View Full Version : Gun Owners of America Applies for a Red Flag Order for Senator Charles Schumer
Gun Owners of America Applies for a Red Flag Order for Senator Charles Schumer
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-owners-of-america-applies-for-a-red-flag-order-for-senator-charles-schumer/
Gun Owners of America have sent a letter and “red flag” order application to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo requesting a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order for the Senator.
It should be interesting to see if a judge will simply dismiss this as unfounded, ruling that Schumer’s public statement was mere political hyperbole. Even after the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has called Schumer’s statement was “threatening” and “dangerous.”
While I detest Schumer and what he said, I think it’s a bit immature and short sighted for GOA to use red flag when they are staunch opponents of such laws.
While I detest Schumer and what he said, I think it’s a bit immature and short sighted for GOA to use red flag when they are staunch opponents of such laws.
I don't. Demonstrate exactly why the law is a bad idea to the people who support it most. This is exactly the kind of thing the GOA should be doing, especially if they want to be the big guy in the room when it comes to gun rights.
Really? Are you really that obtuse? Pull out the Webster’s and look up sarcasm and hypocrisy.
I think this is great.
While I detest Schumer and what he said, I think it’s a bit immature and short sighted for GOA to use red flag when they are staunch opponents of such laws.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't. Demonstrate exactly why the law is a bad idea to the people who support it most. This is exactly the kind of thing the GOA should be doing, especially if they want to be the big guy in the room when it comes to gun rights.
Well said, this is a very good move.
I don't. Demonstrate exactly why the law is a bad idea to the people who support it most. This is exactly the kind of thing the GOA should be doing, especially if they want to be the big guy in the room when it comes to gun rights.What is the point though? Shumer has a security detail that are armed so he might not even own a gun, I don't see what lesson they are teaching here.
They need a taste of their own medicine since it is supposedly good for the rest of us. I have no issue with GOA doing this.
When are some people going to realize that the "Moral High Road" leads to failure? It displays some sort of reluctance to turn the tables, which the other side interprets as weakness.
What is the point though? Shumer has a security detail that are armed so he might not even own a gun, I don't see what lesson they are teaching here.
1, he probably does
2, have him go through all the BS.
3, make sure he doesnt have any other means or plans of harming judges... its the law.
What is the point though? Shumer has a security detail that are armed so he might not even own a gun, I don't see what lesson they are teaching here.
Are you saying you think he should be above the law? Beyond the law?
1, he probably does
2, have him go through all the BS.
3, make sure he doesnt have any other means or plans of harming judges... its the law.
2) What BS? If he doesn't own guns then he goes through nothing. Meaning they can't take away what he doesn't have, so he wouldn't go to court to fight for what he doesn't have.
3) ok that is reasonable, but do the red flag laws do that?
My understanding is they take away your weapons, then if you want them back you have to go to court. I must be missing a step.
Are you saying you think he should be above the law? Beyond the law?I am not, I am asking what lesson he will learn because I don't see how red flag laws would have an effect on him.
Red flag laws take away guns, right?
If he doesn't own guns because he has a security detail what lesson did he learn?
I doubt he would go to court because he has nothing to defend, so it sounds like a waste of resources.
If I am missing something please explain, what I am not seeing.
2) What BS? If he doesn't own guns then he goes through nothing. Meaning they can't take away what he doesn't have, so he wouldn't go to court to fight for what he doesn't have.
3) ok that is reasonable, but do the red flag laws do that?
My understanding is they take away your weapons, then if you want them back you have to go to court. I must be missing a step.
So if it can happen to Schumer, people who might otherwise support the law may realize it could happen to anyone and that the law itself is arbitrary and doesn't really solve the problem. And if Schumer is inconvenienced in any way, well he never worried much about inconveniencing others.
Diamondback
03-07-20, 00:28
So if it can happen to Schumer, people who might otherwise support the law may realize it could happen to anyone and that the law itself is arbitrary and doesn't really solve the problem. And if Schumer is inconvenienced in any way, well he never worried much about inconveniencing others.
This. Eff this third-rate Joe Pesci impersonator and all who look like him.
2) What BS? If he doesn't own guns then he goes through nothing. Meaning they can't take away what he doesn't have, so he wouldn't go to court to fight for what he doesn't have...
Exactly this. "Red Flag" laws only affect those who own firearms. Dangerous people threatening violence or calling for violence that don't own firearms are not affected at all. The law is discriminatory.
