The NRA position on 'Red Flag Law' - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-01-2019, 10:17 AM
SC shooter SC shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: In the pines
Age: 60
Posts: 1,273
The NRA position on 'Red Flag Law'

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-due-process/
April 25, 2019

The NRA says that it supports the idea of these laws in general, but opposes the specific versions that have recently passed state legislatures. The NRA’s position is:

• Anyone subject to an ERPO should have the opportunity to challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.

• An order that confiscates firearms should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.

• The judge should concurrently make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment.

• Whether or not the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should receive mental-health treatment.

• The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms.

• There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon termination of an ERPO.

• The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.

So far, none of the states that recently passed ERPO laws — including California, Oregon, and Vermont— have met the NRA’s criteria, nor do the bills introduced in Texas and Tennessee this year.

The NRA grumbles that its position gets misconstrued and mischaracterized by both sides — gun-control groups paint the organization as being unwilling to take guns away from dangerous people, and other gun-rights organizations, eager to draw distinctions with the NRA, portray the association as sellouts who are amenable to gun confiscation.

The NRA sees its position as simple: They support extreme risk-protection orders, as long as the process involved strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due-process rights at the same time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don’t want to see these red flag laws pass but I think it is going to happen thanks to Senator Graham. The NRA does have a better position on the way these laws should be drawn up. I especially agree with criminal penalties for false accusations. I would add to it that the person accused falsely could sue for damages. If we are going to get these laws I would just prefer the NRA version than the Nancy Pelosi version.

I would rather not have this law and I think a lot of innocent people will get screwed over with it. Maybe it won’t pass but I just think it will because of Graham.
__________________
I am a proud to be a member of the NRA, GOA, FPC and The 2nd Amendment Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-01-2019, 10:34 AM
Colt191145 Colt191145 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 746
So THIS is the fix for lack of mental health care?

The problem is there are millions of people on the street that are trusted to take a pill that may or may not help them instead of getting them the real help they need or in the worst cases seclusion from society.

Mental health facilities were "ugly" and "unfair" so the commies closed the vast majority of them.

Now gun owners will be under the constant threat of confiscation and adjudication as a cure instead of funding for mental health diagnosis and treatment facilities that are desperately needed.

Standard commie point the finger shift the blame tactic.

I hate commies.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-01-2019, 11:13 AM
SC shooter SC shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: In the pines
Age: 60
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt191145 View Post
So THIS is the fix for lack of mental health care?

The problem is there are millions of people on the street that are trusted to take a pill that may or may not help them instead of getting them the real help they need or in the worst cases seclusion from society.

Mental health facilities were "ugly" and "unfair" so the commies closed the vast majority of them.

Now gun owners will be under the constant threat of confiscation and adjudication as a cure instead of funding for mental health diagnosis and treatment facilities that are desperately needed.

Standard commie point the finger shift the blame tactic.

I hate commies.
+1911 it is all part of the plan to disarm the peasants so they can never revolt.
__________________
I am a proud to be a member of the NRA, GOA, FPC and The 2nd Amendment Foundation
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 05-01-2019, 11:28 AM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
NRA just being stupid here. RF laws are bad and dangerous, and should never be supported by any pro2A group/person/org/co !!!

The principle of RF laws usually looks good, the problem come from the abuse that will come with. Your neighbor does not like you, you may lose your guns w/o due process.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-01-2019, 04:08 PM
TRX302 TRX302 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC shooter View Post
The NRA says that it supports the idea of these laws in general
Of course it does.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-01-2019, 08:13 PM
tgt_usa's Avatar
tgt_usa tgt_usa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,695
NRA template

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC shooter View Post
https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-due-process/
April 25, 2019

The NRA says that it supports the idea of these laws in general, but opposes the specific versions that have recently passed state legislatures. The NRA’s position is:

• Anyone subject to an ERPO should have the opportunity to challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.

• An order that confiscates firearms should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.

• The judge should concurrently make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment.

