Marco Rubio to Introduce Federal Red Flag Bill With Support From Republicans and Democrats

marco rubio red flag law

courtesy Getty

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) along with support from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), and Sen. Angus King (I-ME) plans to reintroduce a bill that would encourage more states to enact red flag laws.

“This idea has already proven successful in states like Florida, and it is my hope that this bill will get all the other states in the country to do the same thing,” Rubio said in a prepared statement.

It appears that part of my prediction is coming true. I stated that Marco Rubio has a history of backing gun control and that he would be a threat to our Second Amendment rights.

How do I know? He openly supported magazine capacity limits and backed Florida Democrats’ attempts at passing stiffer gun control after Parkland.


When he was a member of the Florida state legislature he supported gun control then, too. So of course Sen. Rubio told WPLG Miami that gun control is all about the children. To keep them safe.

marco rubio gun violence restraining order red flag law

Courtesy WPLG Miami

That’s sure to do the trick. Just like when the Broward County Sheriff’s Office failed to take action or the laws that were already in place didn’t stop Nikolas Cruz. There’s good reason to believe that President Trump will also back such a bill and possibly the NRA too.

Happy new year.

UPDATE: The bill is now on Library of Congress’ website and is listed as S.7 – A bill to provide family members of an individual who they fear is a danger to himself, herself, or others, or law enforcement, with new tools to prevent gun violence.


  1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

    Because it is always better if a family member, co-worker, or neighbor that has a beef with you can get your guns taken away with no due process…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      That isn’t the worst part. Sure, to the average person that owns guns it’s concerning because they are likely to have been divorced (seeing the high statistical rate of divorce for white and black Americans). What’s truly the worst part is the government giving itself the power to request an order of the court to confiscate your guns and the judge agreeing that you are a danger to the government, thus ordering law enforcement to raid your home.

      Have you ever been called a “constitutionalist” or a “sovereign citizen” before? Have you ever open carried for attention? Have you ever filmed yourself doing free speech audits or open carrying? Have you ever made statements about shooting government workers if they want to or attempt to take your rights or property? Have you ever openly talked about civil war or insurrection? Have you ever made public statements that one of the political parties is trying to overthrow the Constitution of the U.S.? Have you ever said both parties are corrupt and they’re conspiring to form a world government? Have you ever sent angry messages to politicians or other government workers? Have you ever been rude or had an argument with a law enforcement officer? Have you or are you stocking up on guns and/or ammo? Are you buying guns and/or ammo in large quantities? Are you a prepper that thinks one day things are going to get very bad? Are you carrying out some kind of bug out plan by setting up your home and car with weapons?

      I heard in California they are expanding their gun confiscation law to include seizing all ammunition and magazines. The order to law enforcement will be to seize all guns, ammunition and magazines rather than just the guns like other states do. If you Californians planned to stash some guns away somewhere else just in case, they are aware of that, hence why they want all your ammunition and magazines to make it much harder on you.

      1. avatar Crystal says:

        Floridas law does take all firearms and ammunition

      2. avatar tmm says:

        Ammo and mags too? I wonder if they think assault with a deadly loaded magazine is a real issue?

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      Colorado Democrats expected to introduce ‘Red Flag’ bill in legislative session:

      Following November’s election, Colorado Democrats will control the House, Senate and governor’s office.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        The californication of Colorado is thus complete.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          At one point I was looking to move to Colorado until I saw how many Californians were moving there for the lower cost of living. I knew it would be a bad move at that point. When Colorado goes sour they will move somewhere else.

          At one point people thought about moving to New Hampshire to create a free state. It didn’t really take off. So people started to move to Texas. Now Texas is split in two. I don’t think Texans realizes there is a silent war going on for their state and they are about to lose it.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      They eventually contacted the Terre Haute Police Department for assistance, and its special response team assisted. Sheriff Phelps said deployment of the team was appropriate given the man’s past threats of gun violence.

      The incident was concluded without injury, forced entry or property damage, the sheriff said, adding it was his decision to invoke the red flag law.

      Sheriff Phelps said that law enforcement has had 11 cases involving this subject with threats of harm with firearms to Law Enforcement and the public since 2012 and an open case from 2017.

      I wonder if he is truly crazy or just one of those angry constitutionalists. After seven years you would think they could build a case against him using due process of law rather than law enforcement using their gun confiscation orders.

      Don’t go around making cops feel scared if you don’t want them using their gun confiscation orders and SWAT team on you.

  2. avatar Son Of Alan says:

    Great another shoot Grampa in the face law. That after they shoot the dogs first.

