Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,061 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
ETA: Link to bill on Congress.gov Text of the bill is here - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...+Order+and+Violence+Prevention+Act"]}&r=1&s=4

Sponsor: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] (Introduced 01/03/2019)
Committees: Senate - Judiciary
Latest Action: Senate - 01/03/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/marco-rubio-brings-back-red-flag-bill-new-congress

"On the first day of the new Congress, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., brought back the "Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act."

On Thursday, Rubio paired up with Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins and independent U.S. Sen. Angus King of Maine and U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, to reintroduce the bill which "will dedicate Department of Justice funds to incentivize states to give law enforcement the authority to prevent individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others the ability to purchase or possess firearms, while still providing due process protections.""

Text of the bill from last year - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2521
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,952 Posts
At what point will these ERPOs be issued just because you own firearms? Not really far fetched. After all, isn't the fact that you have the audacity to even own firearms a threat to someone, somewhere, sometime?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,246 Posts
POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE
I can see these becoming abusive in divorce situations. Think of the things a woman will say and some of the things aggressive divorce attorneys will pursue.

Ongoing "abuse" of alcohol is a factor. A man may drink more when is wife is trying to take the kids and the house and money and basically ruin his life. Reckless "display" of a firearm - carry openly? Cruelty to animals - hunting? The divorcing wife looking for an advantage will supply the "threats" and there is nobody to argue otherwise at the initial hearing for the 14 days. So the 4:30 a.m. bang on the door is coming . . .

HOW IT WILL GO
It will be very "tactical" for their safety (oh, and yours, they will explain to you) . . .

Then they will have to search very thoroughly, because they are taking all of them. So you are handcuffed on the couch as they go through everything - after all, where can you hide a Kel-Tec P3AT?

And what if they find other contraband while searching for that Kel-Tec P3AT? The search is good, because it is basically plain view when they discover the contraband, even if it had nothing to do with firearms.

THE AMERICAN VIEWPOINT
I suppose most Americans will say it serves them right for having contraband.

I suppose most Americans will say this legislation is reasonable. You know, Common Sense Gun Regulation.

PREDICTIONS
It is almost guaranteed to pass the House of Representatives. I am not confident about the Senate or the President, as this could be seen as a way to mollify the gun control sentiment out there. A large mass shooting at just the wrong time all over the news, by a poster child for this legislation, is all it would take to guarantee making this bill a law.

A JINGLE
I'm just a bill, yes, I'm only a bill, and I'm sittin' here on Capitol Hill . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimBob

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,784 Posts
While I agree that this is a horrible idea, the text of the bill only provides for the surrender of firearms and ammunition, not for seizure of them. But who wouldn't agree that seizure is appropriate to enforce the order?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,246 Posts
Well, if I understand it correctly, it will be up to states to implement for the funding, so the states will be writing laws that will need to be implemented, possibly different in each state. I have not, however, researched this carefully, and I am open to being corrected.

But, yeah, when wifey says the guy has 12 pistols, and he surrenders one old Hi-Point, I am guessing there is going to be a search.

I wonder how much leeway the judge would have in each state to write the order in such a way as to authorize, judicially, searches. So long as it comports with the Fourth Amendment, which does not require a hearing with homeowner's participation, I can't see a higher court overturning it on that basis.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,246 Posts
2(B)(ii) Removal

"(ii) take possession of all firearms and ammunition described in clause (i) that are not sold under subclause (II) of that clause, as well as any permit described in that clause, that are-

"(I) surrendered;

"(II) in plain sight; or

"(III) discovered pursuant to a lawful search​
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,246 Posts
Seems to contemplate the availability of a search when the marshall or other LEO serves the order.
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,784 Posts
OK, I see wherein lies the discrepancy. I didn't follow the link in the OP. I looked up Rubio's bill from last year (S. 2607). The OP had a link to S. 2521, a different bill introduced by Sen. Blumenthal. S. 2607 does not have the language you referenced. S. 2521 does. It remains to be seen what language will be in Sen. Rubio's bill (S. 7) this year.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,246 Posts
OK, I see wherein lies the discrepancy. I didn't follow the link in the OP. I looked up Rubio's bill from last year (S. 2607). The OP had a link to S. 2521, a different bill introduced by Sen. Blumenthal. S. 2607 does not have the language you referenced. S. 2521 does. It remains to be seen what language will be in Sen. Rubio's bill (S. 7) this year.
That's what I get for following links.

