NRA Supports States Enacting ‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’

“We need to stop dangerous people before they act, so Congress should provide funding for states to adopt risk protection orders. This can help prevent violent behavior before it turns into a tragedy. These laws allow a court to intervene and temporarily remove firearms when a person threatens violence to themselves or others.” And with that, the NRA’s Chis Cox made official the gun rights org’s support for confiscating an individual’s firearms based on a friend’s or family member’s suspicions.

The NRA is obviously feeling the heat and feeling pressure to, well, do something in the face of a rising tide of gun control bills being enacted in various states following the Parkland massacre. This appears to be the “solution” they worked out with President Trump in their recent meeting at the White House.

So-called extreme risk protection orders were included among the proposals the Trump administration announced over the weekend.

The proposals announced Sunday include “things that we know have broad-based support and can immediately get done,” she said. That includes encouraging states to train school personnel to use guns and to adopt “extreme risk protection orders” that would allow weapons to be seized from people considered dangerous with a court’s approval, as the National Rifle Association has insisted.

We’re living in interesting times.

comments

  1. avatar Joe R. says:

    “NRA Supports States Enacting ‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’”

    They need to be the first target. Followed immediately, if not concurrently, by the stupid MF judge who issued the order, and the MF that served it. They are all too fucking stupid-crazy to be walking around wielding that kind of power.

    1. avatar Flinch says:

      Crap. Another shirt ruined by bus tire tracks.

      Ok. Now you can worry.

      1. avatar One Term Trump says:

        Battered Wife Syndrome ,
        ” Trump and the N.R.A. are stripping our Freedoms away …. but I know they don’t ‘ mean it ‘ …. it’s just 4 – D chess , yeah thats it. ”
        —— Just as people are refusing to see the Coordinated , multi-front attack on 2 A , many refuse to admit — TRUMP LIED & The SECOND AMENDMENT DIED !

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          @ NO TERM HILLARY

          At least we didn’t have to start in on this shit a year and ~2 months ago. After (D) brain Ohole that woulda been extra depressing.

    2. avatar binder says:

      I’t simple. If someone is “dangerous” enough to have their guns taken away, they are “dangerous” enough to have an arrest warrant issued. Protections against false arrest apply. Don’t half ass it. That way the arresting agency and the person filing the report have significant legal jeopardy.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Agree. If you cannot trust them with guns, they may be one bad hombre.

  2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Do not misunderstand me, I do NOT support this, but, if this proposal does go through, WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN FOR THIS COMPRISE???? Where is National Reciprocity??? (Ps- I’m a life member and I’m pissed at the NRA.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Me too. If someone is a danger then lets verify and have them evaluated before we go after their property. Seems like they want the guns then they will let the person alone. I don’t think these RPO’s will stand the constitutional test. Seems like due process is not popular in a socialist mindset. Didn’t think they could come up with anything worse that the Patriot act but they have. Succession.

      1. avatar Flinch says:

        I assume that “extreme “ is more than “high” but less than “severe.” Or perhaps “extreme “ is less than “high” but more than “elevated.”

        Is there a checklist somewhere. Or maybe a Facebook quiz titled “R U an Extreme Risk to Yourself or Others? Click Here and Find Out!”

        Click.

        SWAT is on their way!

        And when they arrive to take my guns I’m just going to smile and say, “You’re going to need a bigger truck!”

        1. avatar Wiregrass says:

          Ask Tom Ridge. Maybe he can get you a color code scheme and paint the Extreme Risk with the appropriate colors.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Boom.

          Even Ron White did better with his state of alert levels.

          https://youtu.be/gEDpTidAPwU

    2. avatar 2nd Amendment Patriot says:

      Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre have to go. Their style of giving up our rights under a so-called compromise has to end. They always talk about compromising, when was the last time the Second Amendment had anything given back to it that wasn’t already taken? The answer is never. The left has incrementally dismantled the Second Amendment, and if we allow them to continue we will be left with nothing but bows and arrows and then they’ll find a way to ban those too.

      There must be due process and someone must be adjudicated as mentally ill to take away their second amendment rights. You cannot take away someone’s rights for something they might do. That’s not how a free Society works. If this is allowed to stand then every liberal family member will be calling the cops on their conservative family member when they have an argument at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

      Every scorned ex spouse will be calling the cops on the other, ex girlfriends and boyfriends, cranky neighbors, get into an internet argument with someone and they will be reporting you to the FBI out of spite. You name it and they will do it. It is for to ripe for abuse.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        Thank you!
        This is going to become a witch hunt. A nightmare where every single gun hater is going to whistle-blow friends, family or any person they feel they want to hurt.
        Imagine the legal fees, dignity lost, live and reputations destroyed, and complete loss of a Right!

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        Every scorned ex spouse will be calling the cops on the other, ex girlfriends and boyfriends, cranky neighbors, get into an internet argument with someone and they will be reporting you to the FBI out of spite. You name it and they will do it. It is for to ripe for abuse.

        They now call that “swatting.”

      3. avatar rt66paul says:

        Discipline your teen by taking away the keys to the family car and have him/her sic the gun police on you. Have a drug addled family member that is not allowed on your property? Maybe they will turn you in, so they can come into your home and clean you out of easily salable valuables.

        I can see so many ways that allowing this to happen without due process can be a real fustercluck. What happens when a LEO has marital problems? Are they any different? will they be allowed a sidearm because “they are always on duty”? Just another example of setting civilian police above civilians.

    3. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Oh we get the reassurance that we won’t get a more draconian gun ban in the future.

      In laymen’s terms. We get two things: Jack and shit; and Jack left town.

  3. avatar Joe R. says:

    The operative phrase is “provide funding for states to adopt risk protection orders.”

    It’s not only a gun-grab, it’s an OFF ELECTION YEAR $$$$$$$$$ GRAB TO PROVIDE PRECINCT AND PARISH “WALK AROUND MONEY” (cash hand outs for votes) TO STUPID POS (D) MFs BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.

    YOU’LL LIKELY SEE A HUGE SPIKE IN ‘GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH’ FUNDING ALL TO GO FEED THE COFFERS OF THE STUPID

    FUCKING

    POS

    (D)

    for the same purpose.

    So we can do a “two-party system” swirly on the rest of the bona fide citizenry.

    F em all.

    1. avatar B-Rad says:

      Where are all these (D)s you’re crowing about, this is all (R)s. From the white house, through congress, to states, the NRA, this is all (R)s.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        There are more than enough Leftist’s,on either side of the same coin.

        1. avatar Pax Rock says:

          Don’t be a simpleton. The R’s didn’t just dream this up themselves, they’re being pressured by the Ds and those exploiting dead children to push an agenda.

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          I’d be willing to bet it took extreme pressure to convince unwavering rock solid staunch conservatives such as McCain,Graham,Cornyn,the list is long of spineless,worthless POS with a R after their names.
          I can use just two hands to total up proven conservatives ,now explain how simplistic reality is.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        It’s a soros-sucking Pelosi / Schumer thing. Trump and the NRA are just complicit, and it’ll hurt 2018/2020 elections.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          So Pelosi and Schumer are running Trump, Ryan, Sessions, etc. OK. And a guy with less money than Trump, Soros, has so much power that…

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          . . . You can’t keep up with current events. ? Pelosi and Schumer wrote this crap. All of it.

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/house-leaders-add-failed-2007-gun-controls-national-reciprocity/

  4. avatar MAGA says:

    WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING?!!!

    Are they seriously going to kowtow to a bunch of kids???

    What if you just have a family member who hates guns and thinks no one should have one? They can say you are crazy just because they want all guns confiscated, and they figure they can start with YOU!

    With friends like the NRA, who needs enemies?

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      @ MAGA

      Answer,Negotiating Rights Away since 1934

      History
      1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
      The amendment reads:

      “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.”

      After That
      1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
      and Gen. George Wingate.

      After that, they start going the other way

      1934:  http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

      1939 http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

      1968: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

      1986:  http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

      1993 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

      1994 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

      What is a inalienable individual right and what is a privilege?
      What does “shall not be infringed” plainly mean?
      Does the NRA support the unalienable individual right of the individual to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by government or does the NRA support government privileges?

      The answer to those three questions prove my point. The are self-evident. Do you understand what self-evident means? No further discussion is required.

      1. avatar George says:

        Great post. HOOAH!👍

    2. avatar Ed says:

      The NRA bows down to the Tide Pod eaters…they’ve reached a new low. This is FUCKIN SICKENING!

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Trump is being Trump and the NRA is being the NRA. Both have clearly shown, time and time again, what they stand for and it ain’t the exercise of unalienable individual rights.

      Perhaps this time the stupid and docile will see? I seriously doubt it.

  5. avatar Anner says:

    What…the…

  6. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    So stupid. I have no words.

  7. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Even the ACLU is worried about these orders

    It’s possible the NRA is playing a political game here, looking “reasonable” to the mainstream while knowing full well that these will be markedly restricted in the courts …especially as more Trump judges are appointed.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Wishful thinking. Likely in this case, a spade is quite simply a spade.

    2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      They no longer get the benifit of the doubt with me after I believed they had a hidden strategy when they suggested another review of bump stocks. And guess what, we are losing them in the precise way it was suggested they be “regulated”.

      1. avatar HP says:

        Let’s wait until the dust settles and see where bump stocks stand. If I understand correctly, there are still some hurdles to be jumped before they are regulated like full auto’s or banned or whatever is being reported. Let’s wait and see.

        Regarding these “extreme risk protection orders”, they essentially seem to be redundant of laws already on the books, at least if a judge is the one making the call to have firearms taken. Let’s wait and see.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          No.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…at least if a judge is the one making the call to have firearms taken.”

          A judge changes things, how?

          GVROs are not like regular search warrants. If I call the cops and declare that I believe Mr. Bill is threatening to rob the Girl Scout cookie table at Walmart, Mr. Bill does not have his second amendment rights suspended while police investigate. Heck, cops probably wouldn’t even investigate such a call.

