doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Red Flag Legislation Alert

Very interesting and very important unconstitutional inroads proposed by the congressman from Florida.

https://youtu.be/20O9GsACsOQ





.

Marco Rubio would NEVER get my vote. This new red flag push is an unconstitutional infringement upon our Rights. What a mess.....why not just investigate this sort of claim rather than confiscate? Sounds like Hitler�s storm trooper tactics.

Rubio is an idiot.

Unfortunately, if rubio ever showed up on one of my ballots, he would be running against a progressive and he would easily get my vote over that auto full anti alternative. Thankfully, this fellow has done his darndest to make himself marginally relevant. Things could change, but the actually policies of this current President far exceed what might be expected of a politician. With a bit of lucky or unlucky timing, he'll send another nominee to the senate, and hopefully this rubio fellow won't play politics with it, we know what the senate lefties will do.

This is only an extension of existing loss of our rights. Traditionally you had to be convicted of a felony to lose your right to own a gun. The "Lautenberg(?) Amendment" put an end to that. Not only do you not have to be convicted, the infraction you are accused of doesn't have to be a felony or even a misdemeanor. If your wife decides she wants her new boyfriend to have your bass boat, and gets an "Order Of Protection" to keep you from pulling it out of the driveway; you can't buy a new deer rifle to replace you old one she gave him.
Mike

CA already has red flag laws in place. Our esteemed AG, Javier Becerra, is proud of the fact that the DOJ has sent out squads of goons to confiscate guns, and holds regular press conferences to tout his successes. I think (not sure) that staff limitations have restricted their forays mostly to visiting convicted felons. As a side note, I went by the local gun shop last week to buy my hunting license and duck stamps, and the store has closed permanently. Seems that the CA legislative agenda is working according to the governor's plan. The slippery slope is getting slicker than snot.

In Massachusetts if a restraining order is issued against you, the first thing that is done is your firearms are confiscated..... on someone else's determination that you "could present a danger" should you be allowed to keep them.
You don't have to have committed a crime... EVER, but without even having a hearing, they come for your guns.

Went into effect in NY yesterday.

There was never the least doubt how the Red Flag law was going to be used to take your home protection and gun collection, doubles and all, and crush them forever. The public safety issue just means they get them for free...Geo

If a federal law is passed, its over.

I believe in the Supreme Court and I believe they will strike it down on the grounds of the Second Ammendment to the Constitution of The United States of America.

bOb Cash you better get to packing.

DAM16SXS,
It also violates the 4th and maybe 5th amendments.
Mike

I have to agree with this. Until the introduction of these redflag laws, I thought the process to get a restraining order was the most BS thing ever created by man. Just on the assumption of probable cause of "abuse", a fellow can get tossed out of his home and disabused of his possessions for up to a month or more before a judge even looks at it. And that is no help either. I'm sure the judges that hear these cases are trained to believe whatever the victim says so long as it is plausible, but at least someone had to say "somebody did something to me" to get the order. I guess there would have to be at least evidence that "something" happened. Now with this redflag BS, we just get to speculate on who's gonna shoot up a crowd.

I cant say I'm surprised though. Laws like this that are passed in a panic when a long running shitty situation simmers with no redress and then it boils over and we get laws like this passed in the mess.

Thanks NRA! I would have happily traded universal background checks for this one.

It's good to see what the transgender idiot nca225's real agenda was for posting in this thread. In his/her puny brain, it is the NRA's fault that these Red Flag laws are being enacted. If only the NRA would have rolled over and given Universal Background checks to the anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats, none of this would be happening.

Truth is, once again, it is mainly Liberal left Democrats who are pressing for Red Flag Laws, Universal Background Checks, bans on semi-autos, magazine restrictions, etc. The states that already have Red Flag type laws and gun confiscations without due process are all controlled by Liberal left Democrats.

The Lautenberg Amendment, mentioned by Der Ami, was from New Jersey anti-gun DEMOCRAT Senator Frank Lautenberg.

But brain-dead Libtards like nca225 are just too stupid to connect the dots, so they keep on supporting Liberal left Democrat anti-gunners.

I notice that nobody has even suggested calling your Congressmen and Senators to tell them that we will not support legislators who infringe upon our 2nd Amendment.

Woke up, what a knucklehead. Insert any topic, everything you comment about is based on assumption.

If you guys keep playing the keith and craig show, with no changes to the tune, your gonna get a lot more than red flag laws. Or maybe that's what you want? Seems like you fellows in the cabal are more interested in being entrenched, bashing liberals and making your talking points instead of acting as a stakeholder and working with the group to figure out a consensus on how to solve the problem.

You two try to play as if your smart, but your incredibly stupid if you think you can influence the process by not being a part of it. Instead of contacting your senators and congressmen, your time and money for that matter, would be better spent contacting the NRA and letting them now your dues would be better spent working on reasonable legislation as opposed to a new wardrobe or mansion for LaPierre.

Now the idiot transgender is sounding a lot like his fellow anti-2nd Amendment troll King Brown. Both suggest that our NRA should return to the bad old days when they gave in and permitted anti-gun Democrats to chip away at our gun rights.

Fact is, our gun rights became a lot more secure after the Cincinnati Reforms when the NRA began staunchly defending the 2nd Amendment, and not giving an inch to anti-gunners. The NRA also grades legislators on their gun rights voting records, so unfortunately, most of the idiot nca225's favored Liberal Left Democrats get an "F" grade.

Wayne LaPierre makes a decent salary, but considering the great work he and the NRA have done to insure our Gun Rights, his salary and perks are insignificant. Certainly nothing compared to what the anti-gun Clintons get for a few speeches. And what about the extreme anti-gunner Barack Hussein Obama??? There's another multi-millionaire with a nice wardrobe and a mansion who did nothing for gun rights except try to take them from us. Why isn't this idiot Libtard nca225 concerned about that?



nca225 still doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". He/she must have been taught by rocky mtn bill.

["I would have happily traded universal background checks for this one."]nca

The 'gunshow loophole' you'd trade away is the 1968 Gun Control law carveout which was negotiated for the purpose of allowing you to swap guns with your in-state neighbor or pass your shotgun down to your grandson without having to submit him to a federal background check. If it is to be renegotiated, then the whole thing should be hashed out once again...Geo

How about I just cut out your NRA comments, they're nothing more than talking points that were told to use, right?

If there was any bashing, I appologize, to knuckleheads. Otherwise, it's the truth, isn't it? Think about it, when you contact your congress gender neutral person, what value comes of it other than one of their staffers hitting you up for a donation, because their talking point marketing scheme worked?

Don't you worry yourself any about my business, I'll do and not do whatever's working out for me. All that's of value to me is that I fully understand agenda hypocrisy, and reminding you, not me, of the pitfalls of faux common ground, eh?

If you're trying to imply an ounce of truth, don't be a knee jerk lemming, call it out before hand. It's on full display.

Wouldn't an nca type chomp at the bit to hash out gun control. He'd be given credibility that didn't take an ounce of effort to earn. I am satified for myself that the 'universal' effort is a foot in the door. I suspect to placate there will some grandfather clause, that will only mean folks born after some arbitrary date down the road will be bound by progressive law, regs and enforcement.

craig, my point is simply that once you negotiate a deal such as the gun show loophole as was done in 1968, you shouldn't be able to just come back to renegotiate only that point. My opinion is that the 68 law would not be passed at all in present times...Geo

I was 30 years old when the 1986 Gun Law went into effect, so remember it well. The NRA did not register as a Lobbyist until after it was passed, TOO BAD. Prior to this about all, they could do was alert members of upcoming laws being put forward. I also remember the Cincinnati Reforms Keith mentioned. Matter of fact I was by then a Life Member & Voted to Oust the Foot Draggers & put the NRA in the hands of a New Group. As Keith Correctly stated our Gun Rights became much more secure after that.

