Trump Said to Weigh 'Red Flag' Orders to Take Guns Away Quickly

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 4,562 Senior Member
There goes due process...

(Bloomberg) -- The White House is considering the idea of using restraining orders to take firearms away from people considered dangerous as part of its response to last week’s massacre at a Florida high school, two people familiar with the matter said.
Under extreme risk protection orders, which are also known as red flag laws or gun violence restraining orders, firearms can be confiscated from people found to be at risk.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-said-to-weigh-red-flag-orders-to-take-guns-away-quickly/ar-BBJwC72?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

Ayn Rand

Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    I don't know much about them, but the laws in place seem to include due process and require a judge's approval. I can't say I'm for or against at this point, but upon first glance it doesn't sound like the worst idea. Indiana isn't exactly a gun grabber's paradise.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,562 Senior Member
    I don't know much about them, but the laws in place seem to include due process and require a judge's approval. I can't say I'm for or against at this point, but upon first glance it doesn't sound like the worst idea. Indiana isn't exactly a gun grabber's paradise.

    When I say due process, I mean a conviction. Too many times simple gun ownership is enough to be declared "possibly violent".

    In California, a restraining order can be granted without the subject's knowledge. Since California has a record of all gun sales, the cops run RO records against the DROS database and go to the house and confiscate firearms. It's already happening. It also happens when people are declared mentally ill.

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/07/californias-unique-gun-confiscation-program-in-spotlight-after-texas-church-massacre/
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Of course there is absolutely NO chance that a news outlet such as BLOOMBERG would be taking a single statement from the President, and publish it out of context so as to get folks into an emotional tizzy and erode support for a politician they hate.... RIGHT?
    So please show us the proper context of the statements and how Bloomberg manipulated it to erode support for the president.

    If anything, and according to your own remarks, we are just a tiny minority and this story would show the president in a positive light to the masses.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,562 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Of course there is absolutely NO chance that a news outlet such as BLOOMBERG would be taking a single statement from the President, and publish it out of context so as to get folks into an emotional tizzy and erode support for a politician they hate.... RIGHT?

    Collectively we are just children easily distracted by any shinny object and incapable of analyzing anything on our own. And this will be the demise of this country...:bang:

    I guess that's one way to ignore the statements of politicians. Blame out of context reporting or assume what they have verbally (or electronically) stated isn't what they meant.

    Blindly supporting a politician because of his/her party affiliation is what will destroy this country.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • Old RonOld Ron Senior Member Posts: 3,649 Senior Member
    Can't help but wonder who is taking notes of pictures we put on here. It is a shame that we really have to think that way now days.
  • terminator012terminator012 Senior Member Posts: 3,865 Senior Member
    Old Ron wrote: »
    Can't help but wonder who is taking notes of pictures we put on here. It is a shame that we really have to think that way now days.

    Yep.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,261 Senior Member
    "You can get your guns back- - - - - - -" Remember when that was said during hurricane Katrina? The few people who actually managed to get theirs back got rusty junk that had been deliberately stored in leaky, humid shipping containers. That lie was almost as egregious as "Of course I'll respect you in the morning!"

    Politicians who lie?- - - - - - -perish the thought!
    :roll:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Yes we are. And it seems to be. Rubio already called it a good idea. Besides guns are taken away routinely from folks under arrest or under investigation and there is a process in place to get them back when either charges are dropped or you have been released with no charges.

    from the article since most wont take the time to read it and become informed:

    California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington have laws that allow the authorities to temporarily strip people believed to be a danger to themselves or others with their weapons. Anyone subject to such an order would not be allowed to buy or obtain more guns while the order was in effect.
    The Trump administration is looking at encouraging states to enact the legislation, possibly by tying grant money as a reward for those states to adopt the idea, one of the people said.
    [FONT=&amp]


    Also the only official word out of Trump is below. All he said was “good”. The rest of all this including the headline was derived for unidentified sources in the White House.

    [/FONT]

    At the White House on Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi described to President Donald Trump similar efforts underway in her state to allow law enforcement to seize firearms from someone who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.
    "Good," Trump responded.
    At a Florida town hall on CNN earlier in the week, Marco Rubio, one of Florida’s two senators, said he supported restraining orders.
    While the concept has bipartisan support, some gun-rights groups have embraced it because it does not impose new regulations on firearms themselves. It is one of a range of proposals, including mental health initiatives, that are under consideration by the White House.
    [FONT=&amp]

    So again... nothing concrete at all just a headline derived from not even a complete statement, only meant to incite exactly what just happened here. A completely emotional anti-Trump response...[/FONT]
    You need to keep reading...
    Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said at a press briefing on Thursday that the White House was looking at red-flag laws.
    "I think some states have had these red-flag laws, for example, that remove firearms after you go to a judge for potentially dangerous individuals. That’s something that’s being done right now in a variety of states, right? They have due process rights for these individuals. It seems to be working in certain areas. That’s something that we’re looking at and other places we’re looking at," Shah added.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    That, I can't answer. All I can say is the referenced article can't be dismissed as some biased, fake news trash-- a common tactic that gets way overused in an effort to mask inconvenient truths or to give credibility to opinionated garbage. It looks like some fair and straight reporting to me where we can read it and form our own opinions.

