White House School Safety Commission Recommends Gun Confiscation

And the hits just keep on coming from the Trump administration. Yesterday, the White House released the end results of its School Safety Commission findings. As

“The Commission endorses Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, which give authorities a temporary way to keep those who threaten society from possessing or purchasing firearms.”

Back in March, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) had this to say about so-called red flag laws . . .

“Anti-gun interest groups and politicians have used the Parkland shooting to launch what, until recently, they regarded as a distant dream — a wave of state legislation authorizing the confiscation of firearms.”

It appears that the head of the Republican Party, President Trump, is now on board with red flag laws. A number of states have now enacted the legislation that strips the law abiding of their due process rights until after their guns have been grabbed.

A rash of bills have been introduced in various state legislatures such as Oregon’s SB 719, Florida’s SB 7026, Vermont’s S 221, and Road Island’s H7688. They all have passed — to thunderous applause — and more like them are apparently on their way and the President’s apparent approval will only speed the process.

The 2016 election result had so much hope for the law-abiding gun owning public. President Trump formed a Second Amendment Coalition, ostensibly to help guide his firearms policy decision-making. TTAG’s John Boch was named as a member. He even told the American public that the eight year assault on the Second Amendment was over.

But the Second Amendment support has fallen through and the assault continues, gaining ground due to his conspicuous bipartisan cooperation with enemies of civilian gun rights like like Dianne Feinstein.

Same as it ever was.


  1. avatar Big Sky says:

    Well that escalated quickly.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      No more pretense about standing for the 2nd Amendment, constitutional rights, and all that talk that had, for a short time, sounded so nice. Gloves off, apparently.

      1. avatar Yep says:

        A government that seeks to disarm it’s citizens without due process would seem to pose…

        .. an EXTREME RISK to liberty, and public safety.

        We need a restraining order against the President, Congress, and the Federal Courts. 😆

        The public needs some way of protecting itself from such tyranny. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

        These laws are pretty much a declaration of war against the populace.

        1. avatar Kevin sherhart says:

          The 2nd admedment was made.fkr this thing it’s time we stand our ground and say no. They try to take them . We fight for once.this country needs to stand together over the wrong doings of this government and not let.other differences stop us from a common goal.

          We are the people ,we are this country not any form of government . We are and will always be what make this country.

          And I will gladly stand my ground against the government . Even if it means prison or my life. I won’t live in fear.of no government nor will I bow any of my rights

      2. avatar Amy says:

        When did Trump ever stand for the Constitution? He made numerous statements during the campaign season that he did not support free speech, religion, guns or privacy. He said he supported NSA data collection of our privacy even though that is a violation of the 4th Amendment. He stated there should be a database of Muslims in America violating both the 4th and the 1st Amendments. He stated we need more govt. funding to make college affordable even though that’s not an enumerated power of the federal government. He pushed for single payer healthcare even though the federal govt. has no Constitutional authority to be involved in healthcare. He supports stop and frisk even though that’s a violation of both the second and fourth amendments. He stated that anyone on a no fly list should be banned from buying a gun even though that’s a violation of the 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendments.

        Trump wouldn’t know the Constitution if it smacked him upside the head.

        1. avatar Guest says:

          Neither would you, apparently.

        2. avatar Douglas Mailly says:

          Unfortunately, the Constitution is routinely ignored by both parties. It has ceased to be of any significance in America today.

    2. avatar Bert says:

      Not to worry! This is just another of Donny’s BRILLIANT quatro-double-up-fvck-reverso-split-level-get-out-the-KY-sooper-dooper-Uber-chess strategery!! WE CAN’T LOSE I TELL YA!!

      MAGA!! MAGA!! MAGA!! MAGA!!

      (So sayeth every gob-sucking dolt who still thinks that vapor-headed moron is on the side of anyone but himself.)

      1. avatar Bill Richardson says:

        Anyone who expects any politician to do everything they want is delusional… Trump has never been a true conservative and it’s hard to imagine a true conservative even existing in New York… Fact remains, the uber-liberal alternatives make complaints about Trump based on what he has done for his conservative supporters thus far, sound pretty frivolous. Keep pushing him in the right direction and we will be far better off than we would have been or would be under any Democrat or most Republicans. If you look at the Supreme Court picks alone, Trump has improved our situation without doing anything more.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          ^ +1……. If anyone doesn’t believe it, look at the number of RINOS exposed by Trump. Trump not only has had to endure the Democrats, the media, but a large part of his own party. if we’re lucky we might get another crack at the SCOTUS and if Trump accomplishes NOTHING else he will have been a raving success for Conservative America.

    3. avatar S.Crock says:

      It looks like the 8 year assault on the 2A has turned into an escalated 12 year assault.

      1. avatar CSM says:

        You just have to accept that you, and others like you, told every politician that they can do whatever they feel like doing, because you’ll ignore actual actions.
        Obama was the only President in the last 50 years to not enact any gun control. In fact, he actually expanded 2A rights by allowing firearms to no longer be mindlessly banned from federal parks, and firearms were also allowed to be checked as baggage on trains.

        No, the list of non-binding resolutions (Executive “Actions”) doesn’t matter. But you were firm in letting them know you’re an awful person who makes up things.
        We had 8 years without an unending gun control onslot, and it was that dirrty black guy.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          the democrats have an opportunity here….wonder if they’ll seize it?

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Oh shut the hell up CSM you fake. You’re a flat out liar. Obama wanted to, and yes tried to enact all kinds of gun control, but *couldnt*. There’s a HUGE difference between *couldnt* and *wouldnt*, but I wouldn’t expect an idiot such as yourself be able to understand basic English. Your an imbecile if you actually believe that shit you posted. The democrats lost over 1,000 legislative seats during Obama’s tenure, most notably they lost congress, and subsequently had the vast majority of their agenda blocked. If you knew how to read you’d understand that.

        3. avatar frank speak says:

          would appear an anti-gun republican(?) can do far more damage than an anti-gun democrat…seems like he feels he doesn’t need us anymore….

        4. avatar Shane says:

          Your delusional… I’m sure thats how you will write the history books. When its far from the truth. I’m not sure where you were living when President Obama was in office. It certainly couldn’t have been in the US.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Except, after Obama lost the house in his first mid-terms, I was never even close to this nervous under his admin. The so-called extreme risk protection orders are horrifying, absolutely made to be abused and completely unconstitutional. These need to be challenged ASAP. Not being a lawyer, I assume there would need to be a suitable case first?

        1. avatar D Y says:

          The courts have consistently ruled that “public safety” outweighs the Constitution. It’s going to take a SCOTUS case that strikes down something like ERPO’s or civil asset forfeiture before due process becomes part of the fabric of this Country again.

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Unfortunately, you are probably right.

        3. avatar frank speak says:

          where has the NRA gone?…maybe we’re sending our money to the wrong people…..

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      does he think he can get reelected without gun owner support?….apparently….we’ll see…suddenly impeachment isn’t looking so bad!….

      1. avatar Rik says:

        He starts going down this road my support is out the window. I’ve been a staunch defender of his, and even though I know impeachment is a con-job, if wants to sh!t on the people who have been fighting for him, then, best of luck to you with that Special Council, Mr. President.

    5. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      During the leadership of General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, psychiatry was used to disable and remove from society political opponents (“dissidents”) who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted the official dogma.[4][5] The term “philosophical intoxication”, for instance, was widely applied to the mental disorders diagnosed when people disagreed with the country’s Communist leaders and, by referring to the writings of the Founding Fathers of Marxism–Leninism—Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin—made them the target of criticism.[6]

    6. avatar CZJay says:

      Redefining a stock into a machine gun (a Democrat tactic). Then moving towards gun confiscation through “extreme risk protection orders.”

      Guess what? The NRA advocated for this gun control and talked to Trump about it. Now the Republicans are moving to do what they [Democrats and NRA] wanted.


      “The ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump-fire stocks. Period. Legislation is the only answer and Congress shouldn’t pass the buck.” –Sen Dianne Feinstein

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        This is gun confiscation without due process. Law enforcement will be happy to get it done with no-knock raids for officer safety. They will pry it from NRA members’ warm dead hands.

        1. avatar Facepalm McGillicutty says:

          Holy sh*t. It’s surreal to see this video and then realize it was put out by the NRA. I knew they were a compromise at best (which is something you should never do with your rights since they’re not granted by anyone, but are natural rights).

          But wow, now they’re just blatantly telling you it’s ok for the PTB to take your guns now and worry about due process later (like Trump said). Proof the NRA is not our friends; from their own mouths.

          Freakin’ Surreal.

        2. avatar Jim Turner says:

          To be fair, he did say to be legal and constitutional they would require strong due process provisions. Seems these have been pushed aside.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          This is scary shit this means if you piss off your buddy or your neighbor they could call the sheriff and he would come out and grab your guns or the ATF then you could spend time in the the nut house till proven sane.
          Trump has just lost a boat load of supporters I hope he doesn’t let the U.N do the small arms treaty crap obumer signed us up for if he does it look like we will have to defend to the death our second amendment rights and the rights to defend our property and our families and the life we love so much in this country.
          May the good Lord help us all for we all thought Trump was going to stop the assault on our gun rights.

      2. avatar Joel says:

        Yet another reason why I will support the GOA from here on out and let my NRA membership expire

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    The left hates us. The right hates us. Now we just need a good old fashioned economic collapse to cut the cable tv and empty the store shelves paired with the invasion of third-worlders and we can finally get the ball rolling on burning this hot mess down.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      That scenario is probably much nearer than not.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        Read my comment below about a 3rd party confiscation. This time the 3rd party was cooperative, apparently, because there are no reports of death and destruction. But one of these days that will change.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          heard there was already one “unfortunate incident”….

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      The senate just overwhelmingly passed a “bipartisan crime reform” bill that mirrors California’s uber liberal prop 47 “crime reform bill”. Prop 47 was a disaster and crime in California is skyrocketting… I was laughing at your comment a few minutes ago when I first read it and went on to read other news. When I read what the senate just did, the first thing that popped in to my head was your comment and how much I now agree with it. Funny how the .gov can do that to people.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        I heard the murder rate is going up in California. Somehow their gun control isn’t stopping the murders.

        1. avatar Wesley Horton says:

          More likely, the state is utterly failing at enforcing its law on keeping firearms out of the hands of felons. If the state cannot manage this simple task, it will totally fail at any more complex matter.

          It seems California is one of those states that requires all firearms transactions to be conducted via an FFL so that a NICS background check can be conducted. Apparently, they are letting the occasional felon get by. Perhaps those pesky felons and criminals are not bothering to follow the law in the first place.

    3. avatar Marc says:

      That sir, is damn poetic. I just read it out loud to myself and loved it!

      1. avatar Marc says:

        The above reply was meant for Shire-man’s post

    4. avatar CZJay says:

      Ask and you shall receive:

  3. avatar Freebird says:

    Trump should be DENIED all Due Process …… charge him with everything under the sun.

    Gary Willis was only the first to be killed by police ‘ just doing muh job ‘

    1. avatar Big Sky says:

      Powersrg is gonna be pissed. So much for his wait and see denial.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Have you been hiding under a rock for the past two years? That’s already happening. But please, tell me more about how I shouldn’t be able to file an order against a severely mentally ill family member who is non-compos-mentis and instead have to wait for him to snap and shoot up a mall, getting himself killed in the process. The reality is that these sorts of protections are necessary because the libertardians don’t understand that we need nuthouses just as much as we need jails.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        The government should not be deciding who is mentally fit enough to bear arms. You are an authoritarian. I’m tired of it. It’s a tool. I’ve known people with very extreme mental illnesses. It doesn’t mean they should not be allowed the right to self preservation.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and yet I think you’d have no problems putting a breathalyzer interlock on a drunk’s car.

          Again… the devil is in the details. Until we have details, this conversation is meaningless.

          Just because a particular law will be occasionally abused doesn’t mean the law shouldn’t exist. It means that there need to be severe consequences for said abuse.

        2. avatar quasimojo says:

          There is a simple solution to this. If you think a person is suspect enough to take away their guns, just imprison them or commit them first. Leave the guns right where they are. Those citizens can’t do anything from jail/mental institution. And before you geniuses point out that falsely imprisoning a person and depriving them of their right to liberty without due process is tyranny, consider for a moment that your OK with depriving them of their enumerated 2nd and 4th amendment rights. One solution is no better than the other…

        3. avatar Toni says:

          Agree completely. Deprivation of any liberties is out of order unless an ACTUAL crime has been committed, eg assault, rape, theft, murder and not some BS like going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit or collecting rain water off your roof or building a dam without a permit etc etc. In fact many of those petty crimes that have been dreamed up are actually in violation of natural rights in the first place

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        There’s a huge difference between someone declared incompetent or insane by a court (i.e. due process) and some vengeful ex-girlfriend claiming her ex is violent.
        You authoritarian types don’t seem to get that.

        And yes, committing the mentally ill to secure mental hospitals (after legal due process) would help solve some of these crazy people crimes…and also help with the homeless problem in big cities.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The problem is that, in most states, I could drag a psychotic man trying to eat his own eyeballs in front of a judge and he would STILL be released pending a mental health evaluation. Until we have a mechanism in place for taking the dangerously mentally ill off of the streets, you’ll keep having to fight this battle over and over again.

          Don’t forget, Lanza’s mother tried to have him committed. How did that work out?

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          I guess this comes down to a value judgment, but people snapping and doing something horrible is very rare. Statistically, of the things likely to do you in, it’s down at the level of baseline noise. All in all, I’d much rather err on the side of individual liberty. I think it should be difficult to commit people, or to otherwise deny them rights. Because for every Adam Lanza, how many people do you think there are that act weird by most peoples’ standards but are harmless? That’s leaving aside all the people that don’t even act weird, but manage to piss off someone who is looking for a way to get them. If that leads to a few more lightning strikes that’s frankly a risk I’m willing to take. Again, that’s a value judgment.

        3. avatar Silverstate1776 says:

          We should all remember that the swamp has no interest in reducing gun violence. Rather, it’s in the bureaucrats interest in allowing gun violence to continue because half the population will clamor for their own shackles. The government (generally speaking) is not opposed to violence, remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy Ranch, Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment, and the list goes on and on. They are more than willing to break a few eggs to make a disarmament omelet. War on poverty, how’s that working out? War on drugs, how’s that working out? Securing the border, how’s that working out? Afghanistan and Iraq, how’s that working out? Starting to see a pattern here? Our government has no interest in solving problems, and gun violence is no different.

        4. avatar Ken says:

          Yes they “get” it. All the miserable, sneaky, back door ways for gun confiscation. And not a damn thing to prevent criminals from getting guns! But then again, it’s “gun violence” not criminal violence!

      3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        The main issue is that these laws are designed to be abused. As is, there is no downside for judges to falsely order confiscation, and huge risks for failing to do so when there is a genuine need. If such a law could work at all, there would need to be very serious penalties, criminal and civil, for falsely filing a claim. But the people pushing these bills wouldn’t allow that, again because these laws are designed to be abused.

        But there are already laws in place for committing people who are adjudicated to be a danger to themselves and others. If they are genuinely a threat, why lock up only a few of the many tools at their disposal and not them?

        1. avatar Toni says:

          agree completely. It is not new laws that need to be put in place but rather mental hospitals reopened and the laws already in place enforced. These laws are designed to be abused and already have been where they have been introduced. This will only get worse and worse till those able to have guns are such a small percentage of the population that going door to door is not a major threat to them.
          There is another reason why the .gov does not care about actually fixing problems and that is because at its heart it has become more corrupt than the mafia. Hell the mafia takes care of problems better than the .gov.
          Another aspect to this few even consider is the fact that Psychiatry is an experimental science and even the top experts have trouble coming to consensus of any sort on diagnosis. There are also new diagnoses being added all the time many of which are designed to simply remove freedom of thought and action. A popular diagnoses for those who simply mistrust authority is oppositional defiant disorder. This can be applied to almost any free thinking person. it can easily be applied to most in the gun community and most certainly the prepper and homesteader communities because of the fact that they mistrust the “scientific” formulations that go into mass scale food production today and want to grow their own food leaving the mass producing industries behind to create their own from scratch. It can be applied to almost everyone who disagrees with anything coming from officialdom and is very dangerous territory indeed.
          interesting to note though on all this rates of mental illness are going up as more and more of these lab concocted franken-foods are pushed onto the public and also vaccines and other drugs pushed by pharmaceutical companies. Our forefathers going back centuries used to kill those that were true mental cases and were a danger to others. Then we got the idea that locking them up in hospitals where electro-therapy and drugs were forced onto them. This is a dangerous option IMHO as it sets a dangerous precedent on long term deprivation of liberty. Jails especially as run today where a large proportion of those in jail are there for victimless crimes such as using drugs that .gov has decided it does not like are also of the same ilk.

          There is one other aspect that I have to mention as far as the profession of psychiatry is concerned. When i went to Uni (short lived as I am not a learn and regurgitate theory type but very hands on and practical) every Psych student I ever met was studying psych to sort their own issues mentally and in talking to other uni students in varying disciplines i found that my experience with psych students was not an unusual one. This poses an interesting question in that if all or if not all but most psych students have mental issues themselves how can they then be left in charge of diagnoses and creating the diagnoses for mental illness and indeed creating new ones?

        2. avatar Michael Buley says:

          Great note, Toni. The powers that be can, do, and will continue to, create ‘disorders’ that serve their purposes — control, disarmament, and more control. They have proposed that introversion be a disorder. If you don’t like being around people much (like me), that becomes a disorder. You get anxious being in crowds? You’re SAD.

          Variations on personalities that go outside the more and more narrowly constricted ‘normal,’ become abnormal, and a disorder. You noted the ‘oppositional defiance syndrome’ or whatever name is used for those who think freely, who challenge, who question, who don’t go along with stuff necessarily. We’re ‘dangerous,’ and need to be ‘protected from ourselves, and from possibly inflicting harm on others.’

