Federal Gun Violence Restraining Order – The Most Dangerous Gun Control Bill in the History of the United States?

RI restraining order (courtesy nivinlaw.com)

“Two senators — one Republican and one Democrat who, as one of them said, disagree about “90% of the time” on gun policies — teamed up Thursday to introduce the latest proposal to address mass shootings,” cnn.com reports, “a bill that would allow federal courts to issue gun restraining orders against potentially dangerous people.” Uh-oh . . .

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut unveiled the “Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act,” which is modeled after existing laws in multiple states that attempt to intervene and disarm people who exhibit warning signs of violent behavior.

“If this becomes law, every state will have an opportunity to go to a federal judge or magistrate and inform them that this person is about to blow,” Graham said.

Perhaps not the best choice of words for Senator Graham. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. That said . . .

There is nothing right about this new bill. It would establish the same due-process-free process for federally mandated gun confiscation that’s spreading on the state level:

Graham and Blumenthal’s bill would allow law enforcement officers and family members of a suspicious individual to file a petition with a federal court requesting a protection order that would prohibit that person from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

The individual would get a hearing [ED: after an ex parte order] and can protest the order within 72 hours of it being issued. The protection order could then be held in place for up to 180 days and could be renewed if new evidence is presented.

The bill also includes penalties for anyone who knowingly files false allegations against an individual to have their gun or guns taken away.

Blumenthal said a federal law was needed to ensure consistency across state lines.

“Guns and shooters cross borders,” he said. “There’s nothing to prevent them from going from one state to another. That’s why a federal solution is important.”

So what’s to prevent an anti-gun rights federal government from declaring the NRA a terrorist organization, then using federal “gun violence restraining orders” to confiscate firearms from certain or indeed all NRA members? And then, because it’s a federal law, deploy federal agents to enforce it?

What’s to stop the feds or their allies from ginning-up a Nixonian “enemies list” of gun owners and hitting them with a federal GVRO.

Guns. That’s what.

Could it come to that? God I hope not.

If the NRA and pro-gun pols don’t shoot this idea down with extreme prejudice I’m done with them. You hear me? Done. Not to mention . . .

“I think the President is key here,” Graham said. “I think the President’s got to tell us what he wants.”

Blumenthal and Graham both sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is set to hold a hearing next week on the Parkland shooting and gun violence.

The Post-Parkland nightmare continues . . .

NB: If someone can find the bill text and link below I’d be much obliged.

comments

  1. avatar Buckeye says:

    “ensure consistency across state lines” – You mean exactly what national CCW reciprocity will accomplish?

    1. avatar Hank says:

      The TrumpenRiech already dictated reciprocity is a dead issue as long as he’s Furor.

      1. avatar Robert says:

        No, he stated that there’s no chance of it passing, and he’s right.

        He did not say he opposes it.

        As long as Repubs remain short of 60 votes it’s a fantasy. And even then it still may be. Why does such a factual statement make you go into full NeverTrumper retard mode?

      2. avatar Doug says:

        You realise of course, in a lame, simpleton manner that you’re comparing President Trump to Adolf Hitler, right?
        President Trump is the polar opposite of Hitler, dumbass!!!

        There is no comparison, Hitler was an evil, murderous douchebag, while President Trump is the current leader of the free world and he has America’s best interest at heart.

        Just because you don’t like him and will whine all the way back to your mother’s basement is no reason to malign the Billionaire that gave up his rich lifestyle in New York to save the United States from the likes of Hilary and her supporters.
        Donald Trump was a rich media mogul in New York that became President, he didn’t need the money, he’s already rich, he didn’t need the notoriety, he’s already famous, he didn’t need the power, he’s already a powerful real estate developer.
        He gave all this up just to help YOU and people like you that don’t like him because he’s “not nice” at times…well WAAAAHHHHH!!!

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “He gave all this up just to help YOU and people like you that don’t like him because he’s “not nice” at times…well WAAAAHHHHH!!!”

          Look, it’s the second coming of Trump!

          Cult of personality. Seek help.

    2. avatar RobertFaragosOngoingRacistLies says:

      Racist liar Robert Farago doesnt mention that peer reviewed studies indisputably document that schools disproportionately discipline black students.

