• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Sen. Lindsey Graham announces bipartisan deal on 'red-flag' gun laws

mikeyp

NES Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,511
Likes
29,552
Location
Plymouth
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Sen. Lindsey Graham announces bipartisan deal on ‘red-flag’ gun laws

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he’s struck a bipartisan deal to write legislation that would encourage states to adopt “red flag” laws allowing guns to be taken from potentially dangerous individuals, and he vowed action in the wake of this weekend’s shootings.

The South Carolina Republican said his legislation, which he has worked on with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, would offer grants to law enforcement to hire professionals to try to decide cases where guns should be taken from troubled individuals.

Mr. Graham said he talked to President Trump about the idea earlier Monday, and the president “seems very supportive.”

“Many of these shootings involved individuals who showed signs of violent behavior that are either ignored or not followed up. State Red Flag laws will provide the tools for law enforcement to do something about many of these situations before it’s too late,” said Mr. Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Red flag laws have been pioneered in some states such as Florida, scene of the 2018 Valentine’s Day school shooting in Parkland.

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. Cases where weapons were removed in Florida involved both risks to others or potential suicide cases.

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. Cases where weapons were removed in Florida involved both risks to others or potential suicide cases.

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said there’s no need to wait.

She’s already written and introduced her own version, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act,” that would create a grant program to encourage states to come up with red flag laws. She said Mr. Grahamcould put her bill on the committee’s agenda.

“The Senate could vote on that bill today,” she said.

She said that while 15 states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws on the books, neither Texas nor Ohio — scenes of the weekend’s shootings — have one.

But she said the Senate needs to go further than that.

She called for Congress to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, a now-expired 1994 law that restricted the sale of some military-style semiautomatic rifles.

“It took the Dayton shooter less than 30 seconds to shoot 35 people, nine of whom died. This validates the theory that these weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible,” she said.
 
If Graham worked with DaNang Dick it can't be good. It still amazes me that the average citizen actually believes there was a AWB that actually prohibited the sale of AR's. The sheeple are so clueless.
 
If Graham worked with DaNang Dick it can't be good.
This.
These A holes will not provide a clear path to re-acquire your stuff. They will fail to prevent abuse of the system from false claims just like 209A's. This has epic fail all over it.

Why is it we already have the rules in place and they are f***ing ignored? These guys couldn't find their asses with both hands.
 
If someone is considered enough of a danger to themselves or others that you want to take away their guns, why are we letting them back out into society?

Let's say I want to harm myself. The government goes through all the trouble of taking a statement from someone, waking up a judge, getting a court order, waking me up in the middle of the night to confiscate my guns... and then wishes me a good evening while I go OD on prescription drugs.

Let's say I want to harm someone else. They government goes through all the trouble of taking a statement from someone, waking up a judge, getting a court order, waking me up in the middle of the night to confiscate my guns... and then wishes me a good evening while I grab the baseball bat and a hatchet.

You can't remove all the tools from the person. You can remove the person from all the tools. If someone is a danger to themselves or others, confiscate the person and get them help.

Of course we can't to that because the standards have to be higher than "my dog says that guy over there looks shifty."
 
I smell a segue to Lautenberg 2....

"would offer grants to law enforcement to hire professionals to try to decide cases where guns should be taken from troubled individuals."

What the f*** does that mean? That some random guy will be the arbiter of whether or not you retain your rights?

-Mike
 
We need a red flag law for politicians who will so predictably and irrevocably harm tens of thousands or even millions by their actions.
That law would temporarily remove that politician from office and or block all bills or legislation that they author, support or otherwise engage their efforts in. That law would also eliminate any immunity from lawsuits or prosecution that they may currently enjoy.
That law would also require any politician running for office to submit to 120 days of pre campaign incarceration in an institution for the criminally insane for the purposes of determining whether such politician is mentally stable enough, mature enough, honest enough and patriotic enough to hold the office that they seek.
If under such observation it is determined that they do not meet the requirements, they shall be banned for life from holding any office that serves the citizens of this country, federal, state or local, nor shall they be eligible to serve on any advisory board, panel, group, or individually to any other political arm of any government entity or subsidiary thereof.
 
11-dept-of-precrime.jpg
 
I smell a segue to Lautenberg 2....

"would offer grants to law enforcement to hire professionals to try to decide cases where guns should be taken from troubled individuals."

What the f*** does that mean? That some random guy will be the arbiter of whether or not you retain your rights?

-Mike

That's exactly what it means. It gives others the ability to "gang up" on whomever they initiate action against with immunity from prosecution. Some milque toast goofball who is scared by pictures of guns will be deciding whether your rights remain intact.
 
Last edited:
I smell a segue to Lautenberg 2....

"would offer grants to law enforcement to hire professionals to try to decide cases where guns should be taken from troubled individuals."

What the f*** does that mean? That some random guy will be the arbiter of whether or not you retain your rights?

-Mike


No comrade, you'll be judged by "troika" revolutionary tribunal, on rare occasions by a commisar, who will be your judge, jury and executioner.
 
The devil is in the details.
I'd like to see the pork they'll stuff in the back of this thing when they pass it hastily.
 
"laws allowing guns to be taken from potentially dangerous individuals"

everyone who owns a gun can be considered "potentially" dangerous. Bad word that will disarm us all under that law.
 
So, will ERPO just apply to guns? I would think that if a person is considered a danger to themselves or society then the person should be removed, including everything in his possession that could be used to cause harm. Take his car, tools, all utensils, etc. If it really is about being concerned about the person and the harm he or she could cause then this should be a no brainer.

Man, could this law be exploited, I mean expanded and used to do a lot of good. Suspected drug dealer, use ERPO. Suspected pedophile, use ERPO. Suspected rapist, use ERPO. Want to get rid of that troublesome employee, use ERPO. We should deputize ordinary citizens throughout our neighborhoods as well so we could have, you know, people with our best interests at heart to help manage the enforcement of this. That way we could be sure it wouldn't get out of control. I am surprised other societies have never thought of this before.
 
Looks like he passed the job to the 50 States - the States that would have done it anyway get federal funding to “hire professionals to try to decide cases where guns should be taken from troubled individuals“ and the States that won’t do it don’t get funds. That’s politics - look, we did something substantial and the political baggage gets offloaded to the States.
 
AS much as I don't want this red flag law, we live in MA. The shittiest, the liberal fested state, it's very likely red flag law will be put in place here. It's reasonable for us to think if this will be force down our throat, can we have a duo process? How much privacy will we have?

When your doctor ask you how do you feel? Your answer is always: Couldn't be happier! Everyone in the world loves me, and I love everybody so much!
 
AS much as I don't want this red flag law, we live in MA. The shittiest, the liberal fested state, it's very likely red flag law will be put in place here. It's reasonable for us to think if this will be force down our throat, can we have a duo process? How much privacy will we have?

When your doctor ask you how do you feel? Your answer is always: Couldn't be happier! Everyone in the world loves me, and I love everybody so much!

Huh? We already got it here.
 
Back
Top Bottom