- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

House passes ‘red flag’ gun legislation
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:24 am
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:24 am
The legislation, dubbed the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order, passed in a 224-202 vote. Two Republicans did not vote.
Five Republicans — Reps. Fred Upton (Mich.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Chris Jacobs (N.Y.) — bucked the GOP in voting for the measure, and Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (Maine) broke from the party in opposing the bill.
Passage of the measure came one day after the House cleared a sweeping gun package that, among other provisions, called for raising the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21 and banning civilian use of high-capacity weapons.
Both pieces of legislation were brought up in response to last month’s mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y. and Uvalde, Texas.
The red flag bill — introduced by Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), whose son died by gun violence in 2012 — would authorize family members and law enforcement officers to petition U.S. district courts to issue federal extreme protection orders that would temporarily prohibit individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms.
The orders can either be short-term, lasting for a maximum of 14 days and issued without a hearing, or long-term, remaining in existence for 180 days and require a hearing to be issued.
Petitioners must provide evidence that the individual of concern poses an imminent risk to themselves or others by purchasing, possessing or receiving firearms or ammunition. For long-term orders, petitioners must prove that the subject of the measure poses an injury risk to themselves or others through buying, possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition.
If the court determines that an extreme risk protection order is necessary, individuals subject to the measure must surrender their firearms and ammunition, and are barred from purchasing or possessing firearms during the duration of the order.
The bill also allocates grant funding to states in an effort to bolster implementation of state extreme risk laws that are already on the books, and to urge more states to enact such measures. Additionally, the legislation requires that law enforcement is trained to safely, impartially and effectively use extreme risk protection orders. LINK
Five Republicans — Reps. Fred Upton (Mich.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Chris Jacobs (N.Y.) — bucked the GOP in voting for the measure, and Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (Maine) broke from the party in opposing the bill.
Passage of the measure came one day after the House cleared a sweeping gun package that, among other provisions, called for raising the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21 and banning civilian use of high-capacity weapons.
Both pieces of legislation were brought up in response to last month’s mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y. and Uvalde, Texas.
The red flag bill — introduced by Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), whose son died by gun violence in 2012 — would authorize family members and law enforcement officers to petition U.S. district courts to issue federal extreme protection orders that would temporarily prohibit individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms.
The orders can either be short-term, lasting for a maximum of 14 days and issued without a hearing, or long-term, remaining in existence for 180 days and require a hearing to be issued.
Petitioners must provide evidence that the individual of concern poses an imminent risk to themselves or others by purchasing, possessing or receiving firearms or ammunition. For long-term orders, petitioners must prove that the subject of the measure poses an injury risk to themselves or others through buying, possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition.
If the court determines that an extreme risk protection order is necessary, individuals subject to the measure must surrender their firearms and ammunition, and are barred from purchasing or possessing firearms during the duration of the order.
The bill also allocates grant funding to states in an effort to bolster implementation of state extreme risk laws that are already on the books, and to urge more states to enact such measures. Additionally, the legislation requires that law enforcement is trained to safely, impartially and effectively use extreme risk protection orders. LINK
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:27 am to Jbird
Blatantly violates 2nd amendment.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:27 am to Jbird
quote:
whose son died by gun violence in 2012
A human killed her son, but we're still blaming a piece of metal for being "bad" and not the only beings on this earth capable of murder.
This post was edited on 6/9/22 at 10:28 am
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:27 am to memphisplaya
sounds a whole lot like infringement
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:29 am to Jbird
quote:
the court determines that an extreme risk protection order is necessary, individuals subject to the measure must surrender their firearms and ammunition, and are barred from purchasing or possessing firearms during the duration of the order.
Who gets to decide this? What are the parameters for approving/denying someone the right to own a firearm?
Taking antidepressants as an example? Does that bar you ? Increased risk of suicide/harm… that would make someone a threat potentially.
Don’t like this slippery slope
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:33 am to Jbird
If we go this route, it should also include heavy penalties for false allegations.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:35 am to Jbird
What are the penalties for fraudulent submissions (i.e., "swatting")?
What is the sanction for denied submissions?
will these be under seal?
What is the sanction for denied submissions?
will these be under seal?
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:35 am to Lawyered
quote:Some of those awesome district judges.
Who gets to decide this?
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:36 am to Jbird
quote:
Five Republicans — Reps. Fred Upton (Mich.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Chris Jacobs (N.Y.) — bucked the GOP in voting for the measure,
I know Upton, Gonzales and Kinzinger just don’t give a shite because they know they’re out in November. They basically feel free to caucus with the Democrats.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:41 am to Jbird
No doubt law enforcement will take a page from Big Tech and cross reference big tech's list of Trump supporters to go send the ATF SWAT teams to take their guns.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:43 am to Jbird
Man they are really ramming this gun control legislation through at trump efficiency levels.
Wonder what else is going to be passed today
Wonder what else is going to be passed today
This post was edited on 6/9/22 at 10:44 am
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:45 am to Jbird
The end goal being to be able to charge you if you "failed" to alert law enforcement of "red flags" and then someone you know commits "gun violence."
ETA: To be used only against white people.
ETA: To be used only against white people.
This post was edited on 6/9/22 at 10:46 am
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:49 am to Jbird
If this passes the senate, what gun rights we hadn't already lost are gone.
One phone call claiming you're a danger to yourself or others, with no evidence whatsoever, and LEOs show up and remove your weapons.
This will be used and abused until total disarmament of the law abiding populace.
One phone call claiming you're a danger to yourself or others, with no evidence whatsoever, and LEOs show up and remove your weapons.
This will be used and abused until total disarmament of the law abiding populace.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:55 am to Jbird
This bill won't even make it out of committee in the Senate. Senate dems are just as evil as pelosi, but a lot saner too. Their first instinct is survival. Same with the arse kissin' pubs too. Just no way they vote for this.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:00 am to Jbird
The House can pass bill after bill all it wants, thereby refusing to focus on other pressing needs. But the issue these clowns do not get is the Senate wont pass anything. There will be no reconciliation and it will never get before a President to sign.
This is just pandering to a base and trying to play off emotions not logic or reality.
This is just pandering to a base and trying to play off emotions not logic or reality.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:01 am to Jbird
Kinzinger is such a piece of shite
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:08 am to Jbird
So anyone you don’t like you call the police and get them flagged. One house member said that abusive boyfriends could call in a red flag on their girlfriends, leaving them without a way to protect themselves. Seems like a way to empower stalkers.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:12 am to LetsgoGamecocks
quote:
So anyone you don’t like you call the police and get them flagged. One house member said that abusive boyfriends could call in a red flag on their girlfriends, leaving them without a way to protect themselves. Seems like a way to empower stalkers.
My ultra leftist uncle and cousins who live in Boston would no doubt report me and my brothers/sisters. They hate the fact that me and my family are big time firearm enthusiasts.
I have 2 uncles in the Boston area who refuse to communicate with my mom these days because of this. They would not attend my mom's 65th birthday party we spent a lot of money putting together, didn't invite us to my cousin's graduation parties.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:17 am to Jbird
Sounds like an end-run around the 2A to me.
Anything that starts out as "temporary" always ends up permanent.
quote:
would authorize family members and law enforcement officers to petition U.S. district courts to issue federal extreme protection orders that would temporarily prohibit individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms.
Anything that starts out as "temporary" always ends up permanent.
Popular
Back to top

21









