Possible bad news

[jbs2014]

I am not certain of how many of you checked Drudge recently, but for those of you who did not it seems that the Inform and Influence efforts of the anti-gun side and their media stooges are starting to be successful on a multitude of GOP members.

This is what was posted a few hours ago:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...k-up-momentum-with-gop-in-congress/ar-AAFqNjB

Here is one highlight from John Thune SD (R) - "confident Congress will be able to find common ground on the so-called red flag issue."

And apparently, GOP Rep Dan Crenshaw shows signs that he may cast his support for these abysmal Red Flag laws as well. From his Twitter feed:

"The solutions aren't obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let's start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state "red flag" laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone"

And I thought Crenshaw was a solid supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

At this point, all I can advise doing is keep e-mailing your reps (because our enemies are), supporting GOA & the NRA (despite them chickening out with the Savage Nation), and start stocking up on ammo and the ARs you always wanted. Also, start making a plan in case these laws are implemented.

 

[the hunter]

After Trump got in they let their guard down. They are all owned by the same people.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Yep, 2 heads of the same snake. I don't trust Crenshaw either.

I would tell you who owns all these people, but I might get banned by doing so. Lets just say they all wear very small hats, and 87+ members of Congress have dual-citizenship to their country.

 

[the hunter]

J

 

[BallisticsGuy]

So this is an argument I'll put forth in order to inflame opinion and spark rational reasoned debate, not because I actually think these things. If someone jumps down my throat for it they've missed the point and I won't respond to them and suggest nobody else should either.

I'll call this the Hegelian view:
"As long as due process is respected it's not a violation or a problem for national level legislation. Sometimes people go nuts and it's not usually permanent. There's plenty of this red flag law stuff on the state level, most of which is in fact enormously onerous and of questionable constitutionality. Is it questionable to extend it to the federal level? Probably because government could screw up a wet dream but if it's carefully crafted such legislation may actually serve our purposes. If they can take my shootin' irons away if I lose my friggin mind and are forced to return them when my sanity returns and there are appeals processes, removal is by warrant and such then the justification for things like Class 3 stuff being unobtainium in some states and being even as heavily regulated as it is starts to be reduced almost to nothing."

Debate!

 

[KyCarl]

It all stinks of "Baker Act" crap! I've been emailing my elected officials and
stating my point! And how it can affect my voting!!
Well I just got the call from the ATF that went to all FFL holders. About reporting "Suspicious Activity" and the tip line number...Sorry Dudes..I'm not doing your job!
I'm a retired Machinist I have no training in Mental health Who am I to say?
As long as they behave and pass the background that's my limit!

[email protected]
11:09 AM (2 minutes ago)


to

This is an important message from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. ATF recognizes the essential role that FFLs perform in keeping the public safe, and we greatly value your cooperation. If you encounter indications of unlawful activity, please report it to your local ATF field office and or local law enforcement. A listing of all ATF field offices can be found at www.atf.gov. You may also contact ATF to report suspicious activity any time at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or online at www.reportit.com and select ATF Anonymous Tip Line. Thank you.

 

[Rick Richard]

Red flag laws COULD be a good thing, but will not because it will be abused. Two groups will benefit from this. The antigun groups since this will be the birth of removing guns from Americans and the second will be lawyers. Why? Because it will cost the accused everything they have in lawyer fees to defend themselves...not a good idea.

 

[MudRunner2005]

It all stinks of "Baker Act" crap! I've been emailing my elected officials and
stating my point! And how it can affect my voting!!
Well I just got the call from the ATF that went to all FFL holders. About reporting "Suspicious Activity" and the tip line number...Sorry Dudes..I'm not doing your job!
I'm a retired Machinist I have no training in Mental health Who am I to say?
As long as they behave and pass the background that's my limit!

[email protected]
11:09 AM (2 minutes ago)


to

This is an important message from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. ATF recognizes the essential role that FFLs perform in keeping the public safe, and we greatly value your cooperation. If you encounter indications of unlawful activity, please report it to your local ATF field office and or local law enforcement. A listing of all ATF field offices can be found at www.atf.gov. You may also contact ATF to report suspicious activity any time at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or online at www.reportit.com and select ATF Anonymous Tip Line. Thank you.

Last I knew, most FFL holders report suspicious activity to local authorities and let them deal with it...

So now Trump has not only granted the ATF legislative powers (bumpstock ban), now they're also being crowned as experts to conduct mental health checks on suspicious individuals? Seriously?

The very establishment and premise of the ATF is in-and-of itself unconstitutional according to the 2nd Amendment (because it's entire job is infringement)... So, we should just go ahead and commit more treason by giving them even more power, right?

