Started By
Message
locked post

House passes ‘red flag’ gun legislation

Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:24 am
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
84065 posts
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
Posted by memphisplaya
Member since Jan 2009
87030 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:26 am to
Unconstitutional/thread
Posted by Gifman
Member since Jan 2021
17234 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:27 am to
Blatantly violates 2nd amendment.
Posted by BugAC
St. George
Member since Oct 2007
56860 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:27 am to
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 by Ross
Member since Oct 2007
47827 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:27 am to
sounds a whole lot like infringement
Posted by Lawyered
The Sip
Member since Oct 2016
37041 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:29 am to
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 by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
79859 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:33 am to
If we go this route, it should also include heavy penalties for false allegations.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
112314 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:35 am to
What are the penalties for fraudulent submissions (i.e., "swatting")?
What is the sanction for denied submissions?
will these be under seal?
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
84065 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:35 am to
quote:



Who gets to decide this?
Some of those awesome district judges.

Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
87443 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:36 am to
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 by blakelobbasteel
Member since Jun 2022
88 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:41 am to
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 by jevins_slickin
Member since Nov 2018
1310 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:43 am to
Man they are really ramming this gun control legislation through at trump efficiency levels.

Wonder what else is going to be passed today
This post was edited on 6/9/22 at 10:44 am
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
62407 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:45 am to
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.
This post was edited on 6/9/22 at 10:46 am
Posted by TigerAxeOK
Where I lay my head is home.
Member since Dec 2016
35380 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:49 am to
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.
Posted by CedarChest
South of Mejico
Member since Jun 2020
2825 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 10:55 am to
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 by sms151t
Polos, Porsches, Ponies..PROBATION
Member since Aug 2009
140704 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:00 am to
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.
Posted by Knartfocker
Member since Jun 2020
1656 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:01 am to
Kinzinger is such a piece of shite
Posted by LetsgoGamecocks
Member since Sep 2014
2916 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:08 am to
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 by blakelobbasteel
Member since Jun 2022
88 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:12 am to
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 by NineLineBind
LA....no, the other one
Member since May 2020
8407 posts
Posted on 6/9/22 at 11:17 am to
Sounds like an end-run around the 2A to me.

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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram