And just like that Trumpers started supporting red flag laws......

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
What moron posted that "trumpers support red flag laws"?. Lemmee guess..that mentally challenged Rump Rider feller?
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
I went back and re-read the article RR posted...nothing from Trump directly. It's all hearsay. "Trump seemed supportive." You know, in that humor whichever idiot is in front of him babbling on about some hot button issue. Then he goes out and does what Trump does, regardless.

Then there's this: https://tinyurl.com/y2jdmp7y
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
Damn I don't remember advocating any form of gun control, but then Rumprider says he always knows what everyone else is thinking before they do.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I went back and re-read the article RR posted...nothing from Trump directly. It's all hearsay. "Trump seemed supportive." You know, in that humor whichever idiot is in front of him babbling on about some hot button issue. Then he goes out and does what Trump does, regardless.

Then there's this: https://tinyurl.com/y2jdmp7y
Bwhahahaha

Trump stated it himself in the video in my link. Don’t worry in a couple of hours all you idiots will be claiming red flag laws are great, because your orange messiah says so.
This is going to be just like bumpstocks. Trumpers will either be silent or supportive of this infringement
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
I went back and re-read the article RR posted...nothing from Trump directly. It's all hearsay. "Trump seemed supportive." You know, in that humor whichever idiot is in front of him babbling on about some hot button issue. Then he goes out and does what Trump does, regardless.

Then there's this: https://tinyurl.com/y2jdmp7y
Wow...you really can't read can you?

How many times did you READ the title of the thread???? Does is say TRUMP? No...it says TrumpERS.

Who is one of the loudest TrumpERS? Phil Graham.

How many times did you re-read the article and not actually read the first paragraph???

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that he will introduce bipartisan legislation encouraging states to create "red flag" laws and that President Trump is "very supportive" of the idea.
What part of that is so confusing to you?????

But all you gun nutters have nothing to fear. Trump is as spineless as every other politician. He won't do anything once the NRA comes knocking...with its checkbook open.
 

Yooper

Childhood idol: George Washington, Fighter Pilot
PREMO Member
Wow...you really can't read can you?

Who is one of the loudest TrumpERS? Phil Graham.

How many times did you re-read the article and not actually read the first paragraph???

What part of that is so confusing to you?????
Wow...it appears you really can't either. How many times did you re-read the article and not actually read the first paragraph??? Who's Phil Graham? Last I looked, the article's first paragraph says, "Lindsey Graham." So, who's really the confused one? Huh, ace?

Try not to be such a boor.

Let’s here the excuses for the orange Obama stepping on the 2ndA this time
No excuses being offered here. Red flag laws, as currently configured, are HORRIBLE. And if you value your personal liberties you should feel the same way as well.

I wouldn't have expressed it as BirdDog did, but it's too easy for folks to use RFL to settle personal grievances. And I know this from first-hand experience when a close friend had this card played on him.

I could see RFL as a possibility IF the threshold for approving one was high. As currently envisioned the bar is way too low. Further, it's just a bureaucratic gun grab masquerading as advocacy. Finally, it is an approach guaranteed to cause negative, unintended consequences. How many folks who could use some mental health help will NOT go because they know any visit would be used to build a case against them. I know this to be true as well as a result of working with veterans who won't seek help because they know what this means.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Hey PoleRider, how many bumpstocks have been turned so far? Seems like silent disagreement to me.
And those people who own them have them hidden away fearing the day they get caught with them and lose all their rights, not just their gun rights. You really are a dumb **** aren’t ya. You still supporting your orange messiah when he signs off on these red flag laws?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Wow...it appears you really can't either. How many times did you re-read the article and not actually read the first paragraph??? Who's Phil Graham? Last I looked, the article's first paragraph says, "Lindsey Graham." So, who's really the confused one? Huh, ace?

Try not to be such a boor.


No excuses being offered here. Red flag laws, as currently configured, are HORRIBLE. And if you value your personal liberties you should feel the same way as well.

I wouldn't have expressed it as BirdDog did, but it's too easy for folks to use RFL to settle personal grievances. And I know this from first-hand experience when a close friend had this card played on him.

I could see RFL as a possibility IF the threshold for approving one was high. As currently envisioned the bar is way too low. Further, it's just a bureaucratic gun grab masquerading as advocacy. Finally, it is an approach guaranteed to cause negative, unintended consequences. How many folks who could use some mental health help will NOT go because they know any visit would be used to build a case against them. I know this to be true as well as a result of working with veterans who won't seek help because they know what this means.