      “Research from the 1970s to the present has documented that Black students are significantly more likely than White students are to experience school discipline (The Civil Rights Project/Advancement Project, 2000; Nichols, Ludwin, & Iadicola, 1999; Raffaele Mendez & Knoff, 2003; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997).”
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2678799/

      Nor does Racist liar Robert Farago mention that peer reviewed studies indisputably document that police disproportionately shoot unarmed black folks

      “The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

      Only racists like Robert Farago et al nonsensically presume that black students will now magially/miraculously somehow suddenly be treated fairly by teachers/administrators with guns…

    3. avatar Ken Miller says:

      Buckeye, I see above that the author requested a link to the text of the bill. I don’t know how else to post the requested link, hope you don’t mind me posting it in a reply to you. There’s a downloadable pdf at this link:
      https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2598/text

      The Senate version is here:

      https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1212/text

  2. avatar John in Ohio says:

    How’s that 33-D underwater, kung-fu, quantum chess Trump’s playing blindfolded working out…

    Shall not be infringed.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Setting aside for a moment this bill’s obscene violation of:
      2nd Amendment (keep and bear arms without infringement)
      4th Amendment (no unreasonable seizures)
      5th Amendment (no taking of life, liberty, or property without due process)
      6th Amendment (right to a jury trial and confront witnesses)

      In spite of a plethora of intelligence that pretty much served up the Florida spree killer on a silver platter, multiple government entities and agencies refused to remove the Florida spree killer from society. What makes anyone think that this latest bill will somehow result in government agents acting next time???

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        It also violates the main body of the Constitution in that Congress has no grant of power to engage in criminal law enforcement except in support of one of the grants of power in Article I section 8. GVRO’s don’t impact commerce, piracy on the high seas, patent violations, or any other grant of legislative power.

      2. avatar Cleophus says:

        What in the hell is wrong with the people of South Carolina???? Why do they continually reelect this idiot, Lindsay “Droopy the dog” Graham? He is clearly a neo con Marxist and no friend of the gun owner. I thought South Carolina was a “conservative” State.

        1. avatar Herb Allen says:

          South Carolina has open primaries. That means unregistered Democrats can vote for the Republican nominee of their choice. Which means since 2002 I have voted against Flimsey Tinkerbelle. One of his Democratic opponents was Buddy Witherspoon. Who in the South couldn’t vote for someone with that moniker?

  3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Two extreme Leftist’s of both parties are so exuberant about violating their oaths of office along with the Constitution.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      It’s probably best to refer to this act as “The Personal Animus Gun Confiscation Act” because it empowers every pissed off spouse, family member, hostile neighbor, or gun-control advocate can have any gun-owners constitutionally guaranteed rights violated without any consequences for the person making the complaint. If you think “SWATTING” is an epidemic borne of stupidity, these kinds of laws make a mockery of freedom and liberty.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut unveiled the “Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act,”
      Surprise, surprise.
      There is a right wing and a left wing and both a connected to a bird of prey.

  4. avatar pg2 says:

    The most interesting part is the majority people even here thought it was conspiracy/crazy talk to state there is an interest group large enough to control both branches of government who will eventually disarm the public.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Coincidence theorists are morons with their heads way, way up their asses.

      They have no idea how government and PTB really are or how they really run things.

      They still think the government and media never lie and always tell the truth!.

      They lash out at us with such vitriol because they are projecting their own fears and afraid that they have been fooled. Take your ego and shove it up your ass. We ALL have been played. So what are you going to do about it?

  5. avatar Gary says:

    Who is going to pay for the lawyer, who is going to be required, to get a person’s property back? This is just a legalized attack on any individual who if they show any signs of being angry at being attacked; are going to lose their property and possibly even their freedom. This is a “one step” program to disarm the population one house or apartment at a time. This is weaponizing thought.

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      Seems to be…
      But we’re also told that a number of states already have these laws in place. So my question is:
      Do we have any data on how many cases have been filed in poor faith? How many cases have been cleared due to lack of evidence? Have any false accusers been charged with any crimes for making the false report? In short – what has been the results of these laws in those states?
      We’re all afraid of the potential for abuse here, and I’ve no doubt it will be abused on many levels… but do we actually have any hard data to justify those fears and to use in our arguments against these laws?
      🤠

      1. avatar Howdy1 says:

        Every tool you give government will be used against citizens for any reason at all.

