Red Flag Bill

[whitehall]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

As slippery as slope as the "Patriot Act" or when Big Internet Companies agreeing to be open platforms to build their brand and now Blacklisted Conservatives.

The democrats were ready to declare anyone who did not vote for Hillary a domestic terrorist

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

that means that all of Antifa should be flagged, and that Hillary should be flagged

 

[whitehall]

Membership in an organization that advocated the violent overthrow of the government would flag a name? Maybe so but it seems that there would be no law against hiring an armed guard so politicians and movie actors don't have much to worry about. It seems that the administration has to do something and the left's typical non thinking spontaneous emotional response would involve confiscation by jack booted thugs and to scrap an Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[bendog]

It allows the feds to do nothing and defer to states. And it avoids nationwide background checks to flap people with mental illnesses seeking guns

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Initially I supported this until my husband I were talking about it. It depends on the parameters involved. Hubby brought up a good point, what about social media? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and spout off but what happens when spouting off leads to being denied a gun or ammo purchase?

It could be a slippery slope

 

[bendog]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

that means that all of Antifa should be flagged, and that Hillary should be flagged

You may want to do a little research on what "red flag laws" are. Or not. Probably not in your case

 

[Dekster]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

You enforce it by putting their name on the list. How you get to that point isn't that hard--social media and health insurance databases can and are mined.

 

[Leweman]

Yaaay!!! more power for the government to selectivity enforce laws. Geeze, I wonder who this will affect.

 

[toobfreak]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

No we are not. This is just an open door to:
A). Put every Tom Dick and Harry on the list for the most specious of reasons and take guns away from people.
B). When it doesn't work and someone not "flagged" soon kills, it'll be used as the excuse to further ratchet up restrictions on peaceful, normal, law-abiding people.

1. People will be flagged for a harmless comment they make on media, or for telling off some snotty DMV civil servant who keeps losing his driver's license.
2. For many people, the first thing they might do that is "flag-worthy" anyway is go out and shoot someone. Try as we might, we simply cannot predict future actions and history shows that often not even in cases where the offender has an obvious problem.

 

[whitehall]

You gotta ask yourself which is best, keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people (and a few innocent bystanders) or confiscation and a Constitutional convention. The dirty little secret is that democrats ain't looking for a solution anymore than they care about the carnage at the border. They want a platform for 2020 since they don't have shit today.

 

[JoeMoma]

The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.

 

[JoeMoma]

There is a price for living in a free an open society. How much freedom are we willing to give up to reduce mass shootings? Is it worth it or not?

We could greatly reduce car accident deaths by enforcing a 35 mph speed and outlaw cars that can exceed 35 mph. This would probably save many more lives than stopping all the mass shootings, but would it be worth it.

 

[OldLady]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

This is a red flag law. I did not find anything new being proposed by Congress. If you have seen it, could you share the link? I'm pretty in favor of this nationally, but I don't know how it relates to what you mentioned..
Red flag law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


States with red flag laws
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[1] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[2][3] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[4][5]

Such orders are known by various names, including "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" (ERPO) (in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont); "Risk Protection Orders" (in Florida); "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" (in California); "risk warrants" (in Connecticut); and "Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm" (in Indiana).[6] As of August 2019, 17 states and the District of Columbiahave passed some form of red-flag law. The specifics of the laws, and the degree to which they are enforced, vary from state to state.[7]

 

[whitehall]

It ain't wrong basically. Everyone including the families of the 33 kids and faculty who were murdered at Va. Tech Blacksburg in 07 by a maniac who showed violent tendencies would agree. Even court ordered psychiatric counseling (never followed up) didn't appear in the instant name check. The problem as always is the implementation but it's a start. Some Americans have become conditioned to being sentimental about Veterans and PTSD has become a cliche to get sympathy and chicks in bars (not to mention a pension) but there are 300 Veterans on death row in the U.S. today.

 

[B. Kidd]

Here in Nevada we just passed one this year.

 

[SAYIT]

You gotta ask yourself which is best, keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people (and a few innocent bystanders) or confiscation and a Constitutional convention. The dirty little secret is that democrats ain't looking for a solution anymore than they care about the carnage at the border. They want a platform for 2020 since they don't have shit today.

I dunno ... it's still a work in progress but they have four planks chiseled in granite:
1) hate Trump
2) expensive new gov't "freebies"
3) big new taxes and bigger central gov't to spend 'em
4) hate Trump

America's Mayor (De Blasio): "We will tax the hell out of the wealthy" (then eat them).

 

[whitehall]

Don't let them confuse you about the important distinction between confiscation and prevention. You will still need a court order to confiscate a weapon from a citizen. The intent of the Red Flag bill is to prevent the purchase of firearms by people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior.

 

[TNHarley]

There is a price for living in a free an open society. How much freedom are we willing to give up to reduce mass shootings? Is it worth it or not?

We could greatly reduce car accident deaths by enforcing a 35 mph speed and outlaw cars that can exceed 35 mpg. This would probably save many more lives than stopping all the mass shootings, but would it be worth it.

Emotion vs logic

 

[SavannahMann]

It allows the feds to do nothing and defer to states. And it avoids nationwide background checks to flap people with mental illnesses seeking guns

People who have had a court ruling are prohibited. Mental Illness in the case of the law is a determination of the courts.