  3. avatar TXRabbit47 says:

    No to Red Flag Laws and HELL NO! Everyone, contact your Senators and Congress reps now and continuously to ensure he/she understands the danger behind this foolish proposal (just one = guilty until proven innocent!).

    1. avatar Guardiano says:

      Oh, they understand the danger, my friend. But it’s a danger to us, not to them.

    2. avatar UsedtobePun says:

      Oh c’mon, we all know States can’t make their own laws. Everyone here is clamoring for the Fedgov to be our daddy, mommy and god when it comes to forcing every State to honor every other States’ un-constitutional (whatever that means) CCW licenses so why should turn about on this issue be any different.

      Giving the fedgov power to do anything is the nuclear option. We cheer when “our” side forces what we want down everyone else’s throat, but weep and gnash our teeth when things like this are forced upon us.

      A bit hypocritical, no?

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        It’s not hypocritical if your side does it several orders of magnitude less often & less severely than the other side. When’s the last time conservatives, or even so-called conservatives, foisted something like Obamacare on libs, or passed an abortion ban through regulation, or required gays to register themselves, or attempted to choke “se habla espanol” businesses out of existence by pressuring banks, or even “invaded the bedroom” of anyone like the Dems always claimed they did? It’s been fifty years or longer since ‘our’ side did any holy-roller crap of significance, and about the biggest ‘crime’ in that regard the Jesus-heads are after today is simply keeping mentally-ill men out of women’s bathrooms; the horror, the horror.

        1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

          So the GOP platform including RKBA infringement is a good match for your values overall. Congratulations.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, TSA, Homeland Security, ICE, etc.

    3. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      *THEY* hate us and they hate police. If both die in a confrontation the left is happy

  4. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    We are being back-stabbed by the people we have supported in the past. Hopefully we have learned our lesson and will be more cautious going forward.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      And exactly which political party do we support with a chance to have any authority? The Democrat socialists of America have a bigger footprint.
      Do you think a few so called libertarians are going to do anything or run a state? A city?

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    I’m sure the ACLU and all those civil libertarian Democrats will be fighting the erosion of due process with vigor.

  6. avatar andrew cilenti says:

    Turncoats abound in Republican party

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly FloriDUH certainly sucks…on another topic did anyone notice Chicago Alderman dumbocrat Ed Burke had to SURRENDER 23 guns from his office after he was arrested for extortion?!? Guns for me but none for thee peasant😄😎😏

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      YGBSM! From his OFFICE? Wouldn’t mommy let him keep them at home?

      1. avatar Harry Fudpucker says:

        These people are so corrupt………….

  8. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    We’re the government. We know what’s best for you and we’re here to help.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Government knows what is best for us — like Senator Rubio reveals in his comment, “This idea [extreme risk protection orders] has already proven successful …”

      I am so thankful that Senator Rubio knows that extreme risk protection orders have already proven successful — except that I am fuzzy on the part where he claims such orders have proven successful. Where exactly has that happened?

      And Mr. Rubio is at a complete loss to explain how such orders stop dangerous people from using firearms that they hid offsite or acquired illegally — or from using alternate methods (such as poison, fire, or vehicles) to maim and murder. (Hint: extreme risk protection orders most certainly do NOT stop dangerous people from maiming and murdering.)

      In other words Senator Rubio is LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH when he states that extreme risk protection orders stop violent people from maiming and murdering.

      Go figure: a politician who is lying through his/her teeth. And in other news, water is wet.

  9. avatar FB says:

    Another stupid law that will not work. Anti-constitution without due process.
    The democrats are winning and the Republicans are absolutely useless.

  10. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Weel jeez… this clown circus just keeps getting better!

  11. avatar John Galt says:

    Yeah……..and Trump will stump for reciprocity

    Spare me

  12. avatar buddy says:

    The gun companies and gun buyers need to step up and launch a ***nationwide boycott of the use of ALL 4473s***, only do FTF transfers.– If this thing isn’t challenged with real-resistance right now, we are going to lose everything, absolutely no doubt. If it costs manufacturers, oh well. If it’s inconvenient for buyers, oh well. Small price to pay to defend your rights without going into a war right away. It’s the duty of Americans to resist this.

  13. avatar MyName says:

    As usual, the biggest problem with the government is the government thinks every problem needs to be solved by the government.

  14. avatar m. says:

    fu & red fag laws, d-sucker

  15. avatar Kyle says:

    No Republicans, No Democrats

    Just Elite Ruling Class

    Color me shocked

  16. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Rubio is no different from any of the other RHINOs that are now dominating our state.
    He has, actually always was a POS.
    He has turned into an asskisser.