          The field of psychiatry / psychology is used to define normal — in ever tighter, docile, ‘agreeable’ ways — and earmark ‘trouble makers.’ Millions of boys are force-fed Ritalin every day for being boys — ‘too aggressive, don’t you know? He wants to run and play and roughhouse!’ Destroying masculinity for a good couple decades now.

          These ‘professionals’ are people who have as many problems as the rest of us, or more, who make that determination of our ‘mental health.’ Someone gets a few initials — PhD — and now they have power. They have to prove their value, their intelligence. So they ‘assess’ other people who, like themselves, have any assortment of things they deal with. And their initials give them the power to dramatically affect someone’s life.

          I’ve seen therapists. Spent 2 or 3 years with one gal some years back. One day, I thought, yeah, it’s nice to have someone to talk to (who presumably listens, which is doubtful). But $120 an hour? Nah. It IS nice to have someone listen to us — why do we post on blogs? But more and more, people are ‘watching out for’ the ‘signs’ of ‘mental disorders,’ and who might ‘harm themselves and others.’

          I make no mention to anyone in my day to day life, of the guns and ammunition I own. That’s self-defense at work. ‘Gee, you have x number of guns? That much ammo? Hmm. Wow.’ They read an article — they always get front page — gun deaths up! another shooting! mental disorders! ERPO’s! Another person who (of course justifiably) had his guns removed against his will! Whew! What if … gee, what if Mike … he seems angry sometimes … he believes some really weird things … he doesn’t trust our government for anything! … he’s always been a bit of a wild card … maybe for his own protection, you know?’

          Fear of course causes us to ‘self-monitor’ — another intended consequence. We quit speaking up out of fear. And when we lose free speech, we lose everything else. Nothing is more important than free speech, for a people to really be free. The problem is, we give it up voluntarily, out of fear.

          We are being corralled and cornered. The powers that be are coming for us full force and out in the open now. They are using their vast resources — control of virtually all media; control of politicians and judges — to get it done.

      4. avatar frank speak says:

        the potential for abuse is mind-boggling!….

      5. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Pwerserge the problem is these are left wing laws designed to be used by left wing governments. You might say, well no shit, but that’s a pretty big deal. They are not designed to work as intended. They are not designed to do anything about crazies or “gun violence.” They always have an always will be designed as another tool to be used against innocent law abiding gun owners. A law like this may seem fine to you until it’s being used to confiscated your guns.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Which is why WE must write the laws and narrowly tailor them. But hey, I suppose running around like a monkey with his ass on fire screaming “Orange MAN BAD!” is far more productive.

        2. avatar Joe W says:

          The dude is a hypocritical keyboard commando. Due process is one of the core tenets of this country; no one should be able to deprive another person of their rights and property by claiming that they are a threat, mentally ill, anything without due process. If you’re so worried about someone else you report to the police and they investigate.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          “Due process is one of the core tenets of this country; no one should be able to deprive another person of their rights and property by claiming that they are a threat, mentally ill, anything without due process”

          So how do propose to make arrests work? The reality is that we have long established that under certain circumstances, certain other rights can be temporarily limited so that due process can happen. Fun fact, it’s a lot easier for your ex to swear out an affidavit sufficient to have you arrested and all your guns seized as “evidence” than it would be to get an ERPO.

        4. avatar J. says:

          We suspend certain rights to bring about due process when a crime is suspected to have been committed, or when it can be reasonably expected that a crime will be committed soon.
          We should not suspend rights on unreasonable suspicion of a potential future unspecified maybe-crime that might possibly involve firearms.

      6. avatar Anymouse says:

        Declaring someone non compos mentis would be following due process with evidence and the accused able to rebut testimony. With a declaration, a family member could be declared as guardian and control access to guns, finances, vehicles, and anything else that the person can’t responsibly handle. Most ERPO laws just require someone to make a statement that they’re worried, and the first you’ll know of it is the SWAT team showing up to take your guns away.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          That’s a problem with details, not the concept. FYI, it doesn’t take a lot to put somebody on a 72 hour psych hold. Properly written, an ERPO could be equivalently short-term with proper protections for the accused. The reality is that the sheeple are panicked enough that such a law WILL eventually pass. Given precedents with TROs, it will be upheld in court. What we CAN do, however, is tailor the law to actually do some good as opposed to allow anti-gun commies write a bill open to easy abuse.

        2. avatar Michael Buley says:

          I haven’t seen the question come up. Under ERPO laws, can they, or do they, take your ammunition, as well? More than a few of us might have (asking for a friend, of course) a fair amount of ammo that amounts to some dollars.

      7. avatar John Peacock says:

        Absolutely , No ERPO’s, without due process !

  4. avatar Gregory Peter DuPont says:

    Looks like the Vichy Republicans and Quisling RINO Fudds have someone’s ear.

    1. avatar adlib says:

      it’s okay to actually blame Trump for things Trump does.
      …you know, since he sold himself to you as a gun-rights hero.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      they’ll seize the fudd-guns too…no real reason to differentiate……you want to shoot animals?…you must be mentally ill!…..

  5. avatar Defens says:

    I’m confused – what was the end game of the six dimensional chess game that Trump is playing with the gun grabbers? Surely at some point POTG will reap the benefits of this fiendishly brilliant gun strategy, right?

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Key words: ‘at some point.’ And ‘at some point,’ he’s going to shut the government down to get a wall … but … but not yet. Need to regain control of both branches — oh wait, we had that, and missed the opportunity! Wait ’til 2020! Just two more years!

    2. avatar Swarf says:

      The end game? That everyone but rich white men be unarmed.

      Same as it ever was.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Is that why Michael Jackson got all those cosmetic procedures?

        1. avatar strych9 says:


          That was brutal. Well played.

    3. avatar No Friends Left in the District of Criminals says:

      Trump is not a Constitutionalist nor for gun rights.


      From his own mouth.

  6. avatar Helms Deep says:

    Add New Jersey ( of course ) , Pennsylvania and Maryland to the Red Flag theft states.

    PA. will be pushing AWB any day now.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      PA got a lot bluer as did DE. An AWB and mag limits may be in the future. What sucks of course is it’s not a ban on sale alone but possession. You have to hide it or export to a still free state while you can.

    2. avatar Fully Involved says:

      They are already trying to push for an AWB & standard-capacity mag ban in Pittsbrugh. This is their strategy. Gain enough support to pass laws (relatively easily) in the city states, then it’ll be much easier to pass laws effecting the rest of the state’s countryside. We see it in Cali, NY and now soon to be PA.
      If you can vote in PA fight this sh!t. If you cant, spread awareness. Join, or die.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        can’t believe we have people in here actually defending this “shit’…..

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      wouldn’t surprise me a bit…just look at that crap coming out of Pittsburgh….

  7. avatar Ken says:

    Voted for Trump in the 2016 primary and general election but will vote for a better Republican candidate in the 2020 primary.

    1. avatar Waxman says:

      It won’t matter, they are ALL full of shit!!!

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        how about the current VP?….would he be better?….if so,..root for impeachment!….

  8. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The president, policy makers, and elected officials who normally support gun-rights are responding to the moral imperatives that grew out of a moral panic. They should know better but, alas, they never seem to get it. On the other hand, the gun-control movement has within its ranks people well enough schooled in the social psychology of collective behavior that they do get it.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      I think we attribute too much ignorance to politicians. I think they are all extremely knowledgeable, and very aware of what they are doing, and the end results. I think they very clearly get what is going on, and are complicit in all of it.

      We are surrounded by traitors, basically.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        See, this ^^^ is why we need a thumbs up counter.

      2. avatar Gman says:

        Next time you are in SE VA, let me buy you a beer, or 2 or 3…

        1. avatar Michael Buley says:

          Gman, if I ever get your way, I’ll track you down. A beer, two, three … that I can always go for!

  9. avatar Roman of Texas says:

    What the actual fuck is going on here?

  10. avatar Stick and Rudder says:

    Nothing to worry about… Just more 4D chess moves from Trump….

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Maybe the real game is FU chess.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        Me thinks it’s more about give and take politics with no regard for our Constitution and rule of law. I can almost forgive the Orange-a-tan in the oval office because he really is a know nothing. But when lawyer politicians knowingly ignore the law and Constitution my blood really boils. And the fact that it takes years or decades to overturn these abominations whilst we the People pay the price makes it even worse.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        yeah,..suddenly rge “orange turd” isn’t looking so good….anybody want to buy a MAGA hat?….

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          whatever happened to that edit button?….

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Depends on the final legislation. For example a national standard that restricts these filings to immediate family with strong mandatory penalties for false statements and a requirement for a strong evidentiary standard? That would kill the entire ERPO movement at the state level and wouldn’t be much different from existing law.

      1. avatar Big Sky says:

        You’ve got to be a Russian Troll Bot.

