View Full Version : Marco Rubio (R) Fla introduces red flag bill
Voodoochild
01-03-19, 19:33
Little Marco going full anti 2A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RxHUWTY-NU
Averageman
01-03-19, 19:38
I would imagine this is going to stop zero crimes from being committed, however it will keep Attorneys busy and courtrooms full.
I thought we already had this in that Felons can't buy a gun?
So we are now Guilty until proven innocent..... nice.
Averageman
01-03-19, 20:22
Vindictive ex wives will love this.
You answer the door at 9 pm and they're on the doorstep and likely don't want to hear a damned thing you or your Attorney have to say. They haul your gear out the door not giving a damn about your guns as they pile them in the back of a cruiser to be locked up under the care of a 300 lbs moron.
This is what scares me, I could totally see my ex pulling a stunt like that just to make my life hell
Vindictive ex wives will love this.
You answer the door at 9 pm and they're on the doorstep and likely don't want to hear a damned thing you or your Attorney have to say. They haul your gear out the door not giving a damn about your guns as they pile them in the back of a cruiser to be locked up under the care of a 300 lbs moron.
Coal Dragger
01-04-19, 00:39
Vindictive ex wives will love this.
You answer the door at 9 pm and they're on the doorstep and likely don't want to hear a damned thing you or your Attorney have to say. They haul your gear out the door not giving a damn about your guns as they pile them in the back of a cruiser to be locked up under the care of a 300 lbs moron.
On the plus side it is so blatantly un-Constitutional that the first plaintiff to win in SCOTUS will be able to afford lots of new guns after suing the state of Florida.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-04-19, 00:49
If we want to keep our guns, you have to have a way to keep them out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Why we need a new law, or a law that focuses on guns is something that seems to be lost by people. If someone is too dangerous to be out in public with a gun, they are also too dangerous to be in public with a 10 ten truck or a tank of gas.
Look at Parkland's Cruz. That guy pegged the dangerous and crazy meters and nothing happened. Same thing with the Aurora shooter and the Sandyhook guy didn't even look human. Those guys should have been at the least prohibited and most likely in a controlled care facility. But that crap is expensive and doleing out drugs is (relatively) cheaper.
So if the cry is that some people shouldn't have guns because they are dangerous an unvetted, that means that the opposite should be true- CCWers that have passed a background check are not a danger. So we'll see the Red Flag law and raise you national CCW reciprocity. Compromise, right.
Diamondback
01-04-19, 01:22
So if the cry is that some people shouldn't have guns because they are dangerous an unvetted, that means that the opposite should be true- CCWers that have passed a background check are not a danger. So we'll see the Red Flag law and raise you national CCW reciprocity. Compromise, right.
Do you one better: In return for Red Flag, CCW get the same carry as LEO, including the same unrestricted access to hardware including NFA, even the privilege of importing one 922R weapon per year. Once you have your Good Guy Card, it's Anything Anytime Anywhere including "sterile areas."
If you want to talk compromise, you have to GIVE in return rather than just "Take Less, For Now..."
Look at Parkland's Cruz. That guy pegged the dangerous and crazy meters and nothing happened. Same thing with the Aurora shooter and the Sandyhook guy didn't even look human. Those guys should have been at the least prohibited and most likely in a controlled care facility. But that crap is expensive and doleing out drugs is (relatively) cheaper.
The problem is there is a huge difference from the level of danger the Parkland shooter exhibited and the thresh holds of the proposed red flag bills.
For a lot of these red flag bills, all it would take is a pissed off ex-girlfriend, annoyed co-worker, boss or neighbor, or someone who wanted to screw with you and bam, you get your guns confiscated and become a prohibited person. Now you have to hire a lawyer, and spend a lot of time and money getting your rights and guns back. Courts are backed up as it is. What makes anyone think that introducing things will go quick or smoothly with this process.
So if the cry is that some people shouldn't have guns because they are dangerous an unvetted, that means that the opposite should be true- CCWers that have passed a background check are not a danger. So we'll see the Red Flag law and raise you national CCW reciprocity. Compromise, right.
Passing a CCW background check is no protection from being red flagged by an antigun neighbor or co-worker or someone who has a beef with you and wants to cause you grief.
I don't see national reciprocity getting used as a bargaining chip.
Outlander Systems
01-04-19, 05:22
Due process sure is a malleable term lolololol amirite?
>be Draconian legislation that can violate several constitutional amendments in a single bound
>in 2019 you can self-identify as due-process because, lulz, law was passed
>proceed to step on snekkies
Seems legit. The absolute state of liberty.
So Red Flag law is the newest gun-grabber strategy that even “conservative” politicians can embrace. And a law that excludes due process is even more dangerous.
We need a REAL Republican to insert poison pill language into his bill, so he has to abort his own brainchild. LOL
Do you one better: In return for Red Flag, CCW get the same carry as LEO, including the same unrestricted access to hardware including NFA, even the privilege of importing one 922R weapon per year. Once you have your Good Guy Card, it's Anything Anytime Anywhere including "sterile areas."
If you want to talk compromise, you have to GIVE in return rather than just "Take Less, For Now..."
That is the part that everyone misses. There’s never been any compromise with gun control. It’s always been just take less.
As long is due process is followed, I can see the benefit of a red flag law. There has to be due process though. It can’t be take first and worry about due process later as someone suggested. IMHO There was plenty of due process available for the Parkland shooter if the law would’ve been on the books.
So, maybe the smarter powers that be in our camp can trade red flag with due process, for BOTH national reciprocity, and the hearing protection act.
We need a REAL Republican to insert poison pill language into his bill, so he has to abort his own brainchild. LOL
You mean 50 state constitutional carry? :D
You mean 50 state constitutional carry? :D
That would work! :)
That is the part that everyone misses. There’s never been any compromise with gun control. It’s always been just take less.
As long is due process is followed, I can see the benefit of a red flag law. There has to be due process though. It can’t be take first and worry about due process later as someone suggested. IMHO There was plenty of due process available for the Parkland shooter if the law would’ve been on the books.
So, maybe the smarter powers that be in our camp can trade red flag with due process, for BOTH national reciprocity, and the hearing protection act.
There is no due process in these laws...It's all determined Ex Parte by design. The first you hear of it is when they show up with a warrant to seize your collection. Someone reports that you're a scary child-killer, and a hearing is held without your knowledge. Hon. Judge Alcoholic says "Yup...Gun owners are crazy. Motion Granted." Cops show up, rouse you from bed, and steal your shit. Maybe they find some weed or something while they're there. You're hemmed up. Now you gotta spend a year or two and thousands fighting to get your stuff back even if the original complaint was malicious. Oh, and nothing will ever happen to anyone who makes a false complaint.
HPA and national reciprocity died forever in Vegas. It ain't gonna happen. Also, in order to compromise, you have to actually have a say in some part of the process...
