Rubio proposes Red Flag

[ladder13]

He’s proposed this before it seems. Rubio wants the Feds to incentivize implementation to the states.

Marco Rubio brings back the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act to cut down on gun violence

 

[Watchdog]

Rubio originally introduced this bill as S.2607 in March of 2018. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee on March 22, 2018, and has apparently languished there for nine months with no other action taken on it.

The language of the proposed bill apparently remains unchanged. I haven't seen a new bill number assigned to it. I have to wonder what the procedure is for reintroducing a bill that's already been introduced and has already been in committee for months.

It's interesting to me that the proposed bill specifically includes Indian tribes.

Anyone interested in reading the bill may do so by clicking here.

 

[Tom S.]

The RULES:

The following topics are BANNED on this Board:
Abortion
Religion
Racial issues
Gay rights/homosexuality
General LEO bashing
Political Discussion and Comment
Do NOT participate in discussion of banned topics.

Several folks seem to have "forgotten" about this rule. You can discuss the legislation - ONLY!

 

[SMSgt]

I see red-flag laws generating on conflicts than preventing them.

 

[S&WsRsweet]

I must agree with SMSgt the red flag bills I have read seem to leave out the presumption of inocense that I have always thought was the hinge pin of protection of the loss of rights ,property or freedom without a trial.

 

[stansdds]

I must agree with SMSgt the red flag bills I have read seem to leave out the presumption of inocense that I have always thought was the hinge pin of protection of the loss of rights ,property or freedom without a trial.

I must agree, with such laws it would seem that due process is eliminated before confiscation of property.

 

[Roller Delayed]

I must agree, with such laws it would seem that due process is eliminated before confiscation of property.

How is that any different than an arrest for suspected criminal activity? Due process doesn't mean no action until after a court ruling. And a red flag does require a judge, just like a protective order or search warrant.

 

[M29since14]

Great! Protective orders are routinely handed out like so much complimentary candy. Just what we need - another version of the same thing, only worse.

 

[Roller Delayed]

Great! Protective orders are routinely handed out like so much complimentary candy. Just what we need - another version of the same thing, only worse.

What makes it worse? Are we seriously concerned about temporarily denying the mentally ill of firearms?

 

[M29since14]

I think folks are legitimately concerned about a FEDERAL law that can be easily abused - just like protective orders are now here in Indiana. It is already illegal for mentally ill people to own and use firearms.

Red flag = catchy term for new feel-good law with wide open door leading to unimaginable abuse “opportunities.” JMHO.

 

[Roller Delayed]

I think folks are legitimately concerned about a FEDERAL law that can be easily abused - just like protective orders are now here in Indiana. It is already illegal for mentally ill people to own and use firearms.

Red flag = catchy term for new feel-good law with wide open door leading to unimaginable abuse “opportunities.” JMHO.

Red flags would be for people that have not yet been found to be legally "mentally ill". The state has no ability to enforce those laws on someone who has not gone through evaluation.

I went to school with a kid that became schizophrenic at 19. His change was rapid but the mental health and court systems were not.

Support this or not, let's be clear what we're talking about.

 

[Roller Delayed]

No offense, but it not be a good idea to mention that too much when trying to argue against ERPOs, because it sure didn't stop James Holmes, Stephen Paddock, and Nikolas Cruz, among others, from committing heinous crimes with guns.

Where any of those "adjudicated as mentally ill or commited"? Paddock wasn't and I'll bet neither were the other two. That's the only legal prevention for mentally ill people possessing guns.

 

[SMSgt]

I think folks are legitimately concerned about a FEDERAL law that can be easily abused - just like protective orders are now here in Indiana. It is already illegal for mentally ill people to own and use firearms.

Red flag = catchy term for new feel-good law with wide open door leading to unimaginable abuse “opportunities.” JMHO.

It is illegal for those "adjudicated" as mentally ill to own and use firearms. Red flag laws make no such distinction. Anyone can be subject to this foul law. All it takes is one scorned spouse.

 

[Roller Delayed]

It is illegal for those "adjudicated" as mentally ill to own and use firearms. Red flag laws make no such distinction. Anyone can be subject to this foul law. All it takes is one scorned spouse.

No, it doesn't. It goes before a judge and requires "clear and convincing evidence". And the law contains felony penalties for making false statements during that hearing.

Unlike being found guilty of domestic violence, being red flagged isn't permanent, has a built in appeal process and guns must be returned quickly when it ends. It also isn't part of a criminal record.


Everyone who says "That guy was clearly acting nuts, why didn't the FBI do something?" - this would be something to do that doesn't require the loon to first commit a chargeable crime.

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public...32226.erpo-one-pager-116th-congress-final.pdf

Either you are for keeping guns out of the hands of people that have lost their minds or you aren't. This seems like the least unfair way for that to happen. WA has a law like this, and it is not being abused or even used very often.


I understand the potential for abuse, but how many people are going to risk a felony perjury charge just to temporarily lock up your guns?

 

[Ackley1952]

Who checks the checkers ?

 

[hoc9sw]

...
I understand the potential for abuse, but how many people are going to risk a felony perjury charge just to temporarily lock up your guns?

It only takes one. In my world, there could easily be a line out the door.

 

[Roller Delayed]

It only takes one. In my world, there could easily be a line out the door.

Lots of mental illness and threats of violence in your world?


The zero sum game the NRA is playing won't work. Gun people can try to block every effort to take guns from crazy people, but it just makes us look crazy and increases the chances of a ban on the guns themselves rather than a ban on certain people having them. That's why this bill is sponsored by a Republican - because he understands that the rise is mass shootings is going to have legislative consequences and wants the impact to not be on regular people.

Like the CC movement, proactively dealing with gun violence issues is best done by gun people, not people that hate and dislike all guns. But if we don't act, we lose the ability to influence the outcome. It is unlikely that the GOP is going to have a lot of legislative control by 2021, so pick your poison.

 

[SMSgt]

No, it doesn't. It goes before a judge and requires "clear and convincing evidence". And the law contains felony penalties for making false statements during that hearing.

Unlike being found guilty of domestic violence, being red flagged isn't permanent, has a built in appeal process and guns must be returned quickly when it ends. It also isn't part of a criminal record.


Everyone who says "That guy was clearly acting nuts, why didn't the FBI do something?" - this would be something to do that doesn't require the loon to first commit a chargeable crime.

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public...32226.erpo-one-pager-116th-congress-final.pdf

Either you are for keeping guns out of the hands of people that have lost their minds or you aren't. This seems like the least unfair way for that to happen. WA has a law like this, and it is not being abused or even used very often.


I understand the potential for abuse, but how many people are going to risk a felony perjury charge just to temporarily lock up your guns?

I see nothing where the accused is offered any opportunity to face accusers prior to an seizure order being issued. It is no different than the courts saying you're guilty of a crime, now come to court and prove you didn't commit a crime.

 

[Roller Delayed]

I see nothing where the accused is offered any opportunity to face accusers prior to an seizure order being issued. It is no different than the courts saying you're guilty of a crime, now come to court and prove you didn't commit a crime.

It isn't like being found guilty of a crime, it is like getting arrested or getting served a search warrant. You don't get to face your accussers in those cases, either. And then adjudication has to be fast, just like a bail hearing.

You are conflating an emergency legal intervention, like an arrest or 72 hour psych hold, with a trial.

 

[Ackley1952]

Would you feel comfortable with Ruth bader Ginsberg judging your mental condition ? Or maybe George Soros ? Crazy people will always be with us . If I have to deal with one I prefer and will be armed . It’s purely a matter of when to call 911 . I prefer to make the call after situation is in hand .