Marco Rubio
with support from the NRA is reintroducing red flag legislation that would strip your gun rights without due process. Screw Rubio and double screw the NRA. This is 100% Chris Cox?s of the NRA?s baby. How any of you guys can still support the NRA is beyond me. NRA should be renamed to Not Real Activists.[xx(]
And Tuesday the House is trotting our HR 8 which is a ?Universal Background Check? bill that supposedly has Republicans signed on to it.
And Tuesday the House is trotting our HR 8 which is a ?Universal Background Check? bill that supposedly has Republicans signed on to it.
0
-
These polticians are really stepping on their cranks. They have no idea what the silent majority is going to do to them.
At one point in time I kind liked little mark but no longer.
Here is the article on it:
http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/marco-rubio-brings-back-red-flag-bill-new-congress
On the first day of the new Congress, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., brought back the ?Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act.?
On Thursday, Rubio paired up with Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins and independent U.S. Sen. Angus King of Maine and U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, to reintroduce the bill which ?will dedicate Department of Justice funds to incentivize states to give law enforcement the authority to prevent individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others the ability to purchase or possess firearms, while still providing due process protections.?
This country is doomed with these clowns running the show.
Oh and now we have mitt to deal with too. That guy is a straight up douche nozzle.0 -
It?s gonna get ugly. 0 -
I am a life member of the NRA and I have written several times to the head honchos...oh they write me back, ask for money and tell me I don't understand the big picture.
I have not given them a dime in over 20 years. I contribute to the grass roots organization in support of the 2a.0 -
Many here have touted the need to address the mental health instead of the gun side of the 'gun violence' question.
This is an attempt.
The question, of course, is what is in the details of the 'due process protections.'
The NRA pushed for a Due Process incorporation of the 2nd Amendment vs. the Privileges and Immunities incorporation being championed by Cato and the GOA. This obviously makes it easier to craft due process exceptions to the right of firearm ownership.
If a proper hearing is conducted (I admit I do no know what a proper hearing would be) prior to the individual being retained or disenfranchised, there may be some Constitutional basis for this. If, however, laws are enacted (as seems to be the case in most areas) where a person's firearms can be taken from them prior to a hearing, due process is obviously not being followed.
It is possible that such anti-Constitutional laws will save a life or two, and that is what will be argued. There are too many in the American public, including many people who post here who are willing to give up on the Constitution because denying some individuals legal access to firearms makes them feel better.
It is a bad idea because it will thwart the spirit of the 2nd, 5th, and probably 4th Amendments.0 -
Kinda like the GOP and Dems let the NRA or anyone else misrepresent you and you get what you deserve. If NRA membership (and citizen voters) were unified and strong with a voice and obviously dollars the leadership would say whatever the money/members tell them too.
Currently our politicians keep getting re-elected and accomplish nothing but personal wealth. Short of Trump I would bet every other modern day politician left office with more than they went in with.0 -
These things are the epitome of the term ?...camel?s nose under the tent?. I?m watching how they?re being used/abused here daily. It?s merely an end around of the 2A as well as the 4th. 0 -
HR 8 is just the start, registration, banning of specific configurations, and confiscation is all but guaranteed.
Good thing we have a couple more potentially saving votes on the SCOTUS
GOP was too chicken to actually go with most of the things GOP voters actually wanted.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
HR 8 is just the start, registration, banning of specific configurations, and confiscation is all but guaranteed.
Good thing we have a couple more potentially saving votes on the SCOTUS
GOP was too chicken to actually go with most of the things GOP voters actually wanted.
HR 8 most likely will die in the House but I damn sure won?t guarantee Yertle won?t let it be heard in the Senate. But come 2020 if the Democrats take the White House and Senate it?s game over. They WILL do a revamped Clinton Crime Bill of ?94 that will never sunset and will be 100 times worse. If that happens I believe will be the final straw.0 -
I too initially liked Rubio but he is just another little politician bitch, only truly interested in his personal career and goals. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sam06
These polticians are really stepping on their cranks. They have no idea what the silent majority is going to do to them.
At one point in time I kind liked little mark but no longer.
Here is the article on it:
http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/marco-rubio-brings-back-red-flag-bill-new-congress
On the first day of the new Congress, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., brought back the ?Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act.?
On Thursday, Rubio paired up with Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins and independent U.S. Sen. Angus King of Maine and U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, to reintroduce the bill which ?will dedicate Department of Justice funds to incentivize states to give law enforcement the authority to prevent individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others the ability to purchase or possess firearms, while still providing due process protections.?
This country is doomed with these clowns running the show.
Oh and now we have mitt to deal with too. That guy is a straight up douche nozzle.
She stepped on her 'string' as a newbie with her stand on the Confederate flag...right along with Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, and a whole slew of spineless American scum.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Many here have touted the need to address the mental health instead of the gun side of the 'gun violence' question.
This is an attempt.
The question, of course, is what is in the details of the 'due process protections.'
The NRA pushed for a Due Process incorporation of the 2nd Amendment vs. the Privileges and Immunities incorporation being championed by Cato and the GOA. This obviously makes it easier to craft due process exceptions to the right of firearm ownership.
If a proper hearing is conducted (I admit I do no know what a proper hearing would be) prior to the individual being retained or disenfranchised, there may be some Constitutional basis for this. If, however, laws are enacted (as seems to be the case in most areas) where a person's firearms can be taken from them prior to a hearing, due process is obviously not being followed.
It is possible that such anti-Constitutional laws will save a life or two, and that is what will be argued. There are too many in the American public, including many people who post here who are willing to give up on the Constitution because denying some individuals legal access to firearms makes them feel better.
It is a bad idea because it will thwart the spirit of the 2nd, 5th, and probably 4th Amendments.
It should remain a state issue(they should happen at all!), not a federal issue. The Feds do not get involved in the prosecution of Domestic Violence, or their related protective orders, they shouldn't be getting involved in these type "red flag/high risk protective" orders. So if this were to become federal law, I suppose the ATF would be responsible for serving these protective orders and seizing people's guns. One has even less due process at the federal level than they do at the state level. Your average gun owner would be destroyed financially just trying to fight for their gun rights (which is likely the intent). The protective order hearings are generally ex parte, with the respondent having no knowledge until the document is served. That in part is where the lack of due process begins. These orders are issued based on hear say and preponderance of the evidence. They are ripe for abuse.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments