• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I searched this thread for the word "dangerous," but it wasn't mentioned, even though that word, along with a couple of other words, are absolutely pivotal to the nature, meaning, and extent of President Trump's statement. By avoiding those words you are taking his statement out of context, inaccurately altering its meaning.

Let's try that again, with those critical words highlighted in red:
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.

Was he talking about everyone? NO.

Was he talking about only gun owners? NO.

Was he talking about persons who are a danger to themselves and others because of mental instability or imminent criminal intent? YES.

Many states already have such laws on the books. If I come across a private citizen who is waiving around a firearm in public, regardless of whether they're mentally incompetent or criminally menacing others, one way or the other, they're going down, and my state laws back me up.

Some of you wrongly jumped to the conclusion that I would shoot them, just as some of you wrongly jumped to the conclusion that President Trump wants to take your guns away. That's not what he said. Always consider the context.

sorry, since9,
whom ascertains someone is dangerous?
whom determines they are a danger to themselves?
whom determines mental instability?
whom determines criminal intent?

let's see moms against everything believe gun owners are dangerous and do not facilitate gun owners at their meetings and rumors abound where they have told their followers to call 911 and exaggerate the seriousness of the sight of a gun owner carrying their firearm and law enforcement reacts accordingly.

so law enforcement are appropriately trained to determine mental instability and if someone is a danger to themselves? for example, some gun owner says i'm so frustrated over xyz i'm could/going to kill myself...someone overhears and reports it to 911, off goes the law enforcement to take the gun owner and restrain and arrange transportation to the hospital possibly stopping to confiscating their firearms?

both scenarios mentioned above could be done against the gun owner, er this country's citizens, then permission is sought to validate the law enforcement's actions.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
sorry, since9,
whom ascertains someone is dangerous?
whom determines they are a danger to themselves?
whom determines mental instability?
whom determines criminal intent?

let's see moms against everything believe gun owners are dangerous and do not facilitate gun owners at their meetings and rumors abound where they have told their followers to call 911 and exaggerate the seriousness of the sight of a gun owner carrying their firearm and law enforcement reacts accordingly.

so law enforcement are appropriately trained to determine mental instability and if someone is a danger to themselves? for example, some gun owner says i'm so frustrated over xyz i'm could/going to kill myself...someone overhears and reports it to 911, off goes the law enforcement to take the gun owner and restrain and arrange transportation to the hospital possibly stopping to confiscating their firearms?

both scenarios mentioned above could be done against the gun owner, er this country's citizens, then permission is sought to validate the law enforcement's actions.

that's what just happened in florida. one shooting by a 19 year old and all 18-21 year olds are now incompetent to purchase a gun forever.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
"some gun owner says i'm so frustrated over xyz"

I doubt that would be necessary - probably just a glance, no words exchanged, would be plenty enough to engage ERPO because it's magic power - whatever feeling they have, or dishonest motivation they have, any whim becomes the law.

But if anything is necessary, dangerous can be anything at all. They will be able to fudge freely and they know it. If anyone has ever stubbed their toe, they have proven they can hurt themselves, right? Is there anyone who hasn't done that? If an empowered person has a feeling about you, that's it.

I doubt it will be limited to the 2A, that's just the starting point. It could impact all sorts of rights. Is any org mounting a lawsuit on these? If anything would ever be easy to prove "unconstitutional" surely this would be it.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
that's what just happened in florida. one shooting by a 19 year old and all 18-21 year olds are now incompetent to purchase a gun forever.

please do not forget the aurora theater shooting, or the sandy hook shooting, or the vegas shooting, or the pulse shooting or the OR university shooting, or the gifford shooting, or luby's shooting, or the TX tower shooting, or brady's shooting, or the va tech shooting, or...

pronunciations of sanctions abounded after each one some worse than others, e.g., brady's law, and the FL does not state those under <21 are incompetent but rather forbidden by statutory mandates.
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
please do not forget the aurora theater shooting, or the sandy hook shooting, or the vegas shooting, or the pulse shooting or the OR university shooting, or the gifford shooting, or luby's shooting, or the TX tower shooting, or brady's shooting, or the va tech shooting, or...

pronunciations of sanctions abounded after each one some worse than others, e.g., brady's law, and the FL does not state those under <21 are incompetent but rather forbidden by statutory mandates.

right, so where's the due process?
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
right, so where's the due process?
No one has been deemed "a danger to themselves or others" by virtue of the FL law. It only sets an age limit to purchase long guns, which may be argued in court (NRA has already filed a suit based on discrimination), which could be resolved by restricting the age limit to "assault firearms" as opposed to every type of long gun. Such a ruling could survive an appeal, as Heller holds that AR15s are not constitutionally protected under 2A. SCOTUS just declined to hear an appeal to overturn Maryland's "assault weapons" ban.
 

echofiveniner

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
49
Location
Texas
He's gonna have to do some amazing things to get a 2020 election. At this point unless he starts undoing gun control and giving us the hearing protection act, revoking the Hughe Amendment, etc he is not getting my vote.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
He's gonna have to do some amazing things to get a 2020 election. At this point unless he starts undoing gun control and giving us the hearing protection act, revoking the Hughe Amendment, etc he is not getting my vote.

What candidate do you think that you will find to vote for that will do all those things? No President has the power to do those things. The things that you have mentioned were done by Congress and can only be undone by Congress.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
431
Location
Planet Earth
Some states (I don't know which) have laws on their books already that prohibit "age" discrimination. That's why that one 18 year old in Washington state (??) has filed his lawsuit. IIRC, the one in Minnesota is also because they have similar laws. I don't think Florida has such laws which may be why the NRA filed suit down there.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Some states (I don't know which) have laws on their books already that prohibit "age" discrimination. That's why that one 18 year old in Washington state (??) has filed his lawsuit. IIRC, the one in Minnesota is also because they have similar laws. I don't think Florida has such laws which may be why the NRA filed suit down there.

first, it was oregon where the 20yo filed suit against Dick’s while trying to buy a 10/22.

oregon is one of five states which have age accommodation statutes.

crical thinking skills are needed: all events are with days... Dick’s announced ban on those < 21; Weber gets turned down; couple days later 20 yo Weber has found an attorney who has already filed papers with the court, and the event is being self promoted on social media and newspeek far and wide.

no idea if this could be a set up, no idea how 20yo weber found an attorney nor if attorney isworking on contingency or pro bono.

do presume Dick’s legal staff already salaried so case is nothing to them but 20yo could be paying $$$$/hour

further, as a FFL, atf states they may deny anybody a firearm based on a myriad of things, e.g. could be the lad smelled of just toking before entering the establishment or looked sloppily dressed or.

i will fill in the appropriate cites upon first thing in the morning...i’m beat!

court filing: https://reason.com/assets/db/15203198626160.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top