  17. avatar SoCalJack says:

    I had a rational conversation with liberal, but open minded cousin last week. I told him 2 different backgound checks were done on me, one for the gun and one for my CCW lic. He said, “good, that’s what we need, we need to vet the people…” Then I said, “a criminal will procure a gun illegally; they don’t follow the law.” My cousin had no further comment.

    1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      All this means, is someone gave us all a rope and a noose…And we all hung ourselves….Were enpowering these Globalists and THEIR social engineering schemes to further THEIR agenda…By dutifully following whatever these @$$-Wholes legislate….

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      And you are on their radar while the criminal is assumed to be prevented from arming.
      When the bans come whose door is being kicked in first?

  18. avatar Kman says:

    US vs THEM has never been more apparent. thanks

  19. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    OUTRAGEOUS! This is a treasonous attempt by our supposedly elected officials to “redefine due process, and eliminate our very rights!” In effect to overthrow the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights under the disguise of public safety! Just as the the German Weimar Republic and Nazis did….Every freedom loving American should be up in arms!

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      ……and the ACLU is nowhere to be found….we have no allies….

  20. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Congratulations, America. The Republicans have finally figured out that you’ll vote for them no matter what they do. Stop enabling our abusers, please.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      And stop supporting “law enforcement” because they are the ones that enforce the will of the politicians. Without law enforcement officers politicians’ laws won’t work so well.

      Heck, these days we actually have lawn enforcement officers telling you what you must do with your yard or driveway.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “…these days we actually have lawn enforcement officers…”

        A year ago I would have snorted at this but a few months back a cop car stopped outside my house, backed up and two officers got out to talk to me. Apparently having a car with no license tags ON MY OWN PROPERTY was something they considered a criminal offense. I was warned to “…get tags or dispose of the car within five days or we’ll be back”.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          In my county you have to back the car in and cover it or they will ticket a car with no tag. Neighbor had a 56 Chrysler he was working on and they hit him with 50 dollars. Another guy on my street had a Volvo that needed a head and he was hit for having an abandoned car in front of his house.
          Cops are sometime called revenue agents and while they bristle at the term they do bring in more than they cost when working the street.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          Maybe you need a tan and a Spanish name to keep them away?

      2. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Damn straight, CZJay. The way that POTG love law enforcement is just baffling. Stockholm syndrome.

  21. avatar A Deplorable says:

    Federal Government Rights vs. States Rights…therein lies the two-edged sword upon which the American Constitutional Republic will fatally impale itself.

    The Liberties enumerated in the First Amendment protect treasonous liars as much as the most loyal patriot and are being effectively used to undermine and topple the Republic.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      Governments (whether federal or state) don’t have rights. Only individuals have rights. The state has fooled people into believing that it is the fountain of and/or the protector of individual rights, when in fact it is the most egregious infringer of them. Time to relegate the idea that we need people to rule over us to the dustbin of history.

      1. avatar A Deplorable says:

        Technically, you are correct. The Tenth Amendment defines the delegation of “powers” between the “United States” and the “States”.

        “Federal Government powers vs. States powers…therein lies the two-edged sword upon which the American Constitutional Republic will fatally impale itself.” …there FIFY.

        A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. A pile of dog shit by any other name would stink as badly. So, posture and parse words as much as you like, but the net result remains the same.

  22. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Wait till they start putting other rights on ice like that………..

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    The “gunshine” state sure is good at electing anti gun politicians…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I hear Florida Republicans saying they will always vote for the Republican even if that Republican is a gun grabber because when a Democrat gets in they will take their guns.

  24. avatar tdiinva says:

    Most of you are no different from the antis. Lots of lip service but you really don’t want to do anything.

    You all would oppose a bill that would require that the subject of the proposed order be represented by counsel and allowed to call and cross examine witnesses.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Full due process before the order is issued (much less enforced) could be OK. There would also need to be some mechanism to financially compensate victims of false accusations to cover costs. These measures might not stop the resulting law from being abused, but they would ensure that very few Democrats in either house would vote for the bill so that it never becomes law.

      However, if after full due process someone is judged to be a danger to themselves or others, why in the world would we lock up only some of the myriad tools available to the person instead of locking up the dangerous person?

      1. avatar specialist38 says:

        Because that….costs more money.

        So we treat the criminally, mentally I’ll in the wild.

        This assures that someone will be hurt or killed and the government can step in to further suppress non-mentally ill, law-abiding citizens.