--- End of line (MCP)
I’m one of the only people on the forum who complained when trump ****ed us with the bumpstock ban. All of the Trumpers pretended it was no big deal andnthat trump is still pro 2ndA. So far he has given away more than Obama did in 8 years.
 

Yooper

Childhood idol: George Washington, Fighter Pilot
PREMO Member
I’m one of the only people on the forum who complained when trump ****ed us with the bumpstock ban. All of the Trumpers pretended it was no big deal andnthat trump is still pro 2ndA. So far he has given away more than Obama did in 8 years.
I'm not a fan of bumpstocks (in that they just don't appeal to me), but I'm very much with you on the issue. In fact, this is one of the few areas I won't go to bat for Trump. My sense (could be wrong) is that he's getting much correct in dealing with a myriad of issues. But the 2A ain't one of them.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Reactions: BOP

Yooper

Childhood idol: George Washington, Fighter Pilot
PREMO Member
No excuses being offered here. Red flag laws, as currently configured, are HORRIBLE. And if you value your personal liberties you should feel the same way as well.

I wouldn't have expressed it as BirdDog did, but it's too easy for folks to use RFL to settle personal grievances. And I know this from first-hand experience when a close friend had this card played on him.

I could see RFL as a possibility IF the threshold for approving one was high. As currently envisioned the bar is way too low. Further, it's just a bureaucratic gun grab masquerading as advocacy. Finally, it is an approach guaranteed to cause negative, unintended consequences. How many folks who could use some mental health help will NOT go because they know any visit would be used to build a case against them. I know this to be true as well as a result of working with veterans who won't seek help because they know what this means.
Shortly after I posted ^^^this^^^, a nice article from Powerline blog came across my desktop. Worth a full read:

Here are two snips from the middle of the post that capture my "okay, but" opinion of RFL:
Trump did not take the easy way out by endorsing more useless gun control measures. Rather, he came out in favor of the one thing that actually might make a difference: so-called “red flag” laws. Such legislation has, I believe, been enacted in a few states and introduced in others. The basic idea is that if you think someone is mentally ill and dangerous and therefore should not possess firearms, you can go to court on an expedited basis, potentially without notice to the “dangerous” person, and obtain an order that 1) bars that person from possessing firearms, and 2) directs police officers to go to his residence and confiscate any firearms they find there.

It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a procedure of this sort might actually work. Mass shooters are pretty much all as nutty as fruitcakes. In most cases, it is obvious to everyone who encounters them that they are crazy and might be dangerous. Sometimes (like the Parkland murderer) they advertise their intent to commit mass murder on social media. So in some cases, a “red flag” process might actually work.
On the other hand, the potential for abuse is equally obvious. How many ex-wives would take advantage of the opportunity to turn in their ex-husbands as potentially dangerous? How can an allegedly deranged person received due process sufficient to prevent gross miscarriage of justice? And what are the consequences of sending police officers to someone’s home to confiscate his firearms, perhaps in circumstances where he has no notice of what is going on? The sometimes-disastrous history of the no-knock raid comes to mind.

Personally, I am open to the idea of “red flag” legislation if the details can be worked out. I don’t think such laws would do a lot of good, but they might do some, unlike stupid bans of arbitrarily-defined firearms or firearm accessories.
--- End of line (MCP)
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
And those people who own them have them hidden away fearing the day they get caught with them and lose all their rights, not just their gun rights. You really are a dumb **** aren’t ya. You still supporting your orange messiah when he signs off on these red flag laws?
Here's the highlights of Indiana's redflag law.
This is how redflag laws should be written.