Had it not been for the NRA our gun rights would have long ago vanished, in spite of the 2nd Amendment, & we would not even have this Forum. The "
Liberal Left" do not Want Reasonable Gun Control, they want "Total" Gun Control, which means totally Disarming America except Law Enforcement & the Military. One simply has to look at other countries where that has occurred to see the results.

IF that's what you want, MOVE to one of those countries & leave AMERICA alone.

Just so everyone understands, "Universal Background Checks" have little to do with background checks; rather it is a scheme to "back door" registration. A background check should determine if a person is prohibited from owning any gun. For this, make, model, and serial number of any gun is immaterial. The only reason to record this information is to establish a registry. The only reason to record a grandfather's gift of a shotgun for Christmas is for updating a registry. If the idea were really about making sure a prohibited person doesn't buy a gun in a private sale; presentation of a current concealed carry permit should be enough. The buyer had to undergo a background check for the permit, what purpose would another one serve? Since FFL holders have to do a background check for all sales, it seems to me that the Clintons( Democrats) running a quarter million dealers out of business ( saying it was a hobby not business, the home was not in area permitted for business, etc.,etc.) shows their constant harping on the so called "gun show loophole" is hypocritical.
Mike

Mike is correct about so-called Universal background checks. They are nothing except a back-door gun registration scheme by anti-gun Democrats. Unfortunately, there are a few RINO's such as my Republican Senator Pat Toomey who also support them.

I cannot recall even one recent mass shooting where the shooter did not buy his guns from an FFL, and go through and pass a background check. Such laws would not prevent these shootings. It is a Liberal Left Democrat smoke-screen which uses tragedies to advance more anti-gun laws.

I have taken the time to contact the White House, both U.S. Senators, and my Congressman to tell them that I will not support them if they support Universal Background checks, or other infringements upon the rights of law abiding U.S. citizen gun owners. I told them that current background checks should not include the make, model number, or serial number of the firearm being purchased. If all gun owners took the time to tell their legislators to stop messing around with our gun rights, these constant attacks would end very quickly. Remember what happened to anti-gun Democrats in the 2014 mid-term elections. Quite a few got their asses handed to them, and they joined the millions on Obama's unemployment lines.

I wouldn't think so either. Makes one wonder even more so why an nca type would be so generous with his advice about contacting representatives. He knows the ones he votes for don't have enough upstairs to legislate, but maybe they do enough to keep the bench activists apprised of which way the wind is blowing.

I fear no background check into my fitness to buy a gun. I have no interest in the government knowing what I own or what I do. If I am cleared to own that should be the only question. After background checks for military security clearance, FBI background checks, State Background checks for a Concealed Carry permit in a state who absolutely hated to issue them, six total IRS audits and a wife of 43 years, I�ve got nothing to hide. I do not agree that they should use this as a backdoor way to restrict gun purchases or ownership.

What we have is a mental health issue, not a lack of gun control laws. 100% rapid reporting of mental health issues, which could lead to violence should be a federal law. Put mental health issues out in the open instead of hiding them or pretending they don�t exist. In fact a warning to police that a resident may become a violent problem should be the law. Instead of letting a cop walk into a potential hostile situation they should know in advance do they can show up in enough strength to deal with any situation safely and quickly.

Only a fool believes that gun control law numbers 2126& 2017 will make any real difference. We�ve got laws. Most are well enforced and well followed. What we don�t have are good means of dealing with mental health problems people. A pill does not cure most mental health issues. A pill which is not taken properly does not help at all. Most of our homeless people have mental health issues and the ever loving Democrats defend their right to live on the street, crap 💩 in the street and make our cities into a slum. As long as we have large homeless numbers you can be sure that all mental health care is failing to deal with the problem. If you get the mental health afflicted people off the streets or at least identified most of these shooting would cease. Those left will be terrorist attacks and hate crimes.

If someone is too crazy to have a gun, they are too crazy to be walking the streets in the first place. Taking their guns will do nothing but make them mad

I'd guess most if not all of us have legally purchased a firearm or two with their associated checks.

