This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 08/09/2019 3:36:48 PM PDT by PsyCon
We want to express our deepest sympathies to the families and victims in El Paso and Dayton.
As always, the NRA will work in good faith to pursue real solutions to the violence we witnessed this past weekend. Real solutions save lives – televised, choreographed spectacles don’t.
In support of this goal, we appreciate the need for honest and open dialogue on how to stop these horrific murders. As a group that has advocated for Second Amendment freedoms for almost 150 years, we stand for only the safe and lawful use of firearms.
Sadly, El Paso and Dayton were not the only communities affected by gun violence last weekend. According to press reports, in the city of Chicago, there were 32 separate shootings, 52 wounded, and seven deaths in the city’s worst weekend for gun violence this year. In a grim scene recreated in urban centers across America, it was another 48 hours of murder and mayhem. Chicago is on pace for nearly 3,000 people shot and over 500 killed this year.
The point is, addressing violence in our society is an extremely complicated issue – violence tears at the fabric of our communities every day in unthinkable ways.
There are many factors that contribute to these tragedies. There are no soundbite solutions to this problem. Rather, a number of thoughtful steps must be taken to achieve positive outcomes.
Unfortunately, aspiring presidential candidates immediately took to the airwaves this past weekend to politicize these tragedies, and to demonize the NRA and its 5 million law-abiding members.
We all know the truth: the answers we seek lie far beyond statements neatly packaged for TV programs and the political campaign trail. We must identify what is at the root of the problem.
We must invest in law enforcement, demonstrating a real commitment to the job they do to protect us, and we must prosecute those who commit crimes with a gun under the federal gun laws to the fullest extent possible.
It is the NRA's long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment. But, there needs to be real evidence of danger – and we cannot sacrifice anyone’s constitutional rights without due process.
Finally, we must commit to more advanced, robust security measures – using layers of protection to help prevent violence in places where madmen might roam. The NRA has been at the forefront to protect children, with a completely free-of-charge program that assesses school security and advises how each school can be hardened and secured.
It is not enough anymore to simply say that “we need more background checks.” Considering both suspects in El Paso and Dayton passed them, that is rhetoric for billionaire activists and campaign rallies – not a call for constructive progress. The vast majority of gun sales, including internet and gun show sales, are already subject to background checks. In fact, none of the current background-check proposals would have prevented these tragedies.
On behalf of our five million law-abiding members, the NRA’s commitment today, as always, is to identify and support measures that will confront violence with real solutions.
There is no place in our society for the unhinged lunatics who commit these evil acts. We must not let their ungodly behavior effect the unity we share – or the constitutional freedoms in which we all believe. ________________________________________
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190808/nra-statement-cnn-town-hall-forum
In my own comments to NRA-ILA I am encouraging a push against Gun Free Zones and Removal of restrictions on carry. (My apology if I've violated some rule in posting.)
There are two things that the Soros commie clan and Hollywood leftist elites are obsessed with shoving down Americans throats......open borders and taking away Americans right of self defense.
Good statement. Hard to see how they will be “neutral” (Trump’s words) while Trump signs onto a national gun registry.
In 2016 Chicago did research on guns confiscated in violent gun crime.
None were legal.
Kiddo, I’m your camp.
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”
Frederick Douglass
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Concealed carry averted a tragedy in Missouri yesterday, no matter how the press plays it.
The dirtbags on the board might finally be getting wise. I will donate to ILA for the upcoming congressional fight.
LaPierre, Hammer, and their cronies still have to go.
For our side, the question is not WHETHER we will be seeing red-flag laws, but WHO will be writing them and signing them into law.
It can be Trump, with input from the NRA, Rush, Sean, and others, or it can be AOC, or one of her people (whoever gets elected in 2020).
Like it or not, we’ve lost the public opinion war - either Trump will be signing in the new laws, or at least making a damn good case as to why they shouldn’t be signed, or Trump could easily lose 2020 by ‘standing on principle’ and not signing anything, and we’ll be at the hands of a Fascist Democrat signing in the next round of laws.
So do we ‘punish’ Trump if he signs a red-flag law that still protects our rights, or do we still get angry and thus allow ourselves to be non-players, as the Dems win 2020 and go much, much, further - literally taking ALL of our guns.
Our choice.
I’ve had enough of the NRA...
I joined GOA yesterday.
I can't think of any.
That's not to say that the Democrats aren't gun-grabbing A-holes. I'm just pointing out that a lot of them face tremendous pressure from their own constituents who support the Second Amendment.