        Not a bug, it’s a feature.

      2. avatar ColoradoKid says:

        The threat is in the eye of the accuser and the judge. For example, if a person likes to reload his own ammo and has amassed 10k+ rounds of ammo, a paranoid family member/neighbor who finds out about his ‘ammo cache’ only has to proclaim to a liberal judge that that much ammo can only mean one thing…mass shooting coming. To gun people it’s just stocking up, to the other side it’s a threat of significant harm. There is no ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in a red flag law, I will have to prove my innocence or be deemed mental. That’s the danger in red flag laws. And if the weapons are confiscated and the mental subject is allowed to be free, what does that solve? This whole thing is gun-grabbing at it’s worst.

      3. avatar Herb Allen says:

        What really needs to be done is to make false statements made to police a matter of felony perjury with hard time for lying to either police or judges. This would deter a lot of potential abusers.

        Little cupcake who doesn’t like hubby’s gun collection might not be as likely to slap her own face and run to the po-po and demand confiscation. The Lautenberg amendment is bad enough as it is.

        Your angry liberal neighbor might hesitate to lie about what you did or did not say if he was staring at time in the slammer for doing so.

        I know, just so much dreaming. The real nightmare is turncoat Republicans doing anything to suck up to the media or Democrats.

        Civil disobedience might be the only avenue left.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          I have an idea for “protesting” the bump fire stock ban. A particular video and a particular hash tag released on the day the order is to be enforced.

  25. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    Miranda warning:
    New “RED FLAG” version

    “You had the right to remain silent. Anything you ever did, said, wrote, read about, or anyone else ever said about you, can and will be used against you in a kangaroo court of an unconstitutional law. You had the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning. But we decided we have all the answers we need so there will be no questions, just hand over your guns NOW! If you wish to speak with an attorney but can not afford one, good luck ever getting your guns back.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      “And give us all your social media passwords so we can rifle through your background to build a case”

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        The good old social credit score system…

  26. avatar m. says:

    re-introduce this up your a**, d-suckers & carpet munchers

  27. avatar Billy Bob says:

    The little flag is so stupid he cant count to two, as is the second ammendment.

  28. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Cops getting killed enforcing these orders, or their homes burning down after the fact will make them slow their roll…but sadly the politicians will just use that as an excuse for even more legislation. I pity the cops who still think “stacking” for an entry is a good idea.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “… who still think ‘stacking’ for an entry is a good idea.”

      Sounds like an excellent application for a rifle chambered in .50 BMG: a single .50 caliber, 700 grain bullet moving toward the door at 2,900 fps should tend to gum-up the works.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Very good, comments discussing using a 50 BMG to shoot police officers at your door will really advance the pro-gun cause.. With this sort of language, it’s easy to see why anti-gunners think some Americans are just not stable enough for firearms ownership.

        Open discussion of shooting LEO’s is confirmation that some Americans are too dangerous to be allowed lethal weapons, playing right into the hands of those who would restrict gun rights.

        In this case I would agree with them.

        Thanks a lot.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          Let us look carefully at the context here. We are talking about “extreme risk protection orders” which are court orders to storm into someone’s home and confiscate his/her property. Police or various “close” contacts can say that you are dangerous and a judge then issues the order. There is no requirement for substantiating evidence. You have no chance to provide witnesses or confront your accuser. You have no opportunity to have a legal defense team. No jury of your peers delivers a verdict. There is no requirement that police store your firearms in a manner that protects them from damage. There is no specified time frame for you to defend yourself afterwards. There is no specified time frame for the police to return your property in any timely manner IF the courts declare that you are NOT dangerous. And there is no requirement that anyone compensate you for your losses IF you ever get your “safe” declaration from the courts.

          In other words extreme risk protection orders are an abomination that violate our inherent human dignity and our rights (including due process) spelled out in the United States Constitution. Any law enforcement officers who set out to enforce such orders have NO RIGHTEOUS authority and have no legal authority since they are violating the very U.S. Constitution that they swore an oath to defend. They are scoundrels of the lowest order. People who resist such indignity are NOT the scoundrels.

          And yes, it does make We the People dangerous to despotic politicians and law enforcement officers advancing heinous, unjust, and unconstitutional laws/orders. The men who wrote our nation’s Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution included the Second Amendment for this EXACT reason.

          Saying it another way, a good armed woman is only dangerous to a rapist. Don’t try to rape that good armed woman and she won’t try to shoot you.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          Open discussion of shooting LEO’s is confirmation that some Americans are too dangerous to be allowed lethal weapons, playing right into the hands of those who would restrict gun rights.