Voodoochild
01-04-19, 13:13
We need a REAL Republican to insert poison pill language into his bill, so he has to abort his own brainchild. LOL
Put the HPA in there and/or 50 state CWP carry.
Put the HPA in there and/or 50 state CWP carry.
That's all good too. It was my Senator (Coburn) that got us CCW in national parks. He's gone now and his replacement is a RINO who wouldn't lift a finger. :(
There are many among us who shouldn't have guns. Unfortunately there is no way to stop it without infringing on everyone rights.
There are many among us who shouldn't have guns. Unfortunately there is no way to stop it without infringing on everyone rights.
Sure there is. But it takes time, money, caution, care and above all Due Process, none of which our governments have the patience or desire to exercise. :(
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-04-19, 14:56
We need a REAL Republican to insert poison pill language into his bill, so he has to abort his own brainchild. LOL
You mean 50 state constitutional carry? :D
Exactly what I was talking about. We have to stop the 'compromise' always being about how much we lose. Even better, these Red Flag laws have constitutional issues all over the place. You could end up getting those thrown out and the part we want being left alone. At the very least, trying a truly balanced effort would expose the left as being just anti-gun and not actually trying to solve the violence problem.
There are many among us who shouldn't have guns. Unfortunately there is no way to stop it without infringing on everyone rights.
Sure there is. But it takes time, money, caution, care and above all Due Process, none of which our governments have the patience or desire to exercise. :(
Exactly. It isn't that we don't have the tools right now, it is that they are hard, expensive and frankly largely ineffective. Trying to solve those issues by lowering the bar isn't the solution. The left always wants new shiny tools - it really is the laziest way to virtue signal.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-04-19, 15:02
Between Trump and Rubio the Republican Party is really standing up for gun owners.
Between Trump and Rubio the Republican Party is really standing up for gun owners.
Dude, open your eyes, this is classic 4D chess.
We're gonna do so much winning in 2019 you are literally going to vomit blood from the sheer awesomeness of it.
4D chess, I tell you!
Business_Casual
01-04-19, 16:56
There are many among us who shouldn't have guns. Unfortunately there is no way to stop it without infringing on everyone rights.
Freedom is dangerous, period. To have freedom we must accept risk - two sides of the coin. That is part of the emphasis by the left on safety and common sense restrictions, as well as doing it for the children. The argument “if it saves one life, it is worth it” is the ne plus ultra of this genre. The literal truth is it isn’t worth it because it leads directly to tyranny.
Averageman
01-04-19, 16:56
I think Rubio's still butt hurt from having a teenager in an open forum call him out for taking NRA money. This must be some way to make amends and appear "enlightened" now.
You know this guy was in the primaries running for POTUS and he nuts up all over himself like this?
We don't have any conservatives with any sort of fortitude and integrity anymore in the Republican Party. When the only guy who'll challenge the left in any manner is Lindsey Graham, we're screwed.
Dude, open your eyes, this is classic 4D chess.
We're gonna do so much winning in 2019 you are literally going to vomit blood from the sheer awesomeness of it.
4D chess, I tell you!
:haha::lol:
Between Trump and Rubio the Republican Party is really standing up for gun owners.
And it is nothing new. Pointing out Republican bans gets the rebuttal of somehow it would be worse if [insert name] (D) did it. The apologists never can tell how the exact same action can be worse when done by a different person, the conversation just goes straight to emotional nonsense the same as those who identify as liberals have to use when trying to justify their position.
I think Rubio's still butt hurt from having a teenager in an open forum call him out for taking NRA money. This must be some way to make amends and appear "enlightened" now.
You know this guy was in the primaries running for POTUS and he nuts up all over himself like this?
We don't have any conservatives with any sort of fortitude and integrity anymore in the Republican Party. When the only guy who'll challenge the left in any manner is Lindsey Graham, we're screwed.
Rubio racked up a B+ NRA score long before Parkland which is pathetic considering how much they overlook when handing out A ratings.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Marco_Rubio_Gun_Control.htm
There are many among us who shouldn't have guns. Unfortunately there is no way to stop it without infringing on everyone rights.
Sure there is. But it takes time, money, caution, care and above all Due Process, none of which our governments have the patience or desire to exercise. :(
There is a way to accomplish the goal of identifying those who shouldn't have guns and limiting the damage that they cause without trouncing upon the 4th Amendment. It just won't happen as long as folks are using the opportunity to politically grandstand and posture.
All that is needed, in reality, is a streamlined system for the concerned party to come before a judge for a PC hearing. Such measures need to have penalties for false or malicious reporting. There needs to be public education on the process. There also needs to be a hearing within 48 hours upon request of the person whose property has been seized in order to determine if the property was rightfully seized. There will also need to be oversight/safeguards in place to ensure followup in order to determine when it is safe, if ever, for the person to have their property returned - with no undue burden to the person whose property has been seized.
There is no due process in these laws...It's all determined Ex Parte by design. The first you hear of it is when they show up with a warrant to seize your collection. Someone reports that you're a scary child-killer, and a hearing is held without your knowledge. Hon. Judge Alcoholic says "Yup...Gun owners are crazy. Motion Granted."
Uhh, I've drawn numerous search and arrest warrants, all of them involved a Judge determining PC based on either a sworn affidavit or an in person appearance. Generally speaking, it isn't real effective to notify the person who you are about to arrest, or whose property you are about to search, in order for them to be present while the Judge decides if their is PC to issue a warrant.
Ultimately, that is what we are talking here, a search warrant.
As far as Hon. Judge Alcoholic, maybe that has been you experience in the Rocky Mountain High state. Down here in Kansas, I shoot action pistol with the Judge who would most likely hear such cases in our District. He's a USAMA Grad, a Ranger, served as an Infantry PL in VietNam, and teaches our gun club's CCW classes. Just my way of saying put a little finer point on that brush with which you are painting.
There is a way to accomplish the goal of identifying those who shouldn't have guns and limiting the damage that they cause without trouncing upon the 4th Amendment. It just won't happen as long as folks are using the opportunity to politically grandstand and posture.
All that is needed, in reality, is a streamlined system for the concerned party to come before a judge for a PC hearing. Such measures need to have penalties for false or malicious reporting. There needs to be public education on the process. There also needs to be a hearing within 48 hours upon request of the person whose property has been seized in order to determine if the property was rightfully seized. There will also need to be oversight/safeguards in place to ensure followup in order to determine when it is safe, if ever, for the person to have their property returned - with no undue burden to the person whose property has been seized.
Uhh, I've drawn numerous search and arrest warrants, all of them involved a Judge determining PC based on either a sworn affidavit or an in person appearance. Generally speaking, it isn't real effective to notify the person who you are about to arrest, or whose property you are about to search, in order for them to be present while the Judge decides if their is PC to issue a warrant.
Ultimately, that is what we are talking here, a search warrant.
