New Gun Bill? Your Neighbor Controls Your Rights

Anyone, anywhere, anytime can say that you are unfit to own your fire arms...and you have no chance.

They keep coming don't they?

From none other than feinstein herself...of course.



The snitch program:

www.boxer.senate.gov...
The Pause for Safety Act would encourage states to take the following steps to help prevent gun violence: One, ensure that families and others can go to court to seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a threat to himself, herself or others from purchasing a firearm. Two, ensure that a court can issue a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that are in an individual’s possession if the court determines that the individual poses a threat to himself, herself or others. Three, ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing state and local gun databases when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.

And the states get bribed to implement it as well:

The measure would create a new grant program – the Pause for Safety Grant Program – to help support these efforts. States that take action to enact these preventive measures would be eligible for the grants to provide resources for courts and law enforcement as they implement these measures.

www.activistpost.com...

We all know as well that anyone reporting a crime is never identified right? Gotta protect those that stand for the safety of others. So you have no chance of facing your accuser. The period of confiscation is indefinite and the cost to challenge...Most will not be able to afford.

It's getting ugly folks.

Peace

a reply to: jude11

Disgusting.

Using divisiveness, fear, paranoia.

Perfect ingredients for a progressive agenda!

a reply to: jude11

Well my neighborhood all owns several guns each, many being personal defense weapons. So not so much worrying about it out here in the country. Round here you step on your back porch and shoot target practice. Pretty much every day someone popping off some rounds lol...

The Bot

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: jude11

Disgusting.

Using divisiveness, fear, paranoia.

Perfect ingredients for a progressive agenda!

Neighbor against neighbor...friend against friend,,,brother against brother... And let's not forget the "Ghost" calls that will be fabricated to push even more.

And everyone forgets who is in the middle.

Disgusting is right.

Peace

From my cold dead hands....
2nd...literally!

And let's not forget the "Ghost" calls that will be fabricated to push even more.

Most of those ghost calls are from cops.

I know cops that carry throwaway phones under fake names so they can make fake calls.
This allows them probable cause to do many things.

originally posted by: ANNED

And let's not forget the "Ghost" calls that will be fabricated to push even more.

Most of those ghost calls are from cops.

I know cops that carry throwaway phones under fake names so they can make fake calls.
This allows them probable cause to do many things.

My guess would be cops and/or private Govt. phone rooms.

Peace

This type of talk is only ongoing because people like Feinstein dont have a clue how to build a viable system which accurately qualifies citizens to own firearms. They've destroyed the minds of millions of people (soldiers) and can't keep track of the millions on SSRIs/SNRIs/opiates due to doctors shoveling out big pharmas mind-altering poison instead of trying to actually rid people of mental illness, so what they try to do is scare the hell out of everyone that does NOT own a firearm.

Its completely lazy, 100% transparent and guaranteed to fail as long as people know the facts.

a reply to: jude11

Star and Flag

Seems like it is time for me to move.
Any good locations with employment?

a reply to: jude11

Yea, they don't need a phone lol. Look at hoopla lately, most comes from illegal information provided by NSA into everything. They know everything about you. Phone, they don't need no stinkin phone lol.

Sad but it is true... You looked up articles on how or what kinda bombs were used in Boston just for your curiosity and bamb you are on a list....

Wow, the silence as all the mice stop moving at the same time as people realize darn i did that too lol.... Ha ha, it would be funny if it were not true lol...

The Bot

originally posted by: RedmoonMWC
a reply to: jude11

Star and Flag

Seems like it is time for me to move.
Any good locations with employment?

All over Midwest do to fracking. Great jobs for while anyway. If you don't mind destroying the environment that is... Lol

Oh and they don't care how many guns u have lol.

The Bot

Seeing as 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US are self inflicted, something like the proposed law could save some lives.

Why would anyone be opposed to that?

It's called 'The Pause for Safety Act', and they are introducing it into the House.

Maybe letting your state representatives know that you don't support it would be the best course of action.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
This is how I think gun ownership is being reduced.

In order to obtain a legal firearm one must pass a background check. I made this after reading "Now is the Time: The Presidents Plan to Reduce Gun Violence" back in April of 2013. All the gears (with the exception of 'The Brain Initiative') correlate to points made in the PDF. I recommend reading it if you haven't already.