As for odds of passage:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
Contemplate this. As of now, SWATTING is illegal. But a SWAT response to a "Red Flag " complaint is perfectly legal. How long before any Demshevik can SWAT a Deplorable just by making a complaint to a Demshevik judge? I foresee a new sport among our betters...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,246 Posts
Contemplate this. As of now, SWATTING is illegal. But a SWAT response to a "Red Flag " complaint is perfectly legal. How long before any Demshevik can SWAT a Deplorable just by making a complaint to a Demshevik judge? I foresee a new sport among our betters...
Well, in fairness, there is a judicial hearing involved, which is different from a 911 call claiming a guy is right now committing murder and holding hostages with a firearm threatening to kill them, which brings out quite a different police response from a judicial order asking the person to surrender his firearms.

So while I recognize the risk anytime armed law enforcement are sent out to an innocent man's home and firearms are involved, I think "swatting" necessarily is a much greater danger.

The only person to die during one of these "red alerts" did set down his gun and then pick it up again after growing angry at what was happening. The officers did not shoot him for answering the door with a gun in his hand. The result when he picked it up again were predictable, probably even to the man that picked it up. It almost leads me to believe he desired that outcome. Almost.
 

·
Like a Boss
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
Even though mass shootings make up a small minority of deaths caused by firearms, they get the headlines and have become the focus of the antigun left. In almost every such shooting, reports after the fact indicate that many people around the shooter knew something was wrong and were seriously concerned about his potential for violence. I've seen comments made by lots of people, including very pro-gun people, that someone should have done something in advance to prevent the shooting.

This proposed law is a mechanism by which people can "do something" if they are aware of a threat prior to a mass shooting (or suicide). If we don't like this mechanism, are we proposing an alternative? What should be done if someone's words or actions indicate a likelihood they intend to shoot themselves or others, but they haven't necessarily done anything yet that would meet all the elements of a crime that would disqualify them from gun ownership?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,323 Posts
The standard "gun nuts' talking points" on this topic is that the answer to crazies and domestic terrorists with guns is to have more armed citizens as sheepdogs to shoot back and end the mass-murderer's killng spree early, thus limiting the body count.

If, historically, this has proven to *not be* any sort of solution that works because armed citizens are almost never around when public massacres take place, well then the obvious answer is to loosen the gun laws. Get rid of off-limits locations, dismantle security checkpoints, issue carry permits more easily (or get rid of the need for a permit in the first place.)

That's "our" alternative to red flag laws-- get more people to carry guns at public gatherings!
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,784 Posts
It's doubtful these laws accomplish anything. Even if the occasional issue is avoided by one, how many thousands of people will be unnecessarily violated?

But if we're going to have one, the due process issues with the bill are very troubling. The hearing has to be within 14 days of when the order setting the hearing is issued. The respondent is not likely to be served the same day, so that means he will get less than 14 days notice of a hearing to take away his guns. Maybe way less. In that short amount of time, he has to find a lawyer and prepare a defense, without necessarily knowing what the evidence against him is. No discovery, no motions, not time to get an expert witness. With no experts, we're leaving it for a judge to decide if someone is an extreme risk of being a danger to himself or others. There may be some easy ones, but those also could have been dealt with by emergency commitments or guardianships. The rest are left to someone to decide with no training or expertise or even special skills for deciding such things.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,945 Posts
But if we're going to have one, the due process issues with the bill are very troubling.
This is not a problem in a post constitutional America.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,859 Posts
There's video cameras everywhere now. Walking down the street while singing out loud or talking out loud to yourself? That odd behavior right there might peg you for a red-flag action.

Get upset in a business and fuss out the clerk over a dispute about getting the wrong change, or have the audacity to demand to speak to a manager? That aggressive behavior might peg you for a red-flag action.

Anyone think I'm exaggerating? Maybe now I am, but as this thing progresses, it will be hungry to snag more victims into its net.

But the sheep will smile and believe all is well, knowing (at least in their mind) that the government has thwarted numerous mass shootings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimBob
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top