        Sentencing “enhancers”
        Civil forfeiture
        Eminent domain
        ATF
        IRS

        I am sure you or others can come up with more.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Police officers can already take you into custody if you are, in their opinion, a danger to yourself or others, and deliver you to the nearest psychiatric facility for “assessment and treatment” for a specified period of time (variable by state). They will typically confiscate your firearms at the same time. If you are thereafter involuntarily committed for treatment (a judicial proceeding usually held at the hospital), you lose your gun rights for life. These EVROs are no different.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mark N.,

          I stated as much in post a couple days ago.

          I wonder if this new bill, if it becomes law, would significantly embolden people to actually file the restraining orders?

    2. avatar Wheel Gun Guy says:

      Just look at the so called asset forfeiture laws that gave governments to power to wage the “war on drugs” and look at how it is abused today all over the country.

  6. avatar stateisevil says:

    Republicans just gifted us with this in Florida. Law takes effect 10/1 after Skeletor’s signing ceremony with “the children”.

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Warning! It has been determined that you are an Enemy of the State! For calling an esteemed member of a political party :”Skelitor!” It has been determined by the DNC that this comment is Right wing/ ALT-Right political hate speech! Which under Obama era rulings is verbal violence…You have been taken to Federal court and declared unfit to own weapons of any kind ….Imperial DNC StormTroopers will be arriving shortly to remove any dangerous item from your person, place, and effects…And that should learn any one about messing with the DNC! Lol!

  7. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Guns. That’s what.

    Could it come to that? God I hope not.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy. If someone legitimately defends their 2A and 5A rights using guns, it’s just “proof” that the GVRO needed to be imposed.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      @ Blammo

      Would that be the founders exit clause.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.

  8. avatar Wayne Clark says:

    One…this is just another infringement on our constitutional rights. Two…Blumenthal THINKS it needs to be a federal law for consistency??? As far as I know, the Constitution of the United States…which is a federal document & the Law of The Land…says it’s our right to our day in court before being sentenced & have our RKBA, with NO infringements, so how’s that working out nationwide?
    Any state that allows or requires an individual to obtain a permit to carry a firearm, is breaking federal law already. Any law enforcement agency that complies with the enforcing of these illegal laws, are breaking the law. It’s way past time to end the elitist attitude of “ruling” what they evidently see as “subjects” in stead of citizens! Let’s vote these bastards out before it requires more drastic measures. They, are not exempt from being declared “terrorists” & have their rights stripped either, as they ARE terrorizing our Constitution!

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    Another example of Federal over-reach. Jefferson was right about the tree of liberty, and the tyrants know it.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      It’ll be fun to find out what anti Bill of Rights measures the MA legislature is brewing as we type.

  10. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    What the hell…

  11. avatar million says:

    you have one opportunity to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that you’re not a threat. is that like proving the null hypothesis?

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      It’s just as easy as it was to prove you weren’t a witch…..

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        If you float.

    2. avatar fiundagner says:

      Oppositional defiance disorder- if you dont like the government telling you what to do it Constitutes a mental illness. If You’re mentally ill you cant own guns. Argue with them to prove you are not dangerous and it proves you are dangerous. The perfect catch 22 for gun grabbers.

      From prior experience.with illegal siezures – The seizing agency is not responsible for the weapon storage or condition so if they choose to store it outside on the rain due to lack of space and it gets damaged those are just the breaks of the game. If it gets “lost” during the seizure period they may have to answer to an internal investigation, “may”, but the agency is not responsible for comensating you. Siezed ammo is considered unstable explosives and disposed of however the siezing agency sees fit, again without compensation to the injured party. Not happy with losing 20000 rounds of ammo then you shouldnt have had 20000 rounds available to be siezed.

      1. avatar fiundagner says:

        Random additonal note. If your job requires background checks (ems, fire, nursing/patient care, child care, private security, or a hundred other fields) having a restraining order filed against you can cost you your job on top of everything else

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          The only hope against such a law is SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional.

          There *may* be some news in that department in a few months, but I’m not banking on it :

          “Kennedy is going to retire around sometime early summer,” Heller predicted in Las Vegas last week, according to audio of an event he spoke at that was obtained by POLITICO. “Which I’m hoping will get our base a little motivated because right now they’re not very motivated. But I think a new Supreme Court justice will get them motivated.”

