Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Everything is determined by the courts. Would you have it any other way? If the behavior issue gets as far as the courts it might be time to red flag the name. Again nobody is talking about confiscation. The admittedly imperfect intent is to prevent the purchase of a firearm by someone who is unstable. Something like a waiting period. I would imagine there is a venue for the person to challenge the ruling.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.
The major intent is to quickly but temporarily take guns away from people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior. You seem to be talking about a different bill that somehow puts a person's name on the NICS database, but I'm not sure for what reason.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.
Everything is determined by the courts. Would you have it any other way? If the behavior issue gets as far as the courts it might be time to red flag the name. Again nobody is talking about confiscation. The admittedly imperfect intent is to prevent the purchase of a firearm by someone who is unstable. Something like a waiting period. I would imagine there is a venue for the person to challenge the ruling.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.
These bills are methods of removing property rights and jailing people BEFORE they have committed any crime.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?
Not were, they ARE ready to call any Republican a domestic terrorist.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
I see the inherent risk, but it seems like a risk worth taking at this point. We aren't talking about people being arrested, this would be about only prohibiting a person with violent tendencies from purchasing a weapon. I'm not seeing much downside to that.These bills are methods of removing property rights and jailing people BEFORE they have committed any crime.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?
Consider that when you say it sounds reasonable.
People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm.
You don't? I see it in every look when I hear people like Trump, Schumer, Pelosi, O'Connel, Graham, Nadler, et al. speak about stopping people before they commit crimes.I see the inherent risk, but it seems like a risk worth taking at this point. We aren't talking about people being arrested, this would be about only prohibiting a person with violent tendencies from purchasing a weapon. I'm not seeing much downside to that.These bills are methods of removing property rights and jailing people BEFORE they have committed any crime.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?
Consider that when you say it sounds reasonable.
Do you believe you have been unjustly flagged as a dangerous person or are you saying there should be a statute of limitations on the red flag?People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm.
I am (presently, and probably for the rest of my life) red-flagged as a violent person and denied not only gun rights but employment, house and home, food, shelter and clothing.
Consequently I am reduced to poverty and begging for food on the streets. There is no way out of such a situation, ever, for anyone, under the present fascist political regime in the United States.
unjustly flagged as a dangerous person
Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventalitingunjustly flagged as a dangerous person
No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.
“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.
You hit the nail dead on Frank! That's exactly what will take place. Leftists never have good intentions nor do they give a shit about victims of shootings.. It's about one thing: Disarming Americans, ushering in Socialism / Globalism.. If President Trump goes down this path, he will lose his base.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
You sound like a total jackass and a FOOL to boot..The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.
Damn girl, you are being quick to judge! I am not in favor of something being done.....even if it is wrong. I'm simply stating that is what is going to happen due to the political pressure. These red flag laws just one example.You sound like a total jackass and a FOOL to boot..The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.
Damn girl, you are being quick to judge! I am not in favor of something being done.....even if it is wrong. I'm simply stating that is what is going to happen due to the political pressure. These red flag laws just one example.You sound like a total jackass and a FOOL to boot..The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.
Nosy pervert.. Mind your own fucking business..Is your husband as crazy as you.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
It would be very entertaining to listen to two nuts discussion on politics.
People do not trust you. If someone blew up your city we all would be safer. You are the harbinger of death. You use the facade of all this niceness and most everything you touch leaves an expensive aftertaste and more problems. Which adds more laws to affect what you enacted.The major intent is to quickly but temporarily take guns away from people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior. You seem to be talking about a different bill that somehow puts a person's name on the NICS database, but I'm not sure for what reason.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.