As far as Hon. Judge Alcoholic, maybe that has been you experience in the Rocky Mountain High state. Down here in Kansas, I shoot action pistol with the Judge who would most likely hear such cases in our District. He's a USAMA Grad, a Ranger, served as an Infantry PL in VietNam, and teaches our gun club's CCW classes. Just my way of saying put a little finer point on that brush with which you are painting.
We need to clone your judge, because I’m just a bit South of you and I wouldn’t trust our judges any further than I could throw their corpulent carcasses. :(
We need to clone your judge, because I’m just a bit South of you and I wouldn’t trust our judges any further than I could throw their corpulent carcasses. :(
We have been pretty consistently lucky in that regard. How far south?
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-04-19, 19:08
No. Freedom is dangerous, period. To have freedom we must accept risk - two sides of the coin. That is part of the emphasis by the left on safety and common sense restrictions, as well as doing it for the children. The argument “if it saves one life, it is worth it” is the ne plus ultra of this genre. The literal truth is it isn’t worth it because it leads directly to tyranny.
If we take the view that no one can have their gun rights taken away, we will lose every time. Hell, even Scalia didn't take that view. It isn't a view that is taken with the 1A. We have to stop throwing our hands up in the air and exclaiming that there isn't anything that can be done. I blame the NRA for not instituting some kind of buddy program or something to address mental health and its intersection with firearms. Just having a program would go a long ways towards being seen as 'doing something'- which is the gold standard for Progressive virtue signaling. The politics are changing. The wall against new rules is being run-around by state laws and eventually by Dem hegemony at the national level. Reduce the damage and get something in return that is actually useful.
I think Rubio's still butt hurt from having a teenager in an open forum call him out for taking NRA money. This must be some way to make amends and appear "enlightened" now.
That is the fundamental difference between the GOP and the Dems. If a dem pol of his stature got treated like that, they would go to war against the people that attacked them. Our side tries to win hearts and minds. That lack of willingness to defend ourselves and our positions is what makes Trump so attractive to so many people on the right.
I bet Rubio is so proud of himself. Smug little fu$&@r....
Between Trump and Rubio the Republican Party is really standing up for gun owners.
And I'm sure gunowners would be much better off if Hillary Clinton was elected president.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-05-19, 00:33
Sadly, that's all the Trumpers have at this point: "Hey, he hasn't railed us as hard as Hilary would have." Man, what an advertisement.
Sadly, that's all the Trumpers have at this point: "Hey, he hasn't railed us as hard as Hilary would have." Man, what an advertisement.
Well, that and drastically reduced firearms prices, readily available ammunition, no new national gun laws, one more conservative judge on the SC, and not hearing our president on the MSM every night talking about how evil AR-15s are.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-05-19, 00:50
Well, Trump decided to give thousands of American gun owners the choice to lose their property or become the owners of illegal machine-guns just to please the anti-gun crowd. So, yes, he did basically give us a new national gun ban, but since Trump did it I guess that's fine. At least he let us keep other stuff for now.
I do agree that Trump and McConnel gave us better judges.
Its ironic that Trump come up in a thread about Marco Rubio, who would have been president if he had won the primary where I voted for him. Don't I feel dumb.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-05-19, 01:02
so a law was passed?
No, much worse, he just made up one--even the Obama administration declined to ban bump stocks because they lacked the legal authority to do so. So I guess you prefer to lose your rights by executive fiat? And by the way, what a genius precedent to set. 4d chess indeed.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
I guess using your logic I should be thrilled Rubio didn't propose total gun confiscation. Man, thank God! This Rubio guy is really looking out for us.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-05-19, 01:07
Its ironic that Trump come up in a thread about Marco Rubio, who would have been president if he had won the primary where I voted for him. Don't I feel dumb.
Which was exactly my point...
Between Trump and Rubio the Republican Party is really standing up for gun owners.
Business_Casual
01-05-19, 07:27
What if Rubio knows one of these bills will be introduced and he also knows it won’t get out of committee? Why not have the bill that fails introduced by a Republican so the Democrats can’t say right wingers are blocking common sense gun laws when the same thing would happen to their bill? He’s just taking away their chance to beat R up.
What if Rubio knows one of these bills will be introduced and he also knows it won’t get out of committee? Why not have the bill that fails introduced by a Republican so the Democrats can’t say right wingers are blocking common sense gun laws when the same thing would happen to their bill? He’s just taking away their chance to beat R up.
So would that be 5D chess than?
So would that be 5D chess than?
Yes, of course. In the 4th dimension. Because these politicians are so smart us mortals cannot understand their minds.
Sadly, that's all the Trumpers have at this point: "Hey, he hasn't railed us as hard as Hilary would have." Man, what an advertisement.
I'm about as hard of a single issue voter (2A) as you'll find. While I don't own a bump stock and certainly don't agree with the ban, it is completely unenforceable and pretty much bans a piece of kit that is an unreliable gimmick.
I suggest you go over the things he's done right and re-assess. I won't enumerate them here as it is off topic.
Marco can kiss my arse.
So [insert name of anti-gun politician] (R) isn't a bad man. He just hits you and the kids when he is feeling stressed. And it's really your fault, he wouldn't have to do it if you were a better constituent and pleased him better.
So would that be 5D chess than?
There is no form of Chess being played in D.C. by anyone. Anyone remember a board game from your childhood called: "Chutes and Ladders"? That's the highest level of game play in our nation's capital.
Personally I wish things would return to the Jacksonian Era with pistol duels on the White House lawn.
I'm about as hard of a single issue voter (2A) as you'll find. While I don't own a bump stock and certainly don't agree with the ban, it is completely unenforceable and pretty much bans a piece of kit that is an unreliable gimmick..
It's plenty enforceable if someone decides to use a bumpstock, which would be the bear part of "keep and bear". Like say they decide to do mag dumps in a gravel pit and LE rolls up in response to a call about "full auto" shooting. Now the guy who kept his bumpstock is busted.
The obvious answer "well than don't use it".
But if you keep your bumpstocks/standard capacity mags/"assault weapons" in defiance of a ban, but hide them in your crawlspace, or bury them out back, that's better than handing them over to .gov obviously, but they still won by making you too afraid to openly possess and use your own property.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-05-19, 09:24
“I'm about as hard of a single issue voter (2A) as you'll find. While I don't own a bump stock and certainly don't agree with the ban, it is completely unenforceable and pretty much bans a piece of kit that is an unreliable gimmick”
The problem is the precedent. What’s to stop him from banning semi-autos next? Not a damn thing. If he makes the ATF declare the AR a machinegun it will take years to undo it, if ever. More realistically, the next Democrat will use this precedent to wreak havoc and point to this and say “even Republicans support my right to do this.” At least Rubio is trying to do his evil through legitimate democratic process. Trump and Rubio are, in a sense, worse than Hillary because they have made it acceptable to be a gun grabbing Republican again.