Absolutely agree with you regarding gun-owning Democrats. Nancy knew enough to sit back and let the fiction continue (i.e., “who, us Dems, we would NEVER take your guns away”), but things are different now, it may well be suicidal to them, but they’re on the offensive, and they WILL push draconian laws just to get at Trump, whether we like it or not.
...to answer your question, yes, I can think of one new gun law in that time frame. The one that Obama signed allowing people to carry/possess in National Parks (to the extent that it was legal in the surrounding states).
LOL, that’s how much things have changed in that party!
You may be right. We can also insist on constitutional protections such as: (1) the right to a trial by jury; (2) the right to court-appointed counsel (not just that the court will try to get the defendant pro bono counsel, as the Blumenthal bill provides); (3) much more stringent grounds than “a risk” or “a danger” or “personal injury” or “harm,” as I’ve seen in two bills; (4) a much higher burden of proof than “probable cause” or “reasonable cause” for an ex parte order, or “preponderance of the evidence” (!) for the issuance of a final order, as the House bill provides; (5) applications to be made under oath and based on personal knowledge (not hearsay or belief) of specific facts (not conclusions) supporting the appropriate findings. Also, make filing a false application a felony (in addition to perjury) and impose civil liability for the respondent’s attorney’s fees, actual damages, and some set amount of statutory additional damages.
Of course, this will make the program unworkable and its proponents can never agree to any of them. But that just exposes the fundamental problem of a “red flag” law. And how can they argue against something so basic as the right to a trial by jury?
You may be right. We can also insist on constitutional protections such as: (1) the right to a trial by jury; (2) the right to court-appointed counsel (not just that the court will try to get the defendant pro bono counsel, as the Blumenthal bill provides); (3) much more stringent grounds than “a risk” or “a danger” or “personal injury” or “harm,” as I’ve seen in two bills; (4) a much higher burden of proof than “probable cause” or “reasonable cause” for an ex parte order, or “preponderance of the evidence” (!) for the issuance of a final order, as the House bill provides; (5) applications to be made under oath and based on personal knowledge (not hearsay or belief) of specific facts (not conclusions) supporting the appropriate findings. Also, make filing a false application a felony (in addition to perjury) and impose civil liability for the respondent’s attorney’s fees, actual damages, and some set amount of statutory additional damages (maybe the greater of $10,000 or treble the attorney fees and actual damages).
Of course, this will make the program unworkable and its proponents can never agree to any of them. But that just exposes the fundamental problem of a “red flag” law. And how can they argue against something so basic as the right to a trial by jury?
Doesn’t seem to me the person in MO. was not intent in harming any one.
Mas shooters go in shooing not pushing a shopping cart around.
It isn’t who will be signing the red flag laws that matters, and eventually it will be a liberal in charge of that. It is the judges, with all their biases who will be in charge, and freerepublic is full of articles lambasting bad judges. In fact it will vary from the judge who has never denied denied a seizure order to the one who has never upheld one, and everything in between.
And we haven’t lost the public opinion war, we never presented an argument.
Trump will rightfully deserve the blame if he signs legislation that will be the basis for eventually subverting the second amendment.
They can argue against ANYTHING, of course. Our ‘piece of paper’ The Constitution, doesn’t mean crap to them or their judges.
What we need are built-in defaults. So you get a red-flag, they come and grab the weapons - at that point, the police have 72 hours to make their case before a judge, or your guns are given back. If they cannot, or will not, give you back your guns - they are in contempt, facing criminal charges.
Sounds like a lot to ask, but due process is something will play, even with the Soccer Moms. But telling the Soccer Moms that a shooting here and a shooting there is simply the price for living in a free society simply will not fly...we cannot win that battle, at least as I see it.
Now, having said that, I know that I’m investing a lot of hope in Trump...but what else is left - losing 2020, and not even making it to 2021 without all of us being felons for something that is perfectly legal today?
You don’t have the right to a court appointed attorney if you can afford one.
Well, the judges we get are the judges WE DESERVE, as we sit out the elections and re-elections of RINOs (out of ‘principle’, don’t you know), just to have DEMOCRAT JUDGES, who are far, far, worse take their place.
We can bitch all we want about RINOs in the Senate and elsewhere, and how we’re going to somehow ‘purify’ the party by sitting it out in the November elections - but, again, we get the judges WE DESERVE, when we do that shit.
Correct. I mean the same right as that enjoyed by a criminal defendant.
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.