Posted on 03/14/2019 8:13:00 AM PDT by Sopater
Is more gun control legislation coming to Congress?
The 2018 midterm elections produced a split Congress with Democrats gaining control of the House and Republicans gaining seats in the Senate.
The change in House leadership will signal changes in gun control legislation in the near future. The Guardian has detailed House Democrats’ desire to pass gun control legislation in the upcoming Congress:
“Ted Deutch, a Democratic congressman from Florida who represents Parkland, where a February school shooting left 17 dead, said this week that he expected House Democrats to focus on bills with more bipartisan support. Those measures included bump stock bans and “extreme risk protection orders”, also known as red flag laws, which give law enforcement and family members a way to petition a court to temporarily bar an unstable person from buying or owning guns.”
Red flag laws might just be the “come together” moment establishment politicians have been looking for.
Red flag laws or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are the euphemistic label for new gun-control measures. Under red flag laws, law enforcement has the ability to confiscate an individual’s firearms who is deemed a threat to themselves or others. A simple accusation from a family member, friend, or associate will suffice to seize someone’s firearms.
These laws, mind you, operate in the absence of due process. The accused can have their weapons confiscated without even so much as a hearing a before a judge. It could take months before a gun owner would have to appear in court to win back his gun rights.
Thirteen states currently have red flag laws on the books, with dozens more filing their own versions. What started out as a state-level movement may have some legs at the federal level. Although it’s true that Congressional Democrats are making gun control a major theme of their legislative agenda, it’s naïve to think red flag laws are only relevant because of “gun-grabbing” Democrats have taken power.
As we’ll see below, red flag laws have a history of bipartisan support. And when any piece of legislation has Democrats and Republicans locking arms in agreement, you know trouble lies ahead.
Despite the passionate campaign rhetoric, a significant portion of Republican politicians will change colors on gun rights once in DC. Several GOP members in the upcoming Congress are notable when it comes to their gun control advocacy:
Lindsay Graham: The South Carolina Senator already introduced a red flag bill earlier this year. With the 116th Congress right around the corner, Graham will likely reach across the aisle with Democrat colleagues to move red flag legislation forward. Graham has opined that red flag legislation is the “place where we begin a long-overdue discussion about firearms and mental health. But we must start.”
Marco Rubio: Following the Parkland shootings, Rubio joined the gun control chorus by sponsoring a red flag bill along with Democrat Senators Joe Manchin, Bill Nelson, & Jack Reed. Rubio has even flirted with the idea of regulations on magazine clips, raising the minimum age to buy certain firearms like AR-15s, and tweaking the current background check system.
Rick Scott: the Former Governor of Florida (and now a U.S. Senator from Florida), Rick Scott poses an interesting threat to gun rights. Despite his ostensibly pro-gun rhetoric, Scott signed SB 7026 Florida’s most expansive gun control measure in recent history. Scott’s SB 7026 contains red flag provisions, raises the age to buy a firearm to 21, and imposes a three-day waiting period for all firearms purchases.
Trump Administration: Even the Executive branch is joining in on the red-flag craze. The Trump Administration’s Commission on School Safety recently released a report recommending red flag laws as a means to “address school safety and violence.” It’s likely only a matter of time before legislation is introduced in either chamber of Congress now that the Trump administration has endorsed red flag laws.
Larry Hogan, the Republican Governor of Maryland, recently signed a series of gun bills, one which included a red flag law. In October, the first month Maryland’s red flag law went into effect, there were 114 requests to confiscate individuals’ firearms.
Maryland’s red flag law has not been without its fair share of controversy. At 5 a.m on Monday, November 5, two police officers came knocking on 61-year-old Gary Willis’ door to serve him a court order mandating that he turn over his guns. What seemed like a typical court order, quickly turned deadly as one of the cops shot and killed Willis in a struggle that ensued. Quick to defend one of his own, Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare defended the cops’ action by callously claiming that they “did the best they could with the situation they had.”
The tragic incident in Maryland is an ominous sign of what may be to come should red flag laws gain more traction.
