation and more, what this bill does is strip your right to due process!!! You now become GUILTY without cause and must prove your innocence !
“What it says deep in the bill is anyone anonymously can call in and question your sanity and start the process of gun confiscation……..”
What page did you find that on?
If I understand it correctly Red -flag law means if we are put in an emergency state our constitution doesn’t hold up. They can take away your guns & you can be accused unlawfully with no legal means to defend yourself.
What the U.S. needs is strict restrictions on TREASONOUS politicians like the Alaska Rino’s!!!