Tennessee GOP governor signs executive order strengthening background checks

[ThatRobGuy]

Tennessee GOP governor signs executive order strengthening background checks

Lee signed the order amid heightened tensions after two Democrats, both Black men, were expelled from the General Assembly for protesting on the House floor against gun violence.

www.nbcnews.com

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signed an executive order Tuesday to strengthen background checks and called on the General Assembly to pass the equivalent of a red flag law.

Lee said at a news conference that the order would ensure that information-sharing “more closely guarantees the safe, lawful purchase of firearms in Tennessee.”


He also said legislation was needed to address shortcomings in existing gun laws.

“Our current law is proven and effective in many circumstances, especially with regards to domestic violence, but this new stronger order of protection law will provide the broader population cover, safety, from those who are in danger to themselves or to the population,” Lee said.



There's a couple different motivations at play here (and forgive me for being cynical)

1) Bill Lee honestly understands that a lot of voters want additional restrictions on guns, and is signaling to them that he cares about the issue as well. (and perhaps he does)

2) He's doing something that he thinks the General Assembly won't take up (so it's a "pretend to want to do something, while knowing that nothing will actually get done" type of thing...sort of like the Biden executive orders on climate action)

3) This is a ploy to use various "cherry-pickable" mental health & suicide statistics as a basis of stripping transgender people of their gun rights in response to more and more of them making a conscious effort to arm themselves for self-defense. Knowing that fighting against anything that's "a form of gun control" is a lose-lose for democrats, they can't really argue against it. In essence, a form of gun control (that's one of the few that some in the GOP would be on-board with) that's not sincere, but that the democrats can't argue against because it would be spun into "well, why don't want you want to stop dangerous people from getting guns?!?! I thought you guys wanted gun control???"

 

[seeking.IAM]

Token effort. Not enough. Many of U.S.'s mass shooters can pass background checks, having no prior arrests or mental health adjudications.

 

[FireDragon76]

I see nothing in the article about prohibiting gun sales to transpeople.

People with mental disorders, like depression, should not be buying guns.

 

[disciple Clint]

Tennessee GOP governor signs executive order strengthening background checks

Lee signed the order amid heightened tensions after two Democrats, both Black men, were expelled from the General Assembly for protesting on the House floor against gun violence.

www.nbcnews.com

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signed an executive order Tuesday to strengthen background checks and called on the General Assembly to pass the equivalent of a red flag law.

Lee said at a news conference that the order would ensure that information-sharing “more closely guarantees the safe, lawful purchase of firearms in Tennessee.”


He also said legislation was needed to address shortcomings in existing gun laws.

“Our current law is proven and effective in many circumstances, especially with regards to domestic violence, but this new stronger order of protection law will provide the broader population cover, safety, from those who are in danger to themselves or to the population,” Lee said.



There's a couple different motivations at play here (and forgive me for being cynical)

1) Bill Lee honestly understands that a lot of voters want additional restrictions on guns, and is signaling to them that he cares about the issue as well. (and perhaps he does)

2) He's doing something that he thinks the General Assembly won't take up (so it's a "pretend to want to do something, while knowing that nothing will actually get done" type of thing...sort of like the Biden executive orders on climate action)

3) This is a ploy to use various "cherry-pickable" mental health & suicide statistics as a basis of stripping transgender people of their gun rights in response to more and more of them making a conscious effort to arm themselves for self-defense. Knowing that fighting against anything that's "a form of gun control" is a lose-lose for democrats, they can't really argue against it. In essence, a form of gun control (that's one of the few that some in the GOP would be on-board with) that's not sincere, but that the democrats can't argue against because it would be spun into "well, why don't want you want to stop dangerous people from getting guns?!?! I thought you guys wanted gun control???"

If he truly wants to help, he can create an executive order to improve mental health treatment in his state, that would benefit everyone.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I see nothing in the article about prohibiting gun sales to transpeople.

People with mental disorders, like depression, should not be buying guns.

Well, imho,trans/hybrid persons have a mental disorder.

 

[Yttrium]

Well, imho,trans/hybrid persons have a mental disorder.

They'd have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Although that does bring up the tricky question of whether gender dysphoria would count as a mental disorder that would prevent someone from getting a gun. If it did, well, people could just stop getting diagnosed. It's not like people have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria these days to identify as the opposite sex. Depending on the state, I guess.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They'd have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Although that does bring up the tricky question of whether gender dysphoria would count as a mental disorder that would prevent someone from getting a gun. If it did, well, people could just stop getting diagnosed. It's not like people have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria these days to identify as the opposite sex. Depending on the state, I guess.

That's where the "#3" came from on my list.

The fact that a southern GOP governor quickly issued an executive order that's tantamount to a "red flag law" (something that's often rejected by GOP voters and politicians) makes me wonder if the intent behind it is really to apply this red flag law evenly, or is it a response to groups like Pink Pistols and Rainbow Reload popping up, that have the explicit purpose of helping LGBT people arm themselves for self-defense, so that some southern anti-LGBT types can keep certain people disarmed so they don't have to worry anyone "fighting back" or "standing their ground" when they show up to harass them at certain events.

Similar to the disingenuous push for gun control Reagan made in California back in the 60's, where it really wasn't about controlling guns for everyone, it was about making sure "certain people" didn't have them, so that certain other people (who were in a position of societal and institutional power) could continue mistreating them without having to worry about those "certain people" turning the tables on them and potentially fighting back.


I guess the proof will be in the pudding. If Lee's emergency order starts getting enforced, and the percentage of confiscations heavily skewed toward one group (disproportionate to the group's representation in the population), that'll be telling. For instance, if 7 out of 10 people getting their gun confiscated under this order are LGBT, it'll be pretty evident what's happening.

Although, I'm willing to see how it shakes out and see if they do the right thing and enforce it evenly.

The other caveat could be that Bill Lee is sincere and has no hidden intent, but the people tasked with actually enforcing it in various localities use/abuse it for the purpose I mentioned above.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, imho,trans/hybrid persons have a mental disorder.

I am opposed to anything that stigmatizes trans people as dangerous. The opposite is in fact the reality, a trans person is more likely to be the victim of violence than the perpetrator. Particularly trans women of color.

What happened in Tennessee had more to do with the easy availability of assault weapons, than a person's gender identity. AR-15's shouldn't be in civilian hands unless they are licensed and registered.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I am opposed to anything that stigmatizes trans people as dangerous. The opposite is in fact the reality, a trans person is more likely to be the victim of violence than the perpetrator. Particularly trans women of color.

What happened in Tennessee had more to do with the easy availability of assault weapons, than a person's gender identity. AR-15's shouldn't be in civilian hands unless they are licensed and registered.

Well, stigmatization should not be done to any person. And I agree that trans/hybrids are more likely to be attacked. And I also agree that easy access to assault rifles is a big problem. Yet, how do you really regulate the sale of guns in America? The gun lobbyists have deep pockets. Our politicians can be bought.

 

[FireDragon76]

.. And I also agree that easy access to assault rifles is a big problem. Yet, how do you really regulate the sale of guns in America? The gun lobbyists have deep pockets. Our politicians can be bought.

If Americans get tired enough of the carnage, they will get tired of the politicians that listen to the gun lobby.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If Americans get tired enough of the carnage, they will get tired of the politicians that listen to the gun lobby.

I think there are plenty who are already tired of seeing it, and the majority of Americans (even the majority of gun owners) support some of the gun control measures.


I think this is another one of those issues where if people had a figurative "a la carte menu" instead of having to select a "combo meal", we'd see some very different voting patterns on this.

However, if there are basically only two "option packages" available, people tend to vote on whatever side they're closer to (even if it's just a tad to the left or right of center).

Gun control would probably get more traction if it was done on a line-item basis, incrementally, starting with the things the highest numbers of people agree on.