          And if LEOs were coming to haul “dangerous” people off to concentration camps, should those “dangerous” people quietly comply and march right into the boxcars? Would such “dangerous” people be scumbags for using firearms to resist the effort to send them to concentration camps?

          You do realize that was a highly favored tactic in communist Soviet Union: declare that your political enemies are “dangerous” (especially if they make public statements about resisting government goons who enforce heinous laws) and send such dangerous people to Siberian death labor camps.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          U_S, really nice. Might want to add to your list that after disarming you they will make no tiny effort to protect you from assault and murder, including by those who just had them disarm you.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          The key is “which are court orders”.

          The courts have the authority to make these determinations and issue these orders under the constitution. The courts must follow statutes promulgated by the legislature which thankfully, we have the opportunity to elect in mostly free elections.

          To openly discuss intentional assassination of LEOs Serving court orders issued by sitting judges Does not make gun owners seem rational or law abiding.

          And recognize that no right or liberty is absolute, the courts have recognized limits on every right under the constitution.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          The courts have the authority to make these determinations and issue these orders under the constitution.

          Really? Please show me where the U.S. Constitution empowered the courts to rescinded these RIGHTS in Amendments 4 through 9:
          — to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
          — to be secure in our possessions
          — to confront our accusers
          — to a trial by a jury of our peers
          — to have assistance of Council for our defense
          — to NOT be deprived of property without due process of law

          And please show me where the U.S. Constitution empowers a court to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms because someone thinks we might be dangerous.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          To be clear, courts DO have righteous and U.S. Constitutional authority to issue search and/or arrest warrants when the courts have probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, that someone ALREADY COMMITTED A CRIME against another person.

          What the courts most certainly do NOT have authority to do is issue warrants to seize property because a family member claims to strongly believe that their relative is going to go out and harm people, especially when:
          (1) The state never has to prove the claim (which was the basis of the warrant) after executing the warrant.
          (2) There is no defined process for the subject of the warrant to get their property back.

      2. avatar Michael in AK says:

        .308 is generally sufficient for such an application with most residential construction methods

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Last I checked, standard issue (infantry) armor plates have no trouble stopping .308 Winchester. I can also picture the first one or two guys holding a slightly beefed-up version of those riot shields as they come in. I don’t see .308 Winchester going through one of those shields, either.

        2. avatar CZJay says:


          Yes, rifle plates do stop that round and can take multiple hits. However, I do see a lot of guys using very small plates that do not provide much coverage.

          A lot of ballistic shields I have seen issued are for pistol caliber rounds not rifle rounds. There are shields for rifle rounds.

          Ballistic helmets on the other hand…

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        those kind of comments just play into their hands…and are likely to get you “flagged”…its check bordering on checkmate…

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          frank speak,

          I feel no joy in talking about such things and wish that we never did have to talk about such things. More importantly, I hope and pray that such things never come to pass.

          What alternative course of preventive/preparatory action do you recommend when we are facing the prospect of:
          (a) government agents storming into our homes,
          (b) to seize our property,
          (c) based on someone’s FEELINGS or INTUITION,
          (d) that we might be dangerous.

          Saying it another way, government agents could be storming into your home to confiscate your property — putting you and your family in mortal danger in the process — because someone is uncomfortable with you. And the state would never have to prove anything. And you would have no defined process to ever recover your property. If that isn’t a reason to consider drastic action, I don’t know what is.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      I remember a man was locked up in a house and the cops didn’t want to make entry because it was dangerous. They simply took cover behind their vehicles, shot up the house and set it on fire. It worked. They were all happy about the job they did.

  29. avatar Dog of War says:

    Well, to look on the bright side, if they do get this passed on the federal level then it will make it easier to launch a SCOTUS challenge to them all.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      And I will be a lot older when the opinions of a small bunch government workers is given regarding other government workers increasing the power of certain government workers. Of course there is no guarantee that it will be a positive outcome just an outcome some time in the distant future if ever.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      realistically…the courts may be our only hope…

      1. avatar Dog of War says:

        Yeah, I had the idea of constantly having to use the courts in this way. But we’ve been left without many real options now that we have billionaires, NGOs, and media conglomerates that are dedicated to stripping way 2A protections by any means necessary.

  30. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Who are these dangerous people, and why are we permitting them to walk openly and freely among us?

    Release tigers on the city streets, but don’t worry, we declawed the hind feet. Nothing to fear now!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Bravo sir! Well said!

