Trump Backs 'Red Flag' Laws That Could Impact Veteran Gun Ownership

[Elderberry]

Military.com By Richard Sisk 8/5/2019

President Donald Trump said Monday that he supported the so-called "red flag" laws on gun sales and ownership that have drawn criticism for their potential impact on the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans.

In a 10-minute national address, Trump pledged to act "with urgent resolve" to curb gun violence and prevent mass shootings in response to the killings of at least 31 people over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. "We can and will stop this evil contagion," Trump said.

"That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders" to keep weapons out of the hands of those who may pose a risk to themselves or others, Trump said.

Such laws could be used to "identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence and make sure those people not only get treatment, but, when necessary, involuntary confinement," Trump said. "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."

He said he had also directed the Justice Department to work with local authorities to develop "tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike."

In the absence of federal red flag laws, at least 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own versions which enable family members or police to obtain court orders blocking access to firearms for those who may be a risk to themselves or others.

More: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/05/trump-backs-red-flag-laws-could-impact-veterans-gun-ownership.html

[txradioguy]

@sneakypete

Is this a "bald faced lie" as well?

[Jazzhead]

Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President.   

Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.   

[txradioguy]

Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President.   

Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.

 

Trolls gonna troll. 

[txradioguy]

Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Mr. President.   

Don't waver in the face of the gun extremists.

How is punishing law abiding citizens and violating the Constitution "leadership"?

[txradioguy]

If someone helps a veteran with their VA benefits, the veteran can be reported to NICS. Just because someone helped them. It’s wrong on so many levels. And the weapons can be kept for up to a year, sometimes longer. It’s difficult to get them back, even if the situation that prompted it was only a temporary one.

Why does Jazzy hate veterans so much?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Getting all worked up due to an article that really doesn't tell us anything specific and is from six days ago    .   

[txradioguy]

Getting all worked up due to an article that really doesn't tell us anything specific and is from six days ago    .

It's an important and really an aspect of the Red Flag laws that isn't talked about.

As an example...let's say I go to behavioral health to talk with someone about how do deal with an issue with a coworker in my unit...there's a series of questions you have to answer via computer when you check in for your appointment...and I happen to answer some of those questions (ex: "How often in the last 7 days have you felt no excitement about work"  "How often in the last 7 days have you felt little joy in activities you normally enjoy) in a way that triggers in the computer and alerts my health provider...that could be used as the impetus to seize my guns and make it damn near impossible to get back.

All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation.

Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated?

What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal?

They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".

Where does it end?  Where is the line drawn?

[txradioguy]

Also, what happens to a soldier that gets trapped in the red flag laws while still on active duty.

Are they then forbidden from carrying their assigned weapon while at the qualification range or in the field training?

[Jazzhead]

Where does it end?  Where is the line drawn?

Any constitutional red flag law will afford due process protections along the lines discussed by David French in a recent thread.    That's how it ends.   With due process - the foundational principle of the rule of law under our Constitutional republic.   

And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings.   Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.   

[roamer_1]

And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings.   Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.

When Conservatives ENGAGE and become part of the solution, there's a dead shooter.
Works for me.

[txradioguy]

Any constitutional red flag law will afford due process protections along the lines discussed by David French in a recent thread.    That's how it ends.   With due process - the foundational principle of the rule of law under our Constitutional republic.   

And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings.   Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.

Right so no line is drawn so at any time an anti-gunner like yourself can just move the bar on that and decide that anyone THEY determine unfit can their 2A rights stripped from them.


Got it.

BTW...if I were to fall victim to a Red Flag law how do you know if you send the cops to my house you've got all my guns?

[roamer_1]

BTW...if I were to fall victim to a Red Flag law how do you know if you send the cops to my house you've got all my guns?

Red law or no, you won't have all of mine, I'll tell you what... And boy, will I be pissed.

[txradioguy]

Red law or no, you won't have all of mine, I'll tell you what... And boy, will I be pissed.

Same here.  On both counts.

[libertybele]

If someone helps a veteran with their VA benefits, the veteran can be reported to NICS. Just because someone helped them. It’s wrong on so many levels. And the weapons can be kept for up to a year, sometimes longer. It’s difficult to get them back, even if the situation that prompted it was only a temporary one.

Why does Jazzy hate veterans so much?

Well, why does @Jazzhead object to conservatism so much?

[roamer_1]

Well, why does @Jazzhead object to conservatism so much?

No, see, HE'S the conservative. We're all what he calls extremists. 

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

Is this a "bald faced lie" as well?

@txradioguy

Time will tell.

Given his lifelong negotiating strategy is to keep his opponents off balance and surprise them,I will be convinced he is serious about it when he signs it into law. Until then it is nothing but "theater".

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

Time will tell.

Given his lifelong negotiating strategy is to keep his opponents off balance and surprise them,I will be convinced he is serious about it when he signs it into law. Until then it is nothing but "theater".

He's also at times been a supporter of the AWB too.  So you're right time will tell.

I just wanted to see what you'd say about this since you called me a liar yesterday for factually stating Trump supported Red Flag laws.

[Right_in_Virginia]

They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".

Where does it end?   

Here's where it ends @txradioguy

Can be changed by a 5-4 Supreme Court Decision:

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment 

[txradioguy]

Here's where it ends @txradioguy

Can be changed by a 5-4 Supreme Court Decision:

@Right_in_Virginia

The decision in Heller has nothing to do with red flag laws.

All Heller did was reaffirm what was already written in the Second Amendment.  Despite what some people here claim...the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't just magically appear with the Heller decision.  It was embedded in this country when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified.

And given the threats by Liberal Senators yesterday to the SCOTUS about changes they'll make to the court if they don't vote the "right way" on a 2nd Amendment Case before them right now just highlights how far the left and their facillitators will go to take away a fundamental right of everyone in this country.

It's also a perfect example of why we shouldn't be so willing to give up our guns.

[Jazzhead]

[
All Heller did was reaffirm what was already written in the Second Amendment.  Despite what some people here claim...the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't just magically appear with the Heller decision.  It was embedded in this country when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified.

You are an ostrich with your head in the sand.   

[skeeter]

And the best way to ensure that such a law has robust due process protections is for conservatives and gun owners to ENGAGE and be part of the solution to mass shootings.   Not just bleat out spasms of selfish anger and paranoia.

Obviously the solution to mass shootings is universal right to carry, the only course of action that offers any hope of regularly stopping these killers.

The left & others needs to 'engage' on this to be part of the solution, and not just their spew anti 2A nonsense.

[sneakypete]

You are an ostrich with your head in the sand.

@Jazzhead @txradioguy

It's awful big of you to admit that even an ostrich with it's head in the sand understands more than you.

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead @txradioguy

It's awful big of you to admit that even an ostrich with it's head in the sand understands more than you.

I realized I knew more about the 2A the moment he hit send on his first post on the subject.

[Jazzhead]

I realized I knew more about the 2A the moment he hit send on his first post on the subject.

Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.   

[roamer_1]

Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.

Not without coming to take it from my cold dead hands.

[txradioguy]

Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror and take that statement of yours to heart.

[Jazzhead]

Not without coming to take it from my cold dead hands.

 

[roamer_1]

And I am by no means alone.

[Bigun]

And I am by no means alone.

That's a line that many millions will not cross.  Count on it!

[roamer_1]

That's a line that many millions will not cross.  Count on it!

Behind every blade of grass...

[DCPatriot]

That's a line that many millions will not cross.  Count on it!

In this day and age...unless they're raising carrier pigeons right now, it will be impossible for gun-owners to form cells.

I saw what Janet Reno's DOJ did when they wanted your weapons.  Kids burned alive.

We'd better not "...go quietly into the night".

[Cyber Liberty]

In this day and age...unless they're raising carrier pigeons right now, it will be impossible for gun-owners to form cells.

I saw what Janet Reno's DOJ did when they wanted your weapons.  Kids burned alive.

We'd better not "...go quietly into the night".

Those cells will form the instant the indiscriminate confiscations begin.  Our side will not draw first blood.

[Cyber Liberty]

Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.

And I say your eagerness to trample the rights of others will cause the loss of OUR precious rights.  Yours, too.  You are the one lacking in humility and intellectual horsepower here.

[Victoria33]

@txradioguy

All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation. Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated?  What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal?  They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end?  Where is the line drawn?

I will tell you as I worked counseling/testing thousands of people.  With universal background checks, your doctors will be contacted by the govn.  Medical forms you fill out or questions answered by you and recorded will be provided to the govn.

If one has gone to someone like me, they will be contacted.  Law said I had to give documents about a patient if he/she was sent to court.  What I did to protect a patient from what he/she said, was, I didn't write it down.  My memory was so good then, when a patient came the next week, I knew exactly where we left off the week before.  I had no document about what a person said.

Exception:  If a patient said he/she was going to kill someone, had a plan to do it, was going to do it, I was required to report that to law enforcement.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation. Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated?  What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal?  They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end?  Where is the line drawn?

I will tell you as I worked counseling/testing thousands of people.  With universal background checks, your doctors will be contacted by the govn.  Medical forms you fill out or questions answered by you and recorded will be provided to the govn.

If one has gone to someone like me, they will be contacted.  Law said I had to give documents about a patient if he/she was sent to court.  What I did to protect a patient from what he/she said, was, I didn't write it down.  My memory was so good then, when a patient came the next week, I knew exactly where we left off the week before.  I had no document about what a person said.

