Tag Archives: red flag laws

Senate Democrats introduce new gun-control bill: federal license, registration, red flag & gun confiscation

Six days ago on September 10, 2019, Demonrat senators Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) introduced a new gun-control bill, S. 2449: Federal Firearm Licensing Act, which will:

(1) Require a federal license to acquire or receive firearms, “and for other purposes”: “In general…it shall be unlawful for any individual to purchase or receive a firearm unless the individual has a valid Federal firearm license.”

(2) A Federal firearm license is required for each firearm: “each license issued under this section shall be valid for the purchase of a single firearm”.

(3) Each license is valid for only 5 years.

(4) The federal license in turn means the federal and local governments will keep a registration of all gun owners in the U.S.: “a license issued under the system is available at a designated local office, which shall be located in both urban and rural areas.”

(5) To acquire the Federal firearm license will require:

  • Training in firearms safety, including (a) “a written test, to demonstrate knowledge of applicable firearms laws”; and (b) “hands-on testing, including firing testing, to demonstrate safe use and sufficient accuracy of a firearm”.
  • Proof of identity of the applicant.
  • Fingerprints of the applicant.
  • A thorough background check of the applicant.

(6) Red Flag: If it is determined that an individual “poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm,” s/he will be denied a gun license or if s/he already owns a gun(s), the license for which will be revoked and the firearm confiscated: “The Attorney General shall establish procedures to ensure that any firearm is removed from any individual when the individual’s license is revoked”.

Click here for the full text of S. 2449.

H/t truckjunkie

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

California demorat calls for expansion of red flag laws: Employers, co-workers & teachers can petition to take away your guns

California Assemblymember Phil Ting tweeted about his excitement to remove due process for law-abiding citizens, all in the name of “gun safety.”

From his tweet: “My bill, #AB61, which improves gun safety by expanding CA’s #RedFlagLaw, heads to the Gov! If signed, more people can access a court process that temporarily takes away someone’s firearms if they pose a danger. I called for better gun laws at an SF rally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ18vDie_70 …”

What #AB61 allows is for employers, co-workers and teachers to petition judges to take away guns from people who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. The bill Ting has proposed had cleared the California Senate.

More details from 13NewsNow.com:

“California enacted a so-called “red flag law” that took effect in 2016. But it only allows law enforcement and immediate family members to ask judges for gun restraining orders. Assembly Bill 61 by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco would expand that law.

Ting introduced the bill in response to a November 2018 mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, where 12 people were killed. The gunman, Ian David Long, had shown signs of instability to family and friends.

Groups advocating gun rights and civil liberties oppose the bill, which still must be approved by the state Assembly.”

The Thousand Oaks shooter legally obtained his firearm yet had various “interactions” with police and possibly PTSD. In April, a mental health specialist with the crisis team met with the shooter during a previous incident and felt he might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. But after speaking with him, they decided not to detain him under laws that allow for the temporary detention of people with psychiatric issues. So law enforcement had the means to remove his guns but they chose not to.

The summary of the bill states the following:

“Expands the category of persons that may file a petition requesting a court to issue an ex parte temporary gun violence restraining order (GVRO), a one year GVRO, or a renewal of a GVRO, to include an employer, a coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and an employee or teacher of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the subject has attended in the last six months and has the approval of the school administration staff.”

Read the whole bill here.

Photo from YAF

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors declares NRA a “domestic terrorism organization”

Picture from YAF

So now liberals are labeling groups of people “domestic terrorists” because they don’t agree with our politics. Remember, these are the same people who tell us that red flags laws won’t be abused.

The left will stop at nothing to take away our Second Amendment and due process rights.

From Yahoo: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on Tuesday declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorism organization” due to its opposition to more stringent gun-control legislation.

The resolution accuses the NRA of not only resisting legislative reforms that its drafters believe would help curtail the country’s “epidemic of gun violence,” but also of “incit[ing] gun owners to acts of violence.”

“All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association’s influence,” the resolution says.

The resolution also declares the Board’s intent to “limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization.” It was drafted following a shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival last month that resulted in the deaths of three people, according to local Fox affiliate KTVU. (Just disregard the fact that the shooter’s gun was ILLEGAL to use in California; hence HE BROKE THE LAW.)

The NRA responded to the provocation by accusing the Board of seeking to distract from the city’s shortcomings.

“This ludicrous stunt by the Board of Supervisors is an effort to distract from the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few,” the statement said, according to KTVU. “The NRA will continue working to protect the constitutional rights of all freedom-loving Americans.”