Quick Reference Guide - IC 35-47-14
Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm
**The foregoing information is provided by the Indiana State Police Legal Staff to assist their
officers with application of this procedure. This is intended as a summary and quick reference, and
should not be construed as a substitute for consulting the applicable statute(s) and local prosecutor
and Department attorneys.
DANGEROUS PERSON (IC 35-47-14-1)
- An individual who presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to
another individual; or
- An individual who may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another
individual in the future and the individual:
o Has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by
medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently
taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
o Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief
that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
WITH A WARRANT (IC 35-47-14-2)
  • Apply to circuit or superior court with jurisdiction
  • Prepare sworn affidavit that:
o States why the law enforcement officer believes that the individual is dangerous and
in possession of a firearm; and
o Describes the law enforcement officer's interactions and conversations with:
 the individual who is alleged to be dangerous; or
 another individual, if the law enforcement officer believes that information
obtained from this individual is credible and reliable;
o The affidavit specifically describes the location of the firearm
- If a court issued a warrant to seize a firearm, the officer must file return within forty-eight
(48) hours after the warrant was served that:
o Date and time served
o The name and address of the individual named in the warrant;
o The quantity and description of any firearms seized. (IC 35-47-14-4)
WITHOUT A WARRANT (35-47-14-3)
  • If weapons are seized during the normal course of law enforcement duties
  • If person is believed to be dangerous (as defined above), submit a written statement to the
court of jurisdiction describing basis for belief
- Court reviews statement and may order firearms retained or released
AFTER FIREARMS ARE SEIZED
  • Court holds a hearing within 14 days. (IC 35-47-14-5)
  • Notification to individual from whom the firearm was seized and prosecutor
  • Court determines by clear and convincing evidence if person is dangerous and firearms
should be retained (IC 35-47-14-6)
  • If retained, law enforcement agency keeps firearm until further order of the court.
  • Court shall also order License to carry handgun suspended. (IC 35-47-14-6(b))
o Notify ISP Firearms to insure this is completed
RETURN OF FIREARMS (IC 35-47-14-8)
  • Person may petition for return after at least 180 days
  • If denied at that hearing, must wait at least another 180 days
  • If five years have passed, hearing may be held to destroy or permanently dispose of
firearms (IC 35-47-14-9)
SALE OF FIREARM (IC 35-47-14-10)
- After order for retention, Person may petition for an order directing LE agency to sell
firearm with proceeds (minus 8% administrative costs) to go to individual.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Here's the highlights of Indiana's redflag law.
This is how redflag laws should be written.

Quick Reference Guide - IC 35-47-14
Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm
**The foregoing information is provided by the Indiana State Police Legal Staff to assist their
officers with application of this procedure. This is intended as a summary and quick reference, and
should not be construed as a substitute for consulting the applicable statute(s) and local prosecutor
and Department attorneys.
DANGEROUS PERSON (IC 35-47-14-1)
- An individual who presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to
another individual; or
- An individual who may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another
individual in the future and the individual:
o Has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by
medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently
taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
o Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief
that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
WITH A WARRANT (IC 35-47-14-2)
  • Apply to circuit or superior court with jurisdiction
  • Prepare sworn affidavit that:
o States why the law enforcement officer believes that the individual is dangerous and
in possession of a firearm; and
o Describes the law enforcement officer's interactions and conversations with:
 the individual who is alleged to be dangerous; or
 another individual, if the law enforcement officer believes that information
obtained from this individual is credible and reliable;
o The affidavit specifically describes the location of the firearm
- If a court issued a warrant to seize a firearm, the officer must file return within forty-eight
(48) hours after the warrant was served that:
o Date and time served
o The name and address of the individual named in the warrant;
o The quantity and description of any firearms seized. (IC 35-47-14-4)
WITHOUT A WARRANT (35-47-14-3)
  • If weapons are seized during the normal course of law enforcement duties
  • If person is believed to be dangerous (as defined above), submit a written statement to the
court of jurisdiction describing basis for belief
- Court reviews statement and may order firearms retained or released
AFTER FIREARMS ARE SEIZED
  • Court holds a hearing within 14 days. (IC 35-47-14-5)
  • Notification to individual from whom the firearm was seized and prosecutor
  • Court determines by clear and convincing evidence if person is dangerous and firearms
should be retained (IC 35-47-14-6)
  • If retained, law enforcement agency keeps firearm until further order of the court.
  • Court shall also order License to carry handgun suspended. (IC 35-47-14-6(b))
o Notify ISP Firearms to insure this is completed
RETURN OF FIREARMS (IC 35-47-14-8)
  • Person may petition for return after at least 180 days
  • If denied at that hearing, must wait at least another 180 days
  • If five years have passed, hearing may be held to destroy or permanently dispose of
firearms (IC 35-47-14-9)
SALE OF FIREARM (IC 35-47-14-10)
- After order for retention, Person may petition for an order directing LE agency to sell
firearm with proceeds (minus 8% administrative costs) to go to individual.
Just like the title of the thread, Trumpers are getting right in line. What a ficking sheep, and you thought trump was going to be pro 2ndA
 
Top