So if it can happen to Schumer, people who might otherwise support the law may realize it could happen to anyone and that the law itself is arbitrary and doesn't really solve the problem. And if Schumer is inconvenienced in any way, well he never worried much about inconveniencing others.
Look at the first three words of your reply, please define "it"?
I am not trying to argue I just do not see the it that folks think will happen to Schumer.
Unless I am mistaken GOA will file their claim, the secret court decides yes or no, if yes the take Schumer's guns (which he probably doesn't own) and it is done. An embarrassing headline maybe but other than that, do we honestly believe anybody will change their mind if he is given this red flag treatment?
We here all agree the law is stupid, I personally think it is unconstitutional, but it basically doesn't apply to him if he doesn't own guns. It just looks like wasted resources is all I'm saying.
Something like a restraining order might be more appropriate, since that could actually apply to him.
Because of red flag laws we have seen someone die in Maryland, the wrong person (right name wrong person) get their guns taken away in FL, the cop in CO, the crossing guard in MA, so if anyone thinks the law is good with those existing examples, why would applying it to a non gun owner change their mind?
I think it is a great idea because it establishes precedence. A supreme court justice stated Schumer made threatening statements against the court. Will NY ignore the request and facilitate a lawsuit by a later victim (of the law)? Will they dismiss it out of hand because they don't "think" he owns a firearm without even asking him? Will they take his word for it or search his residence? If we don't expose these laws for the bullshit they are whenever an opportunity is presented, we are fools.
Why do this? Because starring and feathering crooked, a-hole politicians isn't considered acceptable any more.
Exactly this. "Red Flag" laws only affect those who own firearms. Dangerous people threatening violence or calling for violence that don't own firearms are not affected at all. The law is discriminatory.
If someone is red flagged, how do the cops determine if they have guns?
If someone is red flagged, how do the cops determine if they have guns?
Good question
SomeOtherGuy
03-07-20, 14:11
I am not, I am asking what lesson he will learn because I don't see how red flag laws would have an effect on him.
Red flag laws take away guns, right?
If he doesn't own guns because he has a security detail what lesson did he learn?
I doubt he would go to court because he has nothing to defend, so it sounds like a waste of resources.
If I am missing something please explain, what I am not seeing.
Being a "prohibited person" under federal law or some state laws affects the ability of people around you to possess or own guns in some cases. I don't know the NY laws on point but it would be fun to see Schumer get prohibited person status and then lose his security detail because no one can bring guns anywhere near him. Or just get more turnover in security because of added hassles and legal exposure for them. Or maybe have him and his security detail arrested in another state for violating that state's laws on prohibition, based on the "red flag" order.
He's the biggest scumbag in a big pile of scum, and any way the laws and rules he supports can be used against him should be done mercilessly.
ChattanoogaPhil
03-07-20, 14:27
If someone is red flagged, how do the cops determine if they have guns?
In Rubio's bill the petitioner tells the court. If the court issues an ERPO then the cops go get whatever guns/ammo they can find, if any. In practice, some petitioners might simply claim possession of a gun. If the petitioner is a spouse, they might provide a list of guns, serial numbers, ammo and location. My guess is "gun" would suffice in this type of kangaroo court.
pg 6
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f864df61-cabb-4dae-a56e-84c9e5329e7d/644CCD0800F79D990D6D642B34E7ED88.bill---extreme-risk-protection-order-and-violence-prevention-act.pdf
Lol at you guys actually thinking a sitting congressman is actually going to get jammed up over this.
I’ll eat crow if it happens. But it won’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Being a "prohibited person" under federal law or some state laws affects the ability of people around you to possess or own guns in some cases. I don't know the NY laws on point but it would be fun to see Schumer get prohibited person status and then lose his security detail because no one can bring guns anywhere near him. Or just get more turnover in security because of added hassles and legal exposure for them. Or maybe have him and his security detail arrested in another state for violating that state's laws on prohibition, based on the "red flag" order.
He's the biggest scumbag in a big pile of scum, and any way the laws and rules he supports can be used against him should be done mercilessly.That sounds great on paper (yes I would lmao if it actually happened like that). In my state a felon (or someone with a restraining order) can live with a gun owner as long as the guns are not accessible to the felon (we don't have red flag laws though).
You description sounds great but I'm just not sure it works that way.
I would love to be wrong and happy for you to be correct but I'm also not holding my breathe.
Decent chance he owns. That is quite common with top tier anti 2nd Amendment perps.
Decent chance he owns. That is quite common with top tier anti 2nd Amendment perps.