          I don’t put much weight in that, since as I understand it, Kennedy has hired a fresh batch of law students to clerk for him next year.

          Why do that if you intend to retire?

          https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/09/dean-heller-supreme-court-vacancy-audio-448240

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        Heh, Captain Yossarian, is that you?!

      3. avatar CueBaller says:

        Oppositional defiance disorder- if you dont like the government telling you what to do it Constitutes a mental illness. If You’re mentally ill you cant own guns. Argue with them to prove you are not dangerous and it proves you are dangerous. The perfect catch 22 for gun grabbers.

        Them: You’re in denial.

        You: No, I’m not.

        Them: See?!?

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Them: Shhh, did you hear something?

          You: [after low-crawling up behind them] sweeps their legs, throws a bag over their head, flexi-cuffs them, drags them 40′ to the back of an open pickup bed, throws them in the back of the bed, drives them 25 miles over unimproved roads, drags them out of the truck, throws them onto a folding chair, hooks them up to 110V, doesn’t ask them any questions.

          Them: Gllgllgllgurlg?!?

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      No, you have it backwards. The “accuser” has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that you are in fact a threat etc., not vice versa. In other words, there is a presumption that you are not a threat to yourself or others.

      1. avatar bastiches says:

        Pull the other one, tovarish.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mark N.,

        According to the graphic, the respondent has to prove that they are NOT a danger to anyone. I have no idea if the graphic is trustworthy.

        Here is the exact text from the appropriate bubble in that graphic:

        During the order, if the respondent feels they are no longer a danger, they have one opportunity to request the orders termination, as long as they show clear & convincing evidence to that end.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          The graphic is correct that you have to prove you are not a danger. Google San Diego where the DA gets GVROs faster than search warrants because the accused is not there to defend himself (accused is often not aware of the hearing).
          BTW, no judge would ever risk not renewing the ERPO/GVRO because it only takes one incident to destroy the judge’s career; in effect, GVRO is a perpetual condition.
          Sue to get your guns back and you will get low priority on the docket and may never get a hearing; PD is not responsible for storing your guns since they only have space for “evidence”

  12. avatar Christopher Hammers says:

    If i shoot the cops coming to take my guns, is that then Proof that I am a risk? Cause a cop comes in and tells me he wants my guns, I am shooting him as I had no hearing.

    What about SBR’s, etc? Can’t transfer that without ATF approval….do they really to spend the 10 minutes to think of these things?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      LEO’s are generally exempt from NFA transfer requirements if they are seizing said NFA gear for evidence or other “legal reasons” which this kind of seizure would be covered as.

      You getting it back? I’m not sure how that works since I’ve never had to deal with cops taking any of my NFA stuff.

  13. avatar Scott says:

    This will do to gun ownership what no-fault divorce did to marriage. The consequences, through lawfare, will be too great to be worth it.

    This is effectively a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. If it’s too risky to participate in gun ownership, no one will do it.

  14. avatar WARFAB says:

    “Law enforcement will remove any known firearms that haven’t been surrendered by the subject.”

    The key word in this sentence is “known”.

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      “They” know I had one, sold it to a guy that died last week, don’t know what happened to it after that

  15. avatar ironicatbest says:

    another GDamn Law. Don’t they ever get tired of passing laws? Might be a good thing if ” little rocket man” sent one over, give them something else to worry about besides passing laws to restrict our freedoms in a supposedly free country. DRAIN THE SWAMP

  16. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “If the NRA and pro-gun pols don’t shoot this idea down with extreme prejudice I’m done with them. You hear me? Done.”

    I hope you really mean that.

  17. avatar GunTotinDem says:

    Why do I see a sudden uptick in bludgeoning. If they dont think this is going to tip an offender over the edge, they really arent thinking

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Why stop at the edge.

      You’re not paranoid if they really are ‘out to get you’.

  18. avatar Joe R. says:

    NO GVRO, WE NEED: GORO

    GOVERNMENTAL OVERREACH RESTRAINING ORDER.

    These should be e-filed, so that you shouldn’t need any voter I.D. to file one.

