I didn’t look, but I assume this is from Biden’s website on gun control?
Most of this is unacceptable, but there are a few items I could support. Most of my objections revolve around are we punishing people who break the law or punishing gun owners just because they own guns?
Every measure in anyone’s gun control agenda should address what problem are they solving. Does this reduce suicides? Does this reduce gang violence? Does this reduce murder/crime? Does this reduce mass shootings?
Unacceptable. You can’t hold manufacturers liable when a person uses their product illegally.
“This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry” sounds like a blatant lie. Plenty of examples abound, you can’t sue Honda for the actions of a drunk driver, a knife maker if their knife is used in murder, a baseball bat maker if their bat is used in crime.
Unacceptable. Will have zero effect on gun violence deaths in this country.
The number of people killed by what they claim to be an assault weapon (semi-auto rifles) is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. If you confiscated every semi-auto rifle in the country tomorrow, you would have effectively zero percent decrease in gun deaths. Suicides don’t use them, criminals don’t use them (too hard to hide). Good luck getting them from gang-bangers.
As has been seen in several states now, what they are doing is expanding the definition of “assault weapon” to include most semi-autos even pistols and shotguns. So they pass legislation that bans “assault weapons” and then it turns out that Glock 19 you bought during COVID-panic is now illegal too. No thanks.
And you can’t buyback what you never sold to me. It’s using everyone’s tax dollars to buy firearms that will get tossed into a shredder. As we’ve seen in Australia and now most recently New Zealand, they never offer you the full value of what you paid for it. So you lose on so many fronts
Unacceptable. I’m pulling these out because they are particularly disingenuous…
Unacceptable. Unenforceable without nationwide registration (which is a no-no) and without the gubment periodically checking on you to make sure you still have what you say you have and you didn’t sell it. See NYC gun permits and their “inspections” to see what that looks like.
Also, does nothing to stop gun violence. Suicides? Nope. Criminals? Nope. No law-abiding citizen knowingly sells firearms to felons or crazy people.
Unacceptable. The Obama-Biden policy was inadvertently (hopefully not purposefully) removing the rights of wounded Veterans who received disability and had at some point had a mental issue like PTSD or had signed off managing their finances. This is probably the only time ever that I will link to a Vox article, but here you go for more details on why it was bad.
Unacceptable. You should never lose a constitutional right because of a misdemeanor. If it is a “serious” crime, then it should be a felony. Period. Full stop. Do that, and the person loses their gun rights (among others). If it’s not that serious of a crime, you get a misdemeanor and you don’t loose your rights (guns or otherwise).
Unacceptable. There is zero reason a background check should take more than 72 hours. There is very little reason it should take more than 72minutes. We have computers now. What is the hold up? If you extend the time to 10days, that just means the Gubment will take 10 days to decide. It’s not like they are performing extra checks, interviews with friends/family, etc. All of the NICS data is in a database ready to be looked up.
Unacceptable. Another half-truth (more like 1/10th truth).
"Federal law enforcement officials say that about 430,000 names of wanted people removed from the database were from Massachusetts.
Commissioner James Slater of the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services said that the reason that his state had so many fugitives in the FBI database is that state policy required sending the bureau the names of all people with an outstanding warrant, whether it was for misdemeanors or felonies."
Because Massachusetts state law prevents fugitives from buying guns, those individuals have now been added back to the federal database under the “state prohibitor” category and will be prevented from purchasing a firearm, he said.
Source
Unacceptable. Again, won’t do anything to stop gun violence. Suicides? Nope. Criminals? Nope. Mass shootings? Nope.
They throw this one around “Did you know anyone can just buy a gun online!?!?!” As if criminals just order one from Amazon and it shows up on their door.
I am actually loosely OK with this. I need to see the details before I give it a 
though.
Unacceptable. I am already on the fence on ERPOs. I am dubious about their effectiveness to accomplish what they say it will, at the expense of very serious trampling on several constitutional rights, and I’m becoming increasingly convinced there are already existing “better” options (in some states). “Incentivizing” always results in doing more of it even when not needed. We’ve all seen the police when they get quotas to fill, and telling the police to go to more places and take people’s stuff, especially now-a-days just sounds like a poor idea all around.
Unacceptable. Again, won’t do anything to stop gun violence. Suicides? Nope. Criminals? Nope. Mass shootings? Nope.
Unacceptable. Same as the “incentive” for ERPOs. IIRC, we already saw some states throwing all sorts of people into the list just to get their numbers up.
Acceptable. I’m good with giving the FBI money to make sure their computers stay turned on so we don’t run into the 3-day limit. Just don’t incentivize it.
In general, I agree we need to stop domestic violence. But Biden is connecting some dots in, um, interesting ways.
Unacceptable. If memory serves, there was a whole lot of gun control and other stuff pushed into this bill that had nothing to do with women being safe. Some of the things being pushed could actually be weaponized by abusers to remove firearms from their victims. Which is a shame, because also IIRC, there was some good stuff in the bill as well.
Acceptable. There is some stretching here to tie sexual harassment with mass shootings and extremism (like… ISIS? antifa? alt-right?) and violence against women.
