Actually, Senator Graham, that’s exactly what these laws enable.
Supporters of (“red flag”) laws say they can save lives by removing guns from individuals who should not have them. Some states have used the laws to successfully protect individuals from suicide, at least one study shows. Opponents of such laws say they violate the second amendment and say they do nothing to thwart the underlying issues causing the threat.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in his opening remarks, sought to play down fears of second amendment infringement.
“There are a lot of people [who] may be worried, ‘Is the government going to come take your guns?’ And the answer is, ‘No,’ ” Graham said, hinting that one day he hopes there could be a federal process for law enforcement or family members to be able to petition a court signaling someone is “about to blow.”
– Brakkton Booker in In The Shadow Of Suicides, Senate Panel Makes Rare Move To Consider Gun Control
Laws enabling government to come and take your guns do not enable government to come and take your guns. Checks out.
Maybe families and neighbors should deal with their own shit instead of calling the .gov in for every little domestic squabble.
The way the red flag laws read in some jurisdictions (like CA) they don’t even have to be a friend, family or neighbor. If some guy on the internet manages to doxx you, he has enough information to call in a red flag on you.
“Maybe families and neighbors should deal with their own shit instead of calling the .gov in for every little domestic squabble.”
I would NEVER call the police on somebody that I wasn’t willing to take the chance on them being killed.
It’s unfortunate that Americans have allowed their police to become so immoral you fear calling them because there is a good enough chance they will escalate to deadly force.
No police are allowed to trespass, come on your property armed beyond normal uniform, and attempt forceful entry into your residence w/o a legal search warrant that specifically, and completely identifes the items or persons to be seized. They are not allowed to take inventory of your possession while in your home for use in later warrants.
If the police show up carrying significantly more arms than usual and the are carrying them in an aggressive manner that implies to you that your life can be in danger it probably is.
Do not allow the police into your home unless they have a legal warrant as described above. Meet them at the door, politely ask for a specific, legal warrant. If they don’t have one ask them to go get one and bring it back. If they refuse be polite and inform them that they won’t be allowed entry without a warrant then lock all doors.
Time to turn on the camera on your phone in case they attempt to force their way in against your wishes. Since you are already fearing for your life a break in can confirm that in your mind.
At the onset of their breaking in warn them that you are afraid for your life and that you will use every means at your dispossal to protect your home and the people therein.
Then, you have to know what odds you have for succeeding in your defensive and make a good decision that will best do that without your being harmed.
You have every right to defend yourself and your family. When police attempt unlawfull entry and appear to be a threat to your life and well-being, shoot them when the break in starts. Be sure you can win! Have proof of your attempts to be cooperative.
Josh Hollinger tell that to the family of the Decorated Veterin that was killed or to the several people who lost their guns and will never recover them due to being red flagged. After an investigation was done they were cleared but california had already destroyed their collection. There are real Red Flags but no anonymous tips, no not Identifying the Maker of the complaint, and if An investigation turns up empty immediate return of all guns. But it all has to have due Process and clear definitions of the accussations for a Red Flag NO VAGUE SHADOWY REFERERAILS.
yeah, once the cops pick up your guns in CA, your odds of getting them back intact are very low.
How can we trust any politician at this point…
I live in one one the saddest bluest states in the nation … no one here gives me hope. But, I thought between Trump and Graham ( and a few others) perhaps we had a chance for a continued and renewed constitutional nation… guess not.
Anyone that says they’re not coming for your guns and thens rolls straight into their latest scheme to restrict your right to arms ….is coming for your guns.
Damn right.
“WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!……. okay, we’re totally coming for your guns.”
-every tyrant ever
Tyrants don’t come for guns, they come for you! They never stop at the guns.
“Is the government coming to take your guns? The answer is ‘no’” said Senator Graham, while discussing a possible federal law to allow the government to come and take your guns.