        No human is that dense.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and you have to be functionally retarded if you think that allowing mentally ill nutjobs run around unmedicated with easy access to large amounts of firepower is a good idea.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          …so you’re saying we should call the cops to take your guns away?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I don’t have a history of in-patient treatment for mental illness.

          That’s the thing you don’t understand. Under current law, somebody who has been committed to an asylum may be prevented from buying NEW guns (if, by some miracle, the records are properly maintained) but there is no mechanism in place to enforce the existing law that prevents them from keeping guns they already own.

      2. avatar Michael in AK says:

        I am sure you are a psycho, so I assume you will go quietly with the cops when they show up. It wouldn’t take any effort to detail the crazy things you have been doing and then you told me all about how you needed to “shoot some people who need to be shot”….

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Given that you don’t even know my name, that would be a neat trick.

        2. avatar Jimbo says:

          Serge Nakashian

      3. avatar AwesomeSauce says:


        I like your ideals, even wish they could be.

        My life experience lets me know they are unpossible.

        Someday, probably after life kicks your teeth in a few times, you will understand how unpossible your ideas are.

  11. avatar Gman says:

    Recently posted at Fox:

    The story mentions a 3rd party, a relative, from whom one of the boys was going to obtain the weapon he intended to use to shoot someone at school. Authorities obtained a Vermont ERPO against the relative and confiscated his guns. Reading Vermont law, this action was illegal and should have been prevented by the presiding judge. So much for any judicial review. My read of their law is that it is only applicable to the person making or being of harm to self or others by deed. What if the boy was going to steal guns from a LGS? Would the ERPO shut down the LGS, confiscate all firearms, and take away their FFL?

    (a) A State’s Attorney or the Office of the Attorney General may file a petition requesting that the court issue an extreme risk protection order prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or having a dangerous weapon within the person’s custody or control. The petitioner shall submit an affidavit in support of the petition.
    (b) Except as provided in section 4054 of this title, the court shall grant relief only after notice to the respondent and a hearing. The petitioner shall have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
    No. 97 Page 3 of 22
    VT LEG #332027 v.1
    (c)(1) A petition filed pursuant to this section shall allege that the respondent poses an extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or by having a dangerous weapon within the respondent’s custody or control.
    (2)(A) An extreme risk of harm to others may be shown by establishing that:
    (i) the respondent has inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm on another; or
    (ii) by his or her threats or actions the respondent has placed others in reasonable fear of physical harm to themselves; or
    (iii) by his or her actions or inactions the respondent has presented a danger to persons in his or her care.
    (B) An extreme risk of harm to himself or herself may be shown by establishing that the respondent has threatened or attempted suicide or serious bodily harm.
    (3) The affidavit in support of the petition shall state:
    (A) the specific facts supporting the allegations in the petition;
    (B) any dangerous weapons the petitioner believes to be in the respondent’s possession, custody, or control; and
    (C) whether the petitioner knows of an existing order with respect to the respondent under 15 V.S.A. chapter 21 (abuse prevention orders) or 12 V.S.A. chapter 178 (orders against stalking or sexual assault).
    No. 97 Page 4 of 22
    VT LEG #332027 v.1
    (d) The court shall hold a hearing within 14 days after a petition is filed under this section. Notice of the hearing shall be served pursuant to section 4056 of this title concurrently with the petition and any ex parte order issued under section 4054 of this title.
    (e)(1) The court shall grant the petition and issue an extreme risk protection order if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or by having a dangerous weapon within the respondent’s custody or control.

    1. avatar Helms Deep says:

      RED FLAG confiscations will be abused as the new ‘ swatting ‘

      1. avatar Gman says:

        Non sequitur, but yes it will happen. Any divorse lawyer worth his salt will advise his female client to claim physical and emotional abuse and get a restraining order which will, in those states, then trigger an ERPO. Sooner or later blood will be spilled. And then there is the vindictive ex scenario. And then there is the scenario where a guy has his guns taken away and ends up the dead victim of a home invasion because no guns. The law of unintended consequences is strong with this one.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Agree with the above.

          These ‘Red Flag laws’ will abused.
          However, what is to be done with mentally unstable people?

          I don’t know what the answer is to square it with the Constitution. Due Process and innocent until proven guilty ect.

          This is reeks of pre-crime Minority Report actions.

        2. avatar Dude Homie Buddy says:

          Wake up. Blood already has been spilled:


          If people are too dangerously mentally ill and are still amongst us, there needs to be a proper mechanism using DUE PROCESS to have them committed. DUE PROCESS needs to be carried out first before any rights or liberties are removed. That’s the Constitution talking. Due process probably requires some red-tape removal (it can still be Due Process and not a rubber-stamp if we can debureaucratize much of it).

          Don’t like that sollution? You’d rather shit on the Constitution as it stands? Then the only legal way would be to change the freaking thing; get a new amendment ratified. Until then, tell the ass-goblins around the Potomac they need to stay in-bounds (i.e. their Constitutional duty–and ONLY that).

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Um… smart one… the government can ALREADY arrest you without “due process” and hold you in jail until you get it. Since there is no “right” to bail, they can keep you locked up until your court date shows up. How is your ex swearing out a Red Flag order against you practically different than her swearing out a rape or assault charge?

        4. avatar Anymouse says:

          I think a more likely scenario is that a disturbed person gets his guns taken, gets really pissed off about it, obtains another gun, and the takes his frustration out on the ERPO requestor and random citizens.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        … and if there aren’t strong provisions in place to punish such abuses, we should demand that they be put in there.

        A good example of possible protections would be restricting such filings to immediate family residing with the person in question with severe mandatory penalties for false statements.

        1. avatar Ash says:

          What State consistently punishes lying on a sworn affidavit? A significant other/Ex has too much to gain by making false claims. Your whole “we need to” is just burying your head in the sand.

          The gentleman that was just murdered in Maine, from all reports, was a disagreement between a brother and sister about what to do with their elderly parents. His sister took full advantage of this law because … GUNS! You’re pushing this ‘adjudicated mentally defective’ line that is substantively false.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Is it? Show me the federal law in question. Oh, wait… there’s no federal law.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        count on it!….and “mentally ill” is a rather subjective determination….that the courts and law-enforcement have found to be a useful tool in the past…..

      4. avatar CZJay says:

        Women like this will use it to their advantage:

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      “What if the boy was going to steal guns from a LGS? Would the ERPO shut down the LGS, confiscate all firearms, and take away their FFL?”

      Indeed. If they thought a kid was going to target someone for theft, how about a heads up to the intended victim of the theft so he could take measures to prevent it? The cops could even offer to hold the weapons on a voluntary basis (if the gun owner trusted them).

  12. avatar Kyle says:

    So government wants its citizens disarmed…

    …..who knew

  13. avatar Stick and Rudder says:

    Can’t wait to read pwserge’s knucklehead thoughts on this…… “But, But But it’ll be defeated in the scotus… You’re all just a bunch of commie trolls….” 😰

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Looks like Serge’s residing in your wheelhouse S&R?

  14. avatar m. says:

    fu gun confiscation-a**holes. see 4th amendment, d-suckers.

  15. avatar MarkPA says:

    This looks to be one of those “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” scenarios that will play-out badly both ways.

    In Broward County, the Parkland shooter was a massive cover-up by all parties involved. Given that that was the entire goal – ignoring all the evidence of a developing problem so that the evidence didn’t make the school look bad – how would a red-flag law made a difference?

    Somewhere along the line, law-enforcement would have had to take some affirmative action to get this kid designated a Prohibited-Person and then kept on top of him to make sure that they confiscated his gun if he ever came into possession of a gun. Tough to execute, but if you are focused on being proactive, you could manage to do this to some extent.

    The difficulty, here, is that what the red-flag law would call for is an effort that would have run counter to the political goal of making the school’s stats look good. Which consideration is controlling?

    The inclination of the chain-of-command would likely be to bury the record of the evidence. They would try to avoid building up a record of dozens of calls to the house that suggested a pattern of violence. The call reports would have been white-washed as “disturbing the peace” or some such nonsense. Then, eventually, when they felt compelled to execute on a red-flag order, a judge would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. ‘Where is the pattern of increasingly violent behavior that justifies depriving this fine young man of his Constitutional rights?’ In just such a case as the red-flag law was intended to serve a useful purpose, a LE agency such as Broward County Sheriff would have set-up the system for failure.

    Now, flip to the opposite kind of scenario. Take a sheriff/chief who has a dim view of the 2A. He will be looking for every excuse to execute a red-flag order. No judgement on the officer’s part. Any excuse whatsoever and the order is issued. In such a precinct, there is apt to be a judge who goes along with this program. Neither one wants to be criticized for a failure to aggressively enforce the red-flag law. So, lots of gun owners who have simply had a bad day or got into an argument with a relative will get their guns confiscated. You might think of it as a “hair-trigger” enforcement policy.