I believe there was a time, may still apply, that a veteran making an appointment for possible ptsd would be declined to make a purchase. How many emotion stirring headline criminal acts involved that condition? In recent years, I know of minors being asked if there are guns in the house as part of a routine physical, without the presence of either parent. Most, all(?), medical associations that would provide 'expert' input for creating guidelines regularly affiliate or associate with the left.

I'd be a little cautious of who gets to decide on the rules and who gets to interpret them. The mental health conditions that are of concern here is very rare. In today's world, mental health problems are exaggerated, glorified and mainstreamed. There's a left wing industry creating and invested in increasing those numbers, are we going to get honest rules for reporting?

Mills,
I agree, they should only be able to take the guns if the subject is involuntarily committed. Then that would meet the current requirements of the law, therefore provide due process.
Mike

I hope I'm wrong but I'm not so sure the mental health argument is going to win the day when there is a palatable fear across the nation of being killed in a mass shooting.

That fear is going to become controlling sooner or later and something is going to get done, & whatever that is going to be, its going to be the easiest thing to achieve. And what do think that is going to be? Identifying individuals with MH issues and then going through the due process of removing their firearms or just legislating a ban?

You might not like hearing it from me but the left is picking up on the right's tactics of fear mongering and fear will get it done. My instinct is that the wave is going to be to large to be blocked by a wall. Its just going to flow over it, so the gun lobby's best chance is to get ahead of it and work out a reasonable solution.

nca225,
I can remember when "Separate But Equal" was considered to be a reasonable solution(blessed by Supreme Court).We know now that no infringement of constitutional rights can be "reasonable".
Mike

nca225 and keith are in lock-step on this---backdoor registration---except more than Democrats pushing it. Canada's public broadcaster television last night featured "weaponizing," making "fortresses" of US schools. As nca225 says, left and right are playing the fear game. Another interesting point is that the call for background checks was so strong in Canada that it became more rigid this year by investigating a lifetime, no longer five years before application. And mental health is only part of it.

Mike that really depends on what the powers that be consider to be an "infringment".

OPne4 has to wonder why we so often hear the term "Gun Lobbyist" stated as if it's such a dirty word that the speaker has to go wash his mouth after uttering it.

Does not EVERYONE realize the "Anti-Guin Lobbyists" spend far more dollars & have far more lobbyists than do the Pru-Gun folks?

Be honest! How many times have you heard the term "Anti-Gun Lobbyist" used my our "Impartial (RITFl, LOL) News Media?

Accurate, Miller. Lobbying is a legitimate part of governance. It's an industry; anyone with a mission does it. They pay professionals to use their skills and influence where it counts. We all do it, one way or another.

I would also agree that, all put-together, "the anti-gun lobbyist" is more ubiquitous and spends more than the pro-gun lobby. Which is why I said years ago that that our fraternity will become unrecognizable within our lifetimes.

As Stalin said to Churchill at Yalta: "How many divisions has the Pope?"And Geo: "One federal law and it's over."

"And Geo: "One federal law and it's over."

Not just any federal law, but that one in particular because it not only violates the 2nd, but inverts the burden of proof involved in a government taking. Not much chance of it being passed though...Geo

... we can only hope and pray it won't be...

You are trying a softer approach, but what exactly is your point here? There is absolutely no substance to your comment.

You are calling for gun control based on your feelings and the feelings of like minded people. Where are your facts to prove beyond any 'reasonable' doubt, that putting restrictions on only law abiding US citizens will in any way alleviate your fears?

You mention 'due process' vs. 'legislation'? Huh? Are you saying that one option is the legislative branch doing their job, and the other option is 'due process' by the fear mongering of the left because they're better at fear mongering than the right?

If you believe that citizens are destined to be controlled by fear, then the only relief in sight would the third branch of govenment, the judiciary, that renders decisions that it imposes on law abiding citizens based on facts and not the reason that dems install judges, fear activism.

Last, but certainly not least, when did you or any of your emotional lefty buddies settle for a reasonable solution? Shouldn't we recognize your position today as an increment and subject to 'evolving'?