The implication being that, in fact, the government totally has the RIGHT to take your guns if it wants to… it’s just not going to because elected officials are such reasonable people.
Those guns are no longer yours, see? So they won’t be coming after your guns, they will be coming to get theirs. Same way New Zealand said they are going to take care of the guns after they take them from the current possessor, the government will put them to good use.
Sen. Graham please come up with something more original. Been hearing that old saw too long now, only reason it hasn’t happened yet is because enough of us still believe in the bill of rights. ( as written).
They can’t have my guns, but they can have my ammo.
Where I live the state government wants my fired brass. Seriously, at a public shooting range the RO would call a cease fire for target change, perfectly normal, and say all not out to change targets must be behind the yellow line. I change my target but as I get back to the bench I bend over to pick up my brass, and the RO orders me back. I tell him I’m cleaning up, he tells me if ti hits the ground it belongs to the range.
I said no, it’s my property. So with him yelling at me I finished fetching it all, including some of another shooter who had left the bench next to me, and gave up on that big, well equipped public range.
Because the state government steals the public’s brass. Found out it’s a made up rule, does not exist on paper.
I grew up really liking shooting ranges. But some of the public ranges these days are much too regimented for my taste, without improving safety.
So it wasn’t a law, just some dick RO making rule, like at so many other ranges? How’s that the state’s doing?
“…public shooting range…”
Baldwin, “public” and “state owned and operated” are not the same thing.
Not even a little bit.
That RO has quite a scam going on.
more like “if it hits the ground, it belongs to the ROs”
Not sure about the state law vs. range rule thing for brass, but I will say that I HATE well equipped, fancy ranges. They absolutely ruin the shooting experience for the reasons described and more. I get the need for an RSO at a busy range with a lot going on, but I also find a lot of RSO types to be a little bit high on their own authority, not to mention distracting in ways that can actually negatively impact safety.
I vastly prefer shooting on private land, or if that isn’t possible, at outdoor ranges where you hump your own targets 200+ yrds downrange, pick up after yourself, and chip in a few bucks for shed maintenance from time to time. Especially prefer these in 10 degree winter weather when absolutely no one else is there to ruin my good time…
I’ve had great experiences with RSO’s. They help to protect me from the new shooters and teach/help folks that appear to be struggling. I alway make it a point to acknowledge them and ask a few questions, make them feel like they are there for other than correcting rule breaking. When I leave i thank them. But if the weather permits, i prefer shooting at my buddy’s private range.
Get an old bedsheet & sticks and make an extra large grass catcher at bench height.
When they outlaw brass catchers, move to a free state.
Report it. I bet the RSOs are stealing the brass and cashing it in. That happened in Florida.
Youre an idiot. Use the brass scraper behind your bench and pull it back on to your side of the line.
I really enjoy how you ramped things up to 11 there, what with the name calling and the bizarre assumptions about available range equipment…
you know many ranges are dirt in front of the firing line, right?
The RO is most likely selling the brass or reloading himself. Crooked either way.
Lot’s of ranges around here started doing that.
It’s not a rule really, they just want another revenue stream. They sell the brass.
I ignore it. One guy yelled at me. I told him to fuck off, he told me he makes the rules, I told him I pay money to be here, it’s my property, taking it is theft and I’m the one with a .45 on my hip.
That settled it.
Amazingly sometimes Sen. Graham and I have the same position on issues even though I’m sure it is pretty much coincidental. This isn’t one of those times.
I intend to take him at his word. When someone breaks down my door, I will engage him, since Sen Graham promised that the government won’t be coming for my guns.
“Miss me yet?” –Strom Thurmond
No Senator Graham, opponents of such laws say they violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.
Given the number of batshit crazy people roaming around loose in the US, I have no objection to “Red Flag Laws” as long as they include provisions: 1.Carefully store seized weapons until they are retrieved by the accused or their family. 2. A mandated speedy process for verifying the accused is in fact dangerous to society. 3. 20 year prison terms for anyone falsely accusing someone of being dangerous, whether on a personal or professional level. 5. Government provided 24/7 security to households rendered defenseless by seizure of firearms.
