- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Is it true Matt Gaetz signed onto the red flag bill?
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:02 pm
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:02 pm
That has to be fake news? Just overheard it on RSBN. WTF
14
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:11 pm to burger bearcat
God I pray this isn’t true.
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:13 pm to burger bearcat
quote:quote:
Dan Crenshaw, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz and 132 other House Republicans voted with the Democrats to pass federal red flag gun laws. Why even bother having a Republican Party when they just vote with the Democrats anyway? — Kaitlin Bennett (@KaitMarieox) September 24, 2021
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:39 pm to Jack Carter
frick them and the horse they rode in on
this is why I no longer identify as "republican"
this is why I no longer identify as "republican"
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:43 pm to Jack Carter
Something fricky is going on
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:45 pm to burger bearcat
He supported it in 2018 and used FL’s red flag laws as evidence they work.
FL’s are different but any red flag is unconstitutional
Abolish the NFA
FL’s are different but any red flag is unconstitutional
Abolish the NFA
This post was edited on 9/25/21 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:54 pm to Smash That
^^ This. We're not voting our way out of this mess, it's going to take considerably more than that
Posted on 9/25/21 at 6:55 pm to Jack Carter
quote:
Madison Cawthorn
What the f*ck. Isn't this the guy who made the speech on the floor telling the Dems to "come and take them".
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:05 pm to Noahcount
quote:
frick them and the horse they rode in on
this is why I no longer identify as "republican"
The only way these fraud conservatives get the message we’re tired of their shite is when the America First Party is chomping on their azzes!
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:11 pm to burger bearcat
The details
LINK /
It seems that they want to do the confiscation via the military.
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
American Military News covered this story:
A provision in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act would allow military courts to issue protective orders that include “Red Flag” gun confiscation, according to the more than 1,300-page bill.
In the legislation, those beholden to the United States Code of Military Justice could be issued a “military court protective order” by a military judge or magistrate, which would make “possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm” illegal.
“A military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and a military court protective order issued after the person to be subject to the order has received notice and opportunity to be heard on the order, shall restrain such person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm in accordance with section 922 of title 18,” SEC. 529 of H.R. 4350 states.
Additionally, military court protective orders issued on an emergency basis are exempted from providing the recipient with the standard “right to due process.” Instead, “notice and opportunity to be heard” must only be provided after an order was already issued.
“EMERGENCY ORDERS.—A protective order on an emergency basis may be issued on an ex parte basis under such rules and limitations as the President shall prescribe,” the section continues. “In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard and to present evidence must be provided within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 calendar days after the date on which the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent’s due process rights.”
LINK /
It seems that they want to do the confiscation via the military.
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
American Military News covered this story:
A provision in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act would allow military courts to issue protective orders that include “Red Flag” gun confiscation, according to the more than 1,300-page bill.
In the legislation, those beholden to the United States Code of Military Justice could be issued a “military court protective order” by a military judge or magistrate, which would make “possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm” illegal.
“A military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and a military court protective order issued after the person to be subject to the order has received notice and opportunity to be heard on the order, shall restrain such person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm in accordance with section 922 of title 18,” SEC. 529 of H.R. 4350 states.
Additionally, military court protective orders issued on an emergency basis are exempted from providing the recipient with the standard “right to due process.” Instead, “notice and opportunity to be heard” must only be provided after an order was already issued.
“EMERGENCY ORDERS.—A protective order on an emergency basis may be issued on an ex parte basis under such rules and limitations as the President shall prescribe,” the section continues. “In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard and to present evidence must be provided within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 calendar days after the date on which the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent’s due process rights.”
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:16 pm to BillRose
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:18 pm to Jack Carter
quote:
Dan Crenshaw, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz and 132 other House Republicans voted with the Democrats to pass federal red flag gun laws.
What the hell
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:33 pm to burger bearcat
Let's be clear...they voted to pass the Defense Authorization.
I suspect that those that even knew of the provision (it's over 1300 pages) are expecting the Senate to amend or filibuster it.
In other
I suspect that those that even knew of the provision (it's over 1300 pages) are expecting the Senate to amend or filibuster it.
