Sen. Graham announces red flag legislation

[Grayling813]

Taking somebodies property and denial of due process of law will go to the Supreme Court quick!

And be upheld by the same. SCOTUS has done little to turn back the agenda of progressive socialists, legalizing abortion, Obamacare, etc.

[jason812]

If you had a relative that was truly crazy and a potential threat and had firearms how would you deal with them?
Hypothetically of course.

Didn't the grand mother in Lubbock take care of her grand son the right way? Seems to me that new laws are not the problem but law enforcement actually following up on concerns brought to them.

[Richbirdhunter]

I’m worried about Lindsey Graham and Dan Crenshaw, let’s take their guns. We can’t be to safe.

No let's take their pens. That's what they're creating future mayhem with........(vote them out)

Even better

[Lynyrd]

What happened to the proposed red-flag law from this past Texas legislative session? In that proposed legislation could law enforcement take your guns even before the hearing, based on a sworn affidavit of a complainant and an order from a judge or would they have to serve you with process, hold, a hearing, then take your guns? The devil is in the details--a big devil indeed.

I'm not opposed at all to disarming someone who is mentally unstable. I think that should be done. However, I am very much opposed to laws like the one on Maryland where virtually anybody can file a complaint that sends LEO to your house to confiscate your guns. There is very much a danger that such laws can turn into a tool that used by angry neighbors, angry ex-spouses, etc., etc., to punish those whom they are displeased with.

The finer details of any such legislation needs to be carefully crafted to not allow personal disagreements to be the cause of confiscation orders. Mentally ill? Yes. Violent behavior and threats? Yes. I don't like them? No.

[K.Mooneyham]

From dog catcher to the presidency, it's going to be hard to vote for any Republican candidate in the future.

EDITED TO FIX TYPO

So, you're going to vote Democrat, then? Or just stay home and not vote, to protest? So that one of those purely anti-American Democrats can get into office? That's not a solution. I hate these proposed laws as much as anyone else, I think they are useless at best and actually unconstitutional, but letting a Democrat get into the Oval Office right now, that's a really, really bad idea.

[MaduroBU]

The problem is that this bill isn't nearly enough, while its failure to be proactive results in a critical lack of due process. When you look at the list of deadliest mass shootings, the overwhelming majority of shooters met the lay definition of mentally defective, and several had involuntary psych holds in their history. None of them were prevented from buying a weapon, and legally all of them answered 4473 question 11f truthfully. The new Lorena Bobbitt documentary shows John Wayne using his (presumably legally owned) pistol, seemingly to imply that domestic abusers can remain armed. I'd be more upset at their failure to mention 4473 questions 11h and 11i, but for the fact that neither prevented that jerk from owning a gun.

Form 4473 apparently prohibits these people from owning or purchasing firearms, but in practice it fails spectacularly. The ATF does not prosecute people who attempt to illegally buy guns, while question 11f seems to come from 1950s mental health terms that aren't applied to ANYONE today (no matter how crazy they may be- I have never wtitten "mentally defective" in a chart nor have I ever asked a judge to make that determination).

To make question 11f valid, we must attach DSM-V diagnoses to the NICS and actually report them to the NICS. I would argue that a searchable list of prohibited persons and penalties for private citizens who knowingly sell to people on that list effecticely closes the "gun show loophole" without actually infringing on anyone's rights to sell or give away a gun.

[Grayling813]

The problem is that this bill isn't nearly enough, while its failure to be proactive results in a critical lack of due process. When you look at the list of deadliest mass shootings, the overwhelming majority of shooters met the lay definition of mentally defective, and several had involuntary psych holds in their history. None of them were prevented from buying a weapon, and legally all of them answered 4473 question 11f truthfully. The new Lorena Bobbitt documentary shows John Wayne using his (presumably legally owned) pistol, seemingly to imply that domestic abusers can remain armed. I'd be more upset at their failure to mention 4473 questions 11h and 11i, but for the fact that neither prevented that jerk from owning a gun.

