Trump Weighs Red Flag Orders to Take Guns Away Quickly
Source: Bloomberg News
By Jennifer Jacobs
February 24, 2018, 6:00 AM EST
The White House is considering the idea of using restraining orders to take firearms away from people considered dangerous as part of its response to last weeks massacre at a Florida high school, two people familiar with the matter said.
Under extreme risk protection orders, which are also known as red flag laws or gun violence restraining orders, firearms can be confiscated from people found to be at risk.
The White House is studying an Indiana version of the law, and is considering other measures as well, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss policy deliberations. Four other states also have such laws.
At the White House on Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi described to President Donald Trump similar efforts underway in her state to allow law enforcement to seize firearms from someone who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-24/white-house-said-to-consider-protection-orders-to-curb-shootings
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)JohnnyLib2
(11,333 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)Needed to be louder.
that sounds surprisingly rational. At least some kind of step in the right direction.
global1
(26,507 posts)and say - 'See Obama wants to take your guns away' or 'this is the first step of Obama taking your guns away'.
But it's not Obama - it's Trump.
How do you think this will go over?
JDC
(11,111 posts)Completely agree. They would (and may still) freak out like the world was ending at sundown.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)The NRA will win again. It is all about the power of the $.
Let's not forget asshole signed an order rescinding Obama's stopping of the selling guns to the the mentally ill.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Dont bother listening to anything Donny says, just watch what he does. Like so many other things this asshat says - this will never happen.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)bitterross
(4,066 posts)He says so much that isn't true and flips on it all the time. No one with a brain would believe he's serious about that for a minute. I think we all know he just said it in the moment to take the heat off himself.
Ryan and McConnell saying it might be a big deal. 45 saying - ho hum.
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)That no doubt ignores dangerous christians and exempts them from weapons seizures.
After all, religious freedom means those voices in your head are gahd calling...
Kashkakat v.2.0
(1,940 posts)progressive commentators.
Its been presented as something that moderate repubs could possibly agree to.
Implementing it would not be the end of the discussion - not by any means - but its something.
Its a case of the proverbial broken clock being right twice a day. Or in the case of Republicans, maybe its right once every ten years.
SWBTATTReg
(26,257 posts)Also, I think some states have more gun rights that they enacted that anything that tRUMP does on the federal level won't have any impact on.
Believe me, if there was a way that gun lovers could enact a law or the like on the local level, more beneficial to the gun rights advocates, they would have.
Efforts need to start at the state and local level too. In MO, the state overrode the city of St. Louis in handling of crimes committed by guns. Here's a quick blurb on efforts by the repug. controlled legislature in MO to do this...
Armed for 2017: New state gun laws shrink gun-free zones ...
https://www.salon.com/2017/01/04/armed-for-2017-new-state-gun-laws...
Jan 04, 2017 · Armed for 2017: New state gun laws shrink gun-free zones, expand access to concealed carry without training or permit Republicans in Missouri and
OhNo-Really
(3,996 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,782 posts)Quote: "seize firearms from someone who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others".
Who would do the "deeming"?
Although it sounds good on the surface, I can see this as having at least two big problems:
1. Such laws could be used my politicians or law enforcement to take guns from legitimate gun owners that someone in power does not like.
2. I suspect the ammosexuals would tie test cases up in court (claiming unconstitutionality) all the way to the SCOTUS.
I seriously think this is just right-wing political noise to try and quieten some of the current demand for regulation.
atreides1
(16,799 posts)Exactly!
MaryMagdaline
(7,964 posts)You can be thrown out of your house on the word of your partner, you get a hearing to remove the restraining order. You would get a hearing to try to get your guns back.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(13,291 posts)Clearly, given his threats to North Korea he's a person who could be considered dangerous and at risk.
The first thing I'd do would be to get rid of that f*cking parade.
Cold War Spook
(1,279 posts)Tell him about Sadat.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(13,291 posts)I would imagine IQ45's reaction to the statement, "Remember Sadat," would be this:
"I know Sadat--great guy, great guy, a good friend of mine, a good friend. Just played golf with him at one of my beautiful golf courses, probably the most beautiful, all my golf courses are beautiful, very beautiful. Nobody builds more beautiful golf courses than me. We talked about a lot of stuff -- how important building a wall between his country and mine is, how much I won the election by, how everyone is loving my tax cuts--which by the way were the biggest tax cuts ever, my 50% approval rating--higher than Obama's or crooked Hillary's. The kinda stuff important people talk about. Sadat was literally unable to talk at times, because he was so impressed by my accomplishments in just a year, more than any president in history. Believe me."
Duppers
(28,469 posts)Politicub
(12,328 posts)Is there some sort of gun registry that the fedgov would be able to check, or would they be knocking on doors of those who get red flagged to see if they have guns?
Ilsa
(64,371 posts)"Trump is coming to take your guns!"
B2G
(9,766 posts)Ilsa
(64,371 posts)Start infighting, especially if the idea looks to be deadending. If I thought it had a real chance of happening, I'd be happy to keep them in denial.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Kill it before it has a chance to gain traction.
DeminPennswoods
(17,506 posts)Had FL has this type of law, especially given they couldn't use the Baker Act to involuntarily commit Cruz, maybe none of this happens. Cruz certainly gave off warning signs to a lot of people.
truthisfreedom
(23,532 posts)Time to step in.
Maxheader
(4,419 posts)confiscate all weapons that aren't single load..single short...
That is the only way. Incarcerate all those resisting.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)"I sold them awhile back"
"It fell overboard while fishing"
"They were stolen and I forgot to report it"
NickB79
(20,356 posts)Billions spent, only to have the records ordered destroyed.
njhoneybadger
(3,911 posts)Yonnie3
(19,458 posts)Sure it sounds good and in some instances would be a very good thing. From slogan to deed seems very difficult for those (temporarily) in power. Sometimes a "red flag" could be a red herring or a false flag.
I don't want them to get away with doing only one relatively small thing and then be able to say they're done.
I can hear them campaigning now based on this one incremental improvement. "We acted on gun violence, a major accomplishment for the Republicans."
If it's not smoke and mirrors, I'll support it, but that's no where near enough will be my position.
Ferrets are Cool
(22,957 posts)jazzcat23
(176 posts)Martial Law to me, coming soon....