PROOF - democrats want to hurt only law-abiding gun owners

Your article isn’t “proof” of anything.

miggles said:

proof that democrats want red-flag laws designed to hurt law-abiding gun owners but not gang members.

Here’s Proof Democrat Red Flag Laws Are Designed To Hurt Law Abiding Citizens And Not Gang Members | Tea Party Pac

Click to expand...

...you do realize an op/ed isn't actually proof, right?
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

miggles said:

proof that democrats want red-flag laws designed to hurt law-abiding gun owners but not gang members.

Here’s Proof Democrat Red Flag Laws Are Designed To Hurt Law Abiding Citizens And Not Gang Members | Tea Party Pac

Click to expand...

Where was the proof?

Yarddog said:

Where was the proof?

Click to expand...

Lol, perhaps they'd meant "poof" not "proof."

miggles said:

proof that democrats want red-flag laws designed to hurt law-abiding gun owners but not gang members.

Here’s Proof Democrat Red Flag Laws Are Designed To Hurt Law Abiding Citizens And Not Gang Members | Tea Party Pac

Click to expand...

I guess my question is ar what point do we cross the line from law abiding gun owners to those who lose their lives by seeking to save it. Is our being one of the most armed segments of society indicative of just what is spoken of in that passage? We have not been given a spirit of fear and yet I feel that that leaven spreading more and more until it will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

miggles said:

proof that democrats want red-flag laws designed to hurt law-abiding gun owners but not gang members.

Here’s Proof Democrat Red Flag Laws Are Designed To Hurt Law Abiding Citizens And Not Gang Members | Tea Party Pac

Click to expand...

Most Americans, and gun owners overall, favour red flag laws

According to an NPR poll, 70 percent of Republicans support red flag laws that allow family members to petition courts to take guns from people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. And 67 percent of gun owners overall felt the same.

However, slightly fewer Republicans support red flag laws that expand to allow law enforcement officers to petition courts as well as family members — support drops to 66 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of gun owners.

Most Republicans, and gun owners overall, favor red flag laws, poll says
*********************************************************
PROOF - democrats want to hurt only law-abiding gun owners

"Niggles" needs to get his/her facts straight, the majority of Republicans and gun owners also favour "red flag" laws!

- 70% of Republicans and 67% of gun owners would support family members petitioning the courts to take away guns from their owners!

- 66% of Republicans and 60 percent of gun owners support law enforcement officers to petition courts as well as family members!

jgarden said:

Most Americans, and gun owners overall, favour red flag laws

According to an NPR poll, 70 percent of Republicans support red flag laws that allow family members to petition courts to take guns from people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. And 67 percent of gun owners overall felt the same.

However, slightly fewer Republicans support red flag laws that expand to allow law enforcement officers to petition courts as well as family members — support drops to 66 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of gun owners.

Most Republicans, and gun owners overall, favor red flag laws, poll says
*********************************************************
PROOF - democrats want to hurt only law-abiding gun owners

"Niggles" needs to get his/her facts straight, the majority of Republicans and gun owners also favour "red flag" laws!

- 70% of Republicans and 67% of gun owners would support family members petitioning the courts to take away guns from their owners!

- 66% of Republicans and 60 percent of gun owners support law enforcement officers to petition courts as well as family members!

Click to expand...

I think the devil is always in the details on this kind of thing. I would be inclined to support red flag laws given my understanding of the intent of red flag laws. However, I'm not naive enough to think that my understanding of the intent of those laws will be (a) how the legislation is written (e.g., who determines what is a "red flag" and under what criteria) or (b) how consistent that legislation would be applied now and in the future. I would have a lot of questions that would be dependent on specific legislation, the chief of which would be who determines what is a "red flag" and under what criteria?

"Red flag laws" is a really ambiguous term and ambiguity breeds opportunity for abuse by "authorities." And it's not hard to imagine how such ambiguity could be abused to the detriment of anyone regardless of political party. It's not hard for me to imagine a scenario where one's views on various political opinions could be considered a "red flag," for example perhaps if said views involve opinions of supposed "hate." It's also not hard for me to imagine a scenario where police use a "red flag" as a pretense for search and seizure (which could have a disproportionate affect on minorities).

So, I'm skeptical and much would depend on how any legislation were written. And I don't think the NPR poll question reflects these considerations.

What ever happened to an old family intervention anyway? If my family member is drunk, I seize their keys without a court order. If my family and I determine that one of our relatives has gone off the deep end, I don't know why we should petition the court rather than just take the weapon. Is a court order really necessary when we're talking about immediate family for these issues?

miggles said:

proof that democrats want red-flag laws designed to hurt law-abiding gun owners but not gang members.