Exception:  If a patient said he/she was going to kill someone, had a plan to do it, was going to do it, I was required to report that to law enforcement.

Yeah it has the potential from the start to punish those as you said "had no choice but to be treated?" 

IIRC the same is true for soldiers who lost a leg or an arm and are doing rehab and recovery whether they stay on active duty or not after the event...there is some mandatory sessions with a shrink.

that can and beleive me will be used as justification to "red flag that soldier".

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

The decision in Heller has nothing to do with red flag laws.

I agree.  Heller is where the democrats will go to overturn your right to have a gun --- outside a state-run National Guard.

All Heller did was reaffirm what was already written in the Second Amendment.

This is really a split decision.  Many on the other side believe the Constitution means exactly what it says:   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Despite what some people here claim...the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't just magically appear with the Heller decision. 

So says you and five SC judges.  What happens when it's them and five SC judges? 


@txradioguy

[txradioguy]

I agree.  Heller is where the democrats will go to overturn your right to have a gun --- outside a state-run National Guard.

They can try and they will fail.  They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the roght of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published. 

The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.

This is really a split decision.  Many on the other side believe the Constitution means exactly what it says:   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

So says you and five SC judges.  What happens when it's them and five SC judges?

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed. 

[Bigun]

They can try and they will fail.  They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the roght of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published. 

The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Schools of Law are the biggest indoctrination centers in existence!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

I get this @txradioguy  … citizen army.  But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state". 

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.

See, this is the problem.  [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary).  Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.

Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns.  Don't you dare -- you know they will.


Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020.  Very carefully.

[Cyber Liberty]

They can try and they will fail.  They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the right of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published. 

The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.

VERY minor quibble:  The right to self defense has existed since the dawn of man.  It's a "Natural Right," not to be granted or rescinded by hand of man.

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.

I know the answer to that one...

[skeeter]

I get this @txradioguy  … citizen army.  But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state". 

See, this is the problem.  [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary).  Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:

I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?

Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.

[txradioguy]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Schools of Law are the biggest indoctrination centers in existence!

The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.

[Bigun]

The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.

Yeah! That's what I thought.  Good to know others see it as well.

[Bigun]

I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?

Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.

The part that @Right_in_Virginia and others here completely miss is the FACT that the 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT, not the people.

[Cyber Liberty]

I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?

Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.

Perzackly, which is why it isn't a "Predicate Clause," it's an "Explanatory Clause."

[Cyber Liberty]

The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.

That's true of all the Liberal Arts majors.

[txradioguy]

I get this @txradioguy  … citizen army.  But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state".

In Colonial times there was no formal organized Army like we think of today.  If Washington needed to raise an army he looked to the state militias.  They were the precursor to what we now know as the National Guard.

But even then the individual was responsible for the purchase and upkeep of their own personally owned weapon.

So well regulated and state had totally different meanings and purposes when that part of the 2nd Amendment was written.

See, this is the problem.  [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary).  Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:

Ummm yes it DOES speak to the individual.  Right after the comma where it talks about the militia and the state it very clearly says:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It doesn't get much clearer than that.  If you don't see that then I'm not sure what version of the 2nd Amendment you're looking at quite frankly.

One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.

No it's not.  And it's very naive to think that.  All you're doing at this point is repeating the same jibberish that Jazzy is.  Why I don't know.

Again Heller didn't extend any right.  The right was already there.  Heller reaffirmed that right.

I suggest you read ALL of Scalia's majority opinion.

Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns.  Don't you dare -- you know they will.

They know they can't do it through the courts and they won't get it done by repealing the 2nd Amendment outright. If they could they would have either under Clinton or Obama.  Fienstien said as much in 1994 when the Assault Weapons ban went into effect.

So they do it through all these red flag laws and registrations schemes.  Or apply exceedingly high taxes to make it impossible for you and I to purchase a gun...which is in turn a defacto band and violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020.  Very carefully.

Trump needs to do the same.  He's voicing support for these Democrat born ideas of gun control and on top of that he's got Ivanka in the background on the phone to Republicans twisting arms to get support.

Trump is playing with re-election fire if he does even a tenth of what the Libs want.

[Bigun]

That's true of all the Liberal Arts majors.

"Departments of Education represent the slums of any University"

Dr. Walter E. Williams

[Cyber Liberty]

Trump needs to do the same.  He's voicing support for these Democrat born ideas of gun control and on top of that he's got Ivanka in the background on the phone to Republicans twisting arms to get support.

Trump is playing with re-election fire if he does even a tenth of what the Libs want.

This is exactly how I said it to my Senator last week, for which I was accused of "bullying" her.  "Stand fast, or you will lose next year" is what I said.