    In one pattern of enforcement the CLEO wants to avoid executing on a red-flag order in a case where he really should do so; and, he will claim immunity because he doesn’t have any compelling duty to act in ambiguous circumstances. (‘The kid was just yelling at his mom! Are we going to make a federal case out of this? Of course not. – That’s why we didn’t act.’) In the other pattern, the CLEO will act with impunity to round-up all the guns he can and the relatively innocent gun-owner isn’t going to be inclined to spend the money to make his case of injudicious language/acts any more prominent than it already became.

    What SHOULD we make of these scenarios?

    I think it’s a matter of due-process and objective evidence. Had the Parkland shooter’s record been given the scrutiny that it deserved then the LEOs should have conferred with other interested and knowledgeable parties whereupon the county prosecutor should have taken the initiative to make this kid a prohibited person and to get him the court-ordered compulsory treatment he deserved. A “red-flag” law might play a constructive role in such a scenario. But this view means that LE agencies, prosecutors and legislators who hold the purse-strings need to devote resources to proactive public safety programs. Waiting until a time-bomb explodes and can’t be swept-under-the-run isn’t a cost-effective program.

    Likewise, when an angry relative decides to drop-a-dime on cantankerous old Uncle Ralph, judges must insist on seeing objective evidence. Yes, by all accounts, old Ralph is a coot. But that’s not at issue. What evidence is there that he has shown an escalating pattern of violence? Absent that evidence, Ralph gets his guns back and the angry relative is told that she had better have more before the court will entertain her complaint the next time.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “Yes, by all accounts, old Ralph is a coot.”

      Guilty as charged. Now get off my lawn.

  16. avatar Mymy says:

    And everyone here who voted for lord Cheeto because “guns” this is called the first law of karma. You get precisely what you deserve. And if you think Gorsuch is going to save you all of you must spend your days wallowing about in willful blindness, ignorance and denial. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    1. avatar Gman says:

      And everyone here who voted for lord Cheeto because “guns”
      Well for me personally, the 2nd Amendment IS my vote of choice. Yes I am a single issue voter. I am so because IMHO your stance on something so simple as “shall not be infringed” tells me all I need to know about your character. So YEP, I voted for Trump. Not because of Lord Cheeto’s stance on guns, but because of Hitlerly’s.

      1. avatar J Gibbons says:

        Exactly. Hillary is way worse on 2A. Plain and simple. Didn’t vote for Trump in the primary, but had no choice in the general election.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          it’s starting to look like their really wasn’t much difference between the two….

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          If you think there is no difference between Hitlary and Trump, you’re fucking high.
          – Reduced Taxes
          – Record Low Unemployment
          – Refusing to lick commie ass in international agreements

          Which of these sound like something that Hillary would have achieved?

        3. avatar Anymouse says:

          I haven’t heard Trump advocating Australian-style confiscation.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      So, who did you vote for?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Bernie, obviously. If he voted at all… I seem to live in quite a lot of these fucktards’ heads… I wonder if they will start charging me rent?

        1. avatar luigi says:

          Nobody’s obsessed with you on here. The reason your comments attract attention is because they’re often obnoxious, in your face, profane, obtuse, laced with anger and rage, and not very well thought out.
          It doesn’t help that the majority of folks on here just want the government to stay out of their business, while it seems like you will only be content when the behemoth of a central government is crushing your enemies and you’re hearing the lamentations of their women

      2. avatar possum says:

        I voted for Daffy Duck and I will continue to vote for Daffy Duck until America gets a Country before career candidate. good luck Daffy huh

        1. avatar J Gibbons says:

          Hate to say it, but a vote for Daffy Duck or any third-party candidate is a vote for Democrats. Part of the problem.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          “I voted for Daffy Duck”

          But he’s a gun-grabbing pinhead!

        3. avatar possum says:

          How so? I hear that often. But tell me how a vote for a third party automatically is a vote for the Democrat party. Couldn’t it just as easily be a vote for a Republican? At most I would think it’s a throw away vote as they all are. Let me ask this, did Trump win the popular vote or did he win the electoral college? No one believes that Republican/ Democrat are one of the same. No one believes that presidential votes are a moral of the populace test. Voting was up, moral is good,voting was down moral is bad, they still believe they can make a change voting and that’s good. Once “they” quit voting “We” know we’ve got problems. because, the people have lost faith in the system. And that’s why a vote for Daffy Duck is not a vote for either party.

  17. avatar Gman says:

    What’s with the taking of guns protective order thing? If someone is deemed to be a danger to society by having access to guns, why aren’t we locking them up and removing them from society. IF I was so inclined and was coitus interruptused by a protective order, I might just get really pissed and use a bigger boom. It goes to the same thing with felons. If we don’t trust someone with a gun, they don’t belong amongst us in the first place. Taking someones guns away and putting them on a banned list isn’t going to stop them. It might just get them mad.

  18. avatar Swarf says:

    Who would have thought that a man who ran a scam charity and a scam university and a scam television show and repeatedly scammed investors and repeatedly scammed contractors might be untrustworthy?

    B-b-b-Hitlery!! Yeah, yeah, sure.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      You’re just buthurt that your man couldn’t win a fair and open election. Elections have consequences. If you want a better president, run a better candidate that can actually convince people to vote for him.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      All that and he was still a better choice than hillary. And if she manages to steal the dem nomination again I will still vote for him if that’s who the gop puts up.

      Sorry dude. But there is nothing worse for America than the clintons.

    3. avatar Gman says:

      Hey, at least he didn’t sell 20% of our uranium to the Russians for 165 Million in donations to a (er) charity.

      1. avatar jbob says:

        No he only sold half a trillion dollars worth of arms to the people responsible for 9/11 in exchange for $175M to his daughters charity. They’re all corrupt.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          But Alex Jones said that was 4D chess moves to defeat the Muslims, globalists, China, deep state and Democrats.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh really? So everybody from Saudi Arabia is responsible,for 9/11 despite the membership of the group that actually carried it out being on a Saudi “shoot on sight” list? Really?

  19. avatar pwrserge says:

    Oh look… a bunch of libertardians are throwing shit fits over a recommendation that has no legislative backing. Are you this upset over TROs that already exist? You do realize that under EXISTING laws most states will take your guns over a TRO? Right? You do realize that you ALREADY can’t BUY or even legally OWN guns if you’re the subject of a domestic violence TRO? Right?

    As I said elsewhere, I’ll see what the details of actually proposed legislation turn out to be. Unlike some panicky fucktards, I wait to see what actually gets proposed as law. The devil is in the details. For example, severe penalty clauses for frivolous filings would be important. As would the exact details of the scope of said filings.

    As in the case of the “bump stock ban”, I’m not going to run around like my ass is on fire every time somebody opens their mouth. In that case, what happens in the courts is important. Why? Because it could easily play out to our advantage.

    While I’m not a big fan of ex-parte orders, the details are important. For example, I definitely support third party commitment orders for people with a long history of violent mental illness.

    But hey… let the libertardians gnash their teeth and move their anarchist asses out to the woods where they don’t have to worry about their bughouse nuts neighbor who has been in and out of mental institutions being released with no monitoring and a promise to be a good boy and take his anti-psychotics.

    In the case of these orders? Again, it depends. Strictly limited procedures with strong due process protections would be a good thing. After all, nobody wants a paranoid schizophrenic being free to stockpile a small arsenal waiting for the little green dude on his shoulder to tell him to go shoot up a mall. If it winds up being a system open to abuse, then I’d oppose it. However, until we know one way or the other, whining like a bunch of retarded sheep doesn’t do us any good and just makes us look ridiculous.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      First, the fed cannot, Constitutionally, enact such a law. It is required of the States. Constitutionally, they are all bogus. It is simpler just to avoid the entire issue and have a judge order a mental evaluation and 72 hour committment. Then evaluate the results of that and have a due process hearing.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        True… but that would require us to rebuild the mental healthcare system that the left and right have conspired to demolish. Instead, they would rather turn these nutjobs out onto the streets because “muh’ freedoms”. Too bad about the fact that most of them will die from exposure if they don’t go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          they would rather turn these nutjobs out onto the streets because “muh’ freedoms”
          They isn’t they. The right would rather turn these nutjobs out onto the streets because “muh’ freedoms. The left simply seeks anarchy.

        2. avatar Specialist38 says:

          The right turned them out because it saved money.

          The left turned them out because they think they are fun to play with and they wanted their votes.

      2. avatar frank speaks says:

        new legislation in PA severely restricts who you can give custody of you’re guns….no friends or relatives…lawyer [if he’s willing], FFL or the cops…and ups the ante for non-compliance….just furthers their agenda of making us all convicted felons….

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      This issue is not just the report. Now that the House has flipped, they are almost assured of passing a bill in the new session (as well as many other gun control bills). Most of these bills won’t have a snowball’s chance of passing in the Senate. And even if they did, Trump would probably veto many of them. However, ex parte disarmament hearings already have support from a number of GOP senators. Since almost all the senate dems would be rock hard and gently throbbing for a chance to vote for just about any gun control bill, they don’t need many GOP to sign on. Then it would all depend on turtle Mitch. Trump has already voiced support for the concept. You make a good point about waiting to see if the bills will have any teeth for false claims, or penalties for officials who abuse the laws, though government isn’t real big on putting restrictions on itself. Not that we will have much choice but to wait and see what Congress does, in any case.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        The obvious solution is to shortstop them and write our own bill.