Unenforceable? You are totally wrong.
thopkins22
01-05-19, 09:24
Well, that and drastically reduced firearms prices, readily available ammunition, no new national gun laws, one more conservative judge on the SC, and not hearing our president on the MSM every night talking about how evil AR-15s are.
The market overproducing in the hopes of a panic are why guns and ammo are cheap and available. Obama passed one law that increased your firearm rights and zero that diminished them.
I’ll give you SCOTUS picks. But frankly Rubio and every other Republican in the race would have made good picks too.
Don't count on court picks living up to the advertised "good". If that was the case, the 19 Republican to 11 Democrat scotus judges since 1960 would have firearms law in this country rolled back to only 1.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-05-19, 09:32
Hey but let me just say, we are all friends here and obviously are just trying to figure out how to best preserve our rights.
Why would Rubio introduce such a bill when he was under no pressure to do anything? Does he sense a shifting wind, and strong wind that requires him to moderate his stance to keep power? Kind of like the palm tree that bends in hurricane force winds compared to the rigid tree. If what we thought were Conservatives are showing the white flag, things may be worse in the long run than we have anticipated, and the change is happening quicker.
It’s the Way of the Politician. Rather than solving a problem by enforcing existing laws, create new ones. Like most legislators, he perceives his job as a legislator to be legislating. Doesn’t matter if it’s necessary or productive.
Like all legislators, getting re-elected is Job 1. If you don’t legislate, you’re viewed as unproductive. Unlike his potential future opponents, he can prove his value to his constituents by actually creating new laws, whereas his opponents can only promise new laws. In order to do that, he has to create new laws, and to do that effectively he has to address the current political winds. It has nothing to do with principles. It has to do with getting re-elected.
It’s the Way of the Politician. Rather than solving a problem by enforcing existing laws, create new ones. Like most legislators, he perceives his job as a legislator to be legislating. Doesn’t matter if it’s necessary or productive.
Like all legislators, getting re-elected is Job 1. If you don’t legislate, you’re viewed as unproductive. Unlike his potential future opponents, he can prove his value to his constituents by actually creating new laws, whereas his opponents can only promise new laws. In order to do that, he has to create new laws, and to do that effectively he has to address the current political winds. It has nothing to do with principles. It has to do with getting re-elected.
Considering he is a Floridian, and knows the force of the hurricane, maybe he is anticipating future political winds he may need to bend to? I guess that's why I never wanted to be a politician - core values have meaning to me.
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-19, 10:19
Why would Rubio introduce such a bill when he was under no pressure to do anything? Does he sense a shifting wind, and strong wind that requires him to moderate his stance to keep power? Kind of like the palm tree that bends in hurricane force winds compared to the rigid tree. If what we thought were Conservatives are showing the white flag, things may be worse in the long run than we have anticipated, and the change is happening quicker.
Why? Because he’s a turd, I voted for that asshole in his 2016 re-election, hearing him talk about this and also verbalizing his support for magazine bans, he’s dead to me. Little Marco can kiss my ass, I’d rather be lose to a full blown gun grabber, so I can have the choice of helping to vote for someone who will stand up for our rights. Rubio is a neocon or progressive light.
No, much worse, he just made up one--even the Obama administration declined to ban bump stocks because they lacked the legal authority to do so. So I guess you prefer to lose your rights by executive fiat? And by the way, what a genius precedent to set. 4d chess indeed.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
I guess using your logic I should be thrilled Rubio didn't propose total gun confiscation. Man, thank God! This Rubio guy is really looking out for us.
I edited that post (obviously a bit slowly) because it was argumentative and added nothing to the discussion.
Andy
Considering he is a Floridian, and knows the force of the hurricane, maybe he is anticipating future political winds he may need to bend to? I guess that's why I never wanted to be a politician - core values have meaning to me.
That’s my guess...it’s a hallmark of a smart, or at least re-electable, politician.
I think that, generally, core values are antithetical to politics.
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-19, 11:30
That’s my guess...it’s a hallmark of a smart, or at least re-electable, politician.
I think that, generally, core values are antithetical to politics.
Conventional wisdom has cost many politicians their prospects of being elected. I voted for Scott this cycle, his race was closer than Desantis’ race because he signed the gun control bill. Rubio verbalizing his support for a magazine ban was a bridge too far for me to tolerate and it will be for many Floridians. The left will not vote for him, he will lose his next re-election bid and not because of changing demographics, rather because he listened to some idiot political adviser who told him to change his position on gun control
Nothing new for Rubio.
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/rubio-owes-cruz-an-apology-for-gun-control-comments/#axzz5blB2QURk
Conventional wisdom has cost many politicians their prospects of being elected. I voted for Scott this cycle, his race was closer than Desantis’ race because he signed the gun control bill. Rubio verbalizing his support for a magazine ban was a bridge too far for me to tolerate and it will be for many Floridians. The left will not vote for him, he will lose his next re-election bid and not because of changing demographics, rather because he listened to some idiot political adviser who told him to change his position on gun control
If and only if supporting gun control of some variety will keep him from getting re-elected. That may be a bridge too far for you but we'll have to wait for his next election to see if it was a dumb political move that causes him to lose the next election.
I'm about as hard of a single issue voter (2A) as you'll find. While I don't own a bump stock and certainly don't agree with the ban, it is completely unenforceable and pretty much bans a piece of kit that is an unreliable gimmick.
I suggest you go over the things he's done right and re-assess. I won't enumerate them here as it is off topic.
Marco can kiss my arse.
The language in the new determination letter is very problematic. It sets a terrible new precedent and revises the well established definition of what constitutes a machinegun. It sets the stage for very very bad things to come.
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-19, 16:33
The language in the new determination letter is very problematic. It sets a terrible new precedent and revises the well established definition of what constitutes a machinegun. It sets the stage for very very bad things to come.
It goes beyond guns, this sets an awful precedent for the entire administrative state. If this is not defeated in courts, the future looks very ugly.
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-19, 16:34
If and only if supporting gun control of some variety will keep him from getting re-elected. That may be a bridge too far for you but we'll have to wait for his next election to see if it was a dumb political move that causes him to lose the next election.
called Trump’s election, I was one of the very few here calling it. I am going to call Rubio’s defeat due to this issue, single issue gun voters may not be anymore than 3-5% of the GOP electorate but I can assure you the entire block will either stay home or vote against Rubio. I will not stay home, I will actually vote for his ultra gun grabbing opponent, I am that spiteful towards this traitor. My wife who is Cuban feels the same way about Rubio, he’s dead to us (and she voted for him in the 2016 Republican primary). I’ve also been very vocal with my Republican voting family about Rubio and I’ve made the point if you cannot trust him on guns you cannot trust him on anything, he is a RINO.
called Trump’s election, I was one of the very few here calling it. I am going to call Rubio’s defeat due to this issue, single issue gun voters may not be anymore than 3-5% of the GOP electorate but I can assure you the entire block will either stay home or vote against Rubio. I will not stay home, I will actually vote for his ultra gun grabbing opponent, I am that spiteful towards this traitor. My wife who is Cuban feels the same way about Rubio, he’s dead to us (and she voted for him in the 2016 Republican primary). I’ve also been very vocal with my Republican voting family about Rubio and I’ve made the point if you cannot trust him on guns you cannot trust him on anything, he is a RINO.
