Trump Said to Weigh 'Red Flag' Orders to Take Guns Away Quickly

[The Legion]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-said-to-weigh-red-flag-orders-to-take-guns-away-quickly/ar-BBJwC72?li=BBnbcA1

(Bloomberg) -- The White House is considering the idea of using restraining orders to take firearms away from people considered dangerous as part of its response to last week’s massacre at a Florida high school, two people familiar with the matter said

Under extreme risk protection orders, which are also known as red flag laws or gun violence restraining orders, firearms can be confiscated from people found to be at risk. 

The White House is studying an Indiana version of the law, and is considering other measures as well, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss policy deliberations. Four other states also have such laws.

At the White House on Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi described to President Donald Trump similar efforts underway in her state to allow law enforcement to seize firearms from someone who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

"Good," Trump responded.

At a Florida town hall on CNN earlier in the week, Marco Rubio, one of Florida’s two senators, said he supported restraining orders.

While the concept has bipartisan support, some gun-rights groups have embraced it because it does not impose new regulations on firearms themselves. It is one of a range of proposals, including mental health initiatives, that are under consideration by the White House.

Posing a Risk

California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington have laws that allow the authorities to temporarily strip people believed to be a danger to themselves or others with their weapons. Anyone subject to such an order would not be allowed to buy or obtain more guns while the order was in effect.

The Trump administration is looking at encouraging states to enact the legislation, possibly by tying grant money as a reward for those states to adopt the idea, one of the people said.

Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said at a press briefing on Thursday that the White House was looking at red-flag laws.

"I think some states have had these red-flag laws, for example, that remove firearms after you go to a judge for potentially dangerous individuals. That’s something that’s being done right now in a variety of states, right? They have due process rights for these individuals. It seems to be working in certain areas. That’s something that we’re looking at and other places we’re looking at," Shah added.

The proposal came as the White House has been casting about for a response to widespread demands for action, including new gun laws, in the wake of the shooting last week in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

Earlier on Friday, the president was applauded at the Conservative Political Action Conference when he reiterated support for training members of school staffs to carry concealed weapons. He said armed faculty members could have stopped the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened,” Trump said.

Trump said he spoke Friday morning to Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell about a response to the school shooting. “People are looking to really energize,” he said.

Trump repeated on Friday that he would support stricter firearms regulations, including a proposal to strengthen the federal background check system and raising the minimum age for buying a semi-automatic weapon to 21, something the powerful National Rifle Association has said it opposes.

Edited February 24, 2018 by The Legion

[Omega]

I'm ok with this as long as due process is followed.  I do not want a simple restraining order to be the cause of someone losing their weapons, they have to adjudicate someone a mental case, or prove he/she is a danger to themselves or others then yea, pull their weapons.  And of course a path to restore their rights.

[DaveTN]

13 minutes ago, Omega said:

I'm ok with this as long as due process is followed.  I do not want a simple restraining order to be the cause of someone losing their weapons, they have to adjudicate someone a mental case, or prove he/she is a danger to themselves or others then yea, pull their weapons.  And of course a path to restore their rights.

Do you get a hearing on retraining orders now? Nope. Many time restraining orders are used in Divorces so one party can get the other party off the property while they clear out the house.

The same liberal Judges that are allowing cities and states to violate our immigration laws will keep every gun they can get seized. They aren't going to want to return anything.

[Omega]

10 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Do you get a hearing on retraining orders now? Nope. Many time restraining orders are used in Divorces so one party can get the other party off the property while they clear out the house.

The same liberal Judges that are allowing cities and states to violate our immigration laws will keep every gun they can get seized. They aren't going to want to return anything.

Yes, there is:

Quote

A restraining order hearing has some of the trappings of a trial, without a jury. Both parties appear before a judge and typically are sworn in so that they can provide testimony under oath. If attorneys represent the parties, they make arguments before the court.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/160542-what-happens-at-restraining-order-hearings/

[smokin45]

35 minutes ago, Omega said:

I'm ok with this as long as due process is followed.  I do not want a simple restraining order to be the cause of someone losing their weapons, they have to adjudicate someone a mental case, or prove he/she is a danger to themselves or others then yea, pull their weapons.  And of course a path to restore their rights.

Who will pay for all of this, lawyers,court cost and other fees?? O let me guess!

[Omega]

4 minutes ago, smokin45 said:

Who will pay for all of this, lawyers,court cost and other fees?? O let me guess!

Whom ever pays for them now.

[DaveTN]

18 minutes ago, Omega said:

Yes, there is:

https://www.livestrong.com/article/160542-what-happens-at-restraining-order-hearings/

Sure the hearing.... but I'm saying you (depending on where you live) won't get a hearing before you are served. When you are served with a restraining order or an order of protection your guns will be seized. The hearing will come later. 

[Omega]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Sure the hearing.... but I'm saying you (depending on where you live) won't get a hearing before you are served. When you are served with a restraining order or an order of protection your guns will be seized. The hearing will come later. 

That, why I said what I said:

1 hour ago, Omega said:

I'm ok with this as long as due process is followed.  I do not want a simple restraining order to be the cause of someone losing their weapons, they have to adjudicate someone a mental case, or prove he/she is a danger to themselves or others then yea, pull their weapons.  And of course a path to restore their rights.

Due process, not before the issuance of the restraining order, but after a judge has found enough evidence there is a clear and present danger.  The whole thing with liberal judges is a whole different can of worms.

[Ranger431]

There are several steps that would need to be taken to ensure due process, but this does have more promise than many other options I've heard thrown around. 

[Ugly]

4 hours ago, Omega said:

Yes, there is:

https://www.livestrong.com/article/160542-what-happens-at-restraining-order-hearings/

I don't  think so, 

my ex wife threatened my life in front of her boyfriend and I went for a restraining order. 

No proof asked for and 10 minutes later it was granted. 

I was shocked that it was so easy! 

I was glad obviously but suprised because it wouldn't take the slightest effort for a vindictive person to do the same unwarranted. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Ugly

[scooter]

Thankfully, we have the ALCU to protect due process. LOL. President Trump was never for due process. See his version of the no-fly/no-buy approach. The NRA is for "due process" after the fact, i.e., you get your rights back if you can prove your innocence. LOL.

The interesting part for mental health cases is that there is no doctor that will give anyone a clean bill of health to get their guns back.

[Omega]

1 hour ago, Ugly said:

I don't  think so, 

my ex wife threatened my life in front of her boyfriend and I went for a restraining order. 

No proof asked for and 10 minutes later it was granted. 

I was shocked that it was so easy! 

I was glad obviously but suprised because it wouldn't take the slightest effort for a vindictive person to do the same unwarranted. 

The the process for an emergency restraining order need to be looked at, hard.  While I don't doubt that in some cases it may be warranted, it isn't every time.  IMHO, in a case of a vindictive spouse, they should be charged with a crime for false reporting, and everything wiped from the wronged persons record.

[JayC]

Removing somebody's rights even temporarily without the ability to defend themselves is not moral or constitutional.  Bring criminal charges or prove they are a threat to themselves or others, otherwise we can't remove somebody's God given rights.