Did you mean to say 'your' fraternity? Is everyone obligated to be lumped into your fraternity when you want the fraternity to end sooner rather than later?

I meant to say "our" fraternity and wrote it that way, craig. And, no, none is obligated to be lumped into anything. And, no, no one has said they want the fraternity to end sooner than later, certainly not me. Keep cool.

You miss a lot when you pontificate from the abstract craig. I'm not supportive of this red flag BS and nor am I receptive to an assault weapons ban. I am pretty good at predicting human nature though, and although you and your buddies don't want help from me, I'm warning you that the irrational fear of getting shot that is taking grip is going to cause bad laws such, as the above, to be passed. The gun lobby should get ahead of the issue. Being entrenched isn't helpful in a tsunami.

No doubt you'd be one of the first to be red flagged for being insane and in possession of a firearm.

Just an observation 'Comrade.

Keith did you notice how their nasty insanity has calmed....

Quite obvious because of their fear of being red flagged.

I never once said having help was a bad thing or not appreciated. Another way of looking at hypocrisy might be, how long do you hang around with buddies that lie to you?

Eighteen hundred people have been shot in chicago so far this year, yet you have never been willing to 'discuss' your motivation for sweeping the fear talking point under the rug if it doesn't fit your agenda. It's always been about how you lobby to vote, not how you blog. Are you predicting human nature or do you wait until talking points gain traction before you become an authority.

If you're concerned about 'bad' laws, I believe you're implying that they will come from lawmakers. Specifically, are you defining gun rights unity as voting dem?

Hope and prayer couldn't hurt. But God helps those who help themselves.

A good place to start is letting your legislators know that you won't tolerate further infringements upon the 2nd Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens.

Then, renewing your membership in the NRA is important because the NRA continues to be the most potent lobby in Washington, and they are the cheapest gun insurance policy you can possibly buy.

Most important is for gun owners to finally recognize the enemy within. When King speaks of a "Fraternity" of gun owners, he wants us to continue to embrace those who are stabbing us in the back by supporting the anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats. The same Democrats who work relentlessly to nibble away at our gun rights. Then we have King and his little transgender pal nca225 frequently suggesting that our NRA should give in to the anti-gunners to placate their never-ending quest to exploit fear and tragedy in order to take away our gun rights.

The most despicable enemy you can have is the enemy who pretends to be your friend.

Seems to me that in this situation my enemy isn't the guy telling me a shit hurricane is coming and to prepare for it. It would be the guy who gets the warning and then doesn't take any precautions to ameliorate its effects.

If we get an assault weapons ban or a national red flag law, its that guy's fault.

Hmmm, yet another non answer. So, your solution is to turn to the fellow with no answers for hurricane relief.

Well nca, you say the gun lobby needs to work in on reasonable solutions to help you overcome your fears. Let�s try this again, list the specific gun lobby organization that you contribute to that�re looking out for your interests?

The fastest way to lose rights is to divide gun owners into enemies and loyalists by the way they vote.

The fastest way to divide is to not be forthcoming with the folks you claim to want to unite. Isn�t truthful acknowledgement of voting record relevant? Then again, was it necessary to mention since nca refused to explain, and I moved on to trying to figure what he means by �gun lobby�? Wouldn�t that be relevant, seeing how he might be talking about the anti lobby?

What�s your solution, besides repealing the Canadian registry? Maybe, through a special kinship, you could explain some particulars of what nca is meaning instead of beating around the bush?

In today's times here in the USA the way one votes, liberal or conservative is the division among gun owners and enemies. I'm not a true believer republican, but they are the only choice because the other party has made gun control a primary plank of their state and national platform. If gun owners vote democrat it is they who divide themselves from me...Geo

Non answer for what? Your dribble? Seems to me like you are well aware that there is no acceptable answer that you wouldn't try to find some ideological fault with. You can play that game and lose at it all by yourself.