At least you live in the nice part of Florida (SWFL). Back in the 60's had family in Sarasota I'd go to visit. Nicest beaches I ever experienced, and in those years, not over-crowded.
called Trump’s election, I was one of the very few here calling it. I am going to call Rubio’s defeat due to this issue, single issue gun voters may not be anymore than 3-5% of the GOP electorate but I can assure you the entire block will either stay home or vote against Rubio.
Maybe. I’m not convinced of the unanimity of the gun block in Florida, nor of its power to influence Rubio’s election, but you would know better than me. Time will tell.
We need a REAL Republican to insert poison pill language into his bill, so he has to abort his own brainchild. LOL
Sporter Clause.
I will repeat my opposition to a ban of any kind. Noting that Trump didn't write the language in the oval office. I understand and share your concerns, probably more than most here. It isn't just this area of the administrative state that is out of control.
NHTSA just mandated flipping backup cameras in all vehicles for pete's sake. OUT OF CONTROL at every level.
The problem is the precedent. What’s to stop him from banning semi-autos next? Not a damn thing. If he makes the ATF declare the AR a machinegun it will take years to undo it, if ever. More realistically, the next Democrat will use this precedent to wreak havoc and point to this and say “even Republicans support my right to do this.” At least Rubio is trying to do his evil through legitimate democratic process. Trump and Rubio are, in a sense, worse than Hillary because they have made it acceptable to be a gun grabbing Republican again.
Unenforceable? You are totally wrong.
This can't be repeated enough.
A ban on "rate increasing devices" is essentially a ban on semi-autos of all types just waiting to happen. The language being used is so open ended that it could be applied to almost anything.
That Trump is trying to accomplish it via administrative means is a more brazen attempt to abuse the power of the Executive Branch than just about anything the Obama admin did to attack gun rights.
This can't be repeated enough.
A ban on "rate increasing devices" is essentially a ban on semi-autos of all types just waiting to happen. The language being used is so open ended that it could be applied to almost anything.
That Trump is trying to accomplish it via administrative means is a more brazen attempt to abuse the power of the Executive Branch than just about anything the Obama admin did to attack gun rights.
And in the case of that happening, you will get that "I can't believe what I am hearing" look on your face while his disciples tell you how much worse that ban would have been had Clinton done it.
PatrioticDisorder
01-06-19, 08:27
At least you live in the nice part of Florida (SWFL). Back in the 60's had family in Sarasota I'd go to visit. Nicest beaches I ever experienced, and in those years, not over-crowded.
It’s still nice here in SWFL, beaches are all awesome and there is several choices, but the days of “not over-crowded” are heading towards a quick end. It’s not as bad as south Florida yet, but give it 10-20 years and it won’t be far off.
And in the case of that happening, you will get that "I can't believe what I am hearing" look on your face while his disciples tell you how much worse that ban would have been had Clinton done it.
No doubt.
NHTSA just mandated flipping backup cameras in all vehicles for pete's sake. OUT OF CONTROL at every level.
Really? This is something that upsets you?
Actually the Congress passed the legislation without any arguments in the House on December 2007 and the Senate in February 2008.
Yeah, I know, the fvcking swamp is trampling on out rights bt passing a law, the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 or the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 that:
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking for motor vehicles to require:
(1) automatic reversal of direction by power windows and panels when they detect an obstruction;
(2) an expanded rearward field of view to prevent backing incidents; and
(3) automatic transmissions to have an anti-rollaway system that requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of park, which shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of park.
Requires the Secretary, if it is determined that no additional safety standards are reasonable and appropriate, to: (1) report to Congress the reason such standards were not prescribed; and (2) make available to the public information on which vehicles are or are not equipped with automatic reversal of direction by power windows and panels when they detect an obstruction.
Provides a phase-in period for the power window and rearward visibility provisions.
To arms, to arms, the right to strangle kids and dogs in car windows, and run them over, shall not be infringed.
FMR
I feel better that it was actual legislation and not just administrative rule making as I thought. What bothers me is the abdication of power to these unelected bureaucrats.
Thanks for the info......
I feel better that it was actual legislation and not just administrative rule making as I thought. What bothers me is the abdication of power to these unelected bureaucrats.
Thanks for the info......
No problem.
I like the thought that one of the things that the Supreme Court will do is undo some of the 'administrative authoritarianism' that exists allowing agency's the power to decide without law.
http://www.aei.org/publication/with-kavanaugh-the-court-should-tame-the-administrative-state/
BoringGuy45
01-06-19, 22:58
The only reason guys like Rubio do this is because they have this weird obsession with flipping die hard leftist votes. They're like a high school girl who keeps dating douche bags and getting treated like shit, and "friend zoning" all the nice guys who actually care about them.
The only reason guys like Rubio do this is because they have this weird obsession with flipping die hard leftist votes. They're like a high school girl who keeps dating douche bags and getting treated like shit, and "friend zoning" all the nice guys who actually care about them.
Maybe he thinks it might work to solve some of our problems without further gun control measures that impact the general gun owner? (I have no insight into Rubio's thought's on this matter, it is what I would hope such an act would do.
This is the 'one-pager' about the bill on Rubio's website:
The tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was the result of multiple system failures, requiring a multi-faceted approach to prevent future mass shootings. Congress must work to create a more effective system to prevent gun violence before it happens.
Problem: Law enforcement or family members who have identified dangerous and threatening behavior of an individual currently have limited options to try to remove firearms from that individual’s possession or ensure they cannot purchase firearms.
Solution: Congress must pass legislation encouraging states to enact laws to provide law enforcement or family members the option of obtaining a court order to prevent firearm purchases and possession by individuals who pose a significant threat to themselves or others while providing due process protections. Such laws have been enacted in several states, including most recently in Florida. Some states, including Rhode Island, are currently considering such proposals.
The Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act:
Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice.
Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.
Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including:
o Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
(notice that there is a hearing required - no blanket issuance because someone made a claim)
The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted.
Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal. (my note: This is important, would prefer that it sets a maximum time period for the court to hold such hearing and a mechanism for those who can't afford counsel to be provided counsel)
o Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm. (once again, this is good, a statement that PC came not arise solely from the unsubstantiated statement of one person - many state's DV arrest laws say that the statement of a victim, absent evidence to the contrary provides PC for arrest)
o Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter. (gotcha for the folks that have a vendetta against the person)
o Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order. (good, better would be a statement 'without administrative costs')
o Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.
Pretty sure that with input from the NRA they can craft something that doesn't impact the crazy ones too negatively. Those concerned about due process, it looks like this covers the bases.
