Trump looking at literally grabbing guns, and I agree

[Big Nasty Edison]

This seems fine to me.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

If it's good for Trump it's good for me.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

I like the idea of the feds going to the states for direction on the what's and how's of this idea.

I think this is a step in the right direction for the pro-2A and the anti-gun people to find a middle ground.

They need to figure out the due process part before I can fully get on board. Is it a matter of someone being 302'd? Is it if a restraining order has been taken out? Is it a paper trail of run-ins with the law? Would one call out for domestic violence be enough for temporary suspension of a right?

Etc.

 

[Mark Cutting]

Never!

The bern shall rise again!!

I'm sure he's skulking around in one his 3 homes or something

 

[usmctanker242]

Well in all states they can already use force to protect you from yourself or others, and force a 72 hour psychiatric evaluation.

The only difference here is that not only can they force you into a rubber room for 72 hours, they can take your guns too.

Seems reasonable to me.

They have to provide evidence in a court room to justify this. You can then hire legal council to have the guns returned.

Yeah, their is risk here. It's all fun and games until internet posts become a reason to take people's guns. That seems like a good idea when the Florida shooter says he wants to be a professional school shooter, but from my point of view, maybe not so much if you are critical of US foreign policy, or talk openly of political revolution. This is where disclosure in court becomes key.

I'm not sure if I could support this, if any info presented could be deemed classified.

You don't see an issue here with potential for abuse and fraud? People have been talking about a slippery slope for a long time and this is a horrible first step in the lubrication of that slope. So ARMED people will show up at your door, remove you from your home, confiscate your legally owned weapon, and hold you for ~72 hours on a whim? I can't believe people are so fucking blind to see what's really going on here and are just following along with this absurd motion.

Fuck all of this and fuck every single person who supports this kind of incarceration without due process. I brought this up a few years ago after I think the Newtown shooting and everybody was saying this same kind of bullshit. Who is going to make the determination that some person sitting in their home is now a threat to society? Is it going to be a trained criminal psychologist... if not, who will hold that kind of authority? I'm very concerned about this issue because I've been medically diagnosed with PTSD / Depression / Alcoholism... if this law were enacted how much "due process" would it take for an armed government official to show up at my house and steal my weapons?

Also, you're OK that someone would have to hire a legal council to get their weapons returned?

 

[HAWTRIDDUM]

Take guns away from people, and organized crime is going to make a shitload of money selling them new ones.

Another scenario is people start building pipe guns after theirs are taken away.

This is merely a bandaid on the situation.

I think the fact that most of these shooters are on multiple psychoactive prescription meds is a far bigger issue, but good luck getting over on the pharma lobbyists in D.C.

They butter everyone's bread in D.C.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If the candidate is either Bernie or, more likely, someone else from that wing of ht party who wins the nomination why wouldn't a leftist prefer them over Trump? I think even @Jack V Savage, biggest critic of Bernie on the left in the WR, would vote Bernie over Trump.

I'm not seeing where people are getting the idea that I'm a big critic of Bernie. It's actually funny to me because I said many times during the primary that I liked him and Clinton about the same (with O'Malley being my favorite), but people somehow hear that as "I love Clinton and hate Bernie." I did think that many Bernie fans were an embarrassment to liberals.

 

[Andy Capp]

Trump Weighs ‘Red Flag’ Orders to Take Guns Away Quickly
By
Jennifer Jacobs
February 24, 2018, 3:00 AM PST

• Firearms could be confiscated from people found to be a threat
• Idea is one of a range being considered after Florida massacre

The White House is considering the idea of using restraining orders to take firearms away from people considered dangerous as part of its response to last week’s massacre at a Florida high school, two people familiar with the matter said.



Under extreme risk protection orders, which are also known as red flag laws or gun violence restraining orders, firearms can be confiscated from people found to be at risk.

Pam Bondi speaks with Donald Trump on Feb. 22.

Photographer: Chris Kleponis/Pool via Bloomberg
The White House is studying an Indiana version of the law, and is considering other measures as well, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss policy deliberations. Four other states also have such laws.


At the White House on Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi described to President Donald Trump similar efforts underway in her state to allow law enforcement to seize firearms from someone who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.


"Good," Trump responded.

At a Florida town hall on CNN earlier in the week, Marco Rubio, one of Florida’s two senators, said he supported restraining orders.

While the concept has bipartisan support, some gun-rights groups have embraced it because it does not impose new regulations on firearms themselves. It is one of a range of proposals, including mental health initiatives, that are under consideration by the White House.

Posing a Risk
California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington have laws that allow the authorities to temporarily strip people believed to be a danger to themselves or others with their weapons. Anyone subject to such an order would not be allowed to buy or obtain more guns while the order was in effect.

The Trump administration is looking at encouraging states to enact the legislation, possibly by tying grant money as a reward for those states to adopt the idea, one of the people said.

Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said at a press briefing on Thursday that the White House was looking at red-flag laws.

"I think some states have had these red-flag laws, for example, that remove firearms after you go to a judge for potentially dangerous individuals. That’s something that’s being done right now in a variety of states, right? They have due process rights for these individuals. It seems to be working in certain areas. That’s something that we’re looking at and other places we’re looking at," Shah added.

The proposal came as the White House has been casting about for a response to widespread demands for action, including new gun laws, in the wake of the shooting last week in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-consider-protection-orders-to-curb-shootings

____________________________________________________

So I agree with this for one simple reason. It requires due process.

I will say that I think any info that could be classified should be banned from these procedings. No hiding behind national security laws and hiding in the shadows to take people's guns.

Open disclosure, and due process, and I can support this one instance of gun grabbing.

Discuss......

Seems like it could be easily open to abuse and a great way to selectively target individuals and label them "enemies of the state". Sounds great on paper but in practice, without extensive oversight it will be easily abused.