Form 4473 apparently prohibits these people from owning or purchasing firearms, but in practice it fails spectacularly. The ATF does not prosecute people who attempt to illegally buy guns, while question 11f seems to come from 1950s mental health terms that aren't applied to ANYONE today (no matter how crazy they may be- I have never wtitten "mentally defective" in a chart nor have I ever asked a judge to make that determination).

To make question 11f valid, we must attach DSM-V diagnoses to the NICS and actually report them to the NICS. I would argue that a searchable list of prohibited persons and penalties for private citizens who knowingly sell to people on that list effecticely closes the "gun show loophole" without actually infringing on anyone's rights to sell or give away a gun.

The idea to require gun owners to undergo psychological testing has been floated. Of course, once this is in place the test only has to be modified in order to deem anyone who wants to own a gun as mentally flawed.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-simple- ... al-illness

“Any person who seeks to purchase a gun of any type of firearm that is legal under a statute will be required to obtain a standardized psychological assessment from a licensed doctoral level mental health specialist,” the proposal states. “The sole objective of the assessment is to identify factors that may be particularly related to an impairment that can be related to harm to oneself or others.”

[SQLGeek]

And even then they will still have the option to do a private purchase. I don't know that one of the mass shootings recently have been tied to a private purchase (otherwise we would've heard about it non-stop) but they've also been able to buy from an FFL.

I am by no means advocating for universal background checks but that is the reality.

[clarionite]

Why don't we just make it illegal to kill people. Seems like that would work. Since magic laws that make guns illegal will stop people from killing.

[MaduroBU]

We don't need a psych eval as a prerequisite. Look at the list of shooters: very few of these people (Paddock and the synagogue shooter) managed to stay below the radar. We don't need more information, but the people know who about dangerous people must have the ability to give that determination teeth. As the law stands, it does not do what it seems like it does.

Case in point: LTC does not require anything beyond the NICS background check's ostensible requirements, but the difference is that people actually review LTC applications and weed folks out. That results in a pool of people who are almost unbelievably unlikely to commit crimes, much less mass shootings.

[Grayling813]

Firearms Policy Coalition statement on red flag legislation:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-stat ... mp-remarks

Excerpt:

FPC has been and remains strongly opposed to so-called “red flag” laws, also known as “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (GVRO) or “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) statutes.

FPC also remains strongly opposed to expanding federal criminal statutes, including but not limited to those mandating “universal background checks”.

These proposed laws do not increase access to mental healthcare or improve public safety. They rely on expanding federal powers through further abuse of the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional, as well as dangerous.

[ralewis]

Firearms Policy Coalition statement on red flag legislation:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-stat ... mp-remarks

Excerpt:

FPC has been and remains strongly opposed to so-called “red flag” laws, also known as “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (GVRO) or “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) statutes.

FPC also remains strongly opposed to expanding federal criminal statutes, including but not limited to those mandating “universal background checks”.

These proposed laws do not increase access to mental healthcare or improve public safety. They rely on expanding federal powers through further abuse of the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional, as well as dangerous.

I'm as pro gun as they come (CHL/LTC for 15 years now), and I've been around here since 2005 reading, learning, and participating in discussions around 2A issues. That being said though, IMO it's important to realize the way things are not the way we want them to be. Social Media and 24/7 news create an amplification effect and has increased the speed issues become front and center. Having several of these mass shooting events over a few weeks in the middle of a Presidential Election cycle has created a wave bigger than we've seen IMO. Our elected officials respond to (perceptions of) public sentiment.

The pragmatist in me sees the tea leaves here, and we all need to do our part to be vocal with our elected officials. We also need to accept the reality that we may be faced with situation where our best option is negotiating for something we want. For example, I'd probably take mandatory background checks and some very tightly scoped and defined "Red Flag" law as long as we got National Reciprocity and a recognition that LTC holders who willingly submit themselves for background checks are recognized as not the problem and have restrictions on where we can carry be reduced.