Take this current thread for example. You only want to whine about Dem voting records, put up a wall and conduct 2nd amendment purity screening to protect against the oncoming attack. Do you think for one second that an R Senator from a State your guy is underwater isn't going to read the tea leaves and flip on this to save his job? Take for example keith's own senator from PA. He flipped on background check just after Newtown and he hasn't gone back. I bet you he would go several steps further to save his job.

Remember, my side has the favorable numbers with respect to where and what seats are at stake this year and it seems there is a blue tide still in effect. So go right on playing the keith and craig game. If these laws pass, its guys like you, who would not compromise on any issue, and therefore were excluded from the process that are going to be at fault.

I don't blame a politician for being a politician. I blame gun owners and their lobby for being naive to think they can keep away change for ever.

I'll tell you what, If I turn out to be wrong, and I hope I do, you can call me chicken little for a day. But if I'm right, pointing that out to you will not give any satisfaction if there is a ban.

Geo, I'm interested to know why do you think that is? This was not part of the platform at the turn of the century.

I recall you idiots had a blue tide when Lying Hillary ran for president....a blue tide destroyed by a red tide.

That deserves more than a flippant answer, but all that comes immediately to mind is that neither was socialism...Geo

Maybe, and I�m not Geo, it has something to do with your response to me. You use the words, �my side�, eh. You, meaning your side, invented a new �political� game with barry o, the mainstreaming of identity politics. Substance need not apply, only far left feelings matter, right?

It doesn�t matter one bit f you want to be a chicken for a day, all that matters is that your side wins, huh? Platform? You forget the good ole days when russia was soul food for the left, not a weak buzz word for attacking enemies. If bern honeymooned over their, was he colluding with a fantasy that that you would mindlessly follow?

In any event, thank you for letting a little honesty slowly dribble out.

I don't get it. I have as wide a range of friends and associates as you guys. Their inclinations and thoughts toward religion, gun control, evolution, abortion, partisan politics, healthcare, immigration etc don't define them as enemies if I disagree or friends and get-alongs if I do. I can't think of anything worse than a world habited by keiths and me. One size doesn't fit all.

Where was that tide in 2018?

I'm pretty confident you are way more capable then just a flippant answer Geo.

Oh, you want to talk about Russia instead of how your tact is going to cost gun owners. Figures, you always do like to deflect when cornered. But do you really want to talk about Russia you big patriot you? Do you really think changing the topic is going to work against legislation? So what next out of that nebulous thing you call a mind to try to confront me? Barry's 5 year anniversary of his tan suit?

Awe, come on King. nca said, we all gotta pull together on this and beat the ban, through the work of lobbyists, right?

It takes a little bit, but didn't he just revert to his predictable tactic of demonizing with no substance? Why do you think friendship is the topic, isn't this about policy, tactics and agendas? I've mentioned I have lefty friends. If they feel like getting a little woke around me, they know they'll get push back, but they're still welcome in my home.

nca says, his politicians are going to win, and they are the answer to making America feel safe. For all his ballet dips and twirls, would you be kind enough to woke me to the part where he said he would reach across the aisle and find fact based solutions to fact based problems? Yup, I know, truth over fact, eh?

Kindly point out where I said I wouldn't. Yup, I know, spin over fact, eh?

Don't get worked for nothing, embrace the whole package, right?

I've pointed out that you said lobbyists will ensure your safety. I pointed out dems won't legislate. What's broke in your head? Why am I supposed to feel like your have a valid idea just because you can repeat it a bunch of times.

Would you honestly discuss beating a gun ban? How about, support the NRA because of their proven track record in the face of demonization from the left. And second, get that selfish old bag to retire from the high court.

Can you hold back your feelings long enough to factually tell me why that wouldn't be good, productive steps to help beat the ban that you profess to be so concerned about? What's really going on here. Are you worried you'll have to give up your AR, even though you feel like you're smarter than everyone else?

It's not worth quoting. Haven't you repeatedly said that yours and the rest of your lefty buddies leveraging point of view is based on fear?

You are not commenting from a position of fear, you're trying to legitimizing and justify the progressive agenda. What makes you say that the solution is to infringe on the law abiding, rather than calling for all political stripes denounce unfounded fear?