In other
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:35 pm to udtiger
BTW, if this passes, expect very bad things to happen for the cannon fodder that are called upon to seize those weapons.
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:45 pm to burger bearcat
Much to the chagrin of most here, I would come down on the side of Gaetz and the others on this. I don't believe it will be abused in a way that probably many amongst us might be suspecting. Surely we'd all agree that there are indeed instances wherein the acute threat posed by an individual out of their mind possessing firearms is more of a concern than that individual's 2A rights.....and I mean that only TEMPORARILY.
This process is swiftly followed up by the full and fair opportunity to be heard, and if the concerns are unfounded, well then the individual is restored back to their previous 2A rights. Not to mention, there already exist and have existed for quite some time situations wherein an individual's 2A rights are TEMPORARILY relinquished (or more extensively in some circumstances), such as being the subject of a protective order or restraining order, or as a result of being convicted of a felony, even when that felony is wholly unrelated to anything involving violence (for example, tax evasion and the like), and perhaps other emergency orders handed down by a court (coroner's commitments for instance). I just believe the inconvenience of going through this process is a full seizure of one's 2A rights.
This process is swiftly followed up by the full and fair opportunity to be heard, and if the concerns are unfounded, well then the individual is restored back to their previous 2A rights. Not to mention, there already exist and have existed for quite some time situations wherein an individual's 2A rights are TEMPORARILY relinquished (or more extensively in some circumstances), such as being the subject of a protective order or restraining order, or as a result of being convicted of a felony, even when that felony is wholly unrelated to anything involving violence (for example, tax evasion and the like), and perhaps other emergency orders handed down by a court (coroner's commitments for instance). I just believe the inconvenience of going through this process is a full seizure of one's 2A rights.
This post was edited on 9/25/21 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:50 pm to davyjones
quote:
This process is swiftly followed up by the full and fair opportunity to be heard,
#IBelieve
Posted on 9/25/21 at 7:57 pm to BillRose
That sounds like it would only apply to the military.
Posted on 9/25/21 at 8:02 pm to themunch
I can certainly understand the reluctance to trust that the process would and will work as advertised. I just happen to have a little more faith in these processes because I see them work up close and personal a fair amount, and believe it or not the system stays truer to itself than many might suspect. No, not exactly this specific process, but many that are modeled in this exact same way. Let's face it, if a person isn't capable of addressing some relatively rare instances wherein it isn't working exactly as it should or as quickly as it should, just doesn't have the wherewithal to address a issue like that, then to me that's a red flag that perhaps something's off with that person to begin with.
And just as is the case with other similar scenarios, a person typically has a support system behind them to assist in redress of grievances if shite goes awry. Typically a person isn't just going to be dead in the water. Could there be some inconvenience to those improperly served, sure, but again, that's only temporary and it's an exchange for those situations where it's just inarguably warranted.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these processes are more reliable than most think. Is any of this ideal? Of course not. But again, surely we can all think of some scenario in our lifetime that you'd probably agree that "yes, I think it probably would've been a good thing in that case".
And just as is the case with other similar scenarios, a person typically has a support system behind them to assist in redress of grievances if shite goes awry. Typically a person isn't just going to be dead in the water. Could there be some inconvenience to those improperly served, sure, but again, that's only temporary and it's an exchange for those situations where it's just inarguably warranted.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these processes are more reliable than most think. Is any of this ideal? Of course not. But again, surely we can all think of some scenario in our lifetime that you'd probably agree that "yes, I think it probably would've been a good thing in that case".
This post was edited on 9/25/21 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 9/25/21 at 8:05 pm to burger bearcat
He responded on Twitter:
LINK
quote:
Fair question.
Voted NO last year NDAA. It was too pro war.
Red flag coming out. If not, I’ll jump off the Lonoworth building. It was a scriveners error
NDAA positions America to Great Power Competition & AWAY from chasing every jihadist into every cave or sand dune in the ME
LINK
Posted on 9/25/21 at 8:06 pm to burger bearcat
I am starting to give up for real
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News