ETA: 3AM is kind of late for me, I nuked my ankle and am taking pain meds, which I just found out make me itch when taken every 4 hours.
PatrioticDisorder
01-07-19, 04:30
Maybe he thinks it might work to solve some of our problems without further gun control measures that impact the general gun owner? (I have no insight into Rubio's thought's on this matter, it is what I would hope such an act would do.
I wish that were the case, unless little Marco has backtracked from his statement about being open to magazine bans, which he reiterated several months after the original statement.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/02/luis-valdes/florida-senator-marco-rubio-im-open-high-capacity-magazine-ban-video/
Even if he no longer is “open” to magazine bans, he’s ousted himself as being a fair weather 2a supporter at best, hard to trust. To your point about gun control not effecting the general gun owner, while I was disappointed in Rick Scott I believe that was his train of thought when he signed the post Parkland bill. After reading the rest of your post, seems little Marco’s bill is well intentioned and thought out, but not support it, it will cause more problems than it will solve. I still need to be convinced he will not further compromise my rights away, specifically regarding magazine size, awb’s, etc. After his post Parkland comments, that will take A LOT of work and I could never fully trust him.
platoonDaddy
01-07-19, 05:32
Issues with Red Flag Law in MD: Think about this: if a student threatens to shoot up the school. his/her parents weapons & ammo will be confiscated along with any of his/her acquaintances who have firearms in their house.
Far fetched, nope.
B-but H-he’s a Republican. Th-they c-care about gun rights, d-don’t they guys?
Guys?
B-but H-he’s a Republican. Th-they c-care about gun rights, d-don’t they guys?
Guys?
Like most of our politicians,they care most about being elected and enriching themselves.
The only reason guys like Rubio do this is because they have this weird obsession with flipping die hard leftist votes. They're like a high school girl who keeps dating douche bags and getting treated like shit, and "friend zoning" all the nice guys who actually care about them.
Check the link I posted earlier. He was anti gun going back to 1999 for certain.
Maybe he thinks it might work to solve some of our problems without further gun control measures that impact the general gun owner? (I have no insight into Rubio's thought's on this matter, it is what I would hope such an act would do.
This is the 'one-pager' about the bill on Rubio's website:
The tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was the result of multiple system failures, requiring a multi-faceted approach to prevent future mass shootings. Congress must work to create a more effective system to prevent gun violence before it happens.
Problem: Law enforcement or family members who have identified dangerous and threatening behavior of an individual currently have limited options to try to remove firearms from that individual’s possession or ensure they cannot purchase firearms.
Solution: Congress must pass legislation encouraging states to enact laws to provide law enforcement or family members the option of obtaining a court order to prevent firearm purchases and possession by individuals who pose a significant threat to themselves or others while providing due process protections. Such laws have been enacted in several states, including most recently in Florida. Some states, including Rhode Island, are currently considering such proposals.
The Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act:
Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice.
Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.
Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including:
o Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
(notice that there is a hearing required - no blanket issuance because someone made a claim)
The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted.
Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal. (my note: This is important, would prefer that it sets a maximum time period for the court to hold such hearing and a mechanism for those who can't afford counsel to be provided counsel)
o Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm. (once again, this is good, a statement that PC came not arise solely from the unsubstantiated statement of one person - many state's DV arrest laws say that the statement of a victim, absent evidence to the contrary provides PC for arrest)
o Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter. (gotcha for the folks that have a vendetta against the person)
o Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order. (good, better would be a statement 'without administrative costs')
o Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.
Pretty sure that with input from the NRA they can craft something that doesn't impact the crazy ones too negatively. Those concerned about due process, it looks like this covers the bases.
ETA: 3AM is kind of late for me, I nuked my ankle and am taking pain meds, which I just found out make me itch when taken every 4 hours.
Why does he want such a dangerous person out and about? Why just a firearms seizure?
BoringGuy45
01-07-19, 08:46
Check the link I posted earlier. He was anti gun going back to 1999 for certain.
I think more so now though. He opposed most of the gun control and ban bills that were brought up after Sandy Hook. He's never been an anti-gun crusader; he just doesn't support gun rights as passionately as we do, although he's generally been more in our corner than against us. But since the Parkland shooting, he seems to have changed his tune quite a bit. I'm not certain that he wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban now in hopes of getting Broward County votes (which he won't anyway since that's such a Democratic stronghold, hence my earlier point).
Why does he want such a dangerous person out and about? Why just a firearms seizure?
Well, I'd imagine because locking loonies up went out of vogue in the 60's. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html
I'm largely in favor of letting them run loose myself, because I'm here to tell you, you haven't brawled until you've brawled crazy. I remember scrums in the elevator going up to the psych ward where I was worried that the elevator was going to get knocked off the rails. And of course, the added fun was that in the 70's holsters were like zero retention, so there was always that pucker factor.
My mom was a psych nurse, I remember once, rolling out of the elevator, looking up, saying 'Hi Mom' only to have her say 'Danny, your going to break his neck, let him go.' Talk about your role confusion.
Well anyways, back on point. I doubt that Rubio is actually part of a conspiracy to slow boil us to total confiscation.
Well, I'd imagine because locking loonies up went out of vogue in the 60's. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html
I'm largely in favor of letting them run loose myself, because I'm here to tell you, you haven't brawled until you've brawled crazy. I remember scrums in the elevator going up to the psych ward where I was worried that the elevator was going to get knocked off the rails. And of course, the added fun was that in the 70's holsters were like zero retention, so there was always that pucker factor.
My mom was a psych nurse, I remember once, rolling out of the elevator, looking up, saying 'Hi Mom' only to have her say 'Danny, your going to break his neck, let him go.' Talk about your role confusion.
Well anyways, back on point. I doubt that Rubio is actually part of a conspiracy to slow boil us to total confiscation.
I have typically seen that as liberal democrats wanted crazies to be able to run, frolic, & be free while conservative republicans didn't want to put money in to it.
But yeah, I don't find getting beat to death, incinerated, or other methods of murder preferable to getting shot.
Rubio's a a little slice here and there approach does seem to have the intent of firearms for all but the connected few becoming totally verboten. That is what the little bit at a time approach has always been claimed as the goal when done by democrats and so far I haven't seen anything to cause that to be doubted.
We have been pretty consistently lucky in that regard. How far south?
Just across your Southern state border. :)
Just across your Southern state border. :)
Okay, now I have to ask: Sooner or Poke?
Okay, now I have to ask: Sooner or Poke?
Pokes of course! ;)
called Trump’s election, I was one of the very few here calling it. I am going to call Rubio’s defeat due to this issue, single issue gun voters may not be anymore than 3-5% of the GOP electorate but I can assure you the entire block will either stay home or vote against Rubio. I will not stay home, I will actually vote for his ultra gun grabbing opponent, I am that spiteful towards this traitor. My wife who is Cuban feels the same way about Rubio, he’s dead to us (and she voted for him in the 2016 Republican primary). I’ve also been very vocal with my Republican voting family about Rubio and I’ve made the point if you cannot trust him on guns you cannot trust him on anything, he is a RINO.
