[Mr. K]

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.

[Scrambler Bob]

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?

[cuban leaf]

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.

[IronJack]

Minority Report, pre-emptive abrogation of a constitutional right. Capricious and arbitrary. I doubt it would withstand judicial review.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I personally don't have a problem with the concept, but it has to include notice and a right to be heard before a judge before any weapons are confiscated. With expedited appeals, and an automatic expiration of the order within six months unless there is a new hearing, finding, and order. Burden of proof has to be on the government, and should never revert to the citizen to prove that they should be entitled to possess weapons again.

[cuban leaf]

...deemed a threat to themselves or others.

---

There’s the rub.

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.

[Rocky Mountain Wild Turkey]

Maybe ... MAYBE ... if we had a non-political TRUE PROFESSIONAL LICENSED psychiatrist who could "make the call" for a court ....

But ... I'm sure anti-gun bias would even seep into this practice.

Otherwise, TOTALLY ARBITRARY ... therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

BIG. FAT. HELL. NO.

[areukiddingme1]

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….

[Charles Martel]

Funny how government failures are never identified as the problem in these mass shootings, huh?

[DonBeto]

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.

[Seaplaner]

Could you have someone committed to an institution without due process?

No, not even a mother-in-law. The Constitution protects every Citizen.

.

[DownInFlames]

The coming rebellion. Same mistakes not learned from King George. This time with semi and full auto rifles.

[Home-of-the-lazy-dog]

The 800 pound gorilla in the room asks this question: What are the ramifications for someone who falsely accuses someone in order to have their weapons taken away. Will false accusers be arrested and face severe punishment, jail time, etc. ala Jusse Smollett? Suppose the falsely accused individual hurts or kills police officers as a result of all of this stupidity? Does the false accuser do the time for the crime? On their face, these red-flag laws appear to be very dumb.

[JimRed]

Under red flag laws, law enforcement has the ability to confiscate an individual’s firearms who is deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Since any armed potential victim is a threat to an attacker (an "other"), confiscate ALL CC holders' weapons!

[Kickass Conservative]

Shall Not Be Infringed, (unless your significant other gets pissed off at you)...

[Retvet]

Really is it? More states going Constitutional carry.

[ammodotcom]

“Marco Rubio: Following the Parkland... and tweaking the current background check system.”

Gun control advocates are attacking gun rights from various angles right now, whether that be Red Flag Laws or universal background checks (H.R.8).

My question for H.R.8 supporters is, do you know how a background check works? Or how they came to be? What about if the efforts are even utilitarian?

We do. And so should you: https://ammo.com/articles/background-checks-guide-history-nics-how-they-work

[Fred Hayek]

Violation of due process. Violation of 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments, perhaps more.

[Kozak]

I’ve seen similar laws act out in real life. In NC anyone can go to the courthouse and request a 5150 psychiatric evaluation on someone. You just have to state you are concerned for their safety etc. Bang a sheriff shows up and off you go to the ER for an evaluation and possible 72 hour hold. I’ve seen it done by pissed off family members to each other, neighbors, etc.

This is going to be the nuclear weapon of divorce, custody battles, neighbor property disputes, family feuds etc etc etc.

[Biggirl]

President Trump,better get the next conservative ready for the USSC.