Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: TAPS Act

  1. #1
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    TAPS Act

    https://rightwingtribune.com/2019/08...renshaw-calls/

    After Dan Crenshaw Calls For ‘Red Flag Laws’- And Loses Support From Conservatives- He Sets The Record Straight

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...-bill/838/text

    TAPS Act

    Discuss.




  2. #2
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Well. If people had a crystal ball before the Dayton shooter bought his firearms I doubt most gun owners would object to blocking that purchase. The problem is, there’s no such thing as a crystal ball. This guy’s story seems obvious after we know enough facts afterwards. Would it have been so obvious before?

    If we could 1) define some criteria that was pretty positive the person was a danger, and 2) we could ensure that the process couldn’t be abused by activist zealots, and 3) there’s due process to follow, I wouldn’t have a problem with red flag laws. But. We’re not really past #1 yet.
    -spreading the word to end the r-word is retarded
    -activism is retarded because, what if you’re full of ****?

  3. #3
    INGO Homebrewer JettaKnight's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    The one thing red flag laws do help with is suicide, which is a far bigger source of death than mass murder.

    The problem I see with them is the issue with ex parte decisions and the bad PR they have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln
    Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?

  4. #4
    Grandmaster indykid's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    The hardest part of preventing any of these "mass shootings" is that if you stop one, you don't know that you stopped one. I am sure there are many people who are alive today because a someone was stopped before violating the murder laws.

    And any laws on firearms is a violation of our rights. Again, as I have been saying for years, and politicians refuse to acknowledge it, making murder illegal hasn't stopped murders, so how will laws on honest people prevent them?

    I know, preaching to the choir.

  5. #5
    Expert abnk's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Does TAPS have a minority report?
    "Do not overthink it, gentlemen. It's only a gunfight, not an IRS tax audit." - Louis Awerbuck

  6. #6
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    Red flag laws are a gun control solution to a mental health problem...

    The person gets red flagged and has their firearms confiscated but not their knives, blunt objects, vehicles, pressure cookers, accelerants and ability to make fire OR INTENT.

  7. #7
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I only read part of it, but what I gathered is that the want to do is place scrutiny on US citizens that it is illegal to put on others that may commit terrorism.




  8. #8
    Grandmaster HoughMade's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    The fact that it is impossible to stop all mass shootings (or shooting of any type) is not a good reason to refuse to take reasonable and constitutional steps in an effort to prevent some.

    Drafted correctly, I believe that "red flag" laws can be, in some measure, effective and constitutional.

    As to the protections for the citizens and constitutionality, my preferred method would involve the burden always being on the government to prove the reasonable likelihood of danger, and then a continuing danger or the "red flag" order is automatically lifted. After the initial ex-parte order (which there is no real way to get around), with notice and a hearing, the gvt. should have to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, a continuing imminent danger within 7 days, and then every 30 days thereafter, or the order automatically expires. If then, after the order is lifted, the subject can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the order was improperly applied for or the gvt. sought to have it continued without good cause, the gvt. would be liable for attorney fees.

    There would be other parts to this, but this is the gist of the procedural safeguards I would endorse. It is also burdensome enough on the gvt. to, hopefully, not make it something frequently used without good reason.

    I very much believe that there should be a mechanism for removing guns when a person is found to be a legitimate threat. Will it prevent everything? Of course not. Will it prevent something? Possibly, and that's good enough for me. Do nothing seems not to be an option, politically or ethically.
    ​Bullies suck. They also make you stronger.

  9. #9
    Grandmaster HoughMade's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by INPatriot View Post
    Red flag laws are a gun control solution to a mental health problem...

    The person gets red flagged and has their firearms confiscated but not their knives, blunt objects, vehicles, pressure cookers, accelerants and ability to make fire OR INTENT.
    Can you name an instance where someone had their guns confiscated under a red flag law and then went on to commit murder through another means. Sure it's possible, but has it happened?

    And then, so what. Guns are a far more efficient means to kill people than any of those. Less death and killing made more difficult make sense.
    ​Bullies suck. They also make you stronger.

  10. #10
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    OK, lets say that everything you said comes to be.

    Is it legitimate for the government to take your guns, toss expensive wood stocks into a 55 gallon drum, have some cop come in and grab whatever he likes and take it to the range and throw it back in the drum dirty?

    These are things that HAVE happened.

    I say there needs to be procedure to safeguard my property if I were in this situation.




Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge