In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Lindsey Graham Begins Drafting Gun Confiscation Bill
This is The Red Flag Law so don't become too anti-government or they will use it on you regardless if you take any action by voice or writing about any kind of violence against their laws or constitutional right to hold power over we the people.
serf
Graham argued that red flag laws provide ?enormous? benefits while ensuring due process. This is what President Trump said also.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/04/sen-lindsey-graham-is-drafting-red-flag-gun-confiscation-bill/?utm_medium=webpush&utm_source=push&utm_campaign=push
I?m seeking to incentivize states to produce extreme risk protective order legislation that has ample due process but also is meaningful in protecting the public from somebody who is dangerous,? said Graham.
Graham introduced a similar bill last year alongside Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who is reportedly crafting his own new version of the bill. Graham is aiming for bipartisan support with this bill, too.
Last year?s version of the bill authorized courts to issue a temporary order of up to 14 days after establishing probable cause that an individual was at risk of endangering himself or others. The bill would then mandate a hearing in the first 72 hours after the order, during which an individual would plead his case. The court could go further and ban the individual from purchasing or possessing a gun for up to six months.
serf
Graham argued that red flag laws provide ?enormous? benefits while ensuring due process. This is what President Trump said also.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/04/sen-lindsey-graham-is-drafting-red-flag-gun-confiscation-bill/?utm_medium=webpush&utm_source=push&utm_campaign=push
I?m seeking to incentivize states to produce extreme risk protective order legislation that has ample due process but also is meaningful in protecting the public from somebody who is dangerous,? said Graham.
Graham introduced a similar bill last year alongside Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who is reportedly crafting his own new version of the bill. Graham is aiming for bipartisan support with this bill, too.
Last year?s version of the bill authorized courts to issue a temporary order of up to 14 days after establishing probable cause that an individual was at risk of endangering himself or others. The bill would then mandate a hearing in the first 72 hours after the order, during which an individual would plead his case. The court could go further and ban the individual from purchasing or possessing a gun for up to six months.
Comments
I guess this is how due process works now.
Someone labels you a threat.
Someone else determines that this label constitutes Probable Cause.
Someone else again comes to your door and takes your property.
You then get to attend a hearing to determine if what has been done to you is legal.
In the interim, you have been flagged as a threat, and will, almost without a doubt, be stuck in a database that will take years from which to remove yourself.
Since 1966 there have been 162 'Mass Shootings' (where 4 or more people have been killed).
1,153 people have been killed in these 162 identified Mass Shootings.
162 over 53 years is just over 3 Mass Shooting per year.
1153 people killed over 3 years is just under 22 people killed per year.
By way of comparison, in 2015 there were 46 homicides by illegal immigrants in the State of Texas alone. This is a stat posted by CNN, so I would doubt it is exaggerated.
PolitiFact has extrapolated from existing data sources that the number of homicides committed by undocumented immigrants may be between 450-600 per year. But again, those are guesses, not based on national data sources.
If we look at the big picture, the Federal Government is charged with maintaining our border security. It is not charged with taking firearms from rumored psychopaths. Reasonable estimates are that illegal immigrants kill at lest 20 times the number of people per year than do mass shooters.
It would be a very good thing, IMO, if Mr. Graham and the other idiots on the hill would address something that is Constitutionally their responsibility and is a much bigger problem than emboldening States to play fast and loose with our 5th and 2nd Amendment liberties.
Brad Steele
Can't get reasonable laws to keep mentally ill folks from using firearms for mass murder then it'll be something worse.
Predict a gun sales permit / license will be MUCH more difficult to obtain in the future. When an valuable and hard to obtain permit can be revoked the person holding the license will become MUCH more attentive to who he's selling firearms. Not to mention rich,, think about Real Estate Licenses, dime a dozen 60 years ago. A lot of "brokers" DO NOT have a license, they "rent" the license from a registered broker. A real racket.
Absent prior restraint, how does one keep the undiagnosed metally ill from using firearms.
It what state of freedom can such prior restraint be reasonable?
Brad Steele
Obviously something else is preferable but what? Maybe family intervention and that's probably been going on forever but not talked about. Face the facts, a percentage of people who own guns will suffer from dementia or other mental diseases and their family needs to lockup their firearms before something bad happens.
Turning in your Husband or relative to the government isn't good so why not place his firearms somewhere safe that keeps him from using them. Any form of government confiscation shouldn't be allowed. At the most the government should keep the guns in storage if it comes to that and assist in obtaining private storage.
Face it, when people can't solve a problem the government will step in to save us.
We accept drunk driving deaths as a cost of freedom because there is no reasonable way that prior restraint can be implemented which will eliminate the problem.
Apparently, we as a society have recognized the necessity of owning and operating a vehicle and accept that a small number of people will use that vehicle in a manner that will harm others.
If we accept this as a cost of freedom, I fail to see how it is a stretch to accept that a much smaller number of people will use a firearm in a manner that will harm others as a cost of freedom, particularly when the firearms that are being targeted are the very ones that may be needed to preserve our freedom.
Individuals and families have, as you have stated been self-policing for generations and will continue to do so.
There are some families who will not, and there are some individuals who will show minimal or no warning signs prior to snapping.
IMO, the conversation has be held on this level, as the false belief that this problem can be solved (be it through onerous background checks and/or speculative prior restraint) will do nothing but infringe upon our freedoms and liberties.
Brad Steele