All of those should be investigated, and I support that. But Biden’s lumping them all in the same bucket seems… awkward.
Also, the headline says “online harassment”, but the description says “online sexual harassment”. Both need investigating.
Acceptable. On the surface this sounds good, but I need to see details and/or research into Maryland’s program.
Unacceptable. There is another thread on here just on Smart Guns. This is a hard pass.
Unacceptable. This is something that needs a carrot, not a stick.
There are huge swaths of the country where your 5yr old goes out shooting with his/her parents. Where < 18yrs old have successfully defended themselves at home with firearms and there are very few accidents. Homes where a shotgun just sits on the wall, loaded, and no one ever touches it. Why? because the culture of guns in those communities is such that people just grow up with and around them and know how to handle them safely.
For the parts of the country where that is NOT the case… Education on proper storage of firearms, what age you can/should introduce children to firearms, and how to introduce them. Incentives like tax rebates on buying a new safe. This is how you solve this problem.
Unacceptable. See above.
Also worth noting that Biden says the Heller decision was a mistake, which this one is pretty much flying in the face of.
Acceptable. VERY acceptable. Prosecute the law-breakers instead of persecuting the law-abiding always gets a from me.
Mostly Acceptable, but likely not very effective. The problem is that 95% (close to real number) of NICS failures are incorrect denials. Criminals know whether or not they will pass a NICS check and they generally won’t even try it.
Unacceptable. Law-abiding people will immediately report their stuff stolen as soon as they find out, no legal “requirement” is needed. I believe this is meant to give a penalty to someone who claims “oh i lost it a year ago” when their firearm is wrapped up in a crime scene. Right problem, wrong solution. Giving a criminal a slap on the wrist does nothing to the criminal, but for those who lose their firearms and the first they hear about it is when the PoPo shows up at their front door having a fine or misdemeanor (i haven’t seen it a felony) can be life-changing.
You may wonder “who doesn’t know their firearm is stolen?”. I can tell you I know someone who does not shoot often and keeps his firearm locked and in a hidden place that no one frequents (he has multiple small children). If someone stole it the day after he locked it away after his last range trip, it could easily go a year+ before he realized it was missing.
An elderly person who keeps a pistol in the nightstand, doesn’t use/access it much. Maybe a widow keeps around a firearm from their dead spouse “just in case”. Again, it may be years before they realize it was stolen. Sometimes unscrupulous family members, looking for a quick buck will steal Grandpa’s revolver knowing he won’t miss it.
Unacceptable. Criminals just buy their guns on the black market. The only people making “ghost guns” are people keeping it out of the prying eyes of the Gubment… as it should be 
This is also unenforceable.
Acceptable, but probably not in the way Biden is thinking. We have a bajillion (OK i think over 20k?) laws on the books related to firearms. Find the people that break those laws instead of creating new laws to trap otherwise law-abiding citizens.
ATF is Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms… Those three have nothing to do with each other. Sure re-structure it.
Acceptable? I’m not sure the ATF is the right entity for it, but tracking illegal trafficking by straw purchaser bought in one place and sold somewhere else I can appreciate.
Acceptable. Very acceptable. There are programs out there that have helped curb urban violence like Operation Ceasefire in Boston in the early 2000s (late 90s?). They are expensive and take time to work, but they have worked. This path targets the 2nd largest group in “gun violence” which is murders, mostly in urban areas, and mostly gang-related.
There is another thread on here about “Real Solutions for reducing Violent Crime” with other ideas, mostly revolving around giving urban youth a “better option” than violence.
Acceptable, mostly. The CDC is not the right place for this IMO. People quickly forget that Obama allowed the CDC to perform studies to great fanfare from anti-gun groups. The very first (and only?) report the CDC produced was the report that said there are between 500k-3M legal defensive gun uses per year and those gun-using victims had generally lower injury rates… and we never heard another peep about it.
My problem is categorizing this as a Public Health Epidemic. Public, um OK. Health? Epidemic? I’m not sure CDC is best equipped to research suicides (mental health issue), and they certainly aren’t equipped to handle murder/crime, and mass shootings are a mix of both. Murder/Crime can certainly be passed to the FBI, I’m not sure who would best handle suicides.
Unacceptable. He doesn’t have to push for it, nor sign it if it comes on his desk, but prohibit? What problem is this solving? Several states have allowed teachers to be armed (not mandatory in any way) and there hasn’t been a rash of teacher involved shootings. Anecdotally, after Parkland many of the popular firearms instructors noted they had huge increases in requests from teachers and some were offering scholarships/reduced prices to their classes for teachers.
Acceptable. I would like to see more of a comitment to suicide by our Veterans. At one point they were committing suicide at a rate of 22 per day. That is ~8k per year, which is almost a third of all suicides. If we do nothing else other than help our Veterans, we can make a huge dent in these numbers.
Acceptable. I should note, that the fear of school shootings is a product Democrat/MSM making these things worse.
Trauma informed, culturally responsive sounds a bit much but in general I support the idea of supporting those exposed to violence.