  19. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    This would actually be fine, and have my full throated support, if gun ownership was a privilege instead of being the most important, Constitutionally protected right in existence. But alas, it is, and thus, must be opposed with all manner of vehement opposition. NOT ONE MORE GOD DAMNED INCH!!!!

    (And a side note….where’s the compromise? What do 2A pro Constitutionalists get? Where’s Concealed Carry Reciprocity)

  20. avatar pwrserge says:

    Are we going to panic monger over every toilet paper bill that’s filed by RINOS and their commie buddies? Let me know when one of these bills clears a house of Congress. In an election year? Not going to happen.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      I’d normally agree, but in this hyper-aggressive anti gun climate, an insidious bill like this MUST be opposed BEFORE being passed by either chamber. By that time, it may indeed have built enough momentum to get through. These infringements must be strangled, stabbed, shot, nuked and otherwise murdered in the crib. Complacency can not be tolerated or accepted.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      So, we aren’t supposed to shout down gun control bills from the likes of Cornyn and Trump, now? Screw that, and screw all anti-gunners, regardless of political affiliation

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… You seem to think that anything written by Graham has a chance in hell on Trump’s desk. That’s adorable. How did his amnesty bill work out?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          I damn sure didn’t expect Florida to fold as fast as it did on gun rights, and look what happened just this week.

          They currently have something that can’t be bought, and they intend to use it.

          *Momentum*.

          “We can’t let a crisis go to waste. We can do things we ordinarily couldn’t accomplish otherwise.”

          (Paraphrasing Rham Stump-finger Emanuel)…

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Geoff:

          Astroturfing works. They’re organized on a level that we are not. It’s that simple.

          http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/

        3. avatar pg2 says:

          @strych9 You are correct about their level of organization. They will not let anything get in their way of disarming the American public. And when that finally happens, you and pwserge can high-five each other as people are forced into mandatory vaccines and whatever else the powers that be have in mind for us.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “And when that finally happens, you and pwserge can high-five each other as people are forced into mandatory vaccines…”

          You know I really wouldn’t care about your vaccine rants at all if they weren’t in every single one of your posts. Really, I’m not even sure exactly what it is you don’t like about vaccines because, to be frank, I don’t pay much attention to the details in your rants about them and generally speaking I tend to go out of my way to forget things that are total bullshit.

          Totality of circumstances being what they are I suspect you’ve had little of use to say on the topic. But then I haven’t engaged you on said topic for… months at least.

        5. avatar pg2 says:

          I don’t frequent here much anymore, but I do recall your defense of government taking over control of mandating this medical/pharmaceutical procedure. My “rants” weren’t about vaccines, but about the hypocrisy you and others were guilty of while defending the Constitution and individual liberties when it suited your worldview, but defending big government takeover when it didn’t. Guess that flew over your head.

        6. avatar neiowa says:

          Actually, astroturfing seldom works. The progs hire 1000 of whom some show up to “protest”, a few show up to vote. We work for a living, but call/write and VOTE. The smart pols know the difference. You antiNRA whining pissants might consider the difference. Grassroots politics is NOT about the $.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          “…but I do recall your defense of government taking over control of mandating this medical/pharmaceutical procedure.”

          Yup and I still hold the the position that it’s a necessary evil. I don’t have to really like the idea to be able to see that the current system cannot allow people to just skip out on certain things such as vaccines.

          Would I like a to see a truly libertarian system where you can opt out? Yes, but that’s a pipe dream and it’s totally at odds with evolutionary biology to boot. There’s what you’d like and then there is what actually is. Unfortunately we’re constrained by reality. So, unless you’re going to homeschool your kids you’re going to have to put up with vaccine requirements in schools. Past that you’re still going to have to put up with mandatory vaccines in some cases because biology. It’s that simple.

          You’re also going to have to put up with the fact that there is a low, but admittedly present, chance that there will be side effects and that some of them, for a small portion of the population, might be serious.

          “Actually, astroturfing seldom works. The progs hire 1000 of whom some show up to “protest”, a few show up to vote. We work for a living, but call/write and VOTE.”

          It’s sure working now. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be reading stories about Florida, Illinois, Dick’s, Kroger, Delta, Wal-Mart etc. Astroturfing isn’t meant to swing elections. It’s meant to swing votes within legislatures and history shows that since the early 1970’s it’s been a reasonably effective way to do so. Whole schools are dedicated to teaching people how to do this and there’s a reason for that.