Red Flag laws ARE TOTAL GUN CONTROL.
If they pass, every liberal in the country will call and tell the local police you have guns and they feel ‘threatened’.
That’s all it will take to have them removed from you.
At 5 a.m on Monday, November 5, two police officers came knocking
= = =
5 a.m., cold, dark November - - - must be Publisher’s Clearing House.
How about calling in red flags on Lindsey’s and Rubio’s bodyguards?
It sounds nice, but it won’t pass constitutional muster.
You can’t take away a person’s rights unless they lose them via a court trial or confession, or they are certified incapable of taking responsibility for themself.
This thing simply can’t meet that bar.
Minority Report, pre-emptive abrogation of a constitutional right. Capricious and arbitrary. I doubt it would withstand judicial review.
“You can’t take away a person’s rights unless they lose them via a court trial or confession, or they are certified incapable of taking responsibility for themself.”
Sure you can if you’ve got a Marxist judge.
...deemed a threat to themselves or others.
You can only be deemed a threat via some legal action - like a court conviction or forced institutionalization. You can’t just take a guy’s gun because aunt Nelly and her brood say cousin Joe is gonna shoot somebody.
Well, yeah, if this stuff makes it, it will make it to the Supreme Court eventually. They have a reputation to uphold.
The laws are there. They’re just not being enforced. Kinda like the border wall.
But ... I'm sure anti-gun bias would even seep into this practice.
Otherwise, TOTALLY ARBITRARY ... therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
BIG. FAT. HELL. NO.
Remember that the way our court system works the Court nominally cannot even consider the act until after many guns will have been siezed.
The Left prefers to ask for forgiveness rather than permission because 1) they know the Republicans aren’t likely to hold their feet to the fire once they can assert that the “ship has sailed” and 2) they know they’ll be able to disarm many even if later slapped down.
Generally, that is the way I see this. You can’t just take a guy’s guns on heresay of scared people. He has a right to a day in court before you simply take away his rights.
Actually, it’s totally unconstitutional because there is no delegated power given the federal to enact such a law in the first place.
All current federal gun control laws are in defiance of the Constitution. Every last one.
Just so long as they are ONLY concerned with confiscating guns from law abiding citizens, and don’t address the criminal element, we can’t have armed citizens that can defend themselves from criminals...Because we all know that one more stupid gun law is going to change the way criminals think.
How about harsher penalties for crimes committed with guns, mmmmmmm, you know, llllliiiiiikkkkkkeeeeee, the death penalty for anyone using a firearm illegally…Or committing a crime…Just spit balling here, but those are some good ideas, but then again we would be locking up democrats, so I guess we can’t have none of that….
Thank you democrats, you are ruining the future for my grandchildren….
If a person is that incapable & poses that much a public threat, then that person should be committed via court order to an institution as opposed to abridging their Rights.
I doubt it would withstand judicial review.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you trust Roberts to uphold the Constitution?
He swore in the Kenyanesian Usurper, despite his not being eligible.
How about REAL harsh penalties for making false statements to police or judges?
That’s already perjury, isn’t it? Which is already a felony in most states.
Then include restitution to the falsely accused, to come out of the false accuser’s hide.
Make it clear to any potential accuser that they’d d@mn well better have their facts straight before they drop a dime.
Well guess what, folks - the CA Red Flag law downgraded making false statements from a felony to a misdemeanor. Your angry liberal neighbors are now the state’s Gestapo agents.
“You can only be deemed a threat via some legal action - like a court conviction or forced institutionalization. You can’t just take a guy’s gun because aunt Nelly and her brood say cousin Joe is gonna shoot somebody.”
You can now in Colorado. Red Flag is the law.
They will let it sit for a while—no abuses while other states pass it. Then they turn the temperature slowly up by redefining the meaning of each term in what it means to be crazy in the bill. Eventually, this is a very effective total gun confiscation bill as to the middle class, which is the primary goal of the Pelosi’s et al anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.