Guaranteed he's got a little .38 snubby in his nightstand, well because, HE can be trusted with that but you and I can't.
If someone is red flagged, how do the cops determine if they have guns?
I assume he resides in NY. If he has guns, he has then in NY. Everything is on paper in NY. Cops would know every weapon he had if he bought them legally.
I assume he resides in NY. If he has guns, he has then in NY. Everything is on paper in NY. Cops would know every weapon he had if he bought them legally.
He's a sitting U.S. Senator from New York, liberal as the day is long.
Do you really think that A) he has anything on paper, and B) they would do jack shit about him having a gun (unregistered or not)?
Lol at you guys actually thinking a sitting congressman is actually going to get jammed up over this.
I’ll eat crow if it happens. But it won’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We all know nothing will happen to him. Exposing "laws for thee, not for me" carries it's own value. If the media was bored and picked it up, we could listen to "experts" trying to explain an emotional law with logic, which would at least be amusing. Best scenario is some fence sitters realize maybe having a liberal government playing big brother/sister will end any hope for liberty.
I believe the "red flag" laws are a way to justify a gun owner database. After all, we cannot expect law enforcement to act on the laws if they don't know if the subject is armed.
Andy
Maybe they need to search his house... for the children.
Are you saying you think he should be above the law? Beyond the law?
I don't know if he's saying that, but I will.
Diamondback
03-08-20, 10:54
Mike Ford, a retired infantry colonel who writes for RedState, notes that this is just hoisting Scumbag by his own Alinsky petard.
However, from my foxhole, the most important rule is #13. Here’s why. A long, long time ago, when I was a newly commissioned officer, a crusty old Platoon Sergeant gave me what turned out to be but one of many pieces of precious wisdom. “Sir” he said, “If there’s no pain involved, then there’s probably no learning taking place.” He was right. Little did I know at the time that this would also apply to politics at the national level.
...
I’m not naive enough to believe that Senator Schumer will suffer any true hardship over this. However, if the Gun Owners of America can get him into a court and force him to either publicly defend his statement or disavow it under oath, that would be a good start. It would put their team on the defensive for once. A secondary benefit might be if the court ruled his statement given at a public demonstration, is protected speech, then that would open a lot of doors for our side. Just food for thought. One cautionary note…when we do take such actions as Gun Owners of America has, we certainly don’t wish to communicate our support for the laws we are using to fight back with…in this case, Red Flag Laws.
https://www.redstate.com/darth641/2020/03/08/opinion-finally-some-lawfare-of-our-own/
Seems like it's worth the effort even if it just gives exposure to double standards.
If successful, how will LaPierre spin it in to a clothing allowance fundraiser?
While I detest Schumer and what he said, I think it’s a bit immature and short sighted for GOA to use red flag when they are staunch opponents of such laws.
One of the few ways to get rid of a shitty rule is to make sure that those who want the rule get to experience it in the way they want you to experience it.
Red flags laws basically legitimize “you might beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride.” Tailor made for the little people.
I don't know if he's saying that, but I will.
So you believe Schumer should be above/beyond the laws he proposes?
I don't know if Schumer has any guns and I really don't care. I just want the law to toss his home and ask him a bunch of infuriating questions, because that's what he deserves for demanding everyone else be subjected to it.
sundance435
03-09-20, 14:18
While I detest Schumer and what he said, I think it’s a bit immature and short sighted for GOA to use red flag when they are staunch opponents of such laws.
I don't, I love it. It's about time people on the other side of the political spectrum start using some of the same tactics. We don't need an Antifa, but I'm all for weaponizing the laws they burden us with.
Beat Schumer over the head with his own immoral, unconstitutional, anti-freedom bat. Seems likely that we might only get a glancing blow or a miss, but we get nothing if we don't swing it. Swing away GOA. I'm with you.
This is a fun idea and all, but red flag laws are for serfs. They don't apply to Chucky or the ruling class.
So you believe Schumer should be above/beyond the laws he proposes?
I don't know if Schumer has any guns and I really don't care. I just want the law to toss his home and ask him a bunch of infuriating questions, because that's what he deserves for demanding everyone else be subjected to it.
I am not saying he should be, just that he is.
This guy should've been prosecuted, along with others of both parties, long ago for the violence he has done to the Constitution, but apparently there's no law against passing laws that, under the Constitution, are illegal.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on what should happen, I just don't think it will. Like others have said, it would be nice to be proven wrong.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.