        8. avatar Pg2 says:

          Styrch, you made my point. Many people assume, incorrectly, that gun control is a necessary evil. And due to their ignorance on the subject, they will force you to accept their position through direct force eventually. People, hypocrites, like yourself guarantee that not only will this country lose the 2A, but any remaining individual liberties. Stop pretending you don’t know this.

    3. avatar Docduracoat says:

      One just passed in Florida
      The state that was the first to allow concealed carry permits
      A bill like this could easily pass through Congress
      Especially with all the RINO’s who are actually Democrats

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Again… how did the amnesty work out?

        Florida caving was not a huge surprise. They are a deeply purple state.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          Florida is a blue state that becomes deeply purple in Presidential elections only because of turnout. Look at polling data.
          Also see other “Republican” areas that do the same like San Diego and Orange County in CA. Ohio and Pennsylvania are other examples.

  21. avatar Gene F says:

    Besides the things everyone else has discussed above — do you see anything else wrong with this concept?

    Listen carefully……If a person is too dangerous (to him/herself or to others in the public) to possess or purchase weapons — how can it be safe to leave them roaming the streets? Let these laws be passed and implemented and that’s next — involuntary indefinate restraint and committment.

  22. avatar Wiregrass says:

    That’s probably the most relevant choice of words for that authoritarian CS.

  23. avatar barnbwt says:

    Just remember; if you get in a heated argument with an anti-gunner, they can and will go after you this way and try to have your possessions stolen. Meanwhile, they can shriek at you like a howler monkey in delusional horror about guns without fear of reprisal.

    All the while doctors and judges will ‘err on the side of caution’ and rubber stamp the requests

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Just remember; if you get in a heated argument with an anti-gunner, they can and will go after you this way and try to have your possessions stolen.”

      Oh, please. This currently happens EVERY DAY to guys with vengeful women out to divorce them.

      {911, what is the emergency? (Sound of woman sobbing) “My husband just hit me and threatened me.”}

      Tell me I’m wrong on that with a straight face…

  24. avatar RV6 Driver says:

    Nothing new here. There’s this annoying thing called the 2nd amendment that gets in the way of outright gun grabs so they implement sneaky ways around it.

    That being said, if this stuff becomes law there will literally be 10s of thousands of calls per day with spiteful people reporting “dangerous” people to authorities. There is absolutely no way this can be enforced on a mass level.

    LEO’s simply don’t have the manpower, funding or initiative for that matter. Let’s not leave out the optics of gun confiscation from minorities without due process.

    This law would also further stigmatize people with mental issues forcing them into further isolation for fear of being made into a pariah.

    In addition it turns society into a punitive snitching grounds where disgruntled spouses, family, neighbors and those with different political leanings can ruin someone’s life simply because they can…

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “In addition it turns society into a punitive snitching grounds where disgruntled spouses, family, neighbors and those with different political leanings can ruin someone’s life simply because they can…”

      Just like the old Eastern Europe-Russia and North Korea today.

      And Leftist totalitarian regimes *everywhere* today…

  25. avatar Jim Bremer says:

    Guys…this is probably the most stunning attack on our Constituional rights in one law that I’ve ever seen.

    Our ENTIRE system of justice is based on the simple principle that you are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. The you have a right to be judged by a jury of your peers. That you can’t be denied of your rights or property without due process. AND that the STATE must PROVE you are guilty…that you as a citizen don’t have to PROVE TO THE STATE you are innocent.

    THIS BILL THROWS ALL THAT OUT THE DOOR!

    This bill if it became law would be in direct violation of the 1st Amendment(merely SAYING something that someone thinks is crazy would be criminalized), the 2nd Amendment(your right to have your guns would be taken away without any criminal convictions, the 4th Amendment(right to be secure in your effects and from illegal seizures), the 5th Amendment(right to due process before stripped of any rights or property), the 6th Amendment(right to fair trial, confront your accusers, right to defense etc). and the 7th(right to trial by jury)

    That’s 6 out of the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights that this law violates..and not just violates is some gray area legal way…the GROSSLY VIOLATES in a way any average person can see.

    I’m sorry….the author of this article is right. If this passes I don’t know how any sane person who values their rights could possibly view our Government as being legitimate any more.