• Whether or not the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should receive mental-health treatment.

• The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms.

• There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon termination of an ERPO.

• The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.

So far, none of the states that recently passed ERPO laws — including California, Oregon, and Vermont— have met the NRA’s criteria, nor do the bills introduced in Texas and Tennessee this year.

The NRA grumbles that its position gets misconstrued and mischaracterized by both sides — gun-control groups paint the organization as being unwilling to take guns away from dangerous people, and other gun-rights organizations, eager to draw distinctions with the NRA, portray the association as sellouts who are amenable to gun confiscation.

The NRA sees its position as simple: They support extreme risk-protection orders, as long as the process involved strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due-process rights at the same time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don’t want to see these red flag laws pass but I think it is going to happen thanks to Senator Graham. The NRA does have a better position on the way these laws should be drawn up. I especially agree with criminal penalties for false accusations. I would add to it that the person accused falsely could sue for damages. If we are going to get these laws I would just prefer the NRA version than the Nancy Pelosi version.

I would rather not have this law and I think a lot of innocent people will get screwed over with it. Maybe it won’t pass but I just think it will because of Graham.
The only element missing, that I aver should be present, is a jury. Maybe, however, that’s what’s meant by “full due process”. Judges work for a government. Loss of natural rights should not be subject to the government: thus the jury system. If a jury is in it, *I*’d be in grudging favor. Grudging because redundant/unnecessary: a person meeting the standard here could be convicted of a crime if “sane” and involuntarily committed otherwise. Finding a person to be a danger would reasonably require acts that -are- criminal even if rarely prosecuted (making threats etc.). The NRA template makes it a little easier to find against a person accused because the sentence is “only” -disarming- the accused ... for the children don’t ya know. OtoH, the language specifying provision for return of such arms as are impounded, implies that the accused isn’t necessarily being adjudicated as incompetent (4473 wording).

Much relieved to see this is the NRA stance: of course I’d seen juxtaposition of ~Rubio’s~ bill and an NRA approval concession; and taken it as NRA approving Rubio’s evil idiocy. Glad that I didn’t tear out much hair over this earlier.

Thanks for posting!
__________________
NRA Benefactor; D.E. Handgun; Certified RSO and Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, PPItH, PPOtH, HFS
USAA: Level I Archery Instructor
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.-J.S.Mill

Last edited by tgt_usa; 05-01-2019 at 08:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-01-2019, 08:42 PM
wv109323 wv109323 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Lenore, WV
Posts: 942
I hate to trust government on any program. Think of an efficient, well run and productive agency. Post office nope, education nope, VA nope not yet, Congress nope. Even the FBI and DOJ are not straight shooters.
So I see the possibility of abuse if the government is given power. And who pays for the appeal process of one judged incompetitent.
With that I know 2 people that are a threat to themselves and others. I would much rather trust an independent or private business running such a program. At least that would be one step away from the politicians.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-01-2019, 08:52 PM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 34
Posts: 6,769
I feel slightly better knowing the NRAs position now.

Still think they're idiots for thinking the process will actually work fairly. It won't.
__________________
Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-01-2019, 09:37 PM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by wv109323 View Post
I hate to trust government on any program. Think of an efficient, well run and productive agency. Post office nope, education nope, VA nope not yet, Congress nope. Even the FBI and DOJ are not straight shooters.
So I see the possibility of abuse if the government is given power. And who pays for the appeal process of one judged incompetitent.
With that I know 2 people that are a threat to themselves and others. I would much rather trust an independent or private business running such a program. At least that would be one step away from the politicians.
govt? more like corrupt PD all across the US. RF laws are just another way for PD to act above the law, but still be within the law. It's BS and should never be accepted.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-01-2019, 10:24 PM
PolymerMan PolymerMan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,431
I agree with the NRA's position.

The problem with 'mental health' issues is that mental health is not a settled science. So the system has to have safe guards to prevent the abuse of mislabeling a person with a mental condition that could prevent that person from enjoying their constitutional rights.