  31. avatar possum says:

    Marco,,,,,,,. Rubio,,,,,,,,,Marco,,,,,,. Rubio. A game to play in a swimming pool

  32. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Neither party can be trusted with the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Due process is dying slowly.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      We need some kind of Patriot Act…

  33. avatar JMR says:

    Don’t worry though guys the NRA will…. support this.

    Oh but luckily we voted for Trump he’ll … uh also probably support this.

    Jeez almost like we have two anti-gun parties and one just hides it better.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      They don’t need to hide anything because they still win.

  34. avatar specialist38 says:

    IF….there is sufficient due process… that determines someone is dangerous to themselves or others….screw the guns…lock THEM up.

    If due process is delayed…..that is tyranny. Pure and simple.

    Same with “do not fly” lists. If they are dangerous enough not to fly….lock them up.

    If there is no evidence, there should be no punishment.

    Life is dangerous…..

    1. avatar JMR says:

      That already exists. It’s being mentally adjudicated. Been on the NICS check forever.

    2. avatar Harry Fudpucker says:

      Your assuming there no fly list is a accurate list. I was a Federally armed Pilot with a Federally issued firearm and I was on the no fly list. Go figure that one out and get back to me. Took me 2 years to get off it and when the threat level went back up, boom I was back on the list. I dont have a lot of faith in there lists………

  35. avatar Grumpster says:

    Little Marco said: “This idea has already proven successful in states like Florida, and it is my hope that this bill will get all the other states in the country to do the same thing,” Rubio said in a prepared statement.

    It works in Florida? Everything failed miserably during the Parkland shooting and the solutions are always to punish law abiding gun owners. Freaking wonderful. Such laws will be used to extort and intimidate law abiding gun owners. “Hey cuz can you lend me $5000?” “Sorry, no. ” Then, it would be a shame if someone reported you as a threat being that you are a gun owner and all, just saying.” “Well let me see what I can do.”

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bang! Hi, officer, too late for him, bad guy went that way.

  36. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    Your precious NRA greenlighted this just like the bump stock ban. Don’t blame Rubio, you complacent party-line-toeing tools did this.

    “But what else was I supposed to do?” Right? Or, oh no, are you going to give me the mean version and tell me to give you a better option or STFU? You don’t deserve organizations or politicians who care about you, you’ve put yourselves beyond help by being spineless trash piles.

  37. avatar Jack says:

    If someone is subject to a RFL order, why are they not institutionalized? Haven’t the last 2 decades shown that it is possible to kill people without a gun. Really the list is almost endless (e.g., homemade explosives, cars, trucks, airplanes, machetes and other knives, non-explosive chemicals … ). If someone is a danger to themselves or others then they should be institutionalized otherwise we are just taking away 1 way in which they could kill/harm themselves or others.

    If institutionalization is not the goal then this is just another attempt to blame an inanimate object for the actions of a disturbed person and it will accordingly fail.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Oh, don’t be silly using logic and reasoning. Surely somebody can be too dangerous to own a gun but still be safe enough to own knives, a bow, gasoline, drive a car or passenger bus, work in food service, have two sticks to make fire, walk freely among the population, etc…. Just can’t have that gun is all.

    2. avatar Bob Jones says:

      In 1914, Frank Lloyd Wright’s demented butler killed 7 people and wounded several more using a can of gasoline and a hatchet. Guns are not needed. In fact, it is much easier for a truly clever person to commit mass mayhem using ordinary products than firearms, with less chance of being caught.

  38. avatar Philip Twiss says:

    There is nothing new here…

    They will take your guns the same way they took your land ( Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could condemn homes and businesses, not for a genuine public use but to hand them over to private developers ) one person at a time… The nosiest will go first as an example for the rest…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Uh, “noisiest”, maybe?

  39. avatar Jackass Jim says:

    Rubio’s father was an active supporter of Fidel Castro – before he saw his countrymen being disarmed and slaughtered. Then he ran for his life.

    Road apples do not fall far from the Horse’s ass.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Jackass Jim

      Marco Rubio’s parents (Mario Rubio and Oriales Rubio) were economic migrant that moved to the US before President Fulgencio Batista was deposed from office. 1956 to be exact. As a matter of fact, his family settled in the US while Fidel Castro was still in Mexico plotting.

      The revolution didn’t start until December 2, 1956 when the Granma landed Fidel and is goons at Playa Las Coloradas.

      Marco Rubio lied about his family being political refugees of Communist Cuba and Fidel Castro.

  40. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    This is actually the dumbest thing I’ve read in a year. There is no point in a federal “red flag law”. No one is going to take a case like this to a federal court. They know this and the law apparently doesn’t try to create a federal law. The purpose of this is to encourage the states to pass such a law. I haven’t been able to find the text of the proposed law, so I don’t know how they intend to do that and the media isn’t doing a good job of explaining it.

    This comment system is still the worst one of all the systems I use. I will never see a response to this post.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Hi there

  41. avatar RGP says:

    Rather interesting that, as long as they’re doing it to prosecute someone, witnesses can lie, police can lie, prosecutors can knowingly file false charges… this type of law is dangerous because it sounds nice on the outside but will be subject to serious abuse and overreach of authority.

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      A new star chamber court, yes

  42. avatar Ginder12 says:

    So, everybody here who voted for dumpster and a whole lot of other republicans because guns, all you single issue voters, how’s that working out for you?

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      IKR, but I wouldn’t call them single issue voters. Most of them like the GOP platform whether it’s pro-RKBA or not, so when they come in here and talk big it’s just hot air. That and/or so flaky and entitled that they can’t imagine at least one of two major parties caring about them.

      For a true RKBA supporter like myself Trump was always a transparent fraud. If the GOP wanted my vote they could have put up someone with a history of being solid, not that they have that many. Instead they went with a reality gameshow host.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Right now, the only issue that matters is ending all immigration and starting deportations.

      Unless we protect the culture , we will lose out culture.

      Immigration destroys cultures.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Immigration does not destroy culture.

        If you are bad at filtering the people the come in and you are bad at teaching the ones here, that is your fault.

        America was different than all the other countries in the world. It was better than Europe because the best of the best left that shithole to build the U.S. Now the average white person wants to destroy the U.S. and have been doing a great job of it. Then not so smart people blame blacks and Asians for all the problems, although white people are bringing in millions of Mexicans (which some are white) to help carry out their plan to destroy the Republic for which it stands.

        1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

          Immigration might destroy his culture; new low end workers to compete with for low end jerbs, then have some of them and many of their kids get above him on the social ladder.

        2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

          Actually it does when they don’t want to assimilate.

          Open up a history book, jackass.

          Look what happened to Rome, Byzantine, Persian, Indian, and other “multi-cultural” empires. They all fall apart when outsiders came in destroying the host cultures.

          You anti-white racists too stupid to see the long term problems who care more about foreigners than Americans already here make me sick!! Yea say goodbye to your 2nd Amendment, morons, because your precious migrants don’t care about liberty or individualism just who is going to pay for their welfare, idiots!

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      1000X better than shrillary.

    4. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      And how would corporatist, corrupt, “let’s go to war with Russia”, Australian gun confiscation, Hillary be any better?

      Or Bernie “let’s make everything free, what could possibly go wrong” openly communist, open borders, pro-AWB/more gun control Sanders?

      Or what about psycho Gary “SJW” Johnson and his pro-gun control running mate William fucking Weld responsible for passing much gun legislation in Massachusetts in the 90’s, and other pipe dreams that would make America worse, not better.

      Don’t even get me started with that psycho Jill Stein.

      So please Mr. Political Analyst who would be better? You sound like a butthurt Bernie Bro to me.

  43. avatar burley says:

    “UPDATE: The bill is now on Library of Congress’ website and is listed as S.7 – A bill to provide family members of an individual who they fear is a danger to himself, herself, or others, or law enforcement, with new tools to prevent gun violence.”

    -by sending state hired thugs out to their homes to perpetrate some gun violence upon them. If this isn’t the start of the reset, the Republic will whimper itself away…

    1. avatar possum says:

      There will never be a reset. Feel the pain Mortal

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        They tried to fight in China and they lost. They had to flee to Taiwan. Now China has no ability to fight off their oppressors. If they were to rise up the government would bomb their towns because they do not care about any of them. There is no way for the people to fight off the Chinese military. The military is faithful to the state because it provides for them and gives them pride. The only thing left is to be a patriotic nationalist or run to a country like America (if they will let you in). Technically, there is one other option…

        That is what happens to a modern state that becomes to big and powerful. If you don’t fight it off early you will have no ability to save yourself or your family. Your people will take the path of least resistance when things are too bad, they will not fight a futile attempt just for the honor.

  44. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Rubio is a Cuban, not an American.

    Why would you expect him to respect traditional American freedoms.

    We should have closed the borders in 1800.

    All immigration has been bad for Americans.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Either the lessons of Castro have slipped past him, or he could be “one of them”. I’m concerned that “one of them” seems to be “most of them”.