The partisan battle over gun control has escalated in recent weeks due to mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, Dayton, Ohio and, most recently, Odessa and Midland, Texas.

Congressional Democrats and their colleagues seeking the presidency continue to demand universal-background-check legislation. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, remains hesitant to endorse any specific legislation but said Tuesday that he would be eager to support any reforms backed by the White House.

———————————

Over at the SF Gate there are plenty of comments regarding the Board’s action. Seems many people are calling for the bureaucrats to worry about cleaning up their own sh*thole of a city before they start their virtue signaling. Some of the comments:

The city is turning into a dump and this is where the city leaders pour their time, effort and attention: Nothingburger proclamations and worthless virtue signaling of the highest order.”

“Oh geez louise. Do something that means something you morons. I am no friend of the NRA but this is useless.”

Unbelievable that these blowhards are wasting my taxpayer dollars on stupid measures. Are you now going to arrest card-carrying NRA Members in SF?”

“Every time I think this city has reached a nadir of stupidity, the Board of Supervisors proves me wrong…”

“How do members of the Board of Supervisors have time for a national campaign against the NRA, when just a few blocks from City Hall there are plenty of people with guns who never passed a background check. Take a look at @SFPDTenderloin tweets to see photos of people who are much more dangerous than the NRA. The Board of Supervisors should focus on doing their jobs and getting the guns and drugs out of San Francisco neighborhoods.

“The Board of Supervisors is itself a terrorist group for doing absolutely nothing and turning this city into a pigsty stinking capital of the world. They should be ashamed of themselves for stealing tax payer money by disguising as a salary. Oh BTW, they just gave themselves a raise next year.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Pancho Beto wants mandatory buyback of “assault weapons” and gun registry

Fortunately, this guy has no chance whatsoever of becoming president.

Pancho Beto announced via Twitter on Friday his plan to end gun violence which includes the following:

More from his web site:

“Beto will work with Congress to create a nationwide gun licensing system that will ensure individuals seeking a gun undergo an assessment by law enforcement and a background check. Individuals must be 21 years old to receive a license, will be required to complete a certified gun safety training, and will need to renew their licenses every five years.

Individuals will also be required to register their guns through a registry and all new handguns will be microstamped. In recognition of the country’s long hunting tradition, those under 21 with hunting licenses will be able to lawfully possess firearms for hunting. States will have the flexibility to administer their own licensing systems, allowing them to set higher standards. Where a state does not have a system in place, the federal government will administer the system.

Weapons of war belong on the battlefield, not in our communities or on our streets. Beto is calling for a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons and a voluntary buyback program for handguns. To create a funding stream for buybacks, Beto will increase the excise tax on gun manufacturers and fines imposed on gun traffickers, and will enable ATF to purchase any banned assault weapons presented to the agency. Individuals who fail to participate in the mandatory buyback of assault weapons will be fined.

Read about all the details of his plan here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Pure propaganda: Elderly couple found dead from murder-suicide after they couldn’t afford wife’s healthcare

First of all, I thought Obamacare was suppose to fix our “broken health care system?”

Even if this man couldn’t afford to pay for his medical expenses, there are PLENTY of low- and no-cost taxpayer- and privately-provided agencies that provide free healthcare services in Whatcom County. See here, here, here and here.

But that little bit of information doesn’t make for a sensational headline…especially when guns are involved.

From Yahoo: A man in Washington state has killed both himself and his wife after raising fears about struggling to pay medical expenses for her ongoing health conditions.

The couple were identified by the Whatcom County Medical Examiner as Brian S Jones, 77, and Patricia Whitney-Jones, 76.

Mr. Jones, who lived near the city of Ferndale, called emergency services on Wednesday morning and said he was going to shoot himself, according to the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office.

He said he had prepared a note for the sheriff which contained information and instructions. In spite of the operator’s efforts to keep him on the line, Mr. Jones is then said to have told the operator, “we will be in the front bedroom”, before disconnecting the call.

Police arrived around 15 minutes later and set up a perimeter around the house and attempted to intervene for about an hour with a crisis negotiator and loud hailer.

But it was too late, as officials then used a robot-mounted camera to look inside the home and found the bodies of the married couple.

Authorities said they believe Mr. Jones shot his wife and then himself. They were found lying together.
A statement from Whatcom Sheriff Bill Elfo said state officials are investigating the incident which is deemed to be a murder-suicide.