 

[Andy Capp]

You don't see an issue here with potential for abuse and fraud? People have been talking about a slippery slope for a long time and this is a horrible first step in the lubrication of that slope. So ARMED people will show up at your door, remove you from your home, confiscate your legally owned weapon, and hold you for ~72 hours on a whim? I can't believe people are so fucking blind to see what's really going on here and are just following along with this absurd motion.

Fuck all of this and fuck every single person who supports this kind of incarceration without due process. I brought this up a few years ago after I think the Newtown shooting and everybody was saying this same kind of bullshit. Who is going to make the determination that some person sitting in their home is now a threat to society? Is it going to be a trained criminal psychologist... if not, who will hold that kind of authority? I'm very concerned about this issue because I've been medically diagnosed with PTSD / Depression / Alcoholism... if this law were enacted how much "due process" would it take for an armed government official to show up at my house and steal my weapons?

Also, you're OK that someone would have to hire a legal council to get their weapons returned?

My concern exactly (see above.)

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I'll bet guns and ammo are flying off the shelves, right?

I've noticed less resistance to the idea now that the right guy is suggesting it.

Fucking hypocrites.

 

[Andy Capp]

Hey now you voted for a Republican but does that mean you supported the RNC?

On topic, I gotta give Trump credit. He's at least trying something and it seems like a fair compromise, I guess we're seeing that Art of the Deal we were promised!

Now, maybe the SCOTUS torpedoes his idea but even still at least you can't say he didn't try. And specifically I like this part about it so far:

Double points for more state's rights friendly approach, as opposed to trying to enact federal law and forcing it on all states.

Why is that a good thing? If you had federal standards for education curriculum, health care, gun laws, and police training, surely that would eliminate a lot of the inequality and degradation we see in the quality of these services (for lack of a better word--gun laws aren't services but you get the idea).

 

[HockeyBjj]

There needs, NEEDS, to be a due process for this. It is a right to own firearms, it takes due process to take a right away

This can’t be a police department saying “Billy said/did something. Let’s go take his guns” at a bare, bare minimum, this needs a judge order with more serious burden of proof than a search warrant to do.

Preferably I’d like to see an expedited say 3 person jury of peers to review what the evidence is and then to agree this person is a risk to the community and police should take action taking those tools away

 

[HockeyBjj]

I'll bet guns and ammo are flying off the shelves, right?

I've noticed less resistance to the idea now that the right guy is suggesting it.

Fucking hypocrites.

I’ve noticed this too. If Obama had said half the things Trump has said about gun control, righties would be marching in the street

I think the reason is that people feel that with Rs I’m control, these steps aren’t a slippery slope to more. These steps are just the goal. Not steps towards a much bigger goal

My opinion

 

[cincymma79]

You are a fucking moron if you believe that. Hillary being such an unlikable cunt that people like me refused to vote for her helped you guys, find a conservative who isn't running on "liberal tears" that can capture is Bernie bros Bros and maybe you have a chance.

Legit curious, do you hang out with Trump supporters? I don't know many.

you said the same thing last election

 

[Sketch]

How are you found to be "at risk"?

I ask cause I am looking at a potential move to the Seattle area and I am looking at studio apartments and we have a law here where your neighbors/loved ones can report you to the cops as being "at risk" and the cops show up and take your guns and like throw you in the hospital mental ward for a night or two. My understanding is that at THAT point you have to petition to get your firearms back. I don't want some shitlord roommate that has never left Bellevue to call the cops on me cause I threatened my friend on Xbox live after he got us killed in like Battlefield 1 and shit.

People may scoff at that but remember fuckhead kids did that "SWATting" shit in the past.

Roll your sleeve up, is your skin white? Then you're at risk.

 

[nac386]

Roll your sleeve up, is your skin white? Then you're at risk.

Lol, what?

 

[ultramanhyata]

He’s throwing a bunch of shit at the wall so media can’t say he’s not doing anything about it. Red Herring

This is essentially the lens through which I view this proposal.

The PORNAG (that is the two-headed GOP/NRA beast) is just trying to blow some smoke until the Florida shooting inevitably loses ground in the news cycle. I predict 60 days from now no one in the Trump administration will have anything to say about mental health, school security, gun grabbing, etc.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I’ve noticed this too. If Obama had said half the things Trump has said about gun control, righties would be marching in the street

I think the reason is that people feel that with Rs I’m control, these steps aren’t a slippery slope to more. These steps are just the goal. Not steps towards a much bigger goal

My opinion

Agreed.
Personally I find it to be a loathsome hypocritical two faced dicktucking bunch of bullshit from people whose opinions on the matter I will never entertain again.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Well in all states they can already use force to protect you from yourself or others, and force a 72 hour psychiatric evaluation.

The only difference here is that not only can they force you into a rubber room for 72 hours, they can take your guns too.

Seems reasonable to me.

They have to provide evidence in a court room to justify this. You can then hire legal council to have the guns returned.

Yeah, their is risk here. It's all fun and games until internet posts become a reason to take people's guns. That seems like a good idea when the Florida shooter says he wants to be a professional school shooter, but from my point of view, maybe not so much if you are critical of US foreign policy, or talk openly of political revolution. This is where disclosure in court becomes key.

I'm not sure if I could support this, if any info presented could be deemed classified.

So, do they have to take you to court 1st and prove their case against you, or do you have to prove after your 2nd Amendment rights, let alone.. your other rights.. were violated after the fact?


I have less of a problem with them having to prove their case against you before hand than after.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Agreed.
Personally I find it to be a loathsome hypocritical two faced dicktucking bunch of bullshit from people whose opinions on the matter I will never entertain again.

You talking about the left, or the right?


Either could easily be confused here on this forum..