Good call on this one, JayGalt. 
Posted on 11/06/2023 11:06:10 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Here is what the President said in the link you provided (with an Issued Date of 02/28/2018):
"THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the category you spoke about, Mr. President — the gun violence restraining orders. And they’re called — California, actually, has a version of this. And I think, in your meeting with governors earlier this week, individually and as a group, we spoke about states taking steps.
But the focus is to literally give families and give local law enforcement additional tools if an individual is reported to be a potential danger to themselves or others. Allow due process, so that no one’s rights are trampled. But the ability to go to court, obtain an order, and then collect not only the firearms, but any weapons in the possession of that individual.
THE PRESIDENT: Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures.
I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second. (emphasis added)
Later on August 5, 2019, this is what President Trump said:
"We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken by rapid due process," Trump said. "That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders. (emphasis added)"
- see https://www.lohud.com/story/news/2019/08/05/president-trump-calls-red-flag-gun-law-what-new-york-law-does/1920845001/
A reasonable reading of these supports the claim that President Trump specifically supported red flag laws, and with weapons confiscation first and due process considerations second.
"The bump stock question comes down to the definition of machine gun not whether the second amendment should be abridged."
is really a distinction without a difference. President Trump supported the bump stock ban, and used the administrative state, the "Deep State" if you will, to work to get a part classified as essentially a machine gun. That action clearly abridged the Second Amendment.
From the same link that you provided up thread"
Senator Cornyn mentioned bump stocks:
"...You’ve talked about the bump stock issue that Senator Feinstein, I know, cares passionately about.
THE PRESIDENT: And I’m going to write that out. (emphasis added)
THE PRESIDENT: Because we can do that with an executive order. I’m going to write the bump stock; essentially, write it out. So you won’t have to worry about bump stock. Shortly, that will be gone. We can focus on other things. (emphasis added)
It's pretty apparent (to me) that President Trump used the power of the administrative state to ban bump stocks.
OK ...
I don’t agree with it, but it’s an answer. You, least have the guts and intellectual honesty to provide one.
Thank you for that.
Yes - DeSantis needs to be called on that. As well as the red flag law unless it allows for at least due process AT THE TIME weapons are taken.
Regardless of her wanting to run whether successful or not. Someday we’re going to have to look for younger candidates in every state.
Good call on this one, JayGalt.
I would however argue that for Trump supporters, nothing he does really seems to wreck their love for him.
They certainly didn’t seem to mind when he revealed he doesn’t care much about abortion,
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.