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.
In Southaven, Mississippi, where residents had been awaiting details since dawn on a deadly shooting Tuesday that left two local Walmart employees dead, District Attorney John Champion said he believed the weapons belonging to the accused shooter, Martez Abram, had been purchased legally.
The prosecutor refused to discuss any other gun-related details, pending an indictment. But what is known about the weapons in Abram's possession is that as of three days before the shooting, one of them was a knife — which the 20-year Walmart employee flashed during an argument with a coworker, who filed an incident report with police July 27.
In the report, Abram's coworker, whose name has been redacted, opted not to press charges. But he did want the report to be on file, Southaven police noted.
In 17 states and Washington, D.C., the police may have had an additional option.
Known as "extreme risk" or "red flag" laws, new legislation allowing firearms to be temporarily removed from owners deemed in danger of harming themselves or others has been enacted — with bipartisan support — in recent years across the country.
Functioning as a version of a restraining order, the red flag policies grant law enforcement — or in some states, an individual in a relationship with a gun owner — the ability to ask a court to order the temporary removal of guns from the possession of a person for whom there is evidence of extreme risk.
More and more states are adopting so-called red flag laws in an attempt to curb gun violence. These laws allow police to confiscate guns in an emergency.
In Ohio, former Gov. John Kasich unsuccessfully pushed for the law last year, but the bill went nowhere in the Republican-led legislature.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
In my opinion, it entirely depends on how these laws are written and the standards that are set where weapons are taken away and to be given back.
To lose of standards and the law will be weaponized by anti-gun nuts to disarm the populace for the most minor of infractions or unfounded claims. I do think it should be an option in some well-defined parameters but I am leary of the state abusing such power.
You know, thats all this is, in a nutshell isnt it? 100 million other guns in this country DIDNT shoot anyone last night.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
OMG!
Shootings by bad people!
Let’s restrict freedoms!
originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: gallop
what caused the leak?
originally posted by: subfab
originally posted by: Grimpachi
In my opinion, it entirely depends on how these laws are written and the standards that are set where weapons are taken away and to be given back.
To lose of standards and the law will be weaponized by anti-gun nuts to disarm the populace for the most minor of infractions or unfounded claims. I do think it should be an option in some well-defined parameters but I am leary of the state abusing such power.
what about all the divorces that are not civil?
i can already see a spouse using something like this to poke at the other spouse.
** poof **
your guns are gone.
originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: AnakinWayneII
The moment your rights are taken away for that "hateful" social media post that put you on the 'threat list'....
Is the moment you will realize too late.