    The colonists went to war over less than this.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      You meant “innocent until proven guilty. Caps lock is not a substitute for accuracy.

      1. avatar Jim Bremer says:

        *Yes…my mind is still enraged that the new norm is “guilty until proven innocent” first by the #metoo movement and now this that I typed that instead.

    2. avatar Rick Hess says:

      I think you’re fingers went spastic, I bet you meant innocent until proven guilty, not how you wrote it, guilty until proven innocent.

  26. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Obviously they saw the “success” of the #metoo movement and are trying to replicate it for the anti-gun movement.

    All you need is a complaint and it’s guilty until proven innocent. I’m sure this won’t be abused…

    Maybe if they implemented heavy legal and civil fines for false claims, but I don’t trust our legal system at all.

  27. avatar Joe in CT says:

    The Department of Pre-crime. It’s not just for the movies any more.

    1. avatar Setnakhte says:

      Some government officials view 1984 as an instructional manual. Others government officials view it as their favorite porno rag.

  28. avatar DAVE F says:

    GUILTY till proven innocent ?! Not what I spent my adult life defending.Does not matter if you are pro or anti gun. What does matter is that Constitutional rights are slowly being taken away from each and everyone of us. If our Congressional leaders believe they have the right to vote away our freedoms then it is far past time we all use our vote (kick them out) and let those who run for political office know we will not give up our freedom no matter what the issue.

  29. First and foremost, if these politicians want some new gun law, they need to tell us what they are willing to give us in exchange. If expanded background checks are that important to them (or gun violence restraining orders, or anything else they want), then they should be willing to give us CCW reciprocity, or suppressor reform, or something else we really want. Of course, this will likely never happen, because they are the ones who never give an inch.

    I am a retired first responder and dealt with the mentally ill on a daily basis. Now, as to gun violence restraining orders, in my opinion they are worse than useless – they are dangerous and subject to abuse. I was in California when they were passed and initially the antis wanted just about anyone with the slightest relationship to the subject, to be able to get one of these orders. Gun rights groups got this reduced to family and law enforcement. Even then, there is evidence of significant abuse. The Sacramento Bee reported that only 89 such orders were issued statewide in 2016. Worst of all, only 10 of these were upheld at the second hearing when the subject got their day in court. Someone does not pose a danger and then not pose a danger only 21 days later. What happened in obvious: 89% of these orders were unjustified in the first place. The vast majority were likely abuse of the system.

    I am glad that the Florida bill only allows law enforcement to seek such orders. My guess is that they will seldom use this new law, should Gov. Scott sign it into law. They have other tools that accomplish much more.

    Detailed analysis can be found here:
    http://2ndamendmentclergy.blogspot.com/2018/03/good-news-and-bad-news-about.html

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      It’s all going to come down to where you live.

      If you live in a county or state that consistently votes blue, expect those orders to be arbitrary.

      In red areas, like where I live, it will be used far less, but the *potential* for abuse will always be there.

      That law will be another wedge used to drive America apart…

  30. avatar Support the Second says:

    I think that, once again, the Republican Party has created a sensible compromise solution: no one wants to see guns in the hands of a deranged lunatic. Thanks, GOP, for all you do!

    1. avatar Ed says:

      You support the second as much as I support Hitlery, FLAME DELETED.

      1. avatar Support the Second says:

        Donald Trump is a Republican and he supports this reasonable plan, so your Hillary statement is disproven.

    2. avatar fiundagner says:

      What compromise? What do we the gun owners get from this? National reciprocity? Hearing protection act? Repeal the hughes amendment? Anything at all, or just BOHICAed?

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Support the Second,

      You stated, “… no one wants to see guns in the hands of a deranged lunatic.”

      Right pew, wrong church. If someone is a deranged lunatic, they should be locked up and unable to harm society with any object.

      Now here is the rub:
      (1) We must ensure that someone truly is a deranged lunatic BEFORE we take them away.
      (2) We must ensure that when government declares someone to be a “truly deranged lunatic” that they really are a truly deranged lunatic.

      How do we do that?

  31. avatar Ed says:

    Sounds like the biker RF called the cops on in hysterics could get one of these on him…hahaha.

  32. avatar Jose says:

    “I think the President is key here,” Graham said. “I think the President’s got to tell us what he wants.”