        – Restricted to immediate family.
        – Mandatory hearing within 72 hours.
        – Hearing evidentiary burden “beyond a reasonable doubt”
        – Mandatory accountability of all property seized and return within 24 hours of order being vacated.
        – Severe criminal penalties against people who bring these cases that are then thrown out as well as statutory civil damages.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          I can get on board with that. And add that all court and legal costs are paid by false accusers. Frankly, though, a main reason I’d be on board with that is because such a bill would never pass the House, and probably wouldn’t pass the Senate. Actually, it might be a pretty decent political move.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          I would actually not mind if this law was actually passed with your amendments. The good it would do would far outweigh the inevitable abuses. (Abuses that exist in ANY law.) What people forget is that the world isn’t as simple as “muh’ 2nd amendment, ORANGE MAN BAD!”… In the real world, there are loads of shitty situations that the law needs the tools to deal with.

          For every crazy ex that will file a false charge and get slapped with statutory civil damages and court costs, there will be one kindly old man who occasionally thinks that the Krauts are kicking down the door of the house he holed up in after Market Garden and grabs his old 1911 putting three rounds through the door and into his grandson.

        3. avatar frank speak says:

          has anyone proposed that?….or put a bill like that out there?…..some of the states don’t seem to be following that formula…….

    3. avatar adlib says:

      telling that you would rather rip gun owners than say one cross word about Trump, i think.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Trump has done more for this country in the past two years than every libertardian combined in the last 50. That earns him the benefit of the doubt and a bit of patience.

        1. avatar luigi says:

          We haven’t even had a single conservative president the last 50 years let alone libertarian. Reagan came close but the neocons hijacked his administration

        2. avatar luigi says:

          I know we were all desperate back in 2016, but I’m starting to run out of patience

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      yeah,..keep clinging to hopeful thoughts….you really can’t see the forest for the trees….

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Waiting to see what is actually proposed rather than going off half-cocked like a retard with his ass on fire is a “hopeful thought” now… I’m starting to think that a bunch of people here have no idea how the government actually works… well either than or are commie trolls with shiny new accounts.

        1. avatar possum says:

          The government works?, I did not know that.

        2. avatar possum says:

          The government works?, I did not know that. Hell they take a weeks vacation to rest up from their two weeks vacation after taking a month long trip to Cancun to discuss vacations.

    5. avatar luigi says:

      Even if their recommendations aren’t made into law, it’s rather alarming that a “Republican” president has a council of morons proposing this garbage be foisted on every American in all 50 states. A president who has already made public comments about throwing due process out the window for the sake of public safety

  20. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    We get SCREWED by politicians. Donny gets screwed by everyone. Donny will be a one term office holder.
    The next one will be much worse.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Donny will really earn my admiration if he actually runs again. That will really take guts. Sure presidents take a lot of crap, that’s the job, but with Trump it’s a whole new level. Some of which he sort of invites. But, hell, he is a NYer.

  21. avatar Scooter says:

    Oh look… a politician that didn’t keep promises. Mr. President, you said you’d defend our 2nd Amendment. That’s how we knew he wouldn’t. They’re all full of the brown, stinky, squishy. Even the ones that say they aren’t. Especially the ones that say they aren’t.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      This isn’t a 2nd Amendment issue, it is a due process, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issue.
      Everything else I agree with.

      1. avatar Big Sky says:

        Oh come on. Everyone knows King T thinks the 2A is only as deep as elephant hunting in Africa.

        Well, it was fun will it lasted.

  22. avatar The farce continues says:

    Wait, what? How? When? Trump doesn’t care about the US constitution? He is just another politician? But but but MAGA deplorables #nottiredofwinningyet. Oh well at least we will get a partial wall here and there.

  23. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    You know, there’s a lot of gun (and other) policies and laws I’d be just fine with, if I trusted the folks implementing them at all.

    Can we say that, or will that get me a “red flag?”

  24. avatar Slim says:

    You guys are acting like this “red flag” nonsense is something new. In reality just about anyone, anywhere can call 911 and say a gun owner is a threat or acting erratically and you can bet your ass there will be a police response.

    Here in Florida people get “Baker Acted” all the time without due process. It’s rubber stamp process. A disgruntled relative, spouse, neighbor with a beef, teacher etc can make a phone call and have you dragged off to the “puzzle factory” for a 3 day hold. And if you have guns the cops will “hold on to them” and make you jump through hoops to get them back.

    In most cases you can count on the inept government agencies who mandate and enforce this nonsense to drop the ball. So an innocent gun owner that has a verbal argument with the wife gets his guns taken and some lunatic who makes public threats on social media gets to keep their guns…..

    1. avatar J says:

      You still need certain criteria for a Baker Act. If you are threatening people while being armed you have more chances to be arrested and charged with an aggravated assault rather than being Baker Acted. The Baker Act is not criminal in nature, which I believe is why there is no real due process. It is designed to protect the person from causing harm to himself/herself or others. Can it be abused? Yes.

    2. avatar J Gibbons says:

      Indiana was one of the first red flat states years ago. Very little, if any abuse. I know it will be worse in purple and blue states, but it is possible to survive with these in place, as much as I disagree with the concept of zero due process.

    3. avatar Lloyd says:

      You cannot simply get Baker Acted n’exauce you had an argument with someone.

      Read the CRITERIA in FL Statute 394.463

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      yeh,..that’s about how it works….except for the few grand [minimum]…that it’s going to cost you to accomplish that

      1. avatar Michael Buley says:

        Just that one small item … a few grand … other than that, hardly an inconvenience. Oh, and I suppose the weeks, or months — longer? — that it takes to get your guns back, if you ever do at all. In the meantime? Disarmed.

  25. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    I don’t know who Trump and the Republicrats think will vote for Them,the swamp scum needs to be drained from both parties.

    1. avatar BIg Sky says:

      Both parties?

      Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.

      Oddly, the liberals seem to be the friends at the moment. They show their cards. We can count on that.

  26. avatar possum says:

    Once again I will post this, “I worked for a corporation that Trump was a member of, he would sell his own mother out if the price was right.” What’s going on now is worse then what Slick Willy did in 94. The majority of the population have now been stigmatized with anti gun propaganda. I’m still saying Paddock is alive and well, living it up somewhere far from here. I still believe a lot of shootings are covert operations running and end game. The media has shown so many black bad men that it’s now A Okay for cops to shoot black kids in the back. T his stripping of the Constitution, if it does go down in a negative way, it’s going to fall in the laps of Law Enforcement. Whether that officer says, ” No, this just ain’t right, I swore an oath,” or “Im not loosing my pension”, that’s the key. We, they, us, them, it, has done a pretty good job of driving a wedge against law enforcement, I can’t blame some cops for being trigger happy, considering circumstances today. Not all cops are bad. Occasionally I listen to a song by Steppenwolf, called ” The Monster”, it’s quite appropriate… America where are you now, don’t you care about your son’s and daughters.

    1. avatar Troy says:

      It’s not okay for cops to shoot innocent people. The problem is the media only talk about what serves a specific agenda.
      When you hear about an innocent shot by a cop, there are often key facts missing because nowadays it’s about how fast you can publish an “article” rather how good it is. It is particularly true here on TTAG when the “articles” regarding police involved shootings are just a very poor synopsis of the already poor article on some other media.
      You don’t hear much about the cop who did wrong and will pay the price after a trial and an IA investigation, because that’s not what the public wants to hear. It doesn’t serve the BLM agenda, not the sovereign citizen mentality, and it doesn’t serve either the utopia some conservatives have that ALL cops are good and professional. It does not serve ANY agenda. For similar reasons blacks killing blacks is rarely breaking news or an article leading to heated reactions on TTAG.
      I can guarantee you that many cops who did something wrong do not get away with it. In addition, in some agencies, bogus IA resulting in disciplinary actions are not uncommon.

  27. avatar silentbob says:

    I may get some flack for this but I’m in support of red flag laws, when my ex-wife stole my shotgun, went off her meds and assaulted me in my apartment causing me to file an emergency protective order the police did nothing, the courts did nothing and I had to abandon my apartment for 2 months until things simmered down.

    I carry a pistol and a BUG every single day and I fully support the 2nd amendment, saying that some people are legitimate threats to other people and shouldn’t be allowed to have posession of dangerous things like firearms, vehicles etc.

    My ex-wife had violent mood swings and unpredictable behavior, I got an emergency protective order and a temporary protective order, when I saw the judge for a permanent protective order the judge saw fit to deny it despite informing her of the stolen shotgun, lack of medication and prior history of mental illness, my ex got to keep that shotgun and later sold it sadly.

    I do not support gun control in any way, I enjoy my rights and responsibilities as a CHP holding American, the past thing that people in my situation need though is blood on their hands using a concealed weapon to defend themselves from someone with mental instability because the government did nothing to protect them.

    1. avatar Big Sky says:

      You’re going to just have take one for the team here Bob. Thanks for your service. Salute.

    2. avatar Specialist38 says:

      Just need due process or it becomes tyanny.

      With VIOLENT mental illness, it seems we have two choices:
      Lock them up and treat them.
      Kill them.

      Treating them in the wild is evidently not working and innocent people suffer the consequences.

    3. avatar former water walker says:

      Geez silentbob I thought my ex was( IS) crazy as f##k…I’d take matters into my own hands before I put up with that chit!

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        verbalize that… and they’ll just come for you sooner

  28. avatar Alan says:

    Who hired this bunch, I’m given to wonder.

  29. avatar Michael says:

    re. “Sasquatch”, somebody wrote about identifying the target through their rifle scope, and nobody, INCLUDING ME, called ’em on it. Anti-firearms groups read these same boards. Some of the stuff we think is stupid/funny, scares the hell out of them …guess what? Some of what I read scares the hell out of me, also. At least, if hillary had won, it would be over and done with by now. I gotta’ buy some more ammo. -30-

  30. avatar PeterC says:

    “Road Island?”

    1. avatar Michael says:

      PeterC, that’s too funny, what was my tell?, and no, it’s not an Island anymore…I heard that they built a bridge…there are people…lived and died…never left Block nor Prudence Island. I left as soon as I could & have never looked back. -30-

  31. avatar Specialist38 says:

    I didn’t vote for Trump because I liked him.

    I voted for him because I thought he would do less damage than Billary.

    I may have been wrong, he is working harder than I thought he would.

  32. avatar Donnie, take the guns first, Trump says:

    I miss Obama and W now.

  33. avatar Jack Else says:

    Come on people get a grip. You all are better than that. Have you not noticed that every one in the swamp to include President Trump’s White House are out to destroy him. Outside of his family he has very few who have his 6. It was only a few weeks ago that a Whit House commission concluded that man-made global warming was for real and the greatest threat to the U.S.; which is complete B.S.

    Don’t let yourself be scammed by the swamp creatures.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      the trumpster doesn’t seem to be doing much to gain our support….exactly what pro-gun legislation has he sponsored?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Since when do presidents write legislation? He’s openly stated that he’d sign any number of pro-gun bills that died in the Senate.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          he was verbally dismissive of universal reciprocity…and opened the door for red flag laws..how blind can you be?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh REALLY? Show me the bill that he signed… vetoed? Maybe you’re just buthurt because you forgot that it takes 61 votes in the Senate to get anything done?

        3. avatar WTFU America says:

          He sure jumped at the chance to ban bump-stocks via fiat (which is wholly illegal and unconstitutional). Doing an end-run around the very language of written law is a dangerous precedent, and to blindly defend a man in every facet, who for better or worse, is our president, reeks of the highest order of messianic myopia.

          One should never blindly trust or defend another 100% of the time without a grain of salt or a bit of fact-checking. People like you come off as some crazy trump-cult. Unwavering, unquestioning affection, adoration and idolization is more proof mental-illness than some grump old man who just wants to be left alone.

  34. avatar Hal_greaves says:

    Can we stop this senseless fearmongering? I know half the guy shops in this country are broke because they can’t sale ammo and guns at ripoff prices again, I’d like to avoid that for another 2 years.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      stock up now….at least .22’s are cheap again!…..

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      did you miss the round table where his comments gave feinswine the jollys to the point where she probably wet her diaper?

  35. avatar Robehr Orinsky says:

    The Kabuki theater will continue until they have you dolts unarmed and then the real agenda will come forth . Human burger is your destiny . ” Silence in the face of evil is itself evil . God will not hold us guiltless . Not to speak is to speak . Not to act is to act ! ” Deitrich Bonhoeffer

  36. avatar Jon R. Adkins says:

    I thought he said we could keep our Second Amendment rights while he was campaigning. Another practicing “liar” or lawyer. He won’t get my vote in 2020. Hopefully, we’ll have a civil war: gunowners against anti-gunners and all politicians. Then we’ll elect people for the people. Get rid of all politicians and lawyers who are government for the government.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Better watch it…. That kinda talk just might get ya “red flagged”….. 😱

  37. avatar Eddie Hubbard says:

    Looks like us legal gun owners are going to have to take up our arms, band together & use our 2nd amendment rights to put a stop to the BULLSHIT. You can bet our founding fathers would have already done something beside set back & go along with the guberment. I don’t know why Trump would turn on us for no reason. We put him into office & now he is allowing the gun grabbers to do what they want. Like the Flag say’s. Come & Take It. I will add if you have the kahonies. I am old & don’t give a shit if I am on the national news for fighting for what is mine. Of course I will be called a right winged wacko but who gibes a shit. I don’t. At least I will go out fighting & not giving in.

    1. avatar frank speak... says:

      this isn’t about mental health or commitment…it’s about using the flimsiest of excuses to seize your guns….root for impeachment!….this guy isn’t our friend….

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yes… because supporting a coup against a democratically elected president in favor of open communists is a GRAND idea.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          right wing wackos bandy about communists the way left wingers use “racist”…you’re both our of touch…

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… because the DSA is totally not an organization that has congressional representation… Oh… wait… bug-eye Cortez exists.

        3. avatar L says:

          pwrserge, just because it’s a democratically elected president doesn’t mean he is given full authority to strip the country’s citizens of their rights. In fact, being democratically elected is even more of an issue because he wouldn’t have even been in office if he hadn’t won over the gun owners’ votes. He was elected by The People to defend Their rights and he is doing the exact opposite. The only other option We had was even worse. It’s very clear Our democratic election has failed Us.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      that’s actually the way they want you to respond…just makes their case….

  38. avatar pwrserge says:

    Lots of new accounts here bitching about a report with no legislative weight. Hm…

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      the handwriting’s on the wall…bitch now or cry later….

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Whatever you say trollo… If “the writing is on the wall” why aren’t you out in the streets with your gun? Oh… wait… you’re just a $0.50 commie troll who’s making mountains out of a possible future molehill.

        You know what rational people do? They take an objective look at things. How can you objectively evaluate a proposed law that hasn’t even been drafted yet? Or do you think that it’s never ok for a government to seize guns? Really? I’ve given several examples above where the bill could be strictly limited and possibly be used to do some actual good.

        But here we are… with a bunch of libertardians and obvious commie trolls basically making an “argument” that amounts to “Orange Man Bad”.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          you’re actually starting to sound like a good candidate…do you check under your bed for “communists’ before retiring?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          So… Frank… I take it that ANTIFA isn’t a thing then?

        3. avatar frank speak says:

          i’ve defended this asshole on ultra-liberal websites more times than I can count….but he’s beginning to piss me off…

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again… Frank…


          Yes or no?

          Are they anarcho-communists?
          Yes or no?

          Are they supported by DNC party leaders like mayors of certain cities?
          Yes or no?

  39. avatar Minuteman says:

    This is about so much more than just guns folks. There is a push going on where the powers to be want to be able to jail you for a crime that you may do in the future. Think about it. They want to take your guns before you commit a crime. All it takes is for a phone call to come in saying your dangerous. They even want to see your Internet posting before you can buy a gun. They ( government) is the one deciding if your fit. They are the ones setting the standards. Hitler is coming again and it’s them. When they start confiscating guns they better be met by lots and lots of gun owners in mass at properties they are visiting. Wonder what they would do when they found 50 or a hundred guns pointed at them at one time versus just one poor soul. It wouldn’t take long for the shit to stop. It’s coming soon guys. It’s time to band together. It ain’t just trumps fault. It every last idiot we have elected.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh… great… another “literally Hitler” retard spazing out over a law that’s not even written yet, much less passed. Great…

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        it’s already led to one tragedy…how many are to follow?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          It’s lead to jack shit and you know it. You have no idea what the federal bill will look like and neither do I. Unlike you, I’m willing to at least look at it before I run around like my ass is on fire.

      2. avatar ButLiquor says:

        You sound very angry. Reporting you to the authorities, so they interfere before you hurt someone.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      sounds like you’re describing another waco…and we all know how that ended….

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        to say the trends are disturbing would be an understatement…better to let them know how we feel about this now…rather than later….

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      of course they exist numb-nuts…and i’m far from being supportive of what they do…but why so protective?…this trump troll act is wearing a bit thin….

  40. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  41. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      sounds great…but is anybody listening?

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Um… Aaron… you just described a “Red Flag” law… Except for the fact that “probable cause” is a far looser standard than “a preponderance of the evidence”.

      1. avatar L says:

        pwerserge please answer me this… why do you believe the government should have more power than the people when history has shown repeatedly that governments will oppress, jail and genocide its people when it is given too much power?

  42. avatar 22winmag says:

    Hey School Safety Commission!