Here’s Proof Democrat Red Flag Laws Are Designed To Hurt Law Abiding Citizens And Not Gang Members | Tea Party Pac

Click to expand...

Personally, I have left two jobs because I was being threatened by gun toters. Those were the highest paying jobs I've ever had.

In the light of my experience, "law abiding gun owners" sounds like a contradiction in terms.
In my experience, there is a lot of overlap between gun owners and convicted felons.

Dale said:

Personally, I have left two jobs because I was being threatened by gun toters. Those were the highest paying jobs I've ever had.

In the light of my experience, "law abiding gun owners" sounds like a contradiction in terms.
In my experience, there is a lot of overlap between gun owners and convicted felons.

Click to expand...

If you knew of felons who were in possession of guns, you should have notified law enforcement...

miggles said:

proof that democrats want red-flag laws designed to hurt law-abiding gun owners but not gang members.

Here’s Proof Democrat Red Flag Laws Are Designed To Hurt Law Abiding Citizens And Not Gang Members | Tea Party Pac

Click to expand...

ok but aren't you being just a bit optimistic on that very limited scope for dem leadership?

Dale said:

Personally, I have left two jobs because I was being threatened by gun toters. Those were the highest paying jobs I've ever had.

In the light of my experience, "law abiding gun owners" sounds like a contradiction in terms.
In my experience, there is a lot of overlap between gun owners and convicted felons.

Click to expand...

Since convicted felons can't legally own guns, this doesn't make sense.

tulc said:

...you do realize an op/ed isn't actually proof, right?
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

Click to expand...

Hmm seems others to the same exact thing... how odd.. praise GOD glory to Jesus..

And yes Mig.. this has been going on for many years.

I've been trying to find the text of the actual bill and the amendment and I can't. Does anybody know what bill this is?

So I found the actual bill as passed. It gives money to states and tribes to implement red flag laws fitting some requirements. I can see why the Democrats rejected the amendment. The bill as passed requires a court order reached after proving to a preponderance of evidence standard that a person is dangerous. The amendment from what I can figure out from the news reports just requires somebody to be put on a local gang database, which requires either no standard or at a most probable cause, which falls below the standard for other people.

Text - H.R.1236 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019

Blade said:

Hmm seems others to the same exact thing...

Click to expand...

That could be because it's true.

how odd

Click to expand...

uhmmm....only if you think something being true is "odd".

.. praise GOD glory to Jesus..

Click to expand...

I agree:

(snip)

Click to expand...

tulc(is going to get some more coffee)

Dale said:

Personally, I have left two jobs because I was being threatened by gun toters. Those were the highest paying jobs I've ever had.

In the light of my experience, "law abiding gun owners" sounds like a contradiction in terms.
In my experience, there is a lot of overlap between gun owners and convicted felons.

Click to expand...

A cousin of mine was an executive in a large bank and he was put in charge of the Miami office, a wonderful promotion. He and his family were supplied a great house in an exclusive gated community. He told me that the paranoia of the residents was alarming. No one went anywhere without carrying --- not even for a walk down their own street watched over by their own police force. They took it for about 6 months before he begged the bank "Get us out of here! Send us back to Canada!"
They did.

Darkhorse said:

If you knew of felons who were in possession of guns, you should have notified law enforcement...

Click to expand...

At that time I had never heard that it was illegal for felons to own guns. Nobody ever tells me anything I really need to know. Anyway, Florida makes a big point of "restoring the gun rights" of many convicted felons.

Have you ever heard of a convicted felon who has been prosecuted for owning guns?

renniks said:

Since convicted felons can't legally own guns, this doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

As I told Darkhorse, at that time I had never heard that it is illegal for convicted felons to own guns. The ones I have worked with never made any secret about having guns. They never made any secret of being hunters and target shooters. In Florida, huge numbers of felons have had their "gun rights" restored by the state, so I would first have to find out whether this was the case with the one who is threatening me.

Dale said:

At that time I had never heard that it was illegal for felons to own guns. Nobody ever tells me anything I really need to know. Anyway, Florida makes a big point of "restoring the gun rights" of many convicted felons.

Have you ever heard of a convicted felon who has been prosecuted for owning guns?

Click to expand...

Yes, it happens all the time here (Virginia) - 5 years added to their sentence.

Happened all the time in California when I lived there, too.