          With GVROs, cops show up with an affidavit stating someone saw something, and said something. Probable cause is de facto established. Under the GVRO laws, judges may actually have no alternatives to signing a properly filled-in GVRO (or equivalent). On the other hand, which judge is going to risk the blowback from denying a GVRO, and having the person making the complaint end up dead? The GVRO laws do not require a legal proceeding where the accused is represented. Judges get one side, sign the order/warrant, and go back to sleep.

        3. avatar HP says:

          I’m not saying that having a judge involves directly somehow makes this a good thing. I’m not saying I agree with it, either. I was suggesting that not much has changed, many states are already doing this, just without the “extreme” label.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I think a more likely explanation is that the NRA saw BIG dollar signs: figuring that the prospects (or actual passing) of extreme risk protection orders would rile-up countless multitudes of Second Amendment supporters and drive them to join the NRA.

      1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Wait…if the NRA is supporting ERPOs and the average gun-owner is against ERPOs, why would that drive them to join the NRA?

        1. avatar HP says:

          Seriously. By that logic, we should all join Everytown for Gun Safety.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Danny,

          I think you overestimate how well-informed the average gun-owner is. Most gun-owners will have no idea that the NRA endorsed extreme risk protection orders. All the average gun-owner will hear is that legislation is pending (or passes) for extreme risk protection orders and send money to the NRA assuming that the NRA will resist the legislation. Still other firearm owners who favor extreme risk protection orders will gladly support the NRA for supporting extreme risk protection orders.

          I could be totally wrong. That is my sense of the matter.

    4. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Some games should not be played.

    5. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Please, let’s not start that shit again.

  8. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    Fuck em’ and their “ingenious” stratagems.

  9. avatar rocketscientist says:

    As with everything, the devil will be in the details. The medical secrecy stuff needs rethinking when psych doctors are reluctant to tell authorities that their patient has all these kill fantasies and is heavily medicated with reality bending drugs (or drugs that are needed to prevent reality bending). Germans learned the hard way with Germanwings 9525 that at some point someone has to report crazy. over 40 doctors saw this idiot and they all thought he was crazy and should not be piloting planes and gave him basically self-reporting slips that he was required (on his own mind you) to turn in to his employer. Batshit crazy aside, IMO the bar needs to be pretty high for earmarking someone as “extreme risk” and taking away a constitutional right. anecdotal evidence of conversations, heated arguments, or bitter ex’s is no bueno.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      So you support the second amendment, but…

      You’re against the government intruding on people’s private affairs, but…

      You believe all Americans have inalienable rights, but…

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Actually, I think he’s saying he’s going to take a wait and see attitude about how outraged he’ll be, until all the details are revealed. I feel the same way. It’ll either be, call the NRA and tell them to pound sand, or, have a stroke. I didn’t read where he said even with the details that he would/could find this palatable, at all.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        DoomGuy,

        I am about as staunch a Second Amendment supporter that you will find. And I am about as absolute on the Second Amendment as you will find. Even I recognize that there is a point at which someone demonstrates that they are dangerously mentally ill and it is therefore time to get a court order which has police arrest them and then have multiple psychiatrists, physicians (to rule out medical conditions that could make a person appear to be mentally ill), and psychologists evaluate the person to concur that they are horribly mentally ill and have to be in a psychiatric hospital until cured, if ever.

        This confinement in a psychiatric hospital would be by court order after the court determines that the person of interest truly is mentally ill and extremely dangerous. And I am talking a proceeding on the up-and-up with legal representation for the suspected mentally ill person, not some kangaroo court or rubber stamp process.

        I have heard of one such person in my circle of acquaintances that is a prime candidate: a man is schizophrenic, does not take his medication, talks about the voices in his head telling him awful things, talks about how various people are conspiring to murder him, and talks about how he is going to take them out before they take him out. THIS is the type of person that a court should adjudicate as mentally ill and confine to a psychiatric hospital until cured.

        1. avatar DoomGuy says:

          What you describe though will never happen.

          It’s always a kangaroo court because we take people “suspected” of being mentally ill (as if it were some crime) and without or very little due process, we lock them up and throw away the key and treat them like subhuman trash, when even convicted murderers who are eligible for parole will get out of prison.

          The “mentally ill” have the right to defend themselves too until they are convicted of a crime (and the “mentally ill” are far more likely to be victimized themselves).

          And then there is the ever more disturbing and fast growing trend of society wanting to diagnose and treat people who are merely different as “‘mentally ill”, if you aren’t a typical person who fits into the mold of what society says “normal” is.

          Want to be left alone and don’t like to socialize but with a close group of a few people? You have “anti-social personality disorder”, and you need to be doped up and forced to socialize.

          Like guns and not sports? You’re a potential ticking time bomb and we must send the jackboots to kick your door in, lock you up for life and dope you up to make you forget about that social taboo.

          Like all the correct things, exhibit the appropriate “good boy” social traits, and yet are a complete bully and manipulative monster underneath? Well, youre completely normal, and you get to do whatever you want.

          That’s why I get so upset at this bullshit and idiot people like rocketscientist who will gladly sell other politically inconvenient people down the river because he thinks of he just throws enough of his fellow citizens under the bus, then he’ll be spared he Gun grabbers’ wrath.

          It’s like we have learned nothing from history and it’s infuriating.

        2. avatar DoomGuy says:

          And then that person you describe is only one person. We should not throw away our entire constitutional republic and system of due process over one specific case.

        3. avatar DoomGuy says:

          And then of course there’s the political abuse that will inevitably occur.

          Don’t like progressivism being taught in schools? You’re insane because only an insane person would be against that…

          Want a gun because you believe it’s your right? You’re dangerously mentally ill because only an insane person would believe that.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Albert Wong, the 36-year-old Army veteran who killed three women and himself at the Pathway Home in California, had his permit revoked — and still had guns. These ERPOs will do nothing to prevent shootings, but will empower evil politicians and bureaucrats to beat down the innocent.

    And as an aside, I’m thinking that it won’t be long until the MSM calls Wong a “white Asian.”

    1. avatar Marcus says:

      A perfect example of a potentially good law failing fat on its face! I wont be surprise if more such incidents happen in CA.

    2. avatar Marcus says:

      A perfect example of a potentially beneficial law falling flat on its face!

    3. avatar CLarson says:

      So that’s why the story disappeared. It was an Asian guy. Now that’s just inconvenient. I blame the victims for their unhelpful choice of murderer.

    4. avatar DaveL says:

      No doubt he was on the waiting list for gun confiscation. No, really, that’s a thing in California. The last I checked, it wasn’t as long as it used to be, but still several years long.

    5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Ralph,

      “These ERPOs will do nothing to prevent shootings, but will empower evil politicians and bureaucrats to beat down the innocent.”

      I am thinking more along the lines that Progressives will use Extreme Risk Protection Orders to suppress their political enemies. (And when I say “Progressives”, I mean politicians AND disgruntled family members, neighbors, and coworkers as well.)

  11. avatar JMR says:

    This should be it, there should be no gun owner that agrees with this.

    But they will, because they are idiots, the NRA does not care about your rights they care about money Period.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      They care about both. If we lose all of our rights the NRA goes out of business and hence they lose all their money. It is a balancing act apparently.

      1. avatar JMR says:

        My ass. The only thing the NRA thinks about our rights is “how slowly can we give these up and fundraise off of them to line our pockets”

        They do nothing to give us our rights back.

        In fact they help take them away. Then they say “give us more money so this doesn’t happen again” then they do it again.

        Ask yourself, “why in the Hell is it that not only are we losing our right with a republican majority, but the antis are bolder now then when Obama and the Democrats had a majority”

        We began this term with “were going to get reciprocity and deregulate suppressors!” (Which the NRA never wanted) and now people are saying “Okay we’ll give up bump stocks, but that’s it. And if we can get away with just losing them we’ll be alright”

        What a joke. And the NRA has been helping that process the whole time.

        1. avatar Mark says:

          You blame the NRA and its 5 million members. I blame the 150 million plus gun owners that AREN’T members of the NRA, GOA, and SAF or anything else for that matter. . We are at fault, not the NRA. We are the NRA. Think about that. Reflect on what would happen if the NRA/GOA/SAF had 150 million members. We would get anything we wanted and then some.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You can’t be serious, Mark. If you are then I pity you.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          That’s the NRA’s line. And, I guess, “everything we wanted” now includes ERPOs?

          Ya, Fuck that.

        4. avatar JMR says:

          Yea blame the guys calling for these things.

          I know it’s a crazy idea to you, but to me it makes sense which is why I’m doing it.

          The NRA sells our rights to make money, if they had 150 million more members the only thing they would change is how much money they gave themselves as pay.

          They have a long history of doing this, the Members have tried to change this twice to my knowledge and both times the NRA changed the way it works so that it failed.

  12. avatar Marcus says:

    This will only work if someone who asks for such a restraining order does so under oath and faces harsh fines and prison time for a false or unjustified statement. Many EX’s have made crazy rape statements just to seek revenge and its not unlikely that the same incident could happen in this case.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      “This will only work if someone who asks for such a restraining order does so under oath and faces harsh fines and prison time for a false or unjustified statement.”

      Such penalties would not be a high priority for enforcement against those that had “pure” and “enlightened” intentions. David Gregory violating D.C. “law” and the recent stunt by Karen Mallard are prime examples.

      1. avatar Scott says:

        I agree. The law should state that upon the accused’s successful defense and the guns return, the person making the complaint and the agency taking the guns are liable for all costs (real and opportunity) and damages (including time spent in defense) incurred by the accused. This should be written into the law. It should be automatic with no need to go to court separate from the hearing that returns the guns. No appeal of the award by the accuser/agency. They implicitly agree to this risk by making the complaint/executing the confiscation. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No due process for the accuser and the agency that implements the order, just as none was given to the accused.

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      One thing they absolutely have to get out of such legislation, something which features in some versions of it, is the part that allows any LEO to apply for it. This makes it essentially a search warrant where “reasonable cause” to suspect future violence substitutes for probable cause of involvement with a specific crime. Considering the sort of universally applicable generalities that courts have come to accept as “reasonable suspicion”*, you can expect such orders to be handed out like after-dinner mints.