If you are diabetic, or break a bone, or have hepatitis, there are definitive medical diagnosis... an almost black and white determination of what ails you, that is fairly uniform across the medical profession. They can do blood tests, take x-rays, run a battery of objective tests. Plus there is a fairly well established system of healing once a diagnosis is made... well at least the majority of the time. Some practitioners may employ minor different healing methods, but what is important is that the diagnosis is objective, clear cut and based on settled science.

The problem with psychology/psychiatry is that there is no settled science on what a healthy mind should be. The diagnostic tool is 100% subjective and almost all the diagnoses in the DSM have no biological origin that can be tested. There have been many papers written by psychiatrists and neurologists that are critical of the profession, as junk science. Yet, many people believe that psychiatry is in the same league with many other settled science based medicine.

Then you complicate the matter that psychiatrists' opinions are treated as settled science by the court, it is an uphill and very costly fight in court to get guns back if the gun owner ends up with an anti-gun psychiatrist who simply believes that no one should have a gun, healthy or not.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-01-2019, 10:56 PM
lhawkins lhawkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 803
"The NRA sees its position as simple: They support extreme risk-protection orders, as long as the process involved strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due-process rights at the same time."

The problem is who makes the determination of "extreme".

Instead of the NRA caving in yet again, how about we fix one of their last compromises, NICS, first?

Several recent high profile shootings show just how broken the system is.

Adding one more law when the existing system does not work is not the answer.

Moreover, in the Parkland shooting there was enough evidence probably for involuntary mental adjudication. Never happened. Why, because they were either lazy or apathetic. So lets pass a law to lower the standard because multiple FBI tips and 10s of LE visits were not enough? Moreover, no one was really was held criminally accountable for their dereliction of duty. Yeah, we suspended a Sheriff, but he is currently suing for his dismissal.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-02-2019, 09:20 AM
LostintheOzone LostintheOzone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 49th parallel
Posts: 5,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhawkins View Post
"The NRA sees its position as simple: They support extreme risk-protection orders, as long as the process involved strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due-process rights at the same time."

The problem is who makes the determination of "extreme".

Instead of the NRA caving in yet again, how about we fix one of their last compromises, NICS, first?

Several recent high profile shootings show just how broken the system is.

Adding one more law when the existing system does not work is not the answer.

Moreover, in the Parkland shooting there was enough evidence probably for involuntary mental adjudication. Never happened. Why, because they were either lazy or apathetic. So lets pass a law to lower the standard because multiple FBI tips and 10s of LE visits were not enough? Moreover, no one was really was held criminally accountable for their dereliction of duty. Yeah, we suspended a Sheriff, but he is currently suing for his dismissal.
I believe Fix NICS passed into law last year in March.
__________________
When asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-02-2019, 10:45 AM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhawkins View Post

Adding one more law when the existing system does not work is not the answer.
You are addressing whom exactly? Demcraps don't see it your way, etc. Demcraps will keep passing useless laws just to say they took action.

We tell demcraps all the time, using facts, that their shiat laws do nothing and impeded law abiding citizens, and their response is "well, you choose do nothing at all". In essence 0=0 no matter if its 400x*0 = 1,000x*0, its still 0=0, etc. The net outcome however is impact to law abiding citizens.

As long as the idiot demcraps can get their stupid anti-2A laws passed they will continue to win at he game.

My gripe has been the same for some time now, pro2A needs to unite, otherwise the battle will be lost.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-02-2019, 05:43 PM
SC shooter SC shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: In the pines
Age: 60
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhawkins View Post
Moreover, in the Parkland shooting there was enough evidence probably for involuntary mental adjudication. Never happened. Why, because they were either lazy or apathetic. So lets pass a law to lower the standard because multiple FBI tips and 10s of LE visits were not enough? Moreover, no one was really was held criminally accountable for their dereliction of duty. Yeah, we suspended a Sheriff, but he is currently suing for his dismissal.
This is a major part of the problem those who are not doing their job are very rarely held accountable.
------------------
I think the NRA sees the writing on the wall. There will be a red flag law passed because there are rinos behind it too this time. Rubio, Graham and a few others will allow it to pass. I just hope the law they pass is very close to the NRA version. I don’t see the NRA as caving in but trying to soften the blow. You can bet the House of Pelosi will not like the NRA template.
__________________
I am a proud to be a member of the NRA, GOA, FPC and The 2nd Amendment Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-02-2019, 09:19 PM
FNHipowerluv FNHipowerluv is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhawkins View Post
"The NRA sees its position as simple: They support extreme risk-protection orders, as long as the process involved strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due-process rights at the same time."

