Should this be something that 2nd Amendment supporters, and civil rights supporters, be worried about?
(The Hill) President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,†Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,†Trump said.
Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.
“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,†Pence said.
“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump responded.
Many of us noted that back during the late 1990’s and early 2000’s Trump seemed to be just fine with an assault weapons ban, lengthening the waiting periods, and lots more gun control, but then suddenly flipped in 2011, right at the time he started running for the GOP nomination for the 2012 election cycle. He’s talked the talk since, especially starting in 2016.
Is this just Trump spouting off? When he says provocative things on Twitter or during speeches, they seem more planned than off the cuff gaffes, designed to be provocative and get the Democrats and media all apoplectic. Does he mean this?
He’s also not enthused over including national concealed carry reciprocity with a gun control bill. I happen to agree. Do it separately.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are not planning to go big
Senate Republicans say President Trump’s comments Wednesday calling for more ambitious gun-control proposals won’t change the political calculus in their conference, which supports a limited response to the shooting at a Florida high school.
Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach.
He wants to put a narrow bill on the floor that would give state and local officials more incentive to report relevant information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System known as NICS.
“For me the most obvious place to start is the Fix NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] bill that has 46 cosponsors,” Cornyn said of the bill he’s co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.).
Start there. How about a requirement that all gun purchases and transfers, even private ones, have a background check done if one hadn’t been performed in the last 6 months? You can limit purchases to one per month. And increase penalties on people who use firearms for crimes. Let’s look at putting the focus on the criminals, not those who do not use them unlawfully.
Civil rights supporters (all of us, we hope) should always be worried about the tRumpitistas and their innate sense of entitlement and authoritarianism.
On the other hand, 2nd Amendment purists (no new regulations on guns!) have no need to worry. tRump spouts off. The NRA/GOP will rein him in.
Congress is making some noise based on their read of public sentiment. They might fine-tune NICS, maybe even ban Bump Stocks, or follow Wal-Mart’s lead and make 21 the new legal age to buy firearms.
The NRA, the 2nd Amendment fetishists and the gun manufacturers are already working hard to confuse the issue regarding the so-called assault weapons. “Their just like hunting rifles, but just different enough for you to want to buy them!”. “Their just like your dad’s 30-30, but better!” “The only way to stop a bad guy with little gun, is a good guy with a better gun!”
You’re spewing your ignorant spunk all over your keyboard, angry little black guy.
Finally, the NRA was proven right. An American President DID advocate coming to take your guns! LOL.
Joe Manchin, (DINO-WV) explained that West Virginians believed that President Obama, who never threatened to take their guns, WOULD take them; they think that tRump, who DID threaten to take their guns, WOULD NOT take them.
Because all they have is hate, liberals feel the need to lie.
The Obama administration wanted to implement rules that would strip vets of their right to own weapons based if the vet could not handle their own finances.
There is no correlation between the ability to handle finance and violence, but that didn’t matter. It was a gun grab that the left supported.
So yes, Obama did seek to seize guns from people.
Trump’s idea which was part of a discussion is that if there is a person who has shown violent tendencies, may need mental health care, made real threats, etc., could have their weapons seized until a hearing could be held. Some states are proposing a 3 – 14 day time frame for the hearing to take place.
California has such a plan in place in it was praised by Obama.
The idea of seizing some weapons from those who may do actual harm and holding a hearing as to whether to keep the weapons, seek treatment, ect, may have prevented the mass shootings that we have seen.
Of course now the left doesn’t want those types of plans in place because they want the killings and they want the blood of innocents on their hands as it justifies their hate.
Hate is all they have.
President Trump’s statements are’troubling,’ to say the least.
The gun-grabbers would certainly be pleased with the idiotic notion that we seize weapons first, and then get around to due process, but one wonders: would they feel the same way about our other Constitutional rights?
Due process must come first, or it doesn’t exist at all.
Now, due process can consist off arresting someone, when , but then allowing an almost immediate bail hearing. It would fall under reasonable due process to arrest someone’s firearms, as long as a near immediate hearing to justify such was to be held. But without a speedy hearing, under real law, no one’s property, including weapons, may be kept.
We already do this with those accused of, but not yet convicted of domestic violence. That, too, is wrong: the accused must have a legal hearing, and be presumed innocent.
As for the idea of raising the legal age to purchase firearms, upon reaching the age of 18, persons are considered legal adults: they may enlist in the Armed Services, be sent to Afghanistan to kill the enemies of peace and freedom, and they are subject to the adult criminal justice system. They have teh right to vote. It is unjust, and unConstitutional, to prohibit them from buying firearms, or, in my opinion, ban them from buying alcohol.
All these ideas on guns will not stop one killing. What was the difference between 1960 and now?It is the fact that the nut job would not be at our school. He would be identified as crazy and put on special school
Trump is trolling the left again. He is getting them to oppose their own platform because he suggested it. Funny how the left only cares about civil rights when republicans are in power.
It appears he’s trolling the far-right ammosexuals.