A good chunk of the problem lies with school administrators. Both the Dayton and Parkland shooters had issues at school, hit lists, suspensions, etc. But they weren't properly reported to authorities....to impact a 4473 check....because school administrators. as a group, are the biggest bunch of worthless turds on the planet. They are only concerned about covering their ass and protecting their salary and retirement.
-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
New laws, anyone?
- Thread starter 300_whisper
- Start date
It will be 'Red Flag' laws that get pushed.
This is before elections and even the Dems have to move to the center on guns once they have a nomination. The key thing about Sandy Hook was it was just after elections so they could do whatever they wanted, figuring people would forget in two years.
However a bone will need to be thrown... that's how this political thing works. With the NRA on the sidelines the only question will be how big a bone it will be. Trump has already mentioned Red Flag laws and McConnell said a while ago that they are the only gun laws he would consider in the Senate.
There's no way they have the votes for an AWB, and the narrative for one isn't that strong (ban on AK imports is possible though). You'll notice that they specifically mentioned 'comprehensive' background checks, not 'universal'. That's code for more reporting to the NICs system rather than outlawing private sales.
They might be some other stuff thrown out there, but Red Flag laws are almost impossible to defend against... "so Senator, you WANT to leave guns in the hands of the mentally unstable?" doesn't sell well on national TV.
As mentioned elsewhere, there's no valid reason for these laws, since an involuntary commitment would perform the same function. But of course you need judges and doctors and at least a little bit of that 'due process' stuff for that.
As mentioned above, the Red Flag laws are simply a great way to confiscate someone's guns without any real evidence. And of course as they found out in NZ, you can't confiscate if you don't know where they are, so this will require registration. And of course your registrations won't be accurate as long as you allow private sales, so those have to go.
I'm thinking the gun control industry is actually going to flip the script this time. They always say that no one wants to come for you guns, but just want 'common sense' gun laws that will eventually lead there.
This time they are saying they need the legal power in place to 'come for your guns' without any due process, and then they will back-fill all the laws they need to make it work.
By the way... I see a lot of time and effort have gone into these posts. I hope you all spent about the same amount talking to Isakson and Purdue, or at least leaving them a voicemail (no emails don't count).
This will be fought in the Senate, so they are key. Please take a minute and call... In fact call every day.
This is the biggest anti-gun push we've seen since Vegas, and like Vegas, it's not going away on its own. Kicking bump-stocks to the ATF squelched new laws after Vegas, but there's nothing like that to throw under the bus this time.
This will be a straight-on push, Sandy-Hook style, for whatever the gun grabbers think they can get before the general election comes up and they have to back off the gun issue to keep their candidate 'mainstream'.
Purdue - (202) 224-3521
Isakson - (202) 224-3643
Maybe I should not have used the term Red Flag. It means different things to different people.
What I'm talking about is the same as you with the exception that the standards being used for the 72 hour hold are much too stringent right now. I'm also not familiar enough with that system to say it's doing enough once it's started. Is it 72 hours and then out no matter what? Just a cooling off period or is there real evaluation and the Doc has the option of holding onto a person?
To be clear, I'm not talking about gun confiscation at all. If the person is dangerous, it's person that gets removed from the guns, not the other way around.
Got it. See post 223.
Nope. Just healthy debate.Not fighting, I love a good conversation though.. I hopeBear44 doesn't think We were fighting!
This makes more sense to me. Interview and remove (if necessary) the person from the guns. If they are found to be not a viable threat, the reporting person needs to receive a cease and desist order. Otherwise you'll need to shut down every gun board, every gunshop, every swap meet in the country and hire legions of new poleece to watch every single market place, monitor every single website, every want ad, every "fer sail" ad in the U.S. to make certain they don't "buy" a gun while at liberty. See how ridiculous they could get with this bullshyte?
I was trying to think about a way to stop someone reporting just to be a jerk. I like the idea of the cease and desist. It's not a penalty for reporting, but it clearly says they were wrong and to not do it again.
These laws have already killed at least 2 people when the police showed up to take the guns. The one in the northeast was called on by his sister because she was mad after a family argument, after he was killed, she said he was not a threat, she was just getting even with him. The more wide spread the laws become, the more this will play out, people using the system for revenge.
I almost feel sorry for the cops stacked up entering the homes. They are going to run into the wrong dude eventually. Somebody that ain't gonna play "cops and civilians" with them.