And I realize i'm going to get hammered here for uttering a scenario entertaining some policies because 'shall not infringe' means what it says. But in the real world we are subject to laws passed (even if the firmly believe they are unconstitutional) else we suffer great inconvenience. I'd actually love to see some constructive dialog on both sides coming at this from a risk management perspective vs a political one.

[joe817]

Firearms Policy Coalition statement on red flag legislation:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-stat ... mp-remarks

Excerpt:

FPC has been and remains strongly opposed to so-called “red flag” laws, also known as “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (GVRO) or “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) statutes.

FPC also remains strongly opposed to expanding federal criminal statutes, including but not limited to those mandating “universal background checks”.

These proposed laws do not increase access to mental healthcare or improve public safety. They rely on expanding federal powers through further abuse of the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional, as well as dangerous.

I'm as pro gun as they come (CHL/LTC for 15 years now), and I've been around here since 2005 reading, learning, and participating in discussions around 2A issues. That being said though, IMO it's important to realize the way things are not the way we want them to be. Social Media and 24/7 news create an amplification effect and has increased the speed issues become front and center. Having several of these mass shooting events over a few weeks in the middle of a Presidential Election cycle has created a wave bigger than we've seen IMO. Our elected officials respond to (perceptions of) public sentiment.

The pragmatist in me sees the tea leaves here, and we all need to do our part to be vocal with our elected officials. We also need to accept the reality that we may be faced with situation where our best option is negotiating for something we want. For example, I'd probably take mandatory background checks and some very tightly scoped and defined "Red Flag" law as long as we got National Reciprocity and a recognition that LTC holders who willingly submit themselves for background checks are recognized as not the problem and have restrictions on where we can carry be reduced.

And I realize i'm going to get hammered here for uttering a scenario entertaining some policies because 'shall not infringe' means what it says. But in the real world we are subject to laws passed (even if the firmly believe they are unconstitutional) else we suffer great inconvenience. I'd actually love to see some constructive dialog on both sides coming at this from a risk management perspective vs a political one.

There. You've said it. You have said what I have been thinking a long time. I can't say 'thank you' because I don't like it...at all. However, this is not the same U.S. as it was 10, 15, 20, and certainly 30 years ago. We cannot think back to those times an hope and pray they will come back. They will not. Not with allllll the illegal immigration people flooding into the country. Not with allll the rising popularity in progressive liberalism that is polluting the Democratic Party. Not with the ineffective NICS checks, an certainly not what TAM so eloquently stated in the Ohio shooting thread. The lack of a Moral Compass that served our great Nation, since its inception, and that being the Holy Bible, is being diminished year after year, by the extreme leftists that we see is growing in Congress.

It is heartbreaking for me, as a citizen of the United States, to fall to such depths, by not only the politicians, but also the general public at large.

We have strayed to far from our roots that made this great nation, and served with honor....until this Godless generation, and all of the political fervor that that generation has embraced.

I'm just a simple country boy, who grew up in a family with a 'moral compass', and I thank God for that. I pray that that moral compass will re-emerge in the next generation and generations to follow.

Thank you ralewis for stating your opinion.

[philip964]

Apparently we are letting crazy people dictate the laws for sane honest people.

[Syntyr]

From dog catcher to the presidency, it's going to be hard to vote for any Republican candidate in the future.

EDITED TO FIX TYPO

So, you're going to vote Democrat, then? Or just stay home and not vote, to protest? So that one of those purely anti-American Democrats can get into office? That's not a solution. I hate these proposed laws as much as anyone else, I think they are useless at best and actually unconstitutional, but letting a Democrat get into the Oval Office right now, that's a really, really bad idea.

This. I am going to vote and support Trump in 2020. Am I happy about the bump stock ban and now this? Heck no!

But this is your alternative
Beto open to Australian style gun buyback
https://www.weaselzippers.us/428342-bet ... k-program/

Biden day 1 coming for your guns
https://www.weaselzippers.us/428305-bin ... t-weapons/


On and on.