      *Including, among other things, staring at police, avoiding eye contact with police, driving fast, driving slow, driving exactly the speed limit, being alone in the car, having a car full of people, having exactly two people in the car, driving a brand new car, driving an old beat-up car, and an all-time favorite, “furtive movement.”

      1. avatar 2004done says:

        By YOUR definitions, walking, sitting on your porch, and raking leaves wouldn’t be suspicious … yet. I’m wondering “how can you be so optimistic?”

  13. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Sure makes all the posturing by Mommy Blogger Dana look a little foolish now…

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Dana is on the griddle, now. It will be interesting, maybe even entertaining, to see how she reacts. Maybe she believes she has enough name recognition to be her own organization, divorced from NRA. When you loudly proclaim to present “the clenched fist of truth”, and that fist smacks you in the mouth…..

      There have been dozens of objections here to what the NRA did. Question: why did they do it? No real insightful answer has been forthcoming. So I put on my “What would an organization do if it thought it was losing privilege with the powerful?” hat.

      Quietly contemplating the seemingly contradictory stances of the NRA, along with a cold look at what is going on around the nation, I concluded that POTG are not winning the public or political war. Successfully defending is not “winning”, it is simply “not losing”. That results, at best, in status quo. So what is it the executives of NRA know or foresee that we are not aware of. One possible answer is the NRA sees future widespread of privately held firearms as dismal.

      The NRA was not designed as a “gun rights” defender. It was conceived as a solution to poor marksmanship demonstrated by Union forces. Along the way, firearm safety was incorporated, possibly because all those big city boys of the North were a danger to themselves when in uniform, and when involved in marksmanship training.

      Perhaps the NRA sees that it hasn’t the interest in, or commitment to, eternally fighting the 2A battle. Perhaps the NRA sees its future in not being an obstacle to the inevitable. Perhaps NRA sees its future as once again, the champion for rifle shooting and gun safety. If the NRA perceives that every type of handgun, and the “scary black rifles” could eventually result is the complete loss of ability to operate, maybe the NRA sees hope in siding with gun control as a means of one day enabling a “carve out” that would prevent gun control efforts from removing traditional rifle sports and recreation. Just maybe, NRA has some inside information that threatens their very existence, and the prime directive is now the emphasis.

      All in all, NRA is not a bunch of dumb quacks who have no ability to think. There is something going on that POTG are behind the power curve in seeing. Not saying that 39D chess is afoot, only that POTG are no longer the major consideration.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I can’t say that I disagree with your speculations.

      2. avatar 2004done says:

        I believe we’ve been sliding down that slippery slope toward democratically-elected-communistic-elitism since Joe McCarthy was successfully vilified, instead of modified. Why would ‘successful campaign tactics’ change horses in the middle of THIS stream?

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Hmmm…and I just sent in my next free NRA membership(courtesy Taurus). I do wish the other gun orgs had ANY pull😡😡😡😡

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Pull comes from membership no?

      On another thought, Esoteric Inanity wonders how an open carry protest of the NRA would be perceived.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Well NO…haven’t been a NRA member for 5 years. I HAVE been accused of “marital” rape by an insane ex. Casually too… covering up her own adultery. Since it was some 35 years ago it carries no weight. Makes you fairly pizzed that the NRA would support this BS…

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “Well NO…haven’t been a NRA member for 5 years.”

          Esoteric Inanity has flirted with the idea of joining the NRA several times in the past. Never did though. The reason, every time this one considered the notion, something always put him off. Typically it was due to a revelation of some egregious stance or act that NRA had either supported or taken.

          This is not to say that Esoteric Inanity is inactive on not only 2A issues, but also most involving the Bill of Rights(civil asset forfeiture issues and 4A/5A being especially important along with gun rights and 1A). He stays, or at least tries, informed of both local and national issues, writes his congressman(state and federal), liberally uses his soap box at any given chance and votes.

          With recent events, this one was finally motivated to join GOA. Pratt and his son have been adamant defenders of the 2A and earned Esoteric Inanity’s respect. Granted, one doesn’t need to be a member of any group, so long as they are active on the issues. If they are not, then joining said organizations will do little good.

          “I HAVE been accused of “marital” rape by an insane ex. Casually too… covering up her own adultery. Since it was some 35 years ago it carries no weight.”

          Esoteric Inanity extends his sincerest condolences to former water walker for his misfortunes. This one hasn’t had much luck with women, so he can relate. Especially when it comes to the crazy ones.

          “Makes you fairly pizzed that the NRA would support this BS…”

          Indeed, Wayne LaPierre could teach Nicolás Maduro a thing or two about power consolidation and selling out his membership/constituents.

          Both the GOP and NRA seem to be in a hurry to appease freedom loathing statists. Guns are merely symbolic of potential resistance and power. What many of these statists fail to comprehend is that the gun is merely an extension of one’s intent. The true weapon is the mind.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        “Pull comes from membership no? ”

        Ya, like we need the NRA to have any more pull right now?

        What, you want them to storm the Capital and demand ERPO’s???

        ALL THE POWER THAT YOU GAVE THEM HAS BEEN DIRECTED
        AGAINST
        YOU.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          ROTFL! Outstanding comment, Joe R.

          They’re already screwing us and some still want to give the NRA a reach around.

        2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Joe R. misunderstands, Esoteric Inanity’s inquiry was posited in response to a certain portion of former water walkers comment. Specifically this: “I do wish the other gun orgs had ANY pull”.

          The idea is to encourage membership with other organizations rather than merely grumbling about no alternative to the NRA and paying one’s dues to them.

          Please read Esoteric Inanity’s response to former water walker for further clarification as to this one’s stance:

          ” “Well NO…haven’t been a NRA member for 5 years.”

          Esoteric Inanity has flirted with the idea of joining the NRA several times in the past. Never did though. The reason, every time this one considered the notion, something always put him off. Typically it was due to a revelation of some egregious stance or act that NRA had either supported or taken.

          This is not to say that Esoteric Inanity is inactive on not only 2A issues, but also most involving the Bill of Rights(civil asset forfeiture issues and 4A/5A being especially important along with gun rights and 1A). He stays, or at least tries, informed of both local and national issues, writes his congressman(state and federal), liberally uses his soap box at any given chance and votes.

          With recent events, this one was finally motivated to join GOA. Pratt and his son have been adamant defenders of the 2A and earned Esoteric Inanity’s respect. Granted, one doesn’t need to be a member of any group, so long as they are active on the issues. If they are not, then joining said organizations will do little good.

          “I HAVE been accused of “marital” rape by an insane ex. Casually too… covering up her own adultery. Since it was some 35 years ago it carries no weight.”

          Esoteric Inanity extends his sincerest condolences to former water walker for his misfortunes. This one hasn’t had much luck with women, so he can relate. Especially when it comes to the crazy ones.

          “Makes you fairly pizzed that the NRA would support this BS…”

          Indeed, Wayne LaPierre could teach Nicolás Maduro a thing or two about power consolidation and selling out his membership/constituents.

          Both the GOP and NRA seem to be in a hurry to appease freedom loathing statists. Guns are merely symbolic of potential resistance and power. What many of these statists fail to comprehend is that the gun is merely an extension of one’s intent. The true weapon is the mind.” “

  15. avatar Ross says:

    So I personally am a second amendment absolutist I believe any infringement is exactly that and infringement whether it be the national firearms act, background checks, concealed carry permit’s, waiting periods, transfer taxes or even a 4473 is a violation of the shall not be infringed clause of the Second Amendment. So how long would it be before I and others that hold the same view would be a victim of a potential extreme risk protection order? I am also a member of the national rifle Association but I am considering no longer supporting the NRA, I did join GOA this year.

  16. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Wow.
    What compensation does the individual with the extreme risk protection order place upon them receive if found not a danger to themselves or others?
    What penalty would be levied upon those who abuse the process for vindictive purposes?
    Why does the “accused” have to bear the burden of proof and provide said proof to the state, that they are not dangerous?
    Why does the NRA “Freedoms Safest Place” support stripping people of their rights ex parte?

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      “Wow.”

      Why the surprise?

      “What compensation does the individual with the extreme risk protection order place upon them receive if found not a danger to themselves or others?”

      The courts “sincerest” apologies.

      “What penalty would be levied upon those who abuse the process for vindictive purposes?”

      Likely none as the accuser was, in the eyes of the court and society, either “well intentioned” or scared.

      “Why does the “accused” have to bear the burden of proof and provide said proof to the state, that they are not dangerous?”

      Due process is an archaic concept in a modern society, interests of public safety and all that bullshit.

      “Why does the NRA “Freedoms Safest Place” support stripping people of their rights ex parte?”

      Because they are fucktards.

      1. avatar Alex Waits says:

        /hat tip

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Ty.

          Sadly though, such bizarre occurrences are becoming the norm. If only more people pondered such inquiries as Alex Waits does. Too few people have the foresight to see past their banal lives and perceive the harbinger of catastrophe that such legislation will herald.

  17. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    This seems to be a move in support of Trump rather than of gun rights. What the hell are they thinking?

  18. avatar Indy Jones says:

    if you’re a life nra member, just remember your election ballot is due in april. vote

    1. avatar JMR says:

      Which will do nothing because not only is the voting not public knowledge but the board members have no power.

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Precisely, as Esoteric Inanity has previously stated: “Wayne LaPierre could teach Nicolás Maduro a thing or two about power consolidation and selling out his membership/constituents.”

  19. avatar Victor says:

    Too dangerous for a gun, you’re too dangerous to walk the streets I say..

  20. avatar Oggy says:

    I joined GOA a while back and have been using their alerts to contact all my congresscritters. I , reluctantly, finally Joined the NRA this past weekend, reasoning more memberships could represent more clout. Then they pull this shit. WTF

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

  21. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    How long till we see these issued against every man getting divorced? That way the soon to be ex can take another pound of flesh, with no due process.