The purpose isn’t to disarm crazies, though. The purpose is to make gun ownership less appealing and legally risky.
Is McConnell at least openly telling Lindsay to fuck off? We know that Trump’s all about the red flag laws, so Mitch is our last line of defense. What a damn mess.
The purpose is to disarm people that believe the 2nd is to maintain the ability to rebel against Gov’t. They, the Gov’t think that is nuts. They want to call you a crazy domestic terrorist. A “gun nut” They will use your web habits and comments on discussion boards etc to call you a threat.
Anyone that believes in individual liberties today is a terrorist.
Of course is…It’s the Globalists-NWO answer through lawyers to circumvent the protection of the US Constitution-Bill of Rights…Squash armed Rebellion against tyranny by making all the would-be taxpayer rebels subjects of some nonsense mental healthcare property seizures…Instantly Declared “Enemies of The State”. “Dig yourself out that bureaucracy…Ha ha ha….”
It’s both and all reasons. The Dems have short, med, and long terms strategies for “decreasing” the amount of guns in the US, and like some of you have mentioned, it’s about them trying to slowly shape the minds of each generation of American People that guns are bad. We, as POTG, much keep our youth in mind when it comes to 2A.
I hear cops say people who follow the Constitution are sovereign citizen loons. I hear the general public say people who own a bunch of guns are gun nuts. I hear from the media that militias are for white supremacist Nazis who believe the NWO is coming for them. It goes on and on.
If you don’t believe what they want you to believe and you don’t follow orders, you are a crazy and dangerous person that shouldn’t be allowed to own weapons or have kids.
Didnt you know free thinking is on the ” list”?
3? The twenty years in prison for false accusation? We can forget that. SWATing is a thing. Call the cops (anonymously, of course) and report a rape, an abduction, murder, or a terrorist plot. SWAT rolls, and blows away the “suspect” before he ever knows what’s happening. And, even faster if they suspect he might have a weapon.
If being SWATed is a concern for anyone, I suggest installing a camera or 2 in front of the house. Camera’s will give you a heads up of who is out front. IP/nanny cams are cheap, and or there’s Ring and Kuna that both are easy to set up and have a cloud recording service. You can have an IT or electrican buddy help install if unsure about installation. I have Kuna cameras, super easy to install and i get notifications when the sensor is tripped, I can download recordings and also talk through the camera speaker if someone approaches the front door.
I’ve been thinking about doing this myself for awhile now. It seems the time has come.
Beef up the doors and windows in your house. A door that opens out instead of in is a lot more formidable. A security gate on the door and bars on the windows work too. You can significantly strengthen glass with a plastic film that cuts out light and makes the glass nearly shatterproof. Replace the wooden door with a steel or fiberglass model and use 3 inch screws on the hinges.
Security cameras are a must as is a scanner. They even have them for smart phones. They can use the encrypted channels but many times they don’t bother.
If you have problems with relatives or neighbors and suspect they might red flag or swat you it’s up to you to secure your house. They might win in the end but make them work for it. And have an attorney on speed dial. While they pry open the door you can discuss it on the phone.
Ultimately it might be time to stash guns in other locations and once you have a chance gather your property and relocate.
Several states say that your doors have to open inward, check your state laws.
Consider Wyze Cam. It’s cheap and works “well enough”. You can place many of them and still keep a tight budget.
In regards to the door… Install a heck of a good security storm door or a second, outer door in it’s place.
I guess I have to ask… What’s the point of all this?
So you can get an extra minute to “get ready” to fight the SWAT team? So your family can put out a viral video of you getting zapped by the cops 50 times?
If what you want is video evidence of their misbehavior then I guess that’s a goal but if you really think they’re just going to kill you anyway, or you’re going to resist in a way that ensures that they do… what’s the point if you’re already dead?