The problem is who makes the determination of "extreme".

Instead of the NRA caving in yet again, how about we fix one of their last compromises, NICS, first?

Several recent high profile shootings show just how broken the system is.

Adding one more law when the existing system does not work is not the answer.

Moreover, in the Parkland shooting there was enough evidence probably for involuntary mental adjudication. Never happened. Why, because they were either lazy or apathetic. So lets pass a law to lower the standard because multiple FBI tips and 10s of LE visits were not enough? Moreover, no one was really was held criminally accountable for their dereliction of duty. Yeah, we suspended a Sheriff, but he is currently suing for his dismissal.
The Parkland incident was because of attendance money. Schools are paid based on how many students attend. Students in jail can't attend school, so that equals lost revenue for the school. The school board supposedly made an agreement with the police department to not let any students get arrested, for this very reason. That's why the Parkland killer wasn't arrested, even after 20+ police visits, and multiple threats.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-02-2019, 09:56 PM
PolymerMan PolymerMan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNHipowerluv View Post
The Parkland incident was because of attendance money. Schools are paid based on how many students attend. Students in jail can't attend school, so that equals lost revenue for the school. The school board supposedly made an agreement with the police department to not let any students get arrested, for this very reason. That's why the Parkland killer wasn't arrested, even after 20+ police visits, and multiple threats.
Not really. It's about school rating systems and the "PROMISE" program.

The schools get more funds from the state and Federal programs when they can report lower on-campus crime and higher graduation rates, and higher test scores on state mandated exams.

So they sweep problem students under the rug, and they don't report criminal conduct. This problem was partially exposed with the Trayvon Martin case and came out fully exposed with the Parkland Shooter. They both had some serious criminal infractions on campus, but if those were documented and if they were expelled, it would have lowered the score the schools receive.

These schools want to create the illusion that all is perfect and that their leftist indoctrination program is turning out model law abiding citizens with great potential.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...430-story.html
Quote:
A wary Broward School Board considers changes to Promise program
and
Quote:
Promise, which started in 2013 to reduce the number of black students being arrested for minor offenses, was once considered a national model for reducing the schoolhouse to jailhouse pipeline. But it’s received increased scrutiny since the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High on Feb. 14, 2018.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-02-2019, 11:40 PM
FNHipowerluv FNHipowerluv is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,991
That is as interesting as it was sad, Polymerman. It reminds me of a documentary I saw on TV, right after Parkland happened. The documentary was criticizing arrests of students, and basically calling for more programs like the "PROMISE" program you mentioned. I found it particularly revolting that they had the nerve to air that right after Parkland happened.

As for the red flag laws, I think it is a ridiculous idea when you consider the following: If a person is truly too dangerous, and unstable to be near a gun, why should he be anywhere near the public in the first place? If he has criminal intentions, lock him up (with evidence, of course). If he is just a nutcase, perhaps he can be placed in a facility under supervision to help is condition. If he cant be trusted with a gun, than he cant be trusted around knives, vehicles, chemicals, and just about everything, honestly.