  22. avatar CCityGuy says:

    WHAT. THE. HELL. IS. GOING. ON. WITH. THE. NRA.??? With friends like this, I don’t need enemies!!

  23. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    just renewed my membership to GOA.

    Sorry NRA, you almost had me back despite screwing us Californian’s royally in the referendum about ammo purchases and the new registration requirements for ‘assault weapons’ by not helping financially or physically getting the signatures.

    not a dime. never again.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Stand strong brother. Though the tides ahead shall be rough and fraught with strife, unwavering resolve will be imperative.

      Sál fullr tor hjärta líkr stál.

  24. avatar strych9 says:

    “The proposals announced Sunday include “things that we know have broad-based support and can immediately get done,””

    I see they’re worried about speed and support. No mention of the proposal being Constittional or even moderately effective at doing what it’s supposed to do… rather telling, no?

    1. avatar 2004done says:

      Strych9: Funny you should mention “moderately effective,” while almost all NRA members are screaming it OBVIOUSLY won’t be, but NRA decides it is politically incorrect to provide better alternatives (ban gun-free victims-disarmed zones, remove shut-up-and- pretend-there-are-NEVER-indications-until-due-process-couldn’t-be-completed) besides abusing concept of due process and a non-recoverable loss of natural rights. I’m seeing a disturbing trend, and having written to the WH, I’ll write NRA, AGAIN. but … I thought we were clear in Nov ’16, obviously needing reinforcement of principles.

  25. avatar Ed says:

    Crap like this makes me so glad I quite the NRA. Screw Waye Le PewPew and his bend-over brigades.

  26. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    We are trying to handle pre crime with punishment to prevent the crime from occurring. No one has technically committed a crime, but they will have their dangerous items taken. If they still go on to commit the crime anyway, we can say we successfully identified them, but failed to prevent the crime. If they never commit the crime, did we successfully prevent it, or was there actually no pre crime to begin with, thus a miscarriage of justice and wrongful accusation? We may never know in that case.

    I think you have to target the person, not the pointy things. And still follow due process. If someone is truly a danger there should be evidence. In the case of Cruz it sounds like there may have been domestic violence, threats made. Those could have been prosecuted as actual crimes, not pre crime “please stay away from sharp objects and think happy thoughts, sir!”

  27. avatar Setnakhte says:

    Treacherous scum.

  28. avatar HP says:

    “…that would allow weapons to be seized from people considered dangerous with a court’s approval”

    I’m confused, this seems redundant to laws already in place. In the case of restraining orders, many have conditions in which the possession of firearms or other weapons are prohibited while the order is in effect. The order can only be issued by a judge. So if these “extreme risk protection” orders have to be issued by a judge, how is this any different?

  29. avatar barnbwt says:

    1st Strike – Fix NICS
    2nd Strike – Bump Stocks
    3rd Strike – ERPOs

    All in the span of a week.

    You’re dead to me, NRA

    1. avatar Concerned says:

      Same here. This is my red line with the NRA.

    2. avatar Rick says:

      But they’re suing on the age limit, pay no attention to the other things we’re doing, we’re suing on age limits. We might not actually go to court, it may take years, so ignore the things that take effect immediately.

  30. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I was thinking about telling people I am a member of NRA, just to watch the reaction. Not that there is any proof I am a member (because I am not). Just wanted to jerk some chains. With these “accusation is conviction” orders, now claiming NRA membership doesn’t seem like such a brilliant joke any more.

  31. avatar rudukai13 says:

    Glad I joined GOA last month, and glad I held off on joining NRA…Screw them

  32. avatar Dog of War says:

    If nothing else this is just one more reason why everyone needs a home CNC mill. It get’s real damn hard to regulate weapons that don’t have a paper trail.

    Keep pushing Dems and RINOs, you’ll only make innovate around you.

    1. avatar 2004done says:

      Dog: CNC? Can’t afford one, but I was told about 80% not being illegal, yet. I’ll have to look into that as more affordable.

  33. avatar 5spot says:

    I think the NRA is smarter than this. I’m not a member.
    I think it’s a little game and the NRA may be aware there are not the votes to pass.
    Playing the emotional…hey we were on board……

    1. avatar HP says:

      I wonder that as well. The NRA aren’t stupid. They know there will be a furious backlash from many members over this. I guess stay tuned. We’ll see what happens with this and bump stocks as well.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        They are most definitely stupid. I should think that’s obvious by now

        1. avatar HP says:

          I’ll wait to see what gets passed and put into law, what gets banned/regulated, etc. before I condemn them as “stupid”. And even then, that might not be the appropriate adjective. A whole lot of emotion and not a lot of calm, collected thought is going into the comments on this one.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “They are most definitely stupid. I should think that’s obvious by now”

          The NRA isn’t the only stupid in the room (and I don’t mean you, barnbwt). 😉

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ya, like the DOJ bumpstock ban?

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        Complain to the NRA and get put on a list. Join the NRA, you get put on a list. How long before those lists and many others are there for anti-gunners perusal?

    2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      ‘Tis true, Esoteric Inanity just spoke with Bigfoot and confirmed it. After that, he jumped into a flying saucer and flew off to find Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis to relay the news with Howard Hughes.

  34. avatar Red Forman says:

    Traitors.

  35. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Negotiating Rights Away since 1934 to current.

    History
    1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
    The amendment reads:

    “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.”

    After That
    1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
    and Gen. George Wingate.

    After that, they start going the other way

    1934:  http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

    1939 http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

    1968: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

    1986:  http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

    1993 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

    1994 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

    What is a inalienable individual right and what is a privilege?
    What does “shall not be infringed” plainly mean?
    Does the NRA support the unalienable individual right of the individual to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by government or does the NRA support government privileges?

    The answer to those three questions prove my point. The are self-evident. Do you understand what self-evident means? No further discussion is required.

  36. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Oh, these psychos do indeed need to be plucked from society and separated from their guns, along with their right to roam the streets, too. I’ve said it many times, America needs killer control, not gun control.

    That said, I have NEVER read a bill purporting to address this problem that even remotely hints at passing constitutional muster. Every one I’ve seen proposed or passed amounts to carte blanche for nearly anyone with a grudge against you to conspire with the government to rob you of your freedom, liberty, rights and guns, with only lengthy, expensive, meager, and altogether life-ruining recourse on your part.

    No thanks. The government’s failures are at the core of this problem. I certainly don’t want to give them more uncountable power, let alone pay for it.

  37. avatar TheSophist says:

    So that’s what that whole “Freedoms safest place” ad copy meant. Who knew?

  38. avatar binder says:

    I’t simple. If someone is “dangerous” enough to have their guns taken away, they are “dangerous” enough to have an arrest warrant issued. At that point they be released on bail with the provision that all firearms they have are turned over. Protections against false arrest apply. Don’t half ass it.

    That way the arresting agency and the person filing the report have significant legal jeopardy.

  39. avatar binder says:

    686 Plus has be out for what, 5-6 years.

  40. avatar TommyG says:

    We have something like this already in place in New York. You want to know how often it is used? Almost never. Its similar to cops in Broward failing to report Cruz to NICS after coming to his house 39 times for domestic violence problems. Yes you can say that the next step is everybody is a extreme risk. I think we are giving the government more credit for following through than they deserve. Bottom line is the local, state and federal governments in this country a inept. New York is a perfect example. 5 years after the passage of the SAFE ACT there are at least double the number of AR15 based rifles in private hands in the state. The ammo purchase background check doesn’t exist. Yes its caused alot of screaming and yelling, but in the end its been completely ineffective because the state and local authorities don’t want to enforce it.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      But it’s still on the books, and can get applied against you at any time.

      Ya, FTFY FNY

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        That is the whole point for all of these laws, so that the government(through LE), can find you in violation and they have a reason to arrest you. Jut like tinted windows, lighted license plate lights, too low or too high, tires too wide. Just another reason for the po po to have a looksee.
        That gives them cause to take you in and shake you up or down.

  41. avatar Gary says:

    My best friend in southern IN about 12 years ago. His new wife started smoking crack. Took several hundred dollars in kept cash and lots of other property from his home and left with her new boyfriend. He of course objected; with gusto, verbally over the phone. Few days later she had a fight with the new boyfriend who beat the crap out of her…That left her no place to go. Fear not, the women’s shelter was happy to have her & for less than $10 she had a “protection order” in force for the evil husband. Yes my best friend who hadn’t even been in her presence for days & had not laid a hand on her…and you can see how this happens after. My friend was ruined with the effects of property loss and lawyer fees and he hadn’t done anything wrong. She left with all she stole, and the deputies who came to enforce the order of protection stole all his guns, even some collector knives from the walls…which he never got back. Anyone who thinks these protection orders work is stupid to think laws affect bad people. Bad people don’t care about law, the order of law, only how they can work around the law. They will use the laws to effect the people they don’t want to deal with. In this case gun owners. Fill out the papers and take our property. This is nothing else but a way to circumvent due process. Anyone who thinks due process is the law of the land hasn’t stood in front of a judge. A judge can do anything he/she wants; just ask President Trump.

    1. avatar HP says:

      That’s a terrible story, and one that no doubt has been repeated elsewhere. That said, I’m still scratching my head about “extreme risk protection orders” and how it differs from a situation like you wrote about here. It seems like these laws are already on the books, and the state can effectively remove guns by a judge’s order if there is a perceived threat. That seems to be what is being pushed for with these new orders. Something that already exists. I’m not trying to defend it, I’m just confused, this is like the Animal House “double secret probation”.

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Fair enough, but the fact remains that there are flat out, scary AF psychos out there, whom we’re doing nothing about. Then they start blowing people away and we lose our rights.

      Look at the Tucson shooter. My God, he was expelled from school for being crazy. Everyone at the time expected him to go shoot up their college. Look at the Aurora, CO theater shooter. The gun range guy wouldn’t give him a membership, regarded him as the creepiest/scariest freak he’d ever met. Even the university psychologist figured he was an over the top psycho.

      The list goes on and on of psychos who, before the fact, were obviously violently crazy. We’ve done nothing. Now there’s Giffords out there making this crusade her life’s mission. Now there are these kids tomorrow walking out of schools nationwide.

      If we stand firm forever and refuse to address the crazies, then little by little the crazies will spree out and give excuses for the antis to take our firearms. As much as I hate that little sh1t in Florida for killing 17 kids, I hate him even more for provoking this backlash and putting more people’s lives at risk. When some 20 year old Floridian, unable to buy a shotgun, gets gunned down in a home invasion in Florida, who will walk out of school to protest the new 21 year old minimum purchase age limit?

      I do NOT want a civil war over this. As much as I want America to divide into multiple countries, I want it to happen legally and peacefully. The pressing economic issues alone will bring us to that tipping point in a few decades. We don’t need the civil rights issues to beat us to it, because that begets violence.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        “As much as I want America to divide into multiple countries, I want it to happen legally and peacefully. ”

        Didn’t happen last time, won’t any other. There’s a few problem blue areas of the country that’ll have their real estate taken away from them, and they’ll all be deported to your house, but it’ll be ok.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Except its mostly blue states paying for the red states. If you broke off the west coast and north east, they’d be way better off financially. The mountain west would be the only moderately red states that break even, and I doubt they’d want to subsidize South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, etc.

          That’s just fiscal reality, those are just much more productive states, even with all the costs of their socialism.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Up until Feb. 2018, most State Taxes were deductible from Federal Taxes, so NO. Plus more Federal $$$ flows back into those border and costal states just as a matter of course.

          The State Tax deductions were repealed and those states can now eat from their own asses.

          And we’re still coming to get our real estate back in the next civil war. It might be good to be on holiday at that time.

  42. avatar Geoff says:

    The fact is they can take your guns on the say-so of a relative or even a stranger who may not like that you have guns. You don’t get to defend yourself before having your guns confiscated, because they don’t have to notify you. This is an “ex parte” order.
    “with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party.”

  43. avatar Sammy Jenkis says:

    I don’t know what’s funnier. Thinking the NRA is on your side or inept law enforcement agencies can enforce these laws.

  44. avatar Gman says:

    I see many tragic boating accidents in the near future. I love my wife, and I trust her, sort of. But there are things in places only I know about. An ounce of prevention.

  45. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Doesn’t trump already have experience with people lying to judges to get wiretaps on his campaign?
    He can’t make the connection to vengeful spouses and police officers lying to judges to confiscate guns?
    I just joined NRA and GOA in the hopes of stopping the Florida bump stock ban
    Now Florida has these violence protection orders and a bump stock ban and it looks like the entire nation will have a bump stock ban
    I now withdraw my support for President Trump and my support for the NRA

    1. avatar Cleophus says:

      Then get on the phone, call the NRA up and cancel your damn membership! Simply bitching about it to the choir ain’t accomplishing a thing.

  46. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The Carol Bowne story was in New Jersey. It was suppose to be just a local issue? Why???
    The Gun Community leadership, NRA, GOA, SAF, etc. should have nationalized this story with a media blitz. Will anyone in an elected leadership position outside the state of New Jersey use her tragic example of what it means to wait to get a gun????

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/10/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit.html

    This should be the topic. Not extreme protection orders.

  47. avatar DJ says:

    NRA has always been known to give away civil rights to progressives and totalitarians in exchange for nothing. There has to be major reform within the NRA starting with the removal of Cox and LaPierre. Nothing good has ever come from restricting and banning civil liberties…. you don’t have to look too far in the past to know what happens.

  48. avatar zaphod says:

    Trump, putting his vast intellect to the problem of gun violence, sees a way “forward” via GVROs. (Or whatever today’s vogue acronym is.)

    So, of course the NRA supports GVROs.

    The NRA has long been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

    The NRA sold us George HW Bush who renounced his NRA membership, and left us with Assault Rifle ban v.1 and school zones. And George W Bush who developed Homeland Security, a huge leap towards a police state, and never thought to include the fed’s police force, the FBI; so he instead ballooned the ATF to become the executive branch’s police who seem to be omnipresent at any crime scene, usually in addition to, or conflict with, the FBI.

    And don’t forget Ronald Reagan who said, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” Further establishing his Fudd cred he also said, “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” And despite the reverence today’s NRA has for Reagan, “I want to tell all of you here today something that I’m not sure you know. You do know that I’m a member of the NRA. My position on right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else. And I’m going to say it in clear unmistakable language. I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it.” Of course he, like Trump, spent most of his life a Democrat.

    Now the NRA sold us a New York billionaire. When has one of them ever been our friend?

    In my innocence I used to assume that the NRA existed so that Wayne could hang out with his betters at fancy A-list soirees, and hunt Africa at someone else’s expense. Now I’m thinking he’s into the swamp chin deep too.

    (And, did Obama do any of the things the NRA said he would? Not so much, though he did sign off on our transporting guns on Amtrak and taking them into National Parks (in the latter case correcting a wrong that was done us by a Reagan EO). Oh, and it was his ATF that signed off on those darn bump-stocks that the NRA and the Republican Party seem all too willing to throw under the bus.)

    Of course a “right” thrown under the bus is another example of how we’re under attack and should respond (quickly) to the next urgent plea for money. As a business plan it has worked so far…

    Well, the “First Hundred Days” were a disappointment to everyone who thought we’d be buying silencers off the peg at 7-11, and carrying in NYC (as long as we weren’t New York residents, anyhow.) Well the “second Hundred Days” are setting up to be a real heartbreak.

    So, someday down the line, when a Republican president says, “Single shot shotguns and rifles are all the guns you will be allowed.” The NRA will be all over that too.

    Yeah, I got my Nomex suit on; and no I’m not a troll. Just a gun guy, but one without much of a taste for Kool-Aid.

  49. avatar Hannibal says:

    I bet a lot of NRA spokespeople, executives, etc have said something in public (“from my cold dead hands!”) that could be deemed threatening. Perhaps we should start with them?

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Nah, we’d never be able to find a liberal judge that would railroad an NRA spokesman

  50. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    Good thing ERPOs could never be abused by bitter spouses during a divorce or anything.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      When you tell a government worker in person you don’t like how they are breaking the law — guess who will be making the claim you are crazy and a danger in order to send a SWAT team to at least take your guns. I think there was a corrupt town in Arizona that did that to people who were protesting corruption from specific government workers. Similar kinds of things happened on the “reservations” when people called out the overlords.

  51. avatar geburuh says:

    You will have to be careful what you say in comments as a liberal or whatever will report your comment as coming from a crazy person,especially if they are anti gun Do not tell your neighbor you own guns.
    Your National Socialist government is at work.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Are you aware that those types of people want to force you to have your identity tied to 1 online account? Like how China tracks every citizens’ actions online by requiring their ID card to be linked to all their online accounts.

      I can’t sign up to a Chinese forum to talk about something without having a Chinese ID to verify my identity. Microsoft was pushing for a similar kind of thing. Social media sites want you to verify your identity with your personal phone number and name.

      Yet at the same time these people want to force everyone to use their legal name and a mugshot, they will go out and commit crimes while wearing masks so they won’t get “doxed.”

  52. avatar Jorge says:

    This is considered due process, in fact it is. What we need to work on is the Firearms control act of 1968. Either we have constitutional rights, or we dont. Every BS piece of gun legislation revolves around the FCA.

  53. avatar Landon Jurgens says:

    WTF is the NRA doing?!. I’m sorry but I think this position needs to be reversed and Cox excused. I’m tired of both him and Wayne.

  54. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    “Attention: you have now been declared An Enemy of the State! Please insert name of,*__________* favorite commenters from TTAG !”

  55. avatar HP says:

    I’m still waiting for someone to explain how ERPO’s are different from the laws we currently have. I get that it’s disconcerting to see a gun rights group seemingly concede to infringement, but considering your guns can be taken as ordered by a judge already, I’m having a hard time figuring out why people are coming unglued about this. People bring up bitter ex-wives, but bitter ex-wives can already scream to the police about you who in turn will go to a judge who will have your firearms seized if you are deemed a threat. This is already happening, and has been for a long time. Someone, anyone, please explain to me how these ERPO’s are any different?

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Due process is a pretty consistent base line mode of operation concerning law; ERPO does away with some very important parts of that.

  56. avatar Maxi says:

    I love these extreme risk protection orders. They don’t protect anyone, but they violate so many amendments. Every gungrabbers dream.
    So far i am sure they violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendment, possibly more. Greakt job NRA, keep up the good work to not only end the 2nd but a total of five amendments!

  57. avatar CZJay says:

    We can prevent violence and protect freedom.

    Sounds a lot like, “I support the 2nd Amendment, but…”

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      If and when your government (your stupid fucking POS ahole neighbors who needed a job) tell you that “We cannot protect you unless and until you do “_________” .” Only the first part of their statement is true.

      If they tell you they cannot protect you, tell them “We fucking know, stupid, because it’s impossible. Quit wasting your time on sh_t we didn’t task you with fuckhead”.

  58. avatar bobo says:

    And tears up check made out to NRA again—I’ll donate to local 2nd amd fighters or just fighters!

    NRA just went PUSSY yet again!

  59. avatar J says:

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. Would you please please pass the first link to others to we can get this petition on the main White House petition web page.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

  60. avatar Mad Max says:

    Seems to me it depends on how these laws are written.

    If there are substantial criminal penalties for falsely claiming that someone is a risk and there isn’t any ex parte or emergency orders (i.e. – the accused has the right to appear before the court with council and face their accuser before siezure) would pass Constitional muster.

    Anything else and it won’t survive s Constitional challenge (just like any new ATF regulations on bump stocks without an act of Congress).

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      In addition, it seems to me that if there are grounds to issue a ERPO, there is enough evidence to temporarily commit the accused to a mental institution.

    2. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      Ha! The first time you would know about an ERPO against you is when the sheriff or local PD show up at your door and begin throwing your firearms, including your collector pieces, into the back of a trailer without regard to their care. You have 14 days (or whatever) to contest the ERPO after the fact. Even if you are successful convincing the judge to order the return of your guns (good luck with that), whoever falsely accused you (bitter ex-wife, current wife in the middle of a divorce, Demanding Mom neighbor) won’t suffer any penalty.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        It should be ruled unconstitutional if they seize the firearms before the accused has a chance to appear in court with council.

        If there is enough evidence to seize the firearms, there is enough evidence to arrest or commit the accused.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          That’s not how America works anymore.

          They have been doing that for awhile in some States. It’s spreading to more. The Constitution no longer matters, all that matters is what passed through a vote and an opinion/ruling of a judge.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        I remember a story where a Sheriff took a mans guns and he had to give them back but he didn’t because he like them. There is a certain amount of days that you have to claim them, if you don’t they can keep them. So guess what happens when the government likes your stuff?

  61. avatar Mister Fleas says:

    Honestly, I was considering joining the NRA just to, as they said during World War 2, “do your bit”. But for goodness sakes….

  62. avatar ironicatbest says:

    There is no reason s twelve year old cannot work a twelve hour shift at a factory, he/she only needs educated to the 6th grade. There is no reason to own any implement that can cause bodily harm, the government will protect you. There is no reason to own a vehicle, the government will supply transportation to the factory. There is no reason to shop, you will be fed at the communal cafeteria, and your garments will be supplied by the government. There is no reason to own a house, the government will supply your housing. There is no reason to acquire information, the government will tell you what you need to know. There is no reason to have access to health care, when you become sick or injured you will die and the government will find your replacement. There is no reason to question authority, if you do you will be terminated… This is the future, there’s nothing you can do to stop it , embrace the pain.

  63. avatar Richard says:

    The whole concept of “extreme risk protection orders” is nuts. If someone is dangerous and on the verge of committing violence, arresting his guns leaves him free to obtain other weapons and commit the same violence by other means.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      It’s genius because the whole point of the concept isn’t to save lives, it’s to give government the power to take guns. When more people are murdered the government will take more power and more guns. So they have to make sure the problem remains free to harm people, hence the concept of gun free zones.

  64. avatar John in Ohio says:

    ROTFLMFAO! The good ol’ NRA.

  65. avatar Joe R. says:

    I want National Reciprocity, and opening of the Post 1986 transferable full-auto weapons rolls, and the HUSH Act, or better / equivalent.

    The NRA can suck it.

  66. avatar Steve Day says:

    If this pisses you off, and it rightly should, then you need to do two things:

    1) Call the NRA and complain @ (800)-672-3888. Demand the firing of Chris Cox & Wayne LaPierre.
    2) Join Gun Owners of America – they are the only “no-compromise” organization we can count on!

  67. avatar Kenneth says:

    You know what else has “broad-based support and can immediately get done”? A proposal to, NOT take the so-called ‘potentially dangerous’, crazy’s property, but to take HIM, thereby isolating him from the society he wishes to harm?
    Why is it that NOBODY will say, or discuss, this(except me, OFC), not even the NRA? Perhaps because the NRA has been busily ‘negotiating'(with nothing ever in return, OFC! Quite the strange ‘negotiation’ technique) our rights away since 1934?
    After all, its doesn’t take much logic to realize that if an insane loon wants desperately to shoot up a school or hospital, enough so he doesn’t care whether he dies or not, if he has no guns, he will just steal a car and drive though the crowd at a game, or through a parade, or steal a semi and drive it through an operating theater or patient wing, or some other similar heinous act. If one lives in a technically aware society of people tightly packed together, the possible ways to commit mass murder boggles the mind. The number of potential weapons is virtually infinite. They would have to take away all: vehicles, gasoline, chemicals, hardware stores, etc. But that, OF COURSE, STILL won’t get the job done as the loon can still STEAL: buses, trucks, aircraft, gasoline, chemicals, etc.
    It would seem quite obvious that only control OF THE CRAZY ONES, and not the control of whatever he might, or might not, choose to use as his weapon of choice, holds any possibility of success. It must be way too obvious, because only a very, very few will ever discuss this part of the equation.
    It is, apparently; subject verbotten! The “one that must never be named”, for the fans of that silly series.

  68. We do not need any more legislation, most states, if not all, already have a statutory scheme in place to address individuals who are believed to be a “danger to themselves and/or others”. It is the involuntary commitment procedure. Any person,, who has first hand knowledge of another’s conduct meeting this standard and has the nerve to put themselves on the line, may go to the courts, in NC, its the magistrate’s office, swear out a complaint for involuntary commitment. If upon examination while temporarily committed, the person subject to the evaluation is deemed a threat to himself or others, his commitment is reported to the NICS registry. Once on NICS that person is prohibited from purchasing, owning or possessing firearms.

    All of the rhetoric about Extreme Risk Protection Orders, is nothing more than politicization of a tragedy which honors not one of these souls lost and gives press for purposes of political correctness.

  69. avatar Steven says:

    The bill that came forward in MA is heavily weighted against the gun owner. There are no reasonable provisions for false reporting, for negligence at the court level. There is no reasonable means for the owner to get their gun(s) back or, to assist in them facing accusers and proving themselves competent.

    I am in favor of this but, the gun owner needs to be treated in accordance to due process such as a compensation should the reporter make a false report. As these are written today, the law is terrible.

  70. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “The proposals announced Sunday include “things that we know have broad-based support and can immediately get done,”…”

    Interesting how the qualities of those things do not include “effective”, “relevant”, or “just.”

  71. avatar RLC2 says:

    I recall when Robert Farrago went on the local PBS affiliate in Santa Barbara to debate the Isla Vista shooting and proposed solutions with Nancy Skinner, the state rep, who had been working on finding some more money for mental health, over several months.

    The host was obviously in the bag for the Left, screaming for taking away all the guns etc. I was on that website, reading the comments submitted in advance, probably 50% of which were from mental health pros arguing for more money, expressing concern for their own privacy and that of patients per HIPAA and due process, etc.

    Farago was very reasonable, and Skinner was obviously stunned, and a little slow on the uptake, as is to be expected- typical place holder in ultra liberal areas like Santa Barbara, and per results- in her legislative career she hadn’t accomplished much, and she retired after her legislation got taken over by the Speaker and re-worded, to end up as CAs GRVO, with no mental health money at all…

    That was another example of Sacramento’s corrupt tricks – by taking it over, they were able to say they were “doing something” without having to go through the tedious committee process back and forth, that is the orderly process for any other state legislation.

    Note the Dems are back for more, adding more gun-grabbing under the same holy process- but still no money for the mentally ill, or training for the cops in enforcing it, nor any due process protections, nor money to store firearms while going thru the process.

    Here is a useful resource, Drs For Gun Rights- part of SAF, and an update on that in CA:

    https://drgo.us/drgo-on-firearm-confiscation-due-to-dangerousness/

  72. avatar Cleophus says:

    How many of you people on here bitching about the NRA, and who are members of this SHIT organization, have called and cancelled your membership???? Let them know how you really feel! The NRA doesn’t care about anything but it’s own bottom line. If you really want to belong to an organization that doesn’t compromise and won’t stab you in the back at the first opportunity, then JOIN GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA! They are the only NO COMPROMISE, no bs gun organization out there. The NRA has proven itself, time after time after time to be no friend of the 2nd Amendment or gun owners. Cancel your memberships and let this turncoat organization wither on the vine. Send your money where it will do the most good, to GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA.

  73. avatar Sleestak says:

    NRA’s first mistake: endorsing Trump. Second mistake: spending $30 million on Trump’s campaign Third mistake: going back to Trump like a battered wife, and supporting his extreme risk protection orders. First two mistakes are understandable, the third is unforgivable. There a lot of mindless drones on the NRA lLA Facebook page that seem to love this post by Chris Cox. Only thing to say to NRA after this: F U and no more $!

  74. avatar scott surber says:

    For: Green Mtn. Boy
    “What is a inalienable individual right and what is a privilege?
    What does “shall not be infringed” plainly mean?
    Does the NRA support the unalienable individual right of the individual to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by government or does the NRA support government privileges?

    The answer to those three questions prove my point. The are self-evident. Do you understand what self-evident means? No further discussion is required.”
    EXCEPT the discussion of the definition of what does “Well REGULATED” mean, perhaps? 😉

  75. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    @ scott surber

    As to the word Infringe

    “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.”

    The US Constitution plainly declares that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED, restricted, limited, narrowed, denied, removed, or in any other way infringed.

    As to Negotiating Rights Away since 1934,listed out below is something any one can locate with a bit of searching ,I know what it leads me to believe,what is your conclusion to the bills passed through congress with the NRA’s finger prints on them.

    History
    1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
    The amendment reads:

    “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.”

    After That
    1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
    and Gen. George Wingate.

    After that, they start going the other way

    1934:  http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

    1939 http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

    1968: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

    1986:  http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

    1993 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

    1994 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

  76. avatar scott surber says:

    @ Green Mtn. Boy
    Simply reposting your post is non-responsive.

    “A WELL REGULATED…” is the FIRST thing that they wrote in the 2nd Amendment…WHY?
    If their concern was no “infringement” then why not:

    “The right of the People to bear arms, being necessary to the security of a Free State, shall not be infringed, as it shall supply a well regulated Militia in times of war” or something similar?

    If NOT “infringing” upon Citizen’s rights was the most important thrust of the statement they crafted, then why did they “bury the Lead?”
    They didn’t.
    They KNEW they needed to leave some regulation available.

    reg•u•late
    ˈreɡyəˌlāt/Submit
    verb
    past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated
    control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
    “a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function”
    synonyms: control, adjust, manage
    “the flow of the river has been regulated”
    control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
    “the organization that regulates fishing in the region”
    synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; control, manage, direct, guide, govern
    “a new act regulating businesses”
    set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard.

    The Framers, IMHO, only said that WE could “bear arms.” They did not say WHICH ARMS, did they?
    They left THAT up to the Government to REGULATE.
    Otherwise, where do WE draw the LINE?
    Shall WE allow Citizens to have:
    Tanks?
    Tow missiles?
    SAM Missiles?
    Fighter Jets?
    Chemical Weapons?
    Nuclear Bombs?

    Aren’t ALL OF THE ABOVE WEAPONS “ARMS?”
    If I am not allowed to have them all, then any argument about “not infringed” falls away as they ARE ALREADY REGULATING what arms WE can have already.
    The problem with THESE weapons, is that they are designed for one singular purpose–to kill other Human Beings as fast and as cheaply as possible.
    The debate should be focused on VOLUME–RATE of Fire, Reloading timeframe, & CAPACITY.

    IF you can fire from 50-900 rounds per minute, and reload in 2 seconds or less, then NO ONE has a chance when someone pulls out one of the Weapons of WAR–after all, they are doing the ONE THING they were designed to do–KILL HUMANS FAST.
    Wouldn’t YOU want a CHANCE to defend yourself or to escape?
    As long as Military weapons are in Civilian hands, escaping these shootings will be almost impossible, and the slaughter will continue.
    Cheers! 😉

  77. avatar TommyG says:

    The first sentence enumerates the right of the people to form Militias. The government may regulate how those Militias operate so they are not lawless gangs. The second sentence is written withe the most forcefull language in the bill of rights. It states that the government may not regulate the right of the people to bear arms.

  78. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    @ scott surber

    I’m sorry if my first post wasn’t totally clear,because you and I are on the same exact page.

    My problem with the NRA is they have lost their original purpose and should be answerable to members. Ever try contacting the Board of Directors,my thought is they purposely make it difficult to locate that information on their site. The current NRA can be righted to their core mission and it’s up to the members to hold them accountable as with government.

  79. avatar Sam I Am says:

    ” The current NRA can be righted to their core mission and it’s up to the members to hold them accountable as with government.”

    Since their original mission is their core mission, NRA would be restricted to improving marksmanship with a rifle. Which may or may not be the actual intent of you comment. Not saying going back to basics would be a bad thing, but it just might keep them out of politics.

  80. avatar scott surber says:

    @ Tommy G,
    Firstly, the 2nd Amendment, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, is only ONE sentence:

    “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.”

    It does not “enumerate”(I believe you actually mean “confer” or “bestow”) the right of the People to form Militias–that sounds like Militiamen Propaganda. It is referencing the Militia as a necessary pool of available citizen-soldiers to defend the country in case of War, as well as what you may be getting ready to postulate–an Army of the People to stop the Tyrannical Government that tries to pull a “Nazi” on it’s Citizenry.
    It is a conditional clause which defines the genesis of the “right” to bear arms: “BECAUSE a well regulated Militia is necessary to a Free State….”
    Secondly, you say, “The government may REGULATE(emphasis mine) how those Militias operate so they are not lawless gangs.”
    So, HOW can they regulate the Militias, but not be considered to have infringed at the same time when referencing Militias, but not “Arms?”
    Thirdly, you never dealt with one of the main points I raised–why can the Government regulate that I cannot have a SAM Missile, or a Tank, Or a Jet Fighter, but it cannot regulate the possession of Military weapons of War like the AR 15?

    Curious to hear your response.
    Cheers!

  81. avatar scott surber says:

    Green Mtn. Boy
    No worries.
    I agree. The NRA has become the bought and paid for Marketing arm of the Gun Industry.
    It’s not totally their fault, though…ever since the Powell Memo of 1971, Corporations and the Wealthy who run them have been slowly eroding Individual Rights for the sake of Unbridled Lassiez-Faire Capitalism which takes no prisoners and cares not one whit about the Humans that created it and employ it.
    IF WE do not get the MONEY OUT OF POLITICS and reverse the GREED of those running OUR Systems, WE are all going to become literal slaves of the Corporations ala “Rollerball,” and this “Constitution” stuff will be null and void.

    Cheers!

  82. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Perhaps this:
    Article 1, Section 8:
    “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;….”

    One would have to admit that the legislature (Congress) can determine which weapons with which to arm the militia (the people). One could also argue that this clause in the constitution also means the second amendment is not absolute, nor intended to be. In short, the referenced clause puts a cloud over the intent of the second amendment.

    While the people can keep and bear arms, there seems to be a constitutional provision for congressional control of which arms the people may have (or at least, a potential limit on the class of weapons). The logical conclusion is that if the founders intended the militia to be a serious threat to a standing army bent on harming the people, or a deterrent to tyrannical government, Article 1 Sec 8 seems to allow the government to put the people (and the militias in the states) at weapon disadvantage, which is blatantly an intended infringement.

  83. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “IF WE do not get the MONEY OUT OF POLITICS”

    The statement has no meaning. What is the money you decry? Where is the constitutional authority to limit speech, whether written, spoken, painted, paid for? Just how would you get all money out of politics? Even the money needed to rent campaign office space? Money to pay for campaign transportation? Money to buy advertisement (via whichever medium)? Money to pay for fees required to hold events in public arenas? Money to money to pay the utilities for a campaign office? Which “money”, what “money”.

    I would support* a move to require all political campaigns be limited to the number of people the candidate can personally touch. Nothing for campaign organization. Nothing for advertisement. Nothing for robocalls. Nothing for research. Nothing for transportation. No money for nothing, except that which the candidate draws out of her/his own personal bank accounts. (*knowing full well there is no constitutional authority for such restrictions)

    If you want money out of politics, get it all out. Government funding is still money, with control over who gets how much, and what can be said and done. If you want money out of politics, get it all out, or go home.

  84. avatar scott surber says:

    @ Sam I Am
    So, are you insinuating that the Government MAY regulate “arms” or are you saying that the Constitution is
    contradictory and therefore it tacitly infringes?
    “In short, the referenced clause puts a cloud over the intent of the second amendment.”
    Ultimately, my point exactly–“Well Regulated” preceding “infringed” insinuates that it…pardon the pun…”Trump’s” “infringed.”
    Perhaps it would just be easier to regulate the ammunition and allow US to have whatever “arms”: We desire? 😉
    Cheers!

  85. avatar TommyG says:

    You are dead wrong. The miltia was not intended to defend the country in case of war. That was the job of the standing professional army that was proposed as being necessary to defending the country by the federalists. Hamilton advocated a standing professional army was necessary to defend the country in federalist paper’s 2,3 and 4, that Militias were not sufficient because they took to long tp form. The anti federalists would not agree to the establishment of a professional army. They argued that every previous democracy was ended by a professional army when its general decided the democracy did not suit him. In addition the colonists argued that they had just spent years of blood and money fighting to resist a professional army that had oppressed them. The 2nd amendment was included to guarantee the ability of the people to resist and defeat the professional army that the federalists felt was necessary to defend the country from threats should it ever be used to oppress the American people
    . It was a compromise between two factions

  86. avatar TommyG says:

    I urge you to read the federalist and anti federalist papers as well as James Madison’s notes of the congressional proceedings. They detail the arguments that formed the US constitution and leave little doubt if any of the motivations behind the constitution and the first 10 amendments (bill of right’s) to the constitution

  87. avatar scott surber says:

    @ TommyG
    Funny….THIS seems to directly contradict much of what you just claimed.
    “On May 8, 1792, Congress passed “”[A]N ACT MORE EFFECTUALLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENCE, BY ESTABLISHING AN UNIFORM MILITIA THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES(emphasis mine)” requiring:

    [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[123]”

  88. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I am “saying” nothing. Only pointing out what appears to be enough conflict between constitution and amendments to create confusion over the issue of RTKBA. The issue is actually one of parliamentary procedure, even contract law.

    When the main document of an agreement is formally changed (amended), the original provision is no longer operating in its former condition. Sometimes amendments do not restrict a clause in the main document, but create new conditions, altogether. There is a process called “conforming a document” such that changes are not only attached to a document, but the original statements are actually re-worded to reflect the later changes. Such a document would then be published as a complete entity, with no changes noted. Or maybe changes are footnoted. Point is, the constitution was agreed to (not ratified), and then amendments were added. The original document was not changed. Amendments themselves are examples. An amendment prohibited the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A subsequent amendment repealed the prohibition amendment. Both remain as separate amendments.

    It has been a long time since my ConLaw courses, and I haven’t researched online lately. If the second amendment says definitively “shall not be infringed”, does the provisioning of armament by congress to the militia still obtain? The SC ruled that RTKBA is a personal/individual right, and ruled that “reasonable” restrictions are permitted. The problem there is that the armed citizenry is disadvantaged by the government the armed citizenry is supposed to keep in check. Seems the conflict between the second amendment and Art1/Sec8 remains unsettled. Or does it? If the SC legitimately “settles” legal issues arising from disputes about the constitution, what argument is left that can validly declare that the second amendment does not mean RTKBA is other than an individual right? One person can argue RTKBA is absolute (to no operational avail), and another can argue that RTKBA is restricted to weapons used only for participation in an organized militia that is actively drilling. Both are moot arguments.

  89. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “You are dead wrong. The miltia was not intended to defend the country in case of war.”

    Sorry, YOU are dead wrong:
    Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;….To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

    The only logical, reasonable interpretation of Section 8 is that the central government is delegated the power to call up the militias for war, as augmentation to the very limited standing army. An army (armed forces in general) of the size unnecessary to need augmentation by militia was nowhere contemplated by the founders.

  90. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Your point being?

    Currently, the rule of law (supreme court decision) is that the RTKBA is an individual right not resting on existence of, or participation in an organized (drilling) militia. That makes your position moot, as does the claim that the second amendment is absolute.

    The only way to enforce your position is through lengthy and expensive litigation ending in overturning Heller and McDonald, an expensive and lengthy attempt to repeal/modify the second amendment, or armed revolution and conversion of government to a system of ad hoc dictates based on whatever feels good to the power structure.