This is getting seriously out of hand... Trump is SUPPOSED to be (claims to be) for small government, yet, he's making it more powerful and more infringing on our rights at every turn, just to appease the left-wing anti-gun nutjobs.

 

[Deleted member 107796]

I believe that we can improve our public safety a number of ways besides any real gun restrictions, like getting serious about treating mental health. I also believe we can do better at background checks and enforcing existing laws with real teeth (I view immigration law the same). I also stand for red flag laws, if one must attach some sort of catchy name to demonize. The reason why, is that lives will be saved and the millions of guns owned out there by truly responsible and not closet freak, gun owners, are going nowhere. In the end, if we improve our public safety by doing the things we need to do, and many folks know what we need to do, it will only disappoint those that want all guns gone and those that think the 2A is absolute. Annoying either extremist group is nothing compared to improving our public safety.

 

[Johnslam]

So this is an argument I'll put forth in order to inflame opinion and spark rational reasoned debate, not because I actually think these things. If someone jumps down my throat for it they've missed the point and I won't respond to them and suggest nobody else should either.

I'll call this the Hegelian view:
"As long as due process is respected it's not a violation or a problem for national level legislation. Sometimes people go nuts and it's not usually permanent. There's plenty of this red flag law stuff on the state level, most of which is in fact enormously onerous and of questionable constitutionality. Is it questionable to extend it to the federal level? Probably because government could screw up a wet dream but if it's carefully crafted such legislation may actually serve our purposes. If they can take my shootin' irons away if I lose my friggin mind and are forced to return them when my sanity returns and there are appeals processes, removal is by warrant and such then the justification for things like Class 3 stuff being unobtainium in some states and being even as heavily regulated as it is starts to be reduced almost to nothing."

Debate!

It doesn't sound that bad up front. However, who sets the bar for sane and rational? A judge? A jury of your peers? Who picks the jury and what are their motivations?
How will they take your weapons away? Through force most likely. Most sane people wouldn't let anyone take their property away without a fight, myself included. Odds are, a mentally unfit citizen would most likely react the same exact way. This furthering any agenda that casts gun owners in a negative light.



The stripping of freedoms is never done in an obvious and apparent manner.

 

[sea2summit]

It doesn't sound that bad up front. However, who sets the bar for sane and rational? A judge? A jury of your peers? Who picks the jury and what are their motivations?
How will they take your weapons away? Through force most likely. Most sane people wouldn't let anyone take their property away without a fight, myself included. Odds are, a mentally unfit citizen would most likely react the same exact way. This furthering any agenda that casts gun owners in a negative light.



The stripping of freedoms is never done in an obvious and apparent manner.

And how do you appeal these? When do you get your stuff back? Pretty sure there are amendments other than the second one at risk here. 4, 5, and 6 if memory serves cover some of this...

We did get a small reprieve today with Trump poopooing an assault weapons ban but it was a pretty weak poopoo so we need to keep up the pressure on the reps/senators and make sure our voice is louder than the other side.

 

[Tank308]

So this is an argument I'll put forth in order to inflame opinion and spark rational reasoned debate, not because I actually think these things. If someone jumps down my throat for it they've missed the point and I won't respond to them and suggest nobody else should either.

I'll call this the Hegelian view:
"As long as due process is respected it's not a violation or a problem for national level legislation. Sometimes people go nuts and it's not usually permanent. There's plenty of this red flag law stuff on the state level, most of which is in fact enormously onerous and of questionable constitutionality. Is it questionable to extend it to the federal level? Probably because government could screw up a wet dream but if it's carefully crafted such legislation may actually serve our purposes. If they can take my shootin' irons away if I lose my friggin mind and are forced to return them when my sanity returns and there are appeals processes, removal is by warrant and such then the justification for things like Class 3 stuff being unobtainium in some states and being even as heavily regulated as it is starts to be reduced almost to nothing."

Debate!

99% of people can't afford due process against the governments purse strings and there payroll specialists and experts.

 

[BallisticsGuy]

99% of people can't afford due process against the governments purse strings and there payroll specialists and experts.

That's what public defenders are for, in theory. If if's and butt's were candy and nuts I'd be fat and energetic.

 

[Gord0]

It doesn't sound that bad up front. However, who sets the bar for sane and rational? A judge? A jury of your peers? Who picks the jury and what are their motivations?
How will they take your weapons away? Through force most likely. Most sane people wouldn't let anyone take their property away without a fight, myself included. Odds are, a mentally unfit citizen would most likely react the same exact way. This furthering any agenda that casts gun owners in a negative light.



The stripping of freedoms is never done in an obvious and apparent manner.

Who sets the bar? A liberal psychology professor that hates guns...