What you Floridians need to do is remind him what the verb "Cantor'd" means. Primary his sorry ass and send him packing! :mad:
Maybe he thinks it might work to solve some of our problems without further gun control measures that impact the general gun owner? (I have no insight into Rubio's thought's on this matter, it is what I would hope such an act would do.
This is the 'one-pager' about the bill on Rubio's website:
The tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was the result of multiple system failures, requiring a multi-faceted approach to prevent future mass shootings. Congress must work to create a more effective system to prevent gun violence before it happens.
Problem: Law enforcement or family members who have identified dangerous and threatening behavior of an individual currently have limited options to try to remove firearms from that individual’s possession or ensure they cannot purchase firearms.
Solution: Congress must pass legislation encouraging states to enact laws to provide law enforcement or family members the option of obtaining a court order to prevent firearm purchases and possession by individuals who pose a significant threat to themselves or others while providing due process protections. Such laws have been enacted in several states, including most recently in Florida. Some states, including Rhode Island, are currently considering such proposals.
The Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act:
Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice.
Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.
Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including:
o Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
(notice that there is a hearing required - no blanket issuance because someone made a claim)
The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted.
Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal. (my note: This is important, would prefer that it sets a maximum time period for the court to hold such hearing and a mechanism for those who can't afford counsel to be provided counsel)
o Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm. (once again, this is good, a statement that PC came not arise solely from the unsubstantiated statement of one person - many state's DV arrest laws say that the statement of a victim, absent evidence to the contrary provides PC for arrest)
o Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter. (gotcha for the folks that have a vendetta against the person)
o Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order. (good, better would be a statement 'without administrative costs')
o Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.
Pretty sure that with input from the NRA they can craft something that doesn't impact the crazy ones too negatively. Those concerned about due process, it looks like this covers the bases.
ETA: 3AM is kind of late for me, I nuked my ankle and am taking pain meds, which I just found out make me itch when taken every 4 hours.
IMO, this doesn't provide reasonable Due Process. This would:
Upon service of the ERPO, the defendant must be notified of their appeal rights both verbally and in writing. The defendant shall be afforded an opportunity to demand a rebuttal hearing (with paid legal representation) within 96 hours.
All costs (both administrative and legal representation for the defendant) shall be provided for by the court.
A hearing shall be held within 96 hours if requested by the defendant, to afford the defendant an opportunity to dispute the ERPO.
If said hearing is not held within 96 hours of ERPO service, the confiscated firearm(s) must immediately be returned to the defendant at the location where they were seized.
If the hearing reveals that the basis of the ERPO is not valid, the confiscated firearm(s) must immediately be returned to the defendant at the location where they were seized.
If the hearing reveals that the basis of the ERPO is valid, the defendant shall be afforded the option to have the firearms turned over to their legal counsel for safekeeping, until such time as the ERPO is vacated.
Upon presenting new evidence for the court's consideration, the defendant shall be allowed to demand additional hearing(s) within 90 days for reconsideration.
I'm pretty hardcore on rescinding people's constitutional rights without conviction of any crime or mental adjudication. I really don't care about the cost or inconvenience to the government either. If it's that critical that the government remove a person's 2nd Amendment rights without a criminal conviction or adjudication of mental deficiency, then they should be more than willing to jump through flaming hoops of fire to do it.
Issues with Red Flag Law in MD: Think about this: if a student threatens to shoot up the school. his/her parents weapons & ammo will be confiscated along with any of his/her acquaintances who have firearms in their house.
Far fetched, nope.
Another issue. If the subject of the ERPO is not the homeowner, then they should have the right to remove the subject of the ERPO from the home instead of the firearms. They should also have the right to relocate the firearms to another location rather than having them confiscated.
Diamondback
01-08-19, 19:19
Pokes of course! ;)
What you Floridians need to do is remind him what the verb "Cantor'd" means. Primary his sorry ass and send him packing! :mad:
IMO, this doesn't provide reasonable Due Process. This would:
Upon service of the ERPO, the defendant must be notified of their appeal rights both verbally and in writing. The defendant shall be afforded an opportunity to demand a rebuttal hearing (with paid legal representation) within 96 hours.
All costs (both administrative and legal representation for the defendant) shall be provided for by the court.
A hearing shall be held within 96 hours if requested by the defendant, to afford the defendant an opportunity to dispute the ERPO.
If said hearing is not held within 96 hours of ERPO service, the confiscated firearm(s) must immediately be returned to the defendant at the location where they were seized.
If the hearing reveals that the basis of the ERPO is not valid, the confiscated firearm(s) must immediately be returned to the defendant at the location where they were seized.
If the hearing reveals that the basis of the ERPO is valid, the defendant shall be afforded the option to have the firearms turned over to their legal counsel for safekeeping, until such time as the ERPO is vacated.
Upon presenting new evidence for the court's consideration, the defendant shall be allowed to demand additional hearing(s) within 90 days for reconsideration.
I'm pretty hardcore on rescinding people's constitutional rights without conviction of any crime or mental adjudication. I really don't care about the cost or inconvenience to the government either. If it's that critical that the government remove a person's 2nd Amendment rights without a criminal conviction or adjudication of mental deficiency, then they should be more than willing to jump through flaming hoops of fire to do it.
Another issue. If the subject of the ERPO is not the homeowner, then they should have the right to remove the subject of the ERPO from the home instead of the firearms. They should also have the right to relocate the firearms to another location rather than having them confiscated.
I'm going to add another plank: Should the hearing find no valid basis, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law charges (and whatever else fits) shall IMMEDIATELY be brought against the person initiating the ERPO.
Dr. Bullseye
01-08-19, 21:10
So why doesn't Marco's proposed bill work the other way around? Why can't Congressmen who have been accused of being bat-crap-crazy just be stripped of office?
Pokes of course! ;)
Whew! That was a close one. Effing Sooners.
IMO, this doesn't provide reasonable Due Process. This would:
Upon service of the ERPO, the defendant must be notified of their appeal rights both verbally and in writing. The defendant shall be afforded an opportunity to demand a rebuttal hearing (with paid legal representation) within 96 hours.
All costs (both administrative and legal representation for the defendant) shall be provided for by the court.
A hearing shall be held within 96 hours if requested by the defendant, to afford the defendant an opportunity to dispute the ERPO.
If said hearing is not held within 96 hours of ERPO service, the confiscated firearm(s) must immediately be returned to the defendant at the location where they were seized.
If the hearing reveals that the basis of the ERPO is not valid, the confiscated firearm(s) must immediately be returned to the defendant at the location where they were seized.
If the hearing reveals that the basis of the ERPO is valid, the defendant shall be afforded the option to have the firearms turned over to their legal counsel for safekeeping, until such time as the ERPO is vacated.