    Don’t think so. Last I checked he is not the king. The people that elected you to represent them are “key”. It’s not what the President wants, is what we want. You work for us, not the other way around. We don’t want it, so do something about it.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Jose,

      It isn’t just about what the people want: it is also about what is right, true, and just.

  33. avatar Matt says:

    If you want to view the effectiveness and actual use of these laws just look at California. They’ve had these laws in place for years and average less than a 100 cases of Gun Restraining Orders issued a year an only 10 of them are upheld when it went to court.

    This is in a state with 40million people. In reality the police don’t have to manpower to enforce it.

    California has about 30000 people on a confiscation list already and the underfunded and undermanned agency hasn’t even scratched the surface in taking any guns away.

    This is all ban wagon, we have to do something pandering to the anti gun crowd.

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      So there is a ray of sunshine to this.

    2. avatar FlamencoD says:

      Without listing your references we don’t know if these numbers are accurate. However, if so, that’s still 100 too many.

  34. avatar Red Forman says:

    Malon labe.

  35. avatar MDH says:

    So, Senator Graham (we already know Blumenthal’s position), you renounce the US Constitution , the oath you took to uphold it, and with that your rights as a Citizen of the United States?

    Think about it for a minute.

  36. avatar RCC says:

    As I tried to comment yesterday similar laws are regularly abused in Australia in divorce and custody cases. No evidence aside from he threatened me for initial order. Court date can take months.

    One of the larger gunshops near me has extra storage just for the firearms they are holding ($20 – $30 a month per gun) for people waiting for a hearing. One person I know sold a large mostly inherited collection as he couldn’t afford the $1000 a month fee.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      That’s actually not a bad idea. More gun stores stateside should offer this service.

  37. avatar DDay says:

    Interesting take from blumenthal.

    “Blumenthal said a federal law was needed to ensure consistency across state lines.

    “Guns and shooters cross borders,” he said. “There’s nothing to prevent them from going from one state to another. That’s why a federal solution is important.”

    So because consistency across statelines is needed, can we assume blumenthal will support national conceal carry? We need consistency, ya know.

  38. avatar little horn says:

    “So what’s to prevent an anti-gun rights federal government from declaring the NRA a terrorist organization, then using federal “gun violence restraining orders” to confiscate firearms from certain or indeed all NRA members? And then, because it’s a federal law, deploy federal agents to enforce it?”

    wow. doesn’t get any worse of a straw man argument than that. enjoy your alex jones pod cast. sheesh.

  39. avatar the man says:

    Let’s not kid ourselves. This will be primarily used by women as a means of getting revenge on their x spouse or lover. Restraining orders themselves are already abused by women. The double standard present in this country is appalling. Besides the obvious Due Process violations this bill should be struck down on an as applied sex discrimination violation. The Bill of Rights are a dead letter in American law.

  40. avatar Your Momma says:

    Lindsey Graham is a piece of $hit. He always has been a snake and he always will be, like so many Republican senators who have been too powerful for far too long.

  41. avatar FlamencoD says:

    I bet sanctuary cities will be lining up to work with the feds on this terrible proposed law (unlike with illegals).

  42. avatar Aging Disgracefully says:

    Can we kick the entire Republican party out of office and start over?

  43. avatar CLarson says:

    If this bill actually made it into law, we would see an immediate and terrible degradation of relations between the citizens and the government. Millions of otherwise law abiding citizens would venture into a grey area of non compliance and guns would fall off the books. Don’t pass laws you know won’t be obeyed by majority of the population. That’s how you get Mexico.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “we would see a immediate and terrible degradation of relations between the citizens and the government.”

      Although I will never support this or any other gun control, the people waking up to just how dangerous and tyrannical the government has become wouldn’t be a bad thing. They need to wake up sooner, when something can be done, rather than later, when it will be much more difficult, if not nearly impossible, to remedy.

  44. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina …

    Any sentence that opens with that means conservatives are about to get screwed. Why do the people of SC keep electing that disgusting little shit?

  45. avatar TWP says:

    Senator Blumenthal gained the wisdom to produce this steaming pile of legislation during his combat service in Vietnam, I suppose.

    Now that Ted Kennedy is sewing socks that smell, is Blumenthal the most despicable creature in the US Senate?

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