According to the sheriff, Mr. Jones told the operator: “I am going to shoot myself”.

Several notes were left in the home “citing severe ongoing medical problems with the wife and expressing concerns that the couple did not have sufficient resources to pay for medical care”, according to the sheriff’s statement.

“It is very tragic that one of our senior citizens would find himself in such desperate circumstances where he felt murder and suicide were the only option. Help is always available with a call to 911,” Mr. Elfo said in the post.

Numerous firearms were seized and two dogs found in the house were taken to an animal shelter.

Sherrie Schulteis, a neighbour of the couple, said she often spoke to Mr. Jones and watched out for each other’s homes but was totally unaware about the extent to which he was struggling mentally and financially.

“[Mr Jones and I] were always waving and talking about our yards or our flowers,” she told The Lynden Tribune. “It’s a little tiny community where we all know each other, but we don’t really know each other.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Attritional strategy: Washington state wants to apply ERPOs to minors, prove you have no firearms in the family home

Just another way for the gun grabbers to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

From MyNorthwest.com: Prosecutors in Washington are looking to expand the state’s Red Flag laws to include minors.

Red Flag laws – or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOS) – are civil orders that allow judges to temporarily suspend a person’s gun rights, even if they haven’t committed a crime, when they exhibit violent behavior that suggests they pose a risk to themselves or others.

Washington was among the first of five states to pass a Red Flag law when voters overwhelmingly approved I-1491 in 2016. Another eight states passed similar laws this year after the Parkland shooting, and four more states are considering them now.

The laws vary by state as far as who can petition the court for the civil orders, with some only allowing law enforcement to file for them, while others allow family members, roommates, people who share children, and some medical professionals to petition the courts.

In Washington, police and family members can petition the courts for an emergency 14-day order to take away a person’s guns. That can be followed with a one-year ban if the court is convinced the pattern of behavior shows the person is a risk to themselves or others.

State law is silent on whether minors can be the subject of an ERPO, but there is an effort to change that.

For the past several months, a legislative task force made up of police, mental health experts, school shooting survivors, the ACLU, and others has been meeting to develop strategies to prevent mass shootings, and it recently released a list of 25 recommendations.

Among the recommendations, clarifying state law to make clear ERPOs can apply to minors.

Prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt with King County’s Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Unit – the only specialized unit in the state that helps other police agencies statewide and family members with ERPOs – believes the orders should apply to juveniles.

“We’ve had that issue come up multiple times, and we’ve been asked around the state by other law enforcement agencies that are struggling with the same issue. To date, I don’t know of any that have been filed yet against juveniles, but we have one particular case where we are making that recommendation to law enforcement right now,” Wyatt said.

In this case, they are working with a school resource officer at a school where a student under 18 is facing charges for a crime, requiring he not have access to weapons to determine if they need an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

“We would file the ERPO against the juvenile because the father has access to firearms in the home, and the father is not being cooperative with law enforcement to confirm that the firearms are out of the home,” Wyatt said.

She said police had tried several times to confirm with the father where the guns are located, but he refuses to comply.

Wyatt said using the ERPO would not be about taking away the father’s firearms rights.

We’re trying to say, ‘Dad lawfully can possess those guns,’ and we would hope that most parents have given law enforcement reassurances where the firearms are. But in this particular case, the father has declined to give any of those reassurances. So we would say that the juvenile could not be in that home with access to firearms. If dad wants to keep the firearms in the home and not share the information, you know that puts him in a difficult position,” Wyatt said.

If the ERPO was served on the child in this case, the dad would then have to choose between proving to law enforcement where the guns are so they know they’re not in the house, or having the child live elsewhere.

Wyatt says overall, they are seeing a lot of success with ERPOs, including another case where they served one to an 18-year-old student in Seattle, who police came to talk to regarding a drug issue and were allowed to search his bag. When school officials and law enforcement searched the student’s bag, they found a loaded gun with the safety off in the backpack.

Wyatt said that on top of the criminal issues there, that the 18-year-old showed extremely negligent behavior with a firearm. That ultimately was why they filed an ERPO against the student, to ensure he could no longer legally buy guns currently legally available.

Those are just some of the examples Wyatt gave lawmakers earlier this month to highlight the importance of ERPOs, and the urgent need to clarify the state law on their use in juvenile cases, as the work group recommended.