You can download the PDF from this link to whitehouse.gov

Gun control isn't them showing up at all our doors one night demanding our weapons, rather the slow change of laws governing who can and who can't own a weapon.

My cousin went to see the doctor for a rash and was randomly asked how he felt about gun ownership..

I agree the system could use some changes but I don't believe that public safety is the agenda, at least not entirely. There are multiple agendas at play.

S+F

Laws like this will simply be misused, both by the government and by civilians. The thing with rights in general is that they need to be concrete. Giving the government authorities to "regulate" your rights is just stupid, considering how can you ensure that they do so within the bounds of the law, for one, or that they will not simply use laws like this in nefarious ways? It reminds me of the government saying something like they can gather all of this data and information on every citizen, but that we should trust they won't abuse the system. I mean really? Whether one wishes to believe it or not they have no recourse against the Federal government in certain situations, because there are cards the government can play like the national security card that will basically allow them to get away with anything.

I think whoever made the video is overreacting.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying I support this at all.

That being said, isn't this kind of law already? I mean if law enforcement or a doctor have evidence that you are a threat to yourself or others they can have you committed for a mental evaluation. If you possessed firearms law enforcement would then take them into safekeeping until you are released.

If you have an injunction served against you due to violence, a judge can order one of the conditions be that you cannot posses a firearm.

In my state it is actually difficult to obtain an injunction against someone, family or not. You have to have several officially documented threatening/violent incidents before a judge will even hear your case.

Even then I have seen a good percentage denied.

What does this law change? How does it differ from what is on the books now?

Again, I don't support anything NotSoFeinstein touches.

Hey, think about it. A person planning to rob a home could call the cops and have your guns taken away. After all, your owning guns is a threat to the criminal, they may get injured or killed when they break in. They should not have to worry about that while working.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
In my state it is actually difficult to obtain an injunction against someone, family or not. You have to have several officially documented threatening/violent incidents before a judge will even hear your case.
Even then I have seen a good percentage denied.
What does this law change? How does it differ from what is on the books now?

I think you kind of answered your own question, it would remove some of the requirements to have weapons confiscated (namely history). Most of the people who commit violence against others/themselves have little or no history of recorded violence or mental evaluations. I mean...how many people do you know have had a thorough mental evaluation?

We can focus on mass shootings for a quick example; The Isla Vista guy had people asking the police to look into him. All the police seem to have done is show up at his house and ask him a few questions, not really grounds for an injuction. At least, based on what you've said. Then they dropped it.

In the theater shootings in Colorado, the guy had been talking to a school psychiatrist, she didn't seem to say anything and if she did it obviously wasn't enough to stop him from getting weapons.

The guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords; he didn't seek help at all. There wasn't any evidence that would've stopped him.

Those are just the mass shootings. Again, 2/3 of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted. If we can stop just a few of these with a bill like this, it would be tremendous in reducing the pain caused by the actions of the shooters.

As to telling your representative to outright oppose the bill introduced, why not ask them to add amendments to the bill to address your concerns? You all seem so concerned about the government coming to 'take yer guns' that you're not even considering taking the guns out of the bad guys hands. You're not working for smarter legislation, you're working for no legislation.

Cops: Man Threatened To Shoot Neighbor Teaching Daughter To Ride A Bike

minnesota.cbslocal.com...
If you don't like Lib editorializing go here ^for full story,this could have gone south had it not been for his wife.
Now what if authorities had acted when the parents of that douche who killed so many recently, we most likely would have a non story, but more disturbing are well behaved and I must admit polite but non the least idiots who think it's fun to walk in chain restaurants scaring the crap outta diners,with the biggest weapons they can sling over their shoulders,ok kool!. what about when guys who may or may not be equality polite with dress codes you don't necessarily approved of, but heavily armed showed-up, some with ancestors who may have played a lil too much in the sun or others with a thing for shaved heads,iron crosses and SS memorabilia ..prediction the courts will have of a pile of stand your ground cases while the everyone else goes into hand wringing mode,can we not be so myopic can we step back and look at the entire picture and have some common sense along with your constitutional rights to bear arms.