Bipartisan Bill Coming Soon to Confiscate Guns from ‘Dangerous’ Individuals

4

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he has a bipartisan deal to push states to pass Red Flag Laws. He’s writing it up with the dishonest totalitarian Sen. Richard Blumenthal. That does not inspire confidence.

The idea of taking guns away from dangerous people is one everyone can get behind, but the bill passing in states — 21 so far — take them away without notice — no due process. And how do they define dangerous?

The deal will offer grants to law enforcement to hire professionals to try to decide cases where guns should be taken from troubled individuals.

Who are these professionals?

Almost anyone can recommend a person’s guns should be taken away. Are there controls.

Graham said the President is supportive. In the past, the President said he wants due process included.

Under a red flag law, potentially dangerous individuals can be reported by family or others, and local officials then determine whether there is cause to temporarily remove firearms the person may have.

Getting the weapons back would be burdensome and expensive, and in most cases it’s final and it doesn’t include due process.

Mr. Graham said he and Mr. Blumenthal will introduce national red flag grant legislation “in the very near future.”

“I think that Republicans know they can’t do nothing any longer. Republicans know they can’t go into 2020 exposed on the issue of guns like they were in 2018,” said Sen. Chris Murphy. “I don’t think red flags law are sufficient from a policy perspective or a political perspective. They’re diversionary.”

“We are literally talking about provisions that result in people’s guns being taken away,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Coons. “You would think in this environment that would be something nobody would want to talk about in the other party.”

Rep. Mark Meadows, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said his group could get behind the bill if it contains appropriate due process protections. “I do think there may be a sweet spot,” he said.

The National Rifle Association has expressed support in principle for red flag laws, but in practice, it has opposed the laws when they have been proposed at the state level.

“Obviously they see some writing on the wall that this is a popular policy, and that itself is telling,” said Jonas Oransky, legal director at gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety [Bloomberg’s group].

The big question is how far the legislation goes in compelling states to adopt ERPO laws. Blumenthal compared the possibilities to Congress using transportation funding to strong-arm the states into adopting highway speed limits. Graham implied he would take a lighter touch, using grants to financially reward states for passing ERPO laws proactively.

So far, it’s too vague to support or not support. We have questions: who defines “dangerous,” who are these “professionals” who decide to take the guns, what are the controls on referring people, what happens to the guns, what is the process to get it/them back, and what about due process? This is an inherent right we are talking about.

Graham said Republicans realize they can no longer do anything. We take exception to that phrasing. Democrats refuse to compromise in general. There are two sides to this coin.

What comes next when this bill does nothing to stop these mass shootings?

 

PowerInbox

4 COMMENTS

  1. OUR 2nd Amendment does not authorize the government to do this. Any lawmaker who votes for this should be impeached! Never ever trust the government to decide who is dangerous enough to have their weapons confiscated if they have not used them in a criminal manor. This BS is mostly supported by Democrats, the party that recently blocked Republican legislation to have illegal aliens reported to the FBI who tried to buy guns but failed background checks because they’re in the country illegally.

  2. The one point the President highlighted is the pervasive violence in entertainment media. On Fox they were quick and immediate in downplaying the role. The particular one who was the quickest to downplay is the same who made the most sense in discussing hatred. In typical fashion the response is ALL those who have indulged in violent depictions in entertainment and commit no crimes. Well, here’s a news flash for all those who dismiss entertainment violence. How many Hundreds of Millions of guns are owned by the public. Compare THAT with the number of mass shootings using those Hundreds of Millions of weapons. Therefore, there should be NO talk of guns in the discussion because it is extremely rare for those who own guns actually commit these crimes.

    There are two points in the discussion. Much is said about the “military style” of weapons. There’s another aspect of military training, and that is the use of “video games” in training. Video games are a version of training. Military training goes Beyond basic ‘first person shooter’ scenarios. Training occurs in when to use force and when not to, according to rules of engagement. When playing these “realistic” shooting games there is an instinctual fear at the beginning. The more it is played the fear will subside and morph into a willingness to exact the most carnage possible.

    Clearly if a gun is a problem then so is the culture that promotes and the means that create the type of individual.

  3. Here goes Graham again. He’s on the left except for his strange military policy to invade everywhere.

    He did this with amnesty twice – announced he “reached a bipartisan deal” and tried to force it on the public.

    The loudmouth likes to be the first to get in front of a camera and declare do-gooder status.

    Imagine if Graham were your co-worker. He’d be considered a show boater always trying to look good, then hiding away when the tough work needs to get done.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.