    My opinion on red flag orders? I am with the White House 100% at the moment-- It is something to consider. After consideration, I may be for or against it. I do not know. Right now, I see the concern with an individual's rights, but it would be unfair to ignore the rights of the abused spouses, children, elderly parents, etc... that have repeatedly warned that a person is dangerous and nobody listened. I am also wondering how existing law with restraining orders may fit into this. Of course the devil is always in the details...
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    Regardless of the article content, those laws likely translate to due process only for those well represented at their own cost and just process for those less heeled in actual practice.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    I think I understand the point of the laws at least. It seems there is far too often that we run into cases where someone is clearly dangerous, making threats etc. but has yet to break any specific laws. This seems to allow authorities to present that information to a judge who can grant a temporary removal of the individual's firearms. How such a system is implemented is important and I think letting states decide is best, but I at least think I understand the problem this is supposed to solve. I also get the hesitance by some to ever give this sort of power to government.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,461 Senior Member
    Making threats is already against the law. If LE would bother and the judges would bother and the politicos would stop pandering to the bleeding hearts because "Johnny is just having a hard time" things would work like they are already supposed to.

    There is no need for extra constitutional rules when the laws are in place now.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I agree with what you say but I also believe the article, specially the title was crafted to incite exactly the Chicken Little reaction CaliFFL had to it. Substitute “Unnamed White House sources” for “Trump” on the heading and it carries a completely different tone. I guess I’m just tired of all these “legit” new sources using tabloid tactics to stir these emotional responses.
    Oh, I am tired of them too. But trash like this never gets questioned because it fits the desired narrative....

    http://forums.gunsandammo.com/showthread.php?35744-School-Shooting-Plot-Exposed

    The first article cited is is from the Constitution. If you do any research on that one, it is one of many websites that exist only to generate ad clicks-- mainly through Facebook. It is nothing more than a media mill cranking out far right hubris. They are based just outside of Atlanta. The second one cited is from American Thinker-- which used to be somewhat credible at one time but seem to have transformed into another far right media mill. They both reference the same manipulated source to make their case (that fits their agenda).
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    Been there, done that. It gets you labeled as liberal, butthurt, and biased. And anything that is close to fact and doesn't fit the narrative gets dismissed as fake news.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    This, this, this.
    Except the law is very hard to prosecute. 1st amendment and all. A threat must be specific and they must prove intent which is a high bar. Also person who made the threat if allowed out on bail can currently maintain their firearms. As the laws currently stands it is really hard to strip a person of their firearms. That is mostly good, except it also makes it really hard to stop someone who is a known threat or just raving mad litteraly up until the point the pull a firearm and point it at another person.

    As an example I could be a radical Muslim, fill my car with ARs and magazines, post on my public Twitter "death to infadels, praise Alah" "I can wait for my 72 virgins!!!" Drive to a highly populated area and if the cops stopped me all I'd have to say is I was on my way to the range and they couldn't touch me.

    Again I don't know the answer but as the law stands now these events are virtually impossible to stop before they happen even if we highly suspect someone. It seems like maybe we need to give some more tools to law enforcement to handle situations where there is someone identfied as clearly dangerous.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    This is the gray area where a COMPETENT law enforcement agency (Sheriff/FBI/DHS) would coordinate and post a 24 hr surveillance team to follow until it can be determined whether the subject warrants further scrutiny and surveillance, or whether they're just full of shiznit. ESPECIALLY after all the warning signs this guy generated among the local community.

    Law enforcement doesn't need "more tools". They need to use the ones they have ALREADY.

    Having said that, I still think we need to allow those teachers who choose to, to arm themselves (CCW).

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    edited March 2018 #18
    While the credibility is lacking from the source (Trump's mouth) this gives a little more insight into this discussion....
     http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,562 Senior Member
    While the credibility is lacking from the source (Trump's mouth) this gives a little more insight into this discussion....
     http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second



    Come on. That's just out of context, chicken-little fearmongering. 
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    edited March 2018 #20
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I guess that's one way to ignore the statements of politicians. Blame out of context reporting or assume what they have verbally (or electronically) stated isn't what they meant.

    Blindly supporting a politician because of his/her party affiliation is what will destroy this country.

    .........Ridiculous that we even have to debate this...

    Not ridiculous, in my opinion. I watched that entire meeting, and I was appalled at some of the things the president said, and that he was agreeing with the Democrats, while scolding Steve Scalese for attaching the 'trans state' CCW bill to one of the 'gun reform' bills. Trump is getting more and more like Obama in one respect - he eventually says everything on both sides of an issue, according to who he is courting. He may have only said "Good." on this one, but his other comments provided all the context I needed.

    If he didn't mean it, or if he has changed his mind, why doesn't he just say so? Millions voted for him because he said he was the greatest when it comes to the 2A. If he misspoke in this meeting, wasn't listening, or has changed his mind, he should make that clear. At this point, I do not know what his position is on universal background checks, raising the legal age to 21, or even banning semi-auto rifles. He appears to just want a bill to sign, so he can take credit for it and move on the next ticket he's trying to punch.

    I have given him full credit for the promises he has kept, but if he turns on a dime and starts cozying up to the left, as he appeared to be doing in that meeting, I will certainly say my piece on that subject, too.
  • rberglofrberglof Senior Member Posts: 2,368 Senior Member
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.