HF 2890 Red Flag and Firearms Transfer

bigstorm wrote:

What is the harm in having extra background checks on someone trying to purchase a firearm in general? The checks and determinations should be made on facts, not opinions.

Im sure I will get some responses that strongly disagree and that is fine, but I just havent seen a solution to stop the mass shootings from the group that states everyone has the right to own any type of firearm

Neither of these newly passed items affect me. I can pass a back ground check and no judge is going to grant a red flag law that seizes my weapons. I personally think that it could have been much worse given all the new gun regs they wanted to pass.

gim wrote:

I can pass a back ground check and no judge is going to grant a red flag law that seizes my weapons.

HA! that could happen to anyone very easily

Coletrain27 wrote:

HA! that could happen to anyone very easily

How so?

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coletrain27 wrote:</div>
HA! that could happen to anyone very easily

How so?

all it could take is one crazy ex wife, girlfriend, co worker, neighbor and call the cops and say they feel threatened

Coletrain27 wrote:

all it could take is one crazy ex wife, girlfriend, co worker, neighbor and call the cops and say they feel threatened

The law says they can only be seized by order of a judge. To me that says the threatened person has to prove that I am a threat to them or myself before they can be seized. Simply stating that they are afraid of my turkey hunting shotgun isn’t going to get them anywhere lol

Quote

What is the harm in having extra background checks on someone trying to purchase a firearm in general? The checks and determinations should be made on facts, not opinions.

[/quote]
Yes, it should fact based, if someone texted, posted or voiced a threat that was witnessed by others, it is what it is

I agree with your well-put thoughts bigstorm.

The vast majority of him owners will see no change and have nothing to worry about.

I truly do get the concern about the red flag law being abused. Lawmakers need to find a way to explain that to people, and the sooner the better.

Having said that… we all count on due process for every other part of the law and our constitutional rights. Why is this different? Due process is a concept as old as our country itself and I haven’t seen anyone concerned about it until now, so why is this different?

Gimruis, have you paid any attention to some of these judges rulings the past 10 years. That alone scares me more then that law alone

glenn57 wrote:

Gimruis, have you paid any attention to some of these judges rulings the past 10 years. That alone scares me more then that law alone

Judges are either elected or appointed (by an elected official). If you don’t like the rulings of a specific judge, they can be removed directly through an election or removed by voting someone else in that will replace them. Many of them run uncontested.

The only judges that cannot be removed are on the Supreme Court. Those are lifetime appointments.

Yea and when does that ever happen?? once every 500 elections??:???:

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>glenn57 wrote:</div>
Gimruis, have you paid any attention to some of these judges rulings the past 10 years. That alone scares me more then that law alone

Judges are either elected or appointed (by an elected official). If you don’t like the rulings of a specific judge, they can be removed directly through an election or removed by voting someone else in that will replace them. Many of them run uncontested.

The only judges that cannot be removed are on the Supreme Court. Those are lifetime appointments.

Circuit court judges and district court judges are lifetime appointments as well. They are all appointed by a president and confirmed by the senate. The only way to have them removed is by impeachment.

As far as any gun law legislation. In my eyes it’s all unconstitutional. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear but gets trampled on all the time.

bigstorm wrote:

What is the harm in having extra background checks on someone trying to purchase a firearm in general? The checks and determinations should be made on facts, not opinions.

Im sure I will get some responses that strongly disagree and that is fine, but I just havent seen a solution to stop the mass shootings from the group that states everyone has the right to own any type of firearm

The harm is that universal background checks equal a gun registration, so if they later make that type of gun illegal they know who has them to come and take them. Additionally makes you a criminal if you borrow a gun to someone, or pass one down to your children without a background check.

As far as mass shootings go, a significant amount of them are done with illegally acquired weapons, so we already do a poor job of enforcing the laws on the books. Also, a decent amount of these shooters were on the police/FBI radar prior. If we are serious about ending the shootings in malls, schools, churches or concerts we need to end gun-free zones and increase police presence in these areas. Not saying this would eliminate them, but I believe it would reduce the frequency and amount of people hurt or killed, while not imposing on anyone’s constitutional rights. Also, it’s important to note that most mass shootings are inner-city gang related and with pistols. So the obvious progression after the AR ban would be a Pistol ban (Like Canada did recently), since they are easily the most common weapon in mass shootings (shootings of 4 or more people, not specific to schools/churches/malls etc.).

I get both sides of this post. I agree with Bigstorm and Gimruis in that the new Red flag and additional background checks will have Little if any effects on the true law – abiding citizen. I also get Bigwerms side that the background checks is also a form of gun registration. If I truly thought this would be as far as the Government would take the laws, I’d be fine with the new rulings. My problem with it is that this is no way the end of the attempt of the government to get control of all Guns in the US. It is for this reason that the right to own guns was put into place in the 1st place.

How many of you live somewhere where the local law enforcement would in-fact enforce legislation if it went to the point of them seizing weapons, especially those legally owned that were later somehow made illegal?

…The local LEOs I know wouldn’t be involved with that part of the job. The local judge I know owns quite a few firearms as well, and is an avid member of the local sporting groups. Thankfully these people can be kept in a position of power at the local level where I live relatively easily. The talking heads in Washington and St. Paul are just that – talking heads.

However, I’m with Thumper. If this was the “end” I’d be fine with these laws moving forward as they won’t impact me as currently written. The issue is that it’s going to snowball or has the potential to.

I saw this and thought of this post

Attachments:

1. 

   Assult-rifle.jpg
   

buckybadger wrote:

How many of you live somewhere where the local law enforcement would in-fact enforce legislation if it went to the point of them seizing weapons, especially those legally owned that were later somehow made illegal?