I mean sure, I can use my cameras to see them coming, don my plate carrier, slap a mag in a rifle and go to war but even with the video all that’s gonna do is convince 90% of the public that I’m exactly the kind of person who needed a SWAT raid because I was a fucking nutcase.
Other than using it as a warning system that this particular group of people who are about to kick down your door are not to be fought (other than later in court) I don’t really see the point. And it’s not like you’re going to get a judgement against them based on the video. If they have a “red flag warrant” for your guns then how they choose to execute that warrant is, unfortunately, up to them. If they walk up, knock and ask nicely, fine. If they deem it “high risk” and kick your door down at 0300, that’s legal too.
I like how you think and would have no problem with it either if the Government does it the way you layed it out! Great Idea!
Lisping Lindsey adroitly steps between Liberal and Conservative depending which way the wind is blowing.
This is the same Gang of Eight guy who pushed for blanket amnesty.
He always talks tough on gun rights but would support some “bipartisan” gun grab in a heartbeat if he felt like it was politically expedient.
SC needs to primary this wet noodle. He has been a gadfly for way too long, and his recent morph into “Hard Lindsey” is just a lame attempt to ride the Trump train, because Trump swept SC.
That’s assuming their able to do so isn’t it ?
These guys never” get it” until one of their own gets caught. Some ex-spouse calls a red flag and oops, we didn’t expect that.
I dont know about you, but i know a few Liberal easily scared folks (friends and a few family) that could possibly attempt to have my guns taken away. I, in no way have pissed off any one; I’m actually very respectful of their beliefs and don’t push mine. But you just don’t really know what goes on in their unstable liberal minds.
I have Liberal anti-gun family members. They are totally socialist believers. I have not spoken to them in 8 months. And fours before that. We are thousands of miles apart. In more ways than one. And I’m ok with that. I prefer to be around people I can rely on.
I first “met” Lindsey during the Cavanaugh hearings and I really liked him. Not so much anymore. : (
I live in WA so he’s still a hell of a lot better than the two cunts we have for senators.
Laws already exist to deal with dangerous mental whack-jobs. Where this impacts gun owners, our side should be fighting for due process as we would want it. Also for protection of their guns during treatment and return of same when certified safe again. Or transfer to a lawful owner, like a relative.
Beyond that it is just plain weird that any politician would spout this factually bullcrap line such as he did. Not when so many have said, on camera, many examples of wanting to remove guns from private ownership.
Who do they think they are fooling here?
Sure “bro without a ho”…sure. Let’s not forget this is Donnie’s plan TOO. And the FloriDUH senator.
Did not DiFi say “IF I HAD THE VOTES, I’D GET THEM ALL”.
BULL SHIT Lindesy. It’s their (your) ULTIMATE GOAL. Then wipe out whats left of the 1st, and 4th, etc etc etc. D or R enslave the serfs and it’s coming.
Red Flag laws don’t violate the Second Amendment. They violate the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Red Flag laws can be written to satisfy the Bill of Rights but in general those proposing such laws aren’t interested in meeting those requirements.
Really!!!? How so when your already circumventing it to begin with !!! Infringements all !!!
Rights can be abridged with due process of law. It says so right in the 5th Amendment. There is more to the Constitution then the Second Amendment
You are no different than the gun grabbers. They won’t say they want want grab guns and you won’t say that you think its a right to shoot up a school. Everybody talks about mental health but nobody is really serious about it. If either side was serious about dealing with mentally unstable people who own guns they would agree to a process that respects the rights of the individual. The alternative to a constitutional acceptable Red Flag law is to surveil individuals who are potential mass shooters and preempt them before they can implement their plan.
Red Flag advocates are soon going to justify ex parte gun seizures with just three words:
“Anyone can snap.”