    You have about as much credibility as the Warren Commission and the 9/11 commission.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      shh… according to some of the trolls one here with shiny new accounts this commission just wrote, passed, and signed a law while we weren’t paying attention. What law? Don’t know, but apparently it’s the end of the 2nd amendment… What do you mean there’s no practical difference between a false arrest warrant and a “Red Flag” law?

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        shiny new accounts?….really?….but it wouldn’t matter anyway…everyone’s views count equally here…

        1. avatar Geoff "Kill a Commie for Mommy" PR says:

          “everyone’s views count equally here…”

          No, Frank, they don’t. Example – Your ‘nick’ has little history here, and carries very little weight.

          Oh, and ‘Frank’, what *exactly* what are the “far-left websites you claim to have defended Serge on, and I quote, “More times than I care to remember”?

  43. avatar Minuteman says:

    Pwrserge, all it would take is someone you know to make one phone call and the cops would show up at 530am to visit and your guns are gone or you are, whichever doesn’t really matter to me. Where does it end? Who makes the judgment call? I’m sure glad you have such high confidence in the government to make these wise decisions. I’m beginning to think your mentally deficient.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Under literally no version of ANY proposed legislation is that true.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        their intent is obvious…the anti-gun crowd couldn’t have asked for a better tool…

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Their intent is irrelevant. Show me the proposed law and we can have a conversation. Until then, running around like your ass is on fire shouting “Orange Man Bad!” is not productive.

      2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

        I’m sure the (PRC) The People’s Republic of China would agree with YOU that “Red Flag/STOP/ERPO Laws” are really good ideas for American….To help with the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights…Might as well been written on a over 100 year old roll of Charmin toilet paper!

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m sure that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

          Please tell me the practical difference between somebody swearing out a false ERPO to grab your guns and somebody swearing out a false rape allegation to get your arrested and held without bail for a few months awaiting trial? Abuses of the law will happen. We must narrowly tailor the law to minimize such abuses. That doesn’t mean the law in question shouldn’t exist.

  44. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

  45. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

  46. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    …And while posting here……

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  47. avatar Minuteman says:

    Proposed Legislation? Red flag laws already being tried. I’m talking in the future. There is a agenda you know. This is the beginning. You won’t be in the fight I can assure you. I think you will freely and gladly give up your rights for a safer existence. One man has already fought the good fight and lost his life. You apparently have your head in the sand as far as what’s coming down the pipe.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Lol… ok trollo… If you weren’t a shiny new left wing concern troll, you’d know you were full of shit.

  48. avatar Minuteman says:

    Yep as full of it as you are pwrsarge. We both stink. It sure is fun though ain’t it!
    Hillary in 2020! Rah, Rah!

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      let’s just stick to gun rights…hard to believe this guy is abandoning us…but it’s certainly beginning to look that way….now what?

  49. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Hey Trumpkins, I TOLD YA SO!!!!!!!

    All throughout the primaries and the general election, you fools converted your justifiable fear and loathing of Hillary into unearned, misplaced, and downright reckless trust of Trump. “He’s pro-2A! Even his son hunts!”, you said. “He’s pro-2A! Look, even the NRA is spending heavy in his favor!” Uh huh…..you mean the National Rapacious Organization?

    Trump proves only that what passes for a friend of the Second Amendment in D.C. is someone who stabs you in the front.

    1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

      Hey, Jonathan, you would have been happier with Hillary filling two SCOTUS seats?

  50. avatar randall says:

    But Trump’s going to give us the Hearing Protection Act and silencers when he gets in office. /sarc

    Looks like we got screwed instead, twice.

  51. avatar Dave S. says:

    Sooo…PwrSerge is full of chit. Tell us something we didn’t know.

    That little me-monkey is so insecure he’ll have to respond to this with his usual bluster.

    1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

      Lookie here –

      Another new name talking shit in TTAG…

    2. avatar L says:

      Just because you disagree with him doesn’t mean he isn’t entitled to an opinion. Telling someone they are full of shit is never going to help your cause. If you think he’s wrong (I do) then have a discussion on it instead of throwing insults.

      1. avatar Michael Buley says:

        Thanks for an unfortunately needed bit of common sense and etiquette, L. Civility makes the world a nicer place. The personal attacks are the end of conversation.

  52. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Now that the Republicans can be sure that you’ll vote for them no matter what, they have dropped all pretenses of caring about freedom (at least while in office). And that’s all it ever was – pretenses.

    Stop voting for these liars. Will Democrats win a few elections before we finally settle on a real freedom candidate? Yes, they will. But since the Republicans and the Democrats are now indistinguishable, what do you have to lose?

  53. avatar strych9 says:

    Something that concerns me about this kind of thing are legitimate, short-term medical problems that induce anger and irrational behavior.

    Electrolyte deficiencies are a good example. A lowered level of either Sodium or Potassium will cause issues with both temper and regular cognitive processes which can lead to irrational behavior and short-term memory loss. Low levels of these things in the body can happen for a number of reasons ranging from a rare reaction to certain medications to ketoacidosis.

    Now, 99.99% of the time the behavior and the temper are not an actual threat to anyone and the “solution” (sorry about the pun) to this problem is an IV line of saline mixed with what’s missing until normal levels are restored.

    So, the answer isn’t an ERPO. It’s a saline drip with the appropriate electrolyte which will cure the “problem” in hours. In reality, the threat is to the person with low electrolyte levels because this can be lethal.

    Does anyone really believe that if they were to have a sodium deficiency, act a bit odd because of it, lose their guns to an ERPO and then get better thanks to treatment that the cops would hurry back to return their property? I sure don’t. I figure that if a neighbor called in and ERPO on you that you’d lose your guns pretty quick and spend weeks or months trying to get them back after spending a day or two in the hospital to get your electrolyte levels back up to normal.

    Fucking up the South Beach/Atkins diet doesn’t seem like a good reason to lose your guns for ANY period of time IMHO.

    1. avatar Kevin sherhart says:

      I totally agree your right there. And antidepressants. Can also cause sudden out Burst of anger and phycosis but most.people.are on some medicine that has those side effects.

  54. avatar 556SBR says:

    Interesting that the NRA was only mentioned 8 times (no make that 9) and Trump only 37 times (make that 38) so far. I would have expected much more based on previous article comments.

    1. avatar L says:

      People are starting to forget about the NRA, and for good reason.

  55. avatar 556SBR says:

    “Importantly, the commission expressly rejected age limitations on firearm purchases, which as the report explains in detail, have no real impact on crime. Finally, we appreciate President Trump’s support for keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others in the form of state Extreme Risk Protection Orders — provided they include strong due process protections, require mental health treatment, and include penalties against those who file frivolous charges to harass law-abiding citizens. The recommendations in the commission report will go a long way towards preventing violence and making children safer in our schools.”

  56. avatar m. says:

    Hitler confiscated guns, you useless d-sucker traitors

  57. avatar luigi says:

    Why does Trump have a “School Safety Commission” in the first place? Is that really something that needs to be handled at the federal level? I think the 10th Amendment might just be the most abused/ignored amendment of all.

  58. avatar mark s. says:

    I tried to warn everyone about Trump and his bent towards liberalism . He is a liberal capitalist who said what he needed to say to the conservatives in the republican party to get elected . He only cares about capital , acquisition of it and being on top of the heap .
    Donald Trump could never have been elected as a republican had he not had Hillary as an opponent and truth is , he could have run and run as a democrat had he changed just a few statements here and there .
    Should have voted for Ted Cruz boys and girls , but no , he was too RELIGIOUS .
    I don’t think we are going to get another chance here .
    I have been preparing for gun confiscation for years .
    There are things we can do to stay armed , locked and loaded in a gun free America .
    Don’t give up , I’m not suggesting ever giving up or that we just stand by and let our rights be trampled and our second amendment be twisted and watered down , but for GODS sake , be prepared for the worst and if you can , prepare for those who can not see the writing on the wall .

  59. avatar Neil Carpenter says:

    Dont trade your boys for my toys.

  60. avatar Robert Boudrie says:

    Many are killed or injured by demented elderly drivers (BTDT). How about a red flag driving law that requires the motor vehicle department to revoke the driving license of any person denounced by a family member or acquaintance as a potentially dangerous driver – no reasoned judicial finding necessary, but the driver is welcome to hire an attorney at his own expense to maybe get his license back. That person would go before a judge who thinks “I will be crucified in the media if I restore this license and he hurts someone in a wreck”, so the revocation would be upheld for all but the most connected person.

    This should be legally easier since driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right.

  61. avatar Rusty Williams says:

    Mike Pence is the pro gun person, Trump not so much. His kids are FUDDS and he listens to his kids. Therefore Donald Trump is a FUDD and we all know about them. I’m just hoping his SCOTUS picks are pro constitution and therefore pro gun enough to strike down everything anti-gun/2A that comes their way.

  62. avatar Salty Bear says:

    This is what we get for refusing to vote third party. The Ds and the Rs have figured out that they can do whatever they want to us, and that we’ll never elect anyone but them. We are screwed.

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