  45. avatar rt66paul says:

    Having someone do this to you, even if you are completely innocent and get back your gun, will forever paint you with the bad person brush, it will always follow you around and could be used later to target you.

  46. avatar Ralph says:

    You guys screaming about the lack of due process have taken your eyes off the ball.

    There is no jurisdictional predicate for the Feds involving themselves in a purely local matter. Even if all kinds of due process protections were attached, this bill would still violate the Constitution.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      predicate or precedent?
      because the Brady Bill is a precedent…

  47. avatar Icabod says:

    The Maryland homicide was a result of “Family being family” and resulted in a 5 AM police at the door. Never had hear anything past the chief of police saying the case was closed.
    The Vermont case hinged on a 14 year old child claiming he could get a relative’s guns. Never mind that police found the guns properly secured. Never mind the child didn’t live in the house, and never mind that the Vermont law only applies to the gun owner being a potential threat.

    Want the law? Start with felony penalties for false reporting.

  48. avatar ollie says:

    Rubio is setting up another doomed run for the US presidency.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      They can team up to take on Trump:

  49. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Hope ALL you folks take to the your letter writing, phone calls, etc..And start an onslaught of challenge to these new laws. By bombarding the White House and are so call elected officials with great disdain for them and what they doing!

  50. avatar Yarbles says:

    Welcome to the Uniparty, Comrades.

  51. avatar Alan says:

    Yet another unconstitutional infringement! Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the word ‘except’ used.

  52. avatar Can-Can says:

    So, if my neighbour-or anyone else, for that matter-pisses me off, I can get revenge on them by calling them in to the authorities with my “concerns”, and , no more Second Amendment rights for them. I get to be anonymous. In return, they lose their guns. They get no due process, they get no right to know who “turned them in for their own safety”, they have to prove their innocence, and if they are lucky, they MIGHT get their guns back. And if they do, they may very well go into a lot of debt trying to defend themselves against what may very well be false charges and accusations. My God, how is this anything other than a back-door attempt to flush the Second Amendment down the toilet? The “take-the-guns, you-get-due-process-later” bill was introduced in my own state legislature in 2018. You could not make it up: It was introduced by…..a Democrat, originally from……California. Thank God, that bill never got out of Committee. To think that such a bill could go national? Not surprised. The Second Amendment has always been the most hated of all our Constitutional Rights.

  53. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    Well, of course its going to pass, hopefully it will be written using the language proposed by the NRA. Take the time to read it and maybe some of you misinformed rhetoric mongers may learn something useful.

  54. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Rubio has always been anti-gun civil rights.

    “”Sen. Marco Rubio Voted for Gun Ban in Florida Public Parks in 1999”

  55. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Has he changed parties yet?

  56. avatar Sora says:

    Marco Rubio FB doesn’t post often but just recently had a post about “2019 Survey”

    Go and bomb it with your comments on this. I asked if he swam back to Cuba to get this idea.

  57. avatar Jon boat says:

    Who cares if this is “muh constitutional”? The Democrats and little Marco sure don’t.

    Little Marco is a degenerate homosexual. Sick people like him should not be allowed to hold office.

    We have let the (((TV))) make us believe that conversion therapy is ineffective. This is false. If you give a gay man 1000mg of Testosterone Ethanate twice a week, you’d better believe something will change. Even anti-pope Francis advocates conversion therapy. I know, if you (((google))) it, lots of straw man articles come up. “Lobotomy conversion therapy ineffective!” Lol

    I propose we do three things:
    – advocate to keep homosexuals out of the public
    – start a go fund me for Little Marco’s conversion therapy
    – pray for him!

  58. avatar Geoff says:

    And so the confiscation expands beyond the Democrat controlled States. Can extermination be far behind?
    Or do the POTG revolt?

  59. avatar 22winmag says:

    The foam-dancing frat boy turned senator wants ERPOs for little people like you, not for him.

  60. avatar Terclinger says:

    a/ After they take Joe Blow’s guns, are they going to take his kitchen knives and his car? How about the 5 gallon can of gas he keeps in the garage for his lawnmower?

    b/ It’s possible that these anti-constitutional statements by Rubio, Collins, and any muck-a-mucks at the NRA going along with this BS are indicative of disturbed mental conditions and they would be a danger to themselves and others. They need to have THEIR firearms confiscated ASAP.

  61. avatar Dom Fammartino says:


    The #BillofRights imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as an anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil liberties and fundamental rights.

    The idea of the Bill of Rights “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

    #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.

    “The true [American] revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly power—the equality of each person before #God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all. Fair enough Marco has his views but he is wrong on this topic

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