It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell To Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Dingle (no not Debbie Wasserman Schultz) is introducing some legislation that would allow the Feds to confiscate guns !!

They're doing it.

They're ripping themselves apart all by themselves !!

Don't know how much is true or even real.

But they seem to want it !!

Dem Rep. Debbie Dingell To Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

A House democrat is planning to introduce a bill to create a national gun confiscation program, according to Breitbart.

Exposing the democrats for lying about not wanting to abolish the Second Amendment, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-MI, wants the federal government to have the authority to seize guns from Americans.

During her interview Monday on Fox News, Dingell announced her new bill that would create a federal law that allows firearms to be confiscated.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders — also referred to as “red flag ” laws — have already been passed in California, Indiana, Washington, and other states.

In California and other states, a court can issue an order to seize firearms from an individual without them even knowing about it.



Debbie's Rich History

❣️😁❣️


Dingell said that the seizure of firearms must not infringe on due process laws, but a national gun confiscating operation would certainly do just that.


🙈🙉🙊



+2 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Good! Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves with it this November.


+12 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So democrat party platform for 2018 and 2020 is;

Higher taxes
Gun confiscation
Open borders.





posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   
This article seems really disingenuous, full of vagaries and appeals to base emotion. How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
I would like to go on OFFICIAL RECORD as stating I have no firearms.

So just ignore me please.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
are they trying to lose ?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I can't wait for the midterms. Otherwise known as demo's shoot them self's in the foot.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
LMAO.
She's from MI.

Good luck sweetheart. Just goes to show you know absolutely NOTHING about the state you Rep.

After going digging, this doesn't appear to be true. She has only been talking about the "boyfriend" loophole.

Because trying to grab guns in MI, would be instant political suicide.

Hell, even Debbie S isn't that dumb.

edit on 3-4-2018 by chiefsmom because: addition



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Here's the source for the article. Video clip:

video.foxnews.com...=show-clips



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This article seems really disingenuous, full of vagaries and appeals to base emotion. How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


Does "due process" mean anything to you? We have a framework in place, within the boundaries of the Constitution, by which to remove legal possession of firearms from those determined to be dangerous. Why in the blue everloving hell would we want to expand that to an unconstitutional quagmire like the Do Not Fly list is by removing due process and stripping multiple constitutional rights such as the right to face your accuser, the right to defense in court, and the right to a trial before losing property, freedom, or rights?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This article seems really disingenuous, full of vagaries and appeals to base emotion. How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


Does "due process" mean anything to you? We have a framework in place, within the boundaries of the Constitution, by which to remove legal possession of firearms from those determined to be dangerous. Why in the blue everloving hell would we want to expand that to an unconstitutional quagmire like the Do Not Fly list is by removing due process and stripping multiple constitutional rights such as the right to face your accuser, the right to defense in court, and the right to a trial before losing property, freedom, or rights?


I'm really not sure what your getting at. She mentions in the article that the intent is to have the bill/whatever work within the confines of due process.....



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I take it you are equally upset at Fred Upton but just aren't making any mention of it because (reasons).....



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
.....How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


Who determines if a person i mentally unstable?
What are the criteria where a person's Constitutionally protected rights are stripped from them without due process?
Is that criteria fixed or will it change over time?
Is there legal redress of this decision by the target of the confiscation?

That is what is wrong with this legislation IMO. It is the same as the "who could be against a felon having their 2nd Amendment right stripped"? Well, when the definition of a felony is changed and widened over time, that means that more people become targets without any due process.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Asset seizure before due process is what she's explaining. Not exactly due process in that regard despite what she claims.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer
.....How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


Who determines if a person i mentally unstable?
What are the criteria where a person's Constitutionally protected rights are stripped from them without due process?
Is that criteria fixed or will it change over time?
Is there legal redress of this decision by the target of the confiscation?

That is what is wrong with this legislation IMO. It is the same as the "who could be against a felon having their 2nd Amendment right stripped"? Well, when the definition of a felony is changed and widened over time, that means that more people become targets without any due process.



How can you claim something is wrong with the legislation when you haven't even seen/read it? Perhaps you're privy to some secret prognosticative ability?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

She can claim it's within due process, but that doesn't make it an accurate statement. This:

If her bill passes, individuals who have their guns confiscated will have 14 days to appear before a judge to “make a case” to get their gun back.


Is NOT due process. Due process mandates that the state must be the one who "makes the case" before a judge or jury PRIOR to seizure. We live in a country which is formed on "innocent until proven guilty" and what Dingell is proposing is exactly the opposite: "you're presumed guilty and have to prove you're not," which is essentially an impossible thing to prove in a scenario where the state's threshold for evidence is as flimsy as "that person may be a danger to others."



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


Your opinion differs from mine, you felon.





posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Good. Let the dingbat force dims deeper into the abyss.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer
.....How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


Who determines if a person i mentally unstable?
What are the criteria where a person's Constitutionally protected rights are stripped from them without due process?
Is that criteria fixed or will it change over time?
Is there legal redress of this decision by the target of the confiscation?

That is what is wrong with this legislation IMO. It is the same as the "who could be against a felon having their 2nd Amendment right stripped"? Well, when the definition of a felony is changed and widened over time, that means that more people become targets without any due process.



How can you claim something is wrong with the legislation when you haven't even seen/read it? Perhaps you're privy to some secret prognosticative ability?


Can you answer those questions I posed? Because, as explained above by others, this is NOT adhering to due process. Having a right stripped and then having to "prove" you are innocent is how 3rd world and dictatorships work. Or, is that what you wish our country to become?

After all, "it's for the children", right???





posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

Asset seizure before due process is what she's explaining. Not exactly due process in that regard despite what she claims.


Interesting that's how you read it. I (in my imagination only since nothing other than speculation is available at this moment) surmise that based on her statements something like a scenario where an individual is accused of committing domestic violence but hasn't been convicted yet may have their guns confiscated until the proceedings are completed and a summary judgment is determined. In that scenario, the person could very well be one who would eventually be deemed a danger and under current laws have their firearms confiscated, but in the time it takes for the court proceedings to commence commits a violent act with the firearm before a verdict is rendered.







 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join