Not if they are forced into process governed by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Would a crazy ex go into court if she knew she would be subject to hostile cross?
John Coryn was spot on when the Democrats were pushing no fly/no buy. His bill was opposed by the Democrats because it would have forced the government to go to open court where the accused would have the ability to cross examine. The FBI opposed the bill because if they had probable cause they wouldn’t want to expose their investigation.
Same idea with Red Flag. If you face cross examination you better have your ducks I. A row.
The politicians don’t give a damn when a gun owner dies as a result of the attempt to enforce one of these laws. They don’t give a damn when a cop dies while trying to enforce one of these laws. The dead are just cannon fodder in the war on the 2nd Ammendment and individual rights.
South Carolina, it’s time to retire Lindsey Graham!
“👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍+ 5 million !!!! Time for SC to recall their RINO Globalist Sen. He appears to be suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and needs to be retired !!!”
Suicide is not a crime. Assisted suicide is murder in most states. If a judge signs an ERPO on a suicidal person and the cops kill that person while trying to take their guns didn’t the cops, and maybe the judge too, assist in a suicide and are guilty of murder? Oh, and whoever asked for the ERPO in the first place should be held responsible too. Conspiracy to commit murder charges for the lot of them. That sounds like reasonable logic to me.
if these laws were about the safety of people who might harm themselves or the safety of those around someone who might wish to do harm then these laws would be picking up the dangerous people not the objects that might be use to carry out their violent intentions
Supposedly motivated by the three recent suicides, but did any of those three use a gun to kill themselves?
Following the available links, there seems to be no mention at all of the method used in any of the three cases.
But, sure, taking guns away from people without due process will solve the problem.
Lets see how many people who are exonerated of anything get their guns back without having to take the body holding them to court again. If it’s in Chicago chances are that’s going to be most of them.
They violate the FOURTH Amendment.
Every time someone says they aren’t coming to take our guns, I buy a box of ammo. Gonna need more room soon.
If they come to violate my rights 2things will happen,I will kill as many as I can.not murder when they just committed suicide.then when I do go down they are guilty of premeditated murder
Looks like Lindsey 2.0 was just a limited time promotional trial offer and the upgrade has expired.
Wind changed, I was for it before I was against it! Sound familiar?
Hitler filled the box cars to the ovens and Stalin filled his ships to the gulags by the encouragement of simple minded family and friends with the same big lie. By their acts you will know them. -30-
Stalin: When a problem arises, getting rid of the body(ies) usually gets rid of the problem. He was the ultimate pointy headed bureaucrat.
Hey, how many politicians want us to emmulate Australia an New Zealand? Im pretty sure that means youre going to “come for my guns”.
If democrats are so opposed to suicide that they want to ban guns, why do they strongly support doctor assisted suicide ? They’re speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
It’s a pretty thin argument claiming that taking guns from people are going to cut back on suicides. If you don’t use a gun you can hang yourself with a noose or take poison. One guy I heard of even took a large kitchen knife and put it in a vise with the blade pointing upward and deliberately fell onto it.
Argument is that guns are a more lethal. In fairness, Wendy O. Williams of the plasmatics survived hammering a knife through her chest and later ODing on ephedrine, didn’t survive shooting herself.
The Eff they aren’t you worthless RINO corksucker.
“The government isn’t going to take your guns.”
“I’m from the government and am here to help you.”
“I’ll pay you payday.”
“the check is in the mail.”
“It’s only a cold sore.”
And so on.
Dont forget ” no new taxes”, one of my favorites.
Said the R I N O…
I know there are good lawyers out there. Lindsey Graham is a military lawyer, by experience, is not one of them.
No citizens property should ever be taken without due process and in all cases the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Traitor mitch
One of my favorite quotes “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s rain!”
As for suggestion #3, fine the jerk many thousand$$$, payable to his victim!
Why should the jerk enjoy extended room & board at taxpayer expense?