  91. avatar scott surber says:

    @ Sam I Am
    “The statement has no meaning. What is the money you decry?”
    Tha same money the Framers were concerned about–BRIBERY(We call it “Lobbying”)
    Citizens United?
    “Partly to protect against corruption, the delegates also required
    that House members reside in the represented district.70 Some delegates
    suggested eliminating the inhabitancy requirement, but the
    qualification survived because of FEAR THAT WEALTHY NON-RESIDENTS WOULD PURCHASE ELECTIONS(emphasis mine) : “[I]f you do not require it-a rich man may send
    down to the Districts of a state in wh. he does not reside and purchase
    an Election for his Dependt. We shall have the Eng. Borough corruption
    …. ,,71 Aft”
    In an Unequal Economic System, you simply cannot define “Speech” as money. If you do , the only ones with voices are the rich.

    https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3123&context=clr

    Even Adam Smith, King of Lassiez Faire Capitalism, felt the same about Income Inequality.
    “…Smith declares that it is a matter of simple “equity” that “they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.”
    Now that is more about the fact that WE have to stop allowing Corporations to be treated as People, but it all ties together in the end. Since the Powell Memo, and the 1976 Supreme court decision WRONGLY equating Speech to money, We have lost OUR Political System AND OUR Economy to the Greedbarons and Corporations who now use US more and more as slaves.

    It’s all tied together–money corrupts.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/the-problem-with-inequality-according-to-adam-smith/486071/

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Unless you drive to get all money, of every type, out of politics, you are merely attempting to end the money influence of politicians you don’t like. No one on the leftist side of politics (Demoncrats, and most Republicrats) will ever want to end donations, direct or indirect, from Bloomburg, Soros, Gates, Buffett, Theil, Musk, Ellison, etc.

      Pipe dream.

      Businesses have a right to influence policy, like everyone else. BTW, if you end the legal fiction that businesses are “people”, you end commerce. Ending the “people” characteristic means only a business owner/manager can create binding contracts, and that would make people personally liable for contract performance, regardless if the signer is even still associated with the business. Such a situation would reduce all corporations to sole-proprietorship.

      Left and Right depend on big donors, including corporations. No politician is going to cut of the blood flow of politics.

      1. avatar scott surber says:

        @ TommyG
        Then explain WHY they opened the 2nd Amendment with “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” if they were writing the Amendment solely for those who were anti-government? This conditional clause seems to define the scope of their intent pretty concretely. I can certainly see the argument that the “security of a FREE State” could be interpreted as WE the Citizens being allowed to be armed to protect against “standing armies” that despots would employ, but you seem to want to argue that this clause has no standing, or that your interpretation is the only correct one, without convincing proof that that was the actual intent of including this clause.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Well regulated” had a meaning different from what we understand today. The founders were using the English language of the day, not American gutter tripe of the modern era.

          Webster’s dictionary presents us with this:
          Definition of regulate, regulated; regulating
          transitive verb
          1 a : to govern or direct according to rule
          b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
          (2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country

          2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one’s habits

          3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

          It is the middle definition that most closely aligns with the use of “regulated” in the constitution. That is, a well ordered, trained, provisioned, equipped, armed militia.

          We do not in America use “regulate” much beyond control, measure and sanction. We suffer from looking at all history as if it happened last week, and all the language, formal and vernacular, holds the same meanings and common usage today as it did last week. Ask around, and you will find that most people you talk to believe the nation was founded then with a government intentionally superior to the people it serves. as is how government functions today. There are even people (masses of them) who believe that the state delegations constructing and ratifying the constitution were merely precinct members of the all powerful central government, meeting to help organize how government would become that all consuming element of daily life that it is today.

          And at the moment, any discussion of “well regulated” as being the independent clause in the second amendment was ended when the SC ruled RTKBA was and is an individual right (though not absolute). Today, we simply cannot understand that language flourishes common in 1789 were used to indicate the gravity of a proposition. The second amendment could have been written, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because personal arms are critical to maintaining an effective militia. In such a construction (which is using common sentence structure of the independent clause being stated first), the trailing statement (all that follows the comma) is clearly the dependent clause. Dependent clauses are gibberish, and have no meaning without the dependent clause being present.

          The speech and writing of the founders was closer to that current in England at the time, than it is related to the stripped-down American language we use today.

        2. avatar TommyG says:

          The Anti-Federalists had strong objections to the establishment of standing armies.
          Brutus (believed to be John Williams )
          “”The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasures of their leader.””
          Hamilton argued that since the new government would be a democracy there would be no need to worry about that government becoming oppressive.
          Others such as George Clinton argued that every democracy in previous history had been brought down by the standing army that was established to protect it. He gave Caesar and Cromwell as examples.
          They wanted to assurances that the American people would be able to do what they had just done to the British if the new government and/or the proposed standing army became corrupt and was used to oppress the people.
          The 2nd amendment enumerates the right of the people to do this by stating the government may not prevent the people from forming Miltias (which are necessary to secure a free state from abusive government) and the government may not restrict the right of the people to keep and bears arms (obviously necessary to resist a professional army).

  92. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    @ scott surber

    Agreed, the age of progressivism/regressivism 1913, brought We The People the 17 th. amendment and thus big money/lobbing,big money,to the senate,popular election and loss of states electing their senators.

  93. avatar scott surber says:

    @ Sam I Am
    I suppose MY ultimate point is that is the SC can decide in 2008 “…that RTKBA is a personal/individual right, and ruled that “reasonable” restrictions are permitted” then they can also overturn that decision or allow for more “reasonable” restrictions–no double digit shot mags, no weapons designed for War(or knock offs of) can be sold to Civilians.
    What this really boils down to is to just have a fighting chance, and an AR 15 removes that chance. The cops in the North Hollywood shooting in 1994 were woefully outgunned, which resulted in a backlash of them arming to the teeth and becoming more Gestapo like in their “enforcement(comply or die policing),and the Citizenry has been stirred up to have the same reaction…all in the name of Division and Capitalism. Then NRA’s latest–“arm the Teachers”–is a thinly veiled attempt to drive sales of weapons–they are the Marketing arm of the gun Industry, after all.
    An AR 15 will not stop a Drone attack nor an F-22 Raptor, but try convincing the “Originalists” of that.
    WE need to grow up as a Nation and stop allowing the whiniest amongst US to keep such lethality at their beck and call .

    Good chat.
    Cheers!

  94. avatar TommyG says:

    No, you are confusing the standing army that was created and funded by the constitution and the enumeration of the right of the people to form Militias, keep and bear arms as a check to that army being used as a oppressive force in the bill of right’s which was ratified some 4 years later.

  95. avatar scott surber says:

    @ TommyG
    This author seems to disagree with you and has some interesting points. I am no Constitutional Scholar–perhaps he has the answer? 😉
    “And the creation of this “well-regulated militia,” aka the National Guard, would help safeguard the freedom of the new republic because it would make the creation of a professional, mercenary army “unnecessary,” wrote Hamilton. “This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it,” he wrote.

    That was the point. And that was why they wanted to make sure it couldn’t be disarmed by the federal government: So a future “tyrant” couldn’t disarm the National Guard, and then use a mercenary army to impose martial law.”
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14?mod=mw_share_facebook

    1. avatar TommyG says:

      There is one problem with that author’s take. Its fantasy devoid of historical fact. The first 10 amendments to the constitution (known as the bill of rights) was added to the Constitution for greater protection of individual liberties. It lists specific prohibitions on governmental power with respect to those individual liberties. It does not make any provisions for new or expanded roles for government on the contrary its makes statements about what the government cannot exercise power over. Hamilton did not feel a statement that enumerated the rights of individuals was necessary – he argued vigorously against it. In Federalist paper #84 he stated “I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.”
      If it was up to him or the Federalists the bill of rights would have never existed. However they could not get the Anti-Federalists to sign on to the new Constitution without adding a enumeration of individual liberties to the document. Specifically they could not get all the states, particularly New York and Virginia to ratify. Those two states were key to the new country because the bulk of population and economic activity were located in them. Hence a compromise was reached where the Federalists got the things they were looking for in the Constitution (Federal government that could levy taxes, preside over interstate commerce, a national banking and legal system, executive branch and a professional standing army funded by national taxation). In return the Anti Federalists got there enumeration of individual liberties that restricted government power.
      The 2nd amendment (and the other 9 amendments) were not added to please government trusting Federalists. The were added to appease people who distrustful of government, demanded documented limits on governmental power and gave the people the ability to resist the government by force if that government or its army started to oppress the people. The idea that the 2nd amendment specified a military force controlled by or answerable to the government is ludicrous.

  96. avatar scott surber says:

    @ Sam I Am
    “Unless you drive to get all money, of every type, out of politics, you are merely attempting to end the money influence of politicians you don’t like.”
    No…my goal IS to get the influence of money which leads to “Lobbyists” which results in legalized bribery, out of our Political System.
    “Pipe dream.”

    Maybe…but, the idea women voting used to be a “pipe dream.” Mixed-race couples, Marriage Equality, SO many things in our country were ”
    Pipe dreams, perhaps, but dreams of a better Political System and Economic System are mine to hold.

    “Businesses have a right to influence policy, like everyone else. BTW, if you end the legal fiction that businesses are “people”, you end commerce.”
    Ending Citizens United will not end the fiction for business purposes, and if you think that’s what I was advocating, you are either not paying attention of being disingenuous and condescending in your argument.
    All of the above “pipe dreams” are now realities, so your defense of the current Oligarchy is untenable from that premise.

    “Left and Right depend on big donors, including corporations. No politician is going to cut of the blood flow of politics.”
    Yea…they do. It is my intention that they will have to learn to function differently. Otherwise, WE will see the rise and firm implantation of Mussolini’s dream–the Fascist, Corporate State in which WE all, ultimately are minimized and became no more than cogs in the machine.
    I am damn sure not OK with that, and I struggle to believe someone as educated as you is either.
    It may not be easy, but WE must take back our political System–WE got rid of Boss Tweedism and WE can damn sure fix this as well. Peace out, my Brother. Cheers!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email