For instance:

Slam Dunks:
Universal Background Checks have 88% support
Waiting periods have 78% support (including support from 53% of gun owners)
Raising the age from 18 to 21 (91% support overall, 64% support from gun owners)

A little less certain:
Gun registries. 70% support overall, but only 42% support among gun owners
Magazine Capacity Restrictions have about 55% overall (but with only 40% among gun owners)


Things that are almost certain to fail:
Assault weapons bans, barely half of Americans (overall) support those, and only a quarter of gun owners do.
And measures aimed at restricting handguns is almost a non-starter as 73% of people oppose that

Same would go for measures aimed at restricting ones ability to conceal carry, as when asked the question of whether or not a person should be allowed to do it (if they pass a check and training course), 53% of Americans say yes.


Often times when proposals come up, it's usually some sort of packages that contains some from each list, and the ones on the bottom list act as something of a poison pill that get people to vote against the whole thing (when if given the individual options, the items from the top list would almost certainly pass, and they may even get items from the "maybe" list to go through depending on who's in office and the current climate)

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

If he truly wants to help, he can create an executive order to improve mental health treatment in his state, that would benefit everyone.

I'm sure most people in his state don't want to pay for such things.

 

[Nithavela]

I see nothing in the article about prohibiting gun sales to transpeople.

People with mental disorders, like depression, should not be buying guns.

In todays society, who doesn't have some kind of mental disorder?

 

[disciple Clint]

This relates to post #12, I hit reply but for some reason it did not attach the post. They are going to pay for it one way or another anyway, much better to pay for it in a way that benefits people rather that creating victims.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Token effort. Not enough. Many of U.S.'s mass shooters can pass background checks, having no prior arrests or mental health adjudications.

a background have to start somewhere. The biggest thing and this would not be perfect and would be hard to "enforce" but I have seen a number of mass shootings stopped ( read about) where someone had the nerve to basically rat on the would-be shooter. A background check would not show what has not happened yet, but the above has been known to have stopped quite a few.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think there are plenty who are already tired of seeing it, and the majority of Americans (even the majority of gun owners) support some of the gun control measures.


I think this is another one of those issues where if people had a figurative "a la carte menu" instead of having to select a "combo meal", we'd see some very different voting patterns on this.

However, if there are basically only two "option packages" available, people tend to vote on whatever side they're closer to (even if it's just a tad to the left or right of center).

Gun control would probably get more traction if it was done on a line-item basis, incrementally, starting with the things the highest numbers of people agree on.

For instance:

Slam Dunks:
Universal Background Checks have 88% support
Waiting periods have 78% support (including support from 53% of gun owners)
Raising the age from 18 to 21 (91% support overall, 64% support from gun owners)

A little less certain:
Gun registries. 70% support overall, but only 42% support among gun owners
Magazine Capacity Restrictions have about 55% overall (but with only 40% among gun owners)


Things that are almost certain to fail:
Assault weapons bans, barely half of Americans (overall) support those, and only a quarter of gun owners do.
And measures aimed at restricting handguns is almost a non-starter as 73% of people oppose that
View attachment 330081
Same would go for measures aimed at restricting ones ability to conceal carry, as when asked the question of whether or not a person should be allowed to do it (if they pass a check and training course), 53% of Americans say yes.


Often times when proposals come up, it's usually some sort of packages that contains some from each list, and the ones on the bottom list act as something of a poison pill that get people to vote against the whole thing (when if given the individual options, the items from the top list would almost certainly pass, and they may even get items from the "maybe" list to go through depending on who's in office and the current climate)

I personally oppose pretty much all control for two reasons. Reason number 1 is the people that need the gun laws do not care and since the cat is out of the bag with so many guns already around and many of the crimes are committed by people who should not have them anyway either already convicted felons underage ect not talking about school shootings here just shootings in general. My second reason is that quite frankly I do not trust the government to stop. What I DO support is being stricter about ENFORCING the laws we already have on the books. Plea bargains are important and just about the only way our current justice system could even work, but people found to have committed certain gun crimes more than just carrying should have a limit as to the plea bargain they can get I also like how the czech Republic allows most people to regain their gun rights a certain time post-conviction why should a person whose conviction had nothing to do with guns or violence be preclued from own guns for life? Particularly when certain violent misdemeanors either have no bearing on gun rights or only have such bearing for a certain period of time. The exception being family violence which carries a life time ban even as a misdemeanor.