Upon presenting new evidence for the court's consideration, the defendant shall be allowed to demand additional hearing(s) within 90 days for reconsideration.
I'm pretty hardcore on rescinding people's constitutional rights without conviction of any crime or mental adjudication. I really don't care about the cost or inconvenience to the government either. If it's that critical that the government remove a person's 2nd Amendment rights without a criminal conviction or adjudication of mental deficiency, then they should be more than willing to jump through flaming hoops of fire to do it.
Another issue. If the subject of the ERPO is not the homeowner, then they should have the right to remove the subject of the ERPO from the home instead of the firearms. They should also have the right to relocate the firearms to another location rather than having them confiscated.
I could live with those things. I agree about the damned the expense things. I feel the same way about making our prison systems work as actually intended - would be very, very, costly initially, but would pay dividends at the back end.
One thing concerns me though, you seem to have given this a lot of thought. Are things going okay? Have the voices been telling you things? :dance3:
I guess I'm just a little concerned that removing the crazy dangerous person isn't the first thing on the list of ideas. The really crazy thing is that it isn't even on the list. Reality doesn't even make the list.
This just perpetuates the crazy "gun control" idea that murderers and monsters aren't dangerous murderers and monsters as long as they don't have guns to do their killing with.
I guess I'm just a little concerned that removing the crazy dangerous person isn't the first thing on the list of ideas. The really crazy thing is that it isn't even on the list. Reality doesn't even make the list.
This just perpetuates the crazy "gun control" idea that murderers and monsters aren't dangerous murderers and monsters as long as they don't have guns to do their killing with.
Yes, that makes sense, doesn't it? The problem is that, if by removing you mean hospitalize for treatment, there are not that many 'mental hospitals' anymore and the ones that do exist aren't easy to get into.
My wife was a deputy and she actually pulled a gun out of a kid's mouth one night. The kid went to the hospital - to the psych wing. Three days later he's out and about. Most officers can relate similar stories, I know I can, just not as close as my wife's.
The current practice seems to be to get you past this crisis, get meds, and get counseling. Once you are out on your own it may be up to you to take those meds, which by the way, might not make you feel 'right.' When you get off them whose problem is it?
Going back a little bit, in many cases your ticket to a script and release from the ER is your answer to the question 'are you thinking about killing yourself or someone else?'
Walk down Main Street with me, we can count the loonies together, I live in a town of 50,000, you'll need more than one hand.
I could live with those things. I agree about the damned the expense things. I feel the same way about making our prison systems work as actually intended - would be very, very, costly initially, but would pay dividends at the back end.
One thing concerns me though, you seem to have given this a lot of thought. Are things going okay? Have the voices been telling you things? :dance3:
LOL, I've staunchly resisted listening to Lincoln Riley! ;)
Seriously though, I've long lamented the sorry state of the mental health "system" since the 80's. It's pretty much let the loonies run the asylum at large, so long as it doesn't cost us anything. I see the same set of priorities when dealing with violent offenders. I'm sure my reptilian hind brain was vaguely aware of the Arthur Shawcross (Genesee River Killer) case. I just saw a special on him this past week and it's utterly revolting how little the criminal legal system did to protect the community from him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Shawcross
I still see egregious injustices in sentencing today, all the time. It's like the system wants to talk tough about combatting violence though the use of ERPO's and such, but they punk out when the rubber meets the road and they have to send actual violent people to actual prison for a just length of time. Yet they don't seem to blink and eye much when someone abuses the system with fewer checks and balances because hey, it's not like the system is paying the tab for that so...
So yeah I've thought about it quite a bit. A lot of people say I have an overdeveloped sense of justice, but I think theirs is underdeveloped. We need to put the burdens back where they belong, because this isn't getting any better.
Oh, and the judge who sentenced Shawcross to 25 years for the brutal rape and murder of two kids ages 8 & 10 (after a 5 year conviction for arson), and the parole board who let him out 10 years early? They should've been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, because they got 12 more people murdered. The same goes for the authorities who effing SEALED his criminal record when he moved to Rochester, so as to prevent an uproar from the community! :mad:
Back to Rubio, he's a douche canoe and he needs to be sunk in the 2020 primary. :(
I'm going to add another plank: Should the hearing find no valid basis, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law charges (and whatever else fits) shall IMMEDIATELY be brought against the person initiating the ERPO.
The usual "if you have nothing to hide" kind of people don't want the usual people with a tendency to "come forward" to have any skin in the game.
So why doesn't Marco's proposed bill work the other way around? Why can't Congressmen who have been accused of being bat-crap-crazy just be stripped of office?
Not congress, but on a similar note:
https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/30/through-addictions-to-dementia-supreme-court-justices-have-refused-to-step-down-the-need-for-reforming-the-supreme-court/
I guess I'm just a little concerned that removing the crazy dangerous person isn't the first thing on the list of ideas. The really crazy thing is that it isn't even on the list. Reality doesn't even make the list.
This just perpetuates the crazy "gun control" idea that murderers and monsters aren't dangerous murderers and monsters as long as they don't have guns to do their killing with.
The demonization of firearms angle is something I have a problem with and not just in mental issue cases. It's like the Project Exile crap NRA pushes. Name the crime and that will become the minor issue, if at all, versus the perpetrator being in possession of a firearm. That gets the "gun crime" beat going and a link in the minds of far too many(including LE) that having a firearm is in some way an indicator of a crime.
Common sense holds that someone who is an "Extreme Risk" with a firearm is also an extreme risk to the public without one.
This gun blame game has to completely ignore the fact that LE had more than enough to arrest that POS and chose not to.
Our politicianand government employee is the threat to this nation we have to fear, they are destroying this nation from with in.
Rubio is an a**hole. He was on Meet The Depressed today. He says anyone that even unwittingly worked with anyone in the "Russia" scandal should be delt with. Chuck Todd jumped on that. He was a happy man. Then Rubio had to throw a bit of ice on him and say even the media has acted unwittingly. Let's see,.... who can most easily go to jail? Trump or the entire Leftist media machine... It was no accident... that interview was a setup and well played between Rubio and Todd. In the pocket.
So Rubio is basically a Liberal writing history his way. He's a loser and he knows it. He's the new Flake. The Liberal media will try to nurture him but I think he's become redundant in the grand scheme. Maybe he will try to flip parties.
Averageman
01-28-19, 10:18
Rubio is an a**hole. He was on Meet The Depressed today. He says anyone that even unwittingly worked with anyone in the "Russia" scandal should be delt with. Chuck Todd jumped on that. He was a happy man. Then Rubio had to throw a bit of ice on him and say even the media has acted unwittingly. Let's see,.... who can most easily go to jail? Trump or the entire Leftist media machine... It was no accident... that interview was a setup and well played between Rubio and Todd. In the pocket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aFQe8QX78I&t=2s
It's a good watch, Rubio hated losing to Trump, this is his payback
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.