The work group also recommended more promotion of the existence of ERPOs and their uses to both law enforcement and the public, and that a second violation of an Extreme Risk Protection Order leads to the permanent loss of a person’s firearms rights.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Why no Red Flag law enforcement? Mercy Hospital shooter allowed to purchase gun despite previously threatening to shoot up fire academy

Last Monday a shooter went to Mercy Hospital in Chicago and killed his ex-fiancé, a pharmacy resident and a Chicago police officer. He shot himself yet was killed by a police bullet. The shooter wanted a ring back from his ex-fiancé, which led to this tragic incident.

Read about the whole incident here.

Of course without knowing all the details about the shooter, the gun grabbers blamed the NRA, Dana Loesch and lack of gun control.

Let’s take a look at the details we now know, shall we?

According to the Chicago Tribune, the shooter had a troubled history, particularly with women. From their report:

Five years ago, the shooter had threatened to shoot up the Chicago Fire Department Academy, around the time he was fired for failing to show up to work while facing allegations of “improper conduct” toward women there.”

According to a spokesman for the Chicago Fire Department, the shooter was accused of aggressive and improper conduct toward females at the academy and he did not successfully complete his training and was terminated before he finished the academy. No one at the Academy ever reported the threat made to shoot up the Academy to the police.

In 2014, his ex-wife obtained a temporary order of protection against him, alleging that he slept with a pistol under his pillow and had pointed a gun at someone.

Police had advised his ex-wife on how to get a protective order. Police did not investigate further (after the shooter sent his ex-wife harassing texts) nor did they seek out the shooter. The police had “limited probable cause” to pursue the matter.

More details included in that temporary order of protection from Chicago Tribune:

The shooter had twice “pulled out his gun with intent to harm” people when he felt threatened or startled in the prior weeks. In the first instance, he pointed a gun at a real estate agent who arrived at his apartment after forgetting that he had scheduled an appointment to show the home. In another incident, the shooter “felt threatened by a neighbor and ran outside with his gun to look for him,” according to the court records.

The order signed by a judge that day included a demand that Lopez “should be ordered to surrender any and all firearms to the local law enforcement agency.” The order of protection was in effect just over two weeks. A judge dismissed it Dec. 17.”

Despite the two incidents above (threat to shoot up the Academy and temporary protective order), the shooter was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. It was unclear whether the shooter’s alleged past conduct had ever led to any review or temporary revocation of his permission to own or carry a gun.

The shooter was able to obtain an FOID card and a concealed carry permit in 2016. Chicago Police reviewed his application and were unaware of the dismissed protective order. Since the protective order was dismissed, the police could not have denied the shooter a license to carry.

One final note from the Chicago Tribune report: “It was unclear whether Lopez’s legal ability to own or carry a gun was ever challenged or revoked. Officials from the Illinois State Police, the agency responsible for issuing those credentials, declined to comment.”

As defenders of the Second Amendment, we are big fans of due process. From the looks of it, the shooter did not have any legal reason why he could not obtain an FOID license.

But what about the “Red Flag” law that is designed to confiscate firearms of a person deemed an immediate and present danger to themselves or others?

About the “Red Flag” law in Illinois (excerpts from 430 ILCS 65/1):

“Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24-3.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.”

The statute goes on to describe ways in which firearms can be confiscated from a person who communicates a serious threat or physical act of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim; or demonstrates a threatening physical or verbal behavior such as assaultive threats or actions. This can be determined by a law enforcement official, among other people.

Just how “workable” is this system?

The shooter had clearly communicated a serious threat of violence when he threatened to shoot up the Chicago Fire Department Academy. The shooter displayed assaultive actions when he pulled out his gun with intent to harm.

Why did no one report these incidents to the local police? Why did no one feel the need to initiate a proceeding to enforce the Red Flag law?

Gun grabbers want laws on the books to confiscate firearms of dangerous people. Yet are these laws intentionally designed to be useless? This Red Flag law is only enforceable IF someone takes action.

According to gun grabbers Everytown: “Red Flag Laws can save lives by creating a way for family members and law enforcement to act before warning signs escalate into tragedies.”

Key word here is “act.”

If no one acts on warning signs, then dangerous people cannot be stopped.

The cynical side of me believes the “Red Flag” law was designed with inherent flaws. Not everyone will “act” to prevent shootings.

And by the reasoning of gun grabbers, if gun control laws don’t work then shouldn’t the government – as the protector of public safety – confiscate all guns? After all, it would be much less messier to confiscate than nuke the “resisters.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0