In Florida alone, thousands of firearms have been confiscated under the Republican Red Coat bill.

WHEN THE REDCOATS CONFISCATED GUNS.

"The Declaration of Causes of Taking Up Arms" passed by the Continental Congress cited Gen. Gage's perfidy in seizing the Bostonians' arms.

The arms seizures were a major cause of the Revolution.

But that was many years ago, when the American spirit was just being realized.

Its interesting to see these internet tough guys on various forums:

"Gun confiscations will lead to trouble!"

Not even a simple protest...


Here we have Republicans firmly in control in the state of Florida.

Not only did they pass this Red Coat confiscation bill, they SPONSORED it!

Just more proof that the Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.




Signed into law by then Republican Governor Rick Scott.


Florida state Senate passes a Marjory Stoneman Douglas gun control act.

"Although the bill was sponsored by Republicans..."

"But with Republicans holding a firm majority – 23 of the Senate’s 40 seats – Democrats had little power to pass amendments or block it."

Why would Democrats block it? They love Second Amendment infringements.

Bizarre spin in order to act as though the Republicans and Democrats arent on the same team.



Florida House passes gun control, school safety bill after lengthy debate.

"The Republican-led Florida House..."

"Of 76 House Republicans, 57 voted in favor of the bill, with 19 against it."

Despite the fact that thousands of firearms have already been confiscated, heres an article saying that its not enough!

The information in this article is more than a year old. I would imagine that hundreds if not thousands of more firearms have been confiscated.


Thousands of guns taken under Red Coat law

Florida has taken guns away from 2,000 residents in the year and a half since the state passed its Red Flag law, but while advocates tout the measure’s success and seek to have it expanded nationwide, statistics also show that much of the state has been slow to get on board.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Make no mistake, Republicans will be champions of gun rights until it looks like they’ll be pointed at them.

Wow, I am going to go out and shoot all of the mice in the yard when I see them this year. I am making a threat against others by using a co2 gun. Good thing I don't live in Florida because I am making a threat against others.

Just kidding, I am not going to shoot a fellow mouse.

It is the RED FLAG law.
Taking guns out of criminals' hands.
Now , what is wrong with that ?

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
I wish my job was this easy.

a reply to: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gothmog
It is the RED FLAG law.
Taking guns out of criminals' hands.
Now , what is wrong with that ?

Not sure if you're being serious...


Trump tweet illustrates the dangers of Red Coat gun confiscations.


Theyre removing firearms from the hands of criminals?

And here I thought it was just average Americans who had committed no crime.


Whats wrong with confiscating a man's property and depriving him of his right to self defense with little or no due process...?


Red Coat laws just happen to violate this pesky little thing called the Constitution: the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.


'Red Coat' Laws Leave Gun Owners Defenseless.

The upshot is that people can be stripped of the constitutional right to armed self-defense even when they almost certainly would not have used a gun to harm themselves or anyone else.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Decided today I'm not voting for anyone. Never again.

Less than a week later, they received a call about a man who allegedly pointed a handgun at his neighbor’s forehead, said “I want to know why this place is creeping on me” and threatened to shoot if he didn’t get an answer. When officers went to the man’s home, they found him driving slowly across his front yard with an assault-style rifle across his chest and a handgun wedged by the passenger seat. At one point he reportedly said: “I could have taken all of you.”

In mid-August, a Virginia Beach officer learned a woman who had previously been diagnosed with PTSD and bipolar disorder had said she had planned to shoot herself at Mount Trashmore Park but didn’t go through with it, explaining that “families started showing up and that it wasn’t her time.” She said she would wait until she officially lost her job, then do it.

All three people had substantial risk orders filed against them under the state’s new red flag law, which lets local authorities temporarily ban people from possessing or buying guns if they’re found to be a safety risk. The orders were filed despite Virginia Beach’s self-professed status as a “Second Amendment Constitutional City,” a moniker approved by its city council via a resolution passed in January under pressure from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group. The vote drew wide attention, coming about seven months after a mass shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal building that killed 12 people.

www.msn.com... 45

a reply to: gladtobehere

And did you fail to mention how many were returned and only held temporarily?? Nope you sure did not. This only occurs typically when a family member seriously believes a person is about to cause harm to themselves or others. 2000 people did not have their firearms permanently confiscated. And in fact many of them simply were turned over to relatives


Lets take it even further for the context of several of these cases, which do not lead to an offocer of the law just breaking down your door arbitrarily on some hearsay remark. A man gets fired from a job for sexual harassment of a female employee. He then texts said female employee and states he will shoot her and everyone at the job site. How do you proceed???

The correct answer is we completely ignore his threats and just wing it right?? If your derranged enough to make written threats about murder with a firearm, wouldnt you say that a civil hearing in court with a judge that asks you to surrender the weapon before even confiscating it through a LEO is a reasonable approach. Well in that case the defendant was apready arrested for making the threat and leaving a record of said threat.

Hey if it were up to me i would wild west this country. No more NFA, no more Brady or red flag laws. Machine guns for all. But in a society where authoritarians will ise any excise to take our arms from everyone, there had to be some kind of compromise.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

originally posted by: worldstarcountry

And did you fail to mention how many were returned and only held temporarily?? Nope you sure did not. .

Are you trying to say that I neglected to mention that "many" firearms were returned?

I havent seen a reliable source which mentions that "many" firearms were returned nor provides any credible details supporting that statement.

Whats the definition of "many"?

Under Connecticut’s long-standing law, the average number of guns taken in per person was seven, according to a study.

Multiply the no-gun orders in Florida by that number and that could mean more than 18,000 firearms have been collected.

Of the 18,000 potential firearms that were confiscated, what number would qualify as "many" being returned?


A possible return of property after the fact, a presumption of guilt until proven less guilty, assuming that the accused can actually afford quality legal representation...

Everything about the Red Coat gun confiscations is unlawful and unconstitutional, regardless of your personal opinion.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Trump tweet illustrates the dangers of Red Coat gun confiscations.

Quoting President Take the Guns First and Worry About Due Process Later isn't that great either.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: gladtobehere

Make no mistake, Republicans will be champions of gun rights until it looks like they’ll be pointed at them.

No.

a reply to: gladtobehere
Many is a relative quantification i suppose. However, can yyou cite and instance where someone who was not already making threats of violence with a firearm were the subject of these risk protection orders?? Frankly only five counties are even recorded as utilizing it 200 cases or more. And if you do further research, virtually all of these cases invovled individuals who have made very direct threats of violence and even public threats of violence. Heck it states in this article that 1 in 5 cases are already prohibited from even owning or buying firearms, including minors making overt threats on social media approaching 18.

The fact of the matter is, I have not seen any claims of a law abiding individual who minded their own busoness not making threats of violence being subject to these risk protection orders.

Dont let the opposition turn you against the only party keeping the second amendment safe using targeted headlines. Florida is one of 17 states with theze laws, and as far as we all know there has not been any reported cases of abuses of this law. It's the cabal media just trying to turn you against your own because they have already cannibilized each other.
Now they want us to do it too. Don't fall for that crap. You bring up this law which many law abiding gun owners who are not making overt threats of targeted or random violence actually support. I dont agree with it myself, but it is not the way you are trying to sell it in your op.

If you have a counter plan of action or suggestion, what would it be?? If it is to rally behind a grass roots effort to petition the state/governor to nullify this legislation, i will be the first to slap my signature on it for you.
If your suggestion is to change our votes to Democrat, im going to have to goce it a hard pass.

So then i ask, what is your plan or suggestion??? I believe a constructive discourse on this topic would be a positive discussion. But if your not putting anything on the table, then what is your focus exactly in this thread?? Or is it simply to influence targeted demographics for an undisclosed purpose?? Inquiring mijds would like to know.

Despite how feeble people's ability to have a serious discussion on ATS has become, I am always ready for a solutions based discussion.

a reply to: worldstarcountry


Essentially everything you said was wrong or simply not true.

Regardless, I'm not concerned about your thoughts on the issue.

I'm speaking to those who value our freedoms and rights.


As most of us already know, these Red Coat laws are unlawful, immoral, unconstitutional, all gun laws are.

"Shall not be infringed" means just that.


What we also know is that the thousands of people whose rights have been violated and property confiscated, are generally too poor to reclaim their rights and property in the face of nearly unlimited government power in whats become a dystopic nightmare.


Even if all of this didnt violate multiple Constitutional amendments and the most basic principles of freedom, theres nothing to suggest that any of it actually prevented anything other than some biased articles giving us hypotheticals.


The bottom line is that Red Coat laws are just another way for government to disarm the public.

Gun owners have been fearing gun confiscations for many many years and TPTB have finally found a way to make it happen with little or no resistance.

BRAVO!

The aspect which is also very relevant here is that people like to believe that its only the Left Democrats which would do such a thing, that they were the only people that needed to be feared.

That the REPUBLICANS were going to protect the Second Amendment.


For those who value our rights and freedom, its time to wake up.


Whether people will actually vote for her isnt really the point, she's the only one from any Party who is brave enough to speak the truth.

The clear winner: Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen's website crashed during the debate.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: gladtobehere

Make no mistake, Republicans will be champions of gun rights until it looks like they’ll be pointed at them.

Daayum, true talk, Im not a Gunz for everyone kinda guy , not everyone should have the ability to carry one, we need reasonable controls, but this bought back issues of the Californian gov't, reactions when the Black Panther party showed armed on the steps of the California statehouse Reagan and the NRA kicked in with all kinds of restrictions.

a reply to: gladtobehere
Wonder where all the repub ats members are?

I feel like this is an important issue for them.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Two words: cognitive dissonance.

If you have half a brain, there is no conflict here.

Republicans have always been for legal responsible gun ownership.

a reply to: jjkenobi

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If you have half a brain, there is no conflict here.

Republicans have always been for legal responsible gun ownership.

Right right.

Youre saying that the Republicans are Fudds.

That they, like the Democrats, believe in common sense anti-2A laws.

I would agree with that statement.

Theyre steppers.

a reply to: gladtobehere
Hey if your going to say i am wrong, then find a source, including your own btw, that points out all the law abiding responsible gun owners who were targeted for random confiscation by this law. The only sources I can find iincluding law enforcement articles all point to cases where those subject to these laws either had active criminal cases or were making overt threats of violence found to be credible threats. The other category were family members concerned about loved ones that may commit suicide.

Funny thing here is i dont even agree with the law myself, but you are trying to sell it as something it is not. If you have a case of innocent responsible gun owners being subject to wanton confiscation, please give us one. I have been unable to find any.

Well I suppose there is no need to substantiate the claim that arms are being wantonly confiscated from law abiding citizens, but at least you made the real point of your op a plug for a libertarian candidate. That would also have been a more honest title.