“Lindsey Graham: The Government Isn’t Coming to Take Your Guns”
Yet…
Sen. Twinkie has come a long way, but he still has a long way to go.
For one thing, he can come to the realization that the Feds do not have police power and that any “federal process for law enforcement or family members to be able to petition a court signaling someone is ‘about to blow’” would be an abomination.
What about the FBI? BATFE? US Marshals? Secret Service? BLM?
What ticks me off about people like Graham is that they try so hard to be “reasonable” that they just end up adopting their opposition’s position anyway.
What’s the point of being a Republican (or any party) if you’re just going to take the other side’s position in an attempt to “find common ground”? That’s not finding common ground, it’s capitulation.
I have yet to hear confirmation that the Douglas High School students or the Sandy Hook parent used firearms in ANY reputable publication. I’ve heard a rumor that one was firearm suicide, but they’re not even releasing the name of the other student. All they say is, “they took their own lives”.
If all three committed suicide by firearm, then why is NO press outlet mentioning that detail??
I suppose it makes pushing the gun ban narrative easier if you just allude that a firearm was used.
Hell, if this is about saving lives then lets preemptively shut down all Planned Parenthood facilities.
God forbid the unborn see the light of day and realize their dreams in life. Certainly, this is a common-sense approach we can all agree on?
” successfully protect individuals from suicide ”
How could they possibly know? A lot of people try suicide with no intent of completing the job, using it as a cry for help. So there is no way to know if someone is really intent on killing themselves until you have to zip up the body bag.
And for those who tried and didn’t succeed, how is it even remotely possible to say with certainty that the red-flag law made the difference? It isn’t possible.
The bullshit is really coming fast and thick these days.
As for the suicide issue, kinda hoping Trump’s last win was gonna drive a lot of antis in that direction. If it should get to that point, I’ll gladly lend them any gun I own, with the proper government sanctions of course.
In fact, the statement “Some states have used the laws to successfully protect individuals from suicide, at least one study shows.” is a mistatement of the study they cite. The study looked at only two states, IN and CT, and found an apparent reduction in one state, IN. In CT, the apparent decline in gun suicides was offset by an increase in non-firearm suicides. So, at best, there’s one state where one can argue the protective effect, and one where they cannot. Just Indiana is not “some states”.
“Whereas Indiana demonstrated an aggregate decrease in suicides, Connecticut’s estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased nonfirearm suicides.”
https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201700250
Only one way to get mine, pry it from my cold dead hands, 1st step of socialism is to disarmed the people, you can control them better if they cannot defend themselves.
In 1935 Adolf Hitler said To Conquer A Nation You Must First Disarm It Citizens, Democrats, Muslims and others are following Hitler and once again Millions will dies if they cannot protect themselves and these Moronic Imbecile in Congress are either too damn stupid and forgot history or failed history In school or they are being paid my a muslim country to disarm America. This Marine may die protecting my freedom, but will not surrender to muslims A-hole like those in congress.
Innocent people have already died because of Red Flag Laws in states that have them. This is basically a carte blanche for the left to use it’s minions to file false complaints , that will be enforced without adjudication to steal your guns. Any Republican that supports this abomination and violation of the 2nd Amendment should be voted out of office. This is not a common sense safety measure, it is a bald face violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Hey Lindsay, You better tell the demo vomits
So I’ll throw my hat in the ring. The last I checked in the State of Nebraska for someone to be committed to a Mental Health hospital they need/or get the following; The person to be committed gets a Lawyer, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a medical doctor to represent him/her. Then the state gets the same. Now if that person is taken to a crisis center for mental health issues he/she can check themselves out and they can’t make them stay. So the way I’m reading this new law is that anyone that makes a claim that you are not stable to possess a fire arm,(whether that claim can be substantiated at the time) they can be take your fire arms until you go to a hearing. Sounds like your due process which is granted under the Constitution is being violated, let alone the 2nd Amendment!