The "keep guns out of the wrong hands" argument, is nothing more than a clever trap by the antis, that the NRA, and much of the "pro-gun" politicians have sadly fallen for. Because to a leftist every gun not to being used by one of their communist revolutionaries is in the "wrong hands."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-03-2019, 06:23 AM
Plantar5 Plantar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 6,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_Kid View Post

The principle of RF laws usually looks good, the problem come from the abuse that will come with. Your neighbor does not like you, you may lose your guns w/o due process.
^^this^^ RF laws will just be another excuse or reason to violate someone’s 2A rights, circumvent due process, then cost the person a small fortune in legal costs to restore them. Until the accusers have some skin in the game, ie something punitive against them, RF laws wont work.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-03-2019, 06:59 AM
Cranky Yankee Cranky Yankee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: CT's Quiet Corner
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNHipowerluv View Post
As for the red flag laws, I think it is a ridiculous idea when you consider the following: If a person is truly too dangerous, and unstable to be near a gun, why should he be anywhere near the public in the first place? If he has criminal intentions, lock him up (with evidence, of course). If he is just a nutcase, perhaps he can be placed in a facility under supervision to help is condition. If he cant be trusted with a gun, than he cant be trusted around knives, vehicles, chemicals, and just about everything, honestly.
30-40 years ago these people would have been under supervision, perhaps even in institutions. Then the '90's came along and the scandals involving patient abuses were exposed and the institutions were closed (rather than reformed, justified as cost-cutting), releasing individuals into society who had no business interacting freely or closely with the public. How many of these people are roaming around, missing their mandated appointments, skipping their medications, building arrest records but nothing is done before they finally injure/kill themselves or someone else?

But we have to be PC, we can't stigmatize them, lest we be seen as hateful fear-mongering bigots. We're told we need to "mainstream" them, treat them as normal people because that's the humane and loving thing to do. But some people cannot be "mainstreamed." They cannot function in civilization without constant monitoring. Sometimes they need to be physically removed from a situation before it turns sour, for their own protection as much as others. I'm sorry if doing so qualifies as "labelling" or "stigmatizing" but that's reality, and by expecting them to magically become normal by injecting them into normal society is as stupid as throwing a lion into a herd of antelope and expecting it to no longer be hungry. Not only might the lion harm an antelope, but antelope have been known to fight back and injure a lion.

Conflict is bound to happen, and these Leftist policies end up not only harming the innocent but the very people they claim to be helping. Of course, even when Lefties fall victim to their own stupidity, they still find a way to blame everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:35 AM
LostintheOzone LostintheOzone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 49th parallel
Posts: 5,602
The bottom line here is the POTUS and the NRA are capitulating to public pressure. Public pressure to enact more laws ( banning bump stocks, ERPO's and UBC's ) to stop violence with firearms.

Nobody wants to look like they're standing in the way of popular sentiment when it comes to curbing the violence with firearms. All of this will eventually end up with the regulation of semi-auto rifles and magazine capacity by the fed.

The NRA and POTUS is traveling down that road now embracing new restrictions. It's just a matter of time until semi-auto rifles are restricted by combined actions of the NRA, congress and the present adm or one in the future. The train has left the station so to speak because public sentiment can't be ignored. The president can't ignore it and neither can the NRA or congress.

The next election will set the stage for more federal regulation. Even if Trump is reelected ( good chance ) we will see it come to pass because he's a populist president. Trump ( or the next president ), congress and the NRA will march lock step in that direction. The hand writing is on the wall.

None of this matters because it won't reduce the homicide rate in any state. CA and AZ are a perfect example of homicide rates and firearm restrictions. They both have about the same homicide rate according to FBI data. Nobody is looking at that however because nobody wants to accept the fact that if you regulate firearms people just find a way to get a firearm or they use something else.

We haven't reached a point in this country where bombs are being used a lot but when rifles are restricted that will happen. The troubles in Ireland is a good example if anyone cares to research that. It's also become a huge problem in Europe. One of the largest departments in the fed was created to keep weapons off of aircraft, bombs included. Just about every large LE agency has a bomb squad these days.
__________________
When asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”

Last edited by LostintheOzone; 05-03-2019 at 10:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:20 PM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostintheOzone View Post
The train has left the station so to speak because public sentiment can't be ignored. The president can't ignore it and neither can the NRA or congress.
Public sentiment? Can we poll that across all Americans? I suspect the total # is small and it just so happens to land on the TV news.

