Bipartisan Support for New Federal Gun Controls Is a Red Flag

Yes, Red Flag laws which can strip you of your property without any due process is probably coming to a state near you in 2019, that is unless the Federal Government passes a sweeping law first.

I would recommend not pissing off your family members, work associates, or post anything about guns on social media as it appears any complaint could result in you having your firearms confiscated and spending months trying to get them back.


mises.org...

Although it’s true that Congressional Democrats are making gun control a major theme of their legislative agenda, it’s naïve to think red flag laws are only relevant because of “gun-grabbing” Democrats have taken power.

As we’ll see below, red flag laws have a history of bipartisan support. And when any piece of legislation has Democrats and Republicans locking arms in agreement, you know trouble lies ahead.

The Gun Control Bipartisan Status Quo
Despite the passionate campaign rhetoric, a significant portion of Republican politicians will change colors on gun rights once in DC. Several GOP members in the upcoming Congress are notable when it comes to their gun control advocacy:

Trump Administration: Even the Executive branch is joining in on the red-flag craze. The Trump Administration’s Commission on School Safety recently released a report recommending red flag laws as a means to “address school safety and violence.” It’s likely only a matter of time before legislation is introduced in either chamber of Congress now that the Trump administration has endorsed red flag laws.

Larry Hogan, the Republican Governor of Maryland, recently signed a series of gun bills, one which included a red flag law. In October, the first month Maryland’s red flag law went into effect, there were 114 requests to confiscate individuals’ firearms.

a reply to: infolurker

The thing about the Bill of Rights is that it spells out God-given rights that are unalienable. It doesn't grant us rights, we already assume those rights as people. The purpose is to limit the power of government.

We've already seen mass disobedience in registering firearms. Disarming? Ha! Good luck...

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker

The thing about the Bill of Rights is that it spells out God-given rights that are unalienable. It doesn't grant us rights, we already assume those rights as people. The purpose is to limit the power of government.

We've already seen mass disobedience in registering firearms. Disarming? Ha! Good luck...

Exactly and an excellent post.

As far as states go, if they pass red flag laws then vote with your feet.

I live in Montana so I'm good... LOL

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker

The thing about the Bill of Rights is that it spells out God-given rights that are unalienable. It doesn't grant us rights, we already assume those rights as people. The purpose is to limit the power of government.

We've already seen mass disobedience in registering firearms. Disarming? Ha! Good luck...

I would like to know what prevents a certain political group from utilizing publicly available CCW records and file complaints. They already tried publishing nationwide maps / information on us before.

Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders
www.cnn.com...

"One of our roles is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even when unpopular. We knew publication of the database (as well as the accompanying article providing context) would be controversial, but we felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings," she said.

The newspaper also said it had wanted to publish even more information.
"We were surprised when we weren't able to obtain information on what kinds and how many weapons people in our market own," the newspaper said in a statement.

County clerks' offices had told the paper that "the public does not have the right to see specific permits an individual has been issued, the types of handguns a person possesses or the number of guns he or she owns," the statement said. "Had we been able to obtain those records, we would have published them."

a reply to: infolurker


Yep, family members or cops can now decide if you can have guns or not. So much for innocent until proven guilty. All you need is a butt hurt family member who hates the 2nd to make a phone call...

Give em your lead first!

a reply to: seeker1963

As the information age developes, it certainly is a scary thought. Stay vigilant. Don't sacrifice your freedom for "safety". Learn basic survival tactics. You never know when they might come in handy. Even the gravy train has a last destination.

So now the suspicious school shootings with emphasis on social media "red flags" are starting to make sense.

Derp


..oh crap I was just flagged

These laws would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, someone has already died as a result of these unjust laws.

I made a thread on it...

a reply to: sine.nomine

It's not so much forcing people to turn 'em over. Though I agree, good luck.

It's a family member who might be pissed off for what ever reason--one of my sisters is notorious for that. Or a co-worker who just plain doesn't like you for some reason...make sure you give back the stapler, OK?

They make a call, suddenly you've sheriff deputies at your door at 5 AM. That's what these red flag laws do. That they wouldn't stand even the slightest Constitutional scrutiny matters not in the slightest to the gun-grabbers.

They've already cost people their lives.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Welcome, brother, we've missed you.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
These laws would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, someone has already died as a result of these unjust laws.

I made a thread on it...

I remember that one!


Also they use the excuse, "You can get your guns back.". Yea right, have you read any of the stories of lawful gunowners trying to get them back after they have been taken away? Like anything else with our judicial system, your rights are based upon if you have enough money to fight for them. That isn't justice...

Can't count how many times I've read people here on ATS saying Democrats aren't coming for your guns.

Guess they were floating down a river in Egypt.

In the past, I knew people who called the cops on their kids or parents and had the cops go in and take the guns away, giving them to a close relative to hold onto till the person got his # back together. It worked well, but it was sort of a favor and was not on the books at all. Most times that worked good, but one time I know of the guy in his twenties went after the parent and got the guns back, beating up the parents. The cops then took away the guys guns and destroyed them and stuck the guy in jail for quite a while. He went through some DTs in jail, charged with a couple of crimes he did somewhat straighten out, but one of the laws he broke was a Federal law and he was no longer allowed to own a gun.

The cops used to take care of these things on a local level in small communities, this seems to be a similar law, but the police keep hold of the guns till the person gets help. I think that may be a good thing sometimes. It will keep things like I talked about above from happening. The police in the case I mentioned could not make the guy go to get help, hopefully they can figure a way to make the person get help without destroying their life and bankrupting them.

It used to be highly unusual to hear a report of a mass shooting incident. It would be many years between such events. It used to be called "going postal" because of a famous shooting involving a postal worker. Noteworthy at the time because that sort of thing never happened back then.

But as time went by, mass shootings became more frequent. Less years would pass before a shooting like that would occur. Then it was at least a yearly occurrence, then every few months, then every month, and now it seems like it is happening every week or less. The problem is undeniable, the solution elusive.

It seems to me that our form of government could only work the way it was intended to if the people were aware of the fact that the power to govern comes from them. If the majority of citizens were intelligent, well educated and of high moral character, then the system could work the way it is supposed to.

Most people don't know and don't care about our history, the hows and whys the founders created our form of government the way they did. Morality is now a relative thing with no absolute truth to back it up with. Few want to take any responsibility for anything these days it seems. No consequences for your amoral actions unless they are criminal activities that you actually get caught and punished for by law enforcement.

So many people have such a lack of self control and respect for others that they are capable of such horrendous acts like shooting up crowds of innocent people. The number of people like this certainly seems to be growing beyond what should be expected in a population of a given size. Surely this is a sign of a crumbling civilization long past the point of no return.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second,"

- Donald J Trump

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: infolurker


Yep, family members or cops can now decide if you can have guns or not. So much for innocent until proven guilty. All you need is a butt hurt family member who hates the 2nd to make a phone call...

Give em your lead first!

"Give em your lead first!"?? That's sounds like a red flag threat of murder.