Everyone does. If local law enforcement/judges refused, they would quickly be removed from office, or circumvented by state or federal authorities. Did your local judges/law enforcement turn a blind eye to businesses staying open during Covid?

BigWerm wrote:

Did your local judges/law enforcement turn a blind eye to businesses staying open during Covid?

Most the Law enforcement offices I knew would not enforce any of the Mask mandates during covid.

fishthumper wrote:

Most the Law enforcement offices I knew would not enforce any of the Mask mandates during covid.

Cool. Not sure what that has to do with my question. But my point is even if they didn’t enforce the business closures, the state came in and dropped the hammer.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
Did your local judges/law enforcement turn a blind eye to businesses staying open during Covid?

Most the Law enforcement offices I knew would not enforce any of the Mask mandates during covid.

The mandate was not a law

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
How many of you live somewhere where the local law enforcement would in-fact enforce legislation if it went to the point of them seizing weapons, especially those legally owned that were later somehow made illegal?

Everyone does. If local law enforcement/judges refused, they would quickly be removed from office, or circumvented by state or federal authorities. Did your local judges/law enforcement turn a blind eye to businesses staying open during Covid?

Yes.

I just think this is a easy quick way to begin banning weapons that people think are evil. And that is a horrible thing. What happens when your crazy ex says you were violent or something stupid that’s untrue and they just come take all the weapons away. How does one get them back. I don’t understand. The people pushing this are the same ones who thinks a armalite rifle (ar)is a fully automatic weapon for war. The ignorance is the scary thing.

Mass shootings are a horrible thing but even worse would be a fully armed government against unarmed citizens. Once the rights begin being taken away, it won’t stop. They won’t settle until no one has a scary weapon. And that’s 100 percent against what our founding fathers created.

buckybadger wrote:

Did your local judges/law enforcement turn a blind eye to businesses staying open during Covid?

Yes.

And how many of those businesses actually stayed open?

Bearcat89 wrote:

.
The ignorance is the scary thing.

Mass shootings are a horrible thing but even worse would be a fully armed government against unarmed citizens. Once the rights begin being taken away, it won’t stop. They won’t settle until no one has a scary weapon. And that’s 100 percent against what our founding fathers created.

^^^ he’s right. I strongly question any of the government motives after all we have seen come to light over last couple years. They don’t even hide their evil intentions anymore. They are not scared of the American people, so they have no reason to serve the American people.

MNdrifter wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>
.
The ignorance is the scary thing.

Mass shootings are a horrible thing but even worse would be a fully armed government against unarmed citizens. Once the rights begin being taken away, it won’t stop. They won’t settle until no one has a scary weapon. And that’s 100 percent against what our founding fathers created.

^^^ he’s right. I strongly question any of the government motives after all we have seen come to light over last couple years. They don’t even hide their evil intentions anymore. They are not scared of the American people, so they have no reason to serve the American people.

yep, this is just another step in the direction of disarming people like they want to do. and if you think this cant happen to you or wont be abused in the governments favor then just wait and see. and if you dont think any LEO’s will enforce this or knock on your door you better wake up. if they are told to do something or lose their job you know most of them are going to do what higher up officials tell them to do.

there are already many videos on youtube of atf agents knocking on peoples doors looking for gun parts that were LEGALLY purchased and now they are not legal according to the atf

I have no problems with any of the firearms made and purchased legally, but I do feel that firearms made to increase rounds per minute or inflict more damage should fall into a secondary category that gets looked at more in depth into the persons background or want’s for that type of forearm. If they want if for valid reasons, so be it but at least it was further looked into that someone buying a 12ga or 30/30 for hunting (which can also be used for protection)

bigstorm wrote:

I have no problems with any of the firearms made and purchased legally, but I do feel that firearms made to increase rounds per minute or inflict more damage should fall into a secondary category that gets looked at more in depth into the persons background or want’s for that type of forearm. If they want if for valid reasons, so be it but at least it was further looked into that someone buying a 12ga or 30/30 for hunting (which can also be used for protection)

Who gets to decide if a certain gun is too dangerous or your reason for buying said gun isn’t valid? I don’t think leaving those decisions up to some blue hair with pronouns in their email signature is a great idea.

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>glenn57 wrote:</div>
Gimruis, have you paid any attention to some of these judges rulings the past 10 years. That alone scares me more then that law alone

Judges are either elected or appointed (by an elected official). If you don’t like the rulings of a specific judge, they can be removed directly through an election or removed by voting someone else in that will replace them. Many of them run uncontested.

The only judges that cannot be removed are on the Supreme Court. Those are lifetime appointments.

Correct me if I am wrong… do you not work for the Federal Government ? Can you open/conceal carry for your job ? I don’t think you are the average conservative citizen… you believe in the court system and think waiting 2 years to remove a corrupt Judge is a good process ? Do you not own an AR type rifle.. where the standard mag is 20 rounds ? Do you think the 2nd Amendment was written about “hunting” ? These are all legit questions.

BigWerm wrote:

fishthumper wrote:
Most the Law enforcement offices I knew would not enforce any of the Mask mandates during covid.

Cool. Not sure what that has to do with my question. But my point is even if they didn’t enforce the business closures, the state came in and dropped the hammer.

Your ? was this ” Did your local judges/law enforcement turn a blind eye to businesses staying open during Covid?

To answer your question – Yes they did. I do not know of a single business that was shut down by judges/law enforcement during covid. I’m Not say there were not any. Just saying I was not aware of any of them.

thumper.. google Alibis Drinkery… they are still harassing them.