Kinda how the Hillary losers keep bragging how Hillary won popular vote. That's kinda BS because many many GOP'ers simply don't vote where they know their vote does not count, like NY, CA, etc. Poll every eligible voter and Trump won pop vote big time.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:48 PM
SC shooter SC shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: In the pines
Age: 60
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostintheOzone View Post

It's just a matter of time until semi-auto rifles are restricted by combined actions of the NRA, congress and the present adm or one in the future. The train has left the station so to speak
I am sure each person has their own line in the sand but when this happens it is time to tear up the train tracks.
__________________
I am a proud to be a member of the NRA, GOA, FPC and The 2nd Amendment Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-03-2019, 01:09 PM
ope135's Avatar
ope135 ope135 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,453
Polls on gun issues are clearly skewed by the organizations conducting the polls. "Are you in favor of background checks for firearms purchases?" Hell, even the NRA would say "yes" and did, resulting in the broken and often worthless system we have today. Non-gun owners are probably unaware that a background check system exists. But we keep hearing that when polled, background checks get a 90% approval response. If you don't understand the difference between the current system and "universal background checks", which most people don't, you get these skewed results. The politicians understand this and also know that people who care about the Second Amendment vote. I believe that the general public is largely supportive or indifferent to gun rights as an important issue. Otherwise, we'd already be suffering under severe anti-gun legislation.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
NRA Benefactor Member
USAR - Ordnance Corps
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-03-2019, 01:23 PM
Forty-Five Forty-Five is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Jax, Fla
Posts: 478
I generally agree with the NRA's conditions in a perfect world, but I am totally skeptical that any of them will ever be met. Too many human factors, too few trustworthy people involved. We are entering a phase of history where facts and reason are less and less utilized in the administration of justice.
__________________
Nine is fine, but I'll survive with forty five!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-03-2019, 01:27 PM
SC shooter SC shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: In the pines
Age: 60
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ope135 View Post
Polls on gun issues are clearly skewed by the organizations conducting the polls. "Are you in favor of background checks for firearms purchases?" Hell, even the NRA would say "yes" and did, resulting in the broken and often worthless system we have today. Non-gun owners are probably unaware that a background check system exists. But we keep hearing that when polled, background checks get a 90% approval response. If you don't understand the difference between the current system and "universal background checks", which most people don't, you get these skewed results. The politicians understand this and also know that people who care about the Second Amendment vote. I believe that the general public is largely supportive or indifferent to gun rights as an important issue. Otherwise, we'd already be suffering under severe anti-gun legislation.

That 90% number was made up when Obama was President and I wrote a letter to Senator Lindsey Graham and told him so.
I still have a copy of it from 2013 when Senator Cruz wanted to filibuster the UBC bill that was up for a vote.

Senator Graham
I have supported you and voted for you since you became a senator. I realize you know much more about legislation than I do and on most issues I trust your judgment. I know you have said that you would vote against most new gun control laws, but I do not agree with you on your being against a filibuster. They do not enforce the laws they already have and anything new will only hurt law abiding people, you and anyone who actually uses the least amount of common sense knows this to be the truth.
The 90% number that the President throws around about people wanting background checks is not true, if it was we would not even be debating it. I know they have a different mindset up north and many people are anti-gun, that’s where he gets his poll numbers. You represent us and most people I know in South Carolina are not for any new gun laws. I agree with you that mental health needs to be looked at and included in background checks that we already have.
I know my single voice and my single vote means nothing by itself, but if any new universal background check or anti-gun legislation gets passed, I will remember you being against this filibuster. I will do all I can to make sure my family and friends remember it too.

Thank you for your service to the great state of South Carolina and the United States.

Phillip XXXXXX
__________________
I am a proud to be a member of the NRA, GOA, FPC and The 2nd Amendment Foundation
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:01 PM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved