• 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.

New Sheriff in Town? "Oliver North takes on red flag laws"

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
453
Location
FreedomVA
I don't understand why they can't treat this issue as a civil matter, give the accused a chance to face his/her accuser's, accuser's present evidences to the jury's (if any), then if the jury's of his/her peer find that the accused is " A Threat" then enforced restrictions.
If the accuser is found to use malice to accused me then, they the accuser will pay for my Attorney cost, lost wages, Mortgage, horse, a few nice HG and Honey Badgers, my 50ft Yatch, ATV's, ect.........At least there is still due process involved before taking someone right away.

There won't need to a "secret court" , LE won't have to violate their "Oath" and all parties will be on the same page.

i see this as a same tactics they use for "war on drugs" which is not becoming unfavorable so now they have to find something else to do.
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
I don't understand why they can't treat this issue as a civil matter, give the accused a chance to face his/her accuser's, accuser's present evidences to the jury's (if any), then if the jury's of his/her peer find that the accused is " A Threat" then enforced restrictions.
If the accuser is found to use malice to accused me then, they the accuser will pay for my Attorney cost, lost wages, Mortgage, horse, a few nice HG and Honey Badgers, my 50ft Yatch, ATV's, ect.........At least there is still due process involved before taking someone right away.

There won't need to a "secret court" , LE won't have to violate their "Oath" and all parties will be on the same page.

i see this as a same tactics they use for "war on drugs" which is not becoming unfavorable so now they have to find something else to do.

Personally and don't see the issue at all.

Red Flag depends on fortune tellers and crystal balls.
An individual s actions cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty until that individual actually DOES OR ATTEMPTS TO commit a crime. End of story.

Red Flag laws are unconstitutional on their face and nothing but a thinly veiled confiscation scheme cooked up by anti RTKABA kooks.

As a side note I wouldn't worry about LEOs HAVING to violate their oath.
They gleefully do so multiple times an hour now. Don't see any visiting therapists over quilt at having done so.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,867
Location
here nc
I don't understand why they can't treat this issue as a civil matter, give the accused a chance to face his/her accuser's, accuser's present evidences to the jury's (if any), then if the jury's of his/her peer find that the accused is " A Threat" then enforced restrictions.
If the accuser is found to use malice to accused me then, they the accuser will pay for my Attorney cost, lost wages, Mortgage, horse, a few nice HG and Honey Badgers, my 50ft Yatch, ATV's, ect.........At least there is still due process involved before taking someone right away.

There won't need to a "secret court" , LE won't have to violate their "Oath" and all parties will be on the same page.

i see this as a same tactics they use for "war on drugs" which is not becoming unfavorable so now they have to find something else to do.
BS&P...there is no secret court at all and “due process” is afforded the individual in front of a ‘jurst’!
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,957
Location
Waco, TX
I have been a member of the NRA for near forty years now. If it wasn't for the fact that I have been a life member for most of that time, I would've taken my money and used it for supporting several of the other Second Amendment groups, and I do.

I argued with the NRA leadership a long time ago about its direction to no avail. For instance, when it was pushing hard for government permission slips I asked them why they weren't pushing for what is now referred to as constitutional carry. I got no real answer. They didn't answer my questions directly. At that time I stopped supporting the NRA financially and sent my 2nd Amendment money to other groups who in my opinion do far greater work on our behalf. To this day I still feel they don't fully support our rights.

I don't tell people to stop their membership with the NRA as some people prefer to only be aligned with the biggest group, and that's fine. Better than nothing. If it was all there was I'd still be fully supporting them. I just think we can get more bang for our buck supporting other groups if you only can afford helping one.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,867
Location
here nc
Personally, i believe the NRA’s ILA entity has become a tad self absorb’d with its perception of itself!

Sometimes an introspective assessment of organizational needs, goals & viable methodology to reach them, and done by a wholesale change in sr mgmt might be a whole lotta help.

Cuz the old way of bribing, er ‘contributing’ to campaigns to buy legislative ‘favors’ isn’t working!

Just saying.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I concur:

Personally and don't see the issue at all.

Red Flag depends on fortune tellers and crystal balls.
An individual s actions cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty until that individual actually DOES OR ATTEMPTS TO commit a crime. End of story.

Red Flag laws are unconstitutional on their face and nothing but a thinly veiled confiscation scheme cooked up by anti RTKABA kooks.

As a side note I wouldn't worry about LEOs HAVING to violate their oath.
They gleefully do so multiple times an hour now. Don't see any visiting therapists over quilt at having done so.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I have been a member of the NRA for near forty years now. If it wasn't for the fact that I have been a life member for most of that time, I would've taken my money and used it for supporting several of the other Second Amendment groups, and I do.
I fully understand your holding out hope. However, I ditched their services in 1991 or 1992 due to mainly very, very aggressive tactics. I though, "What the hell???!!!"

Even then, I observed Wayne La Pierre, was way over the top, focusing far more on membership than on what the NRA was doing to support and defending our right to keep and bear arms.

I can't begin to tell you just how much I support and defend our right to keep and bear arms. Anyone who doubts my position is an idiot.

Anyway, have a nice cruise.

I argued with the NRA leadership a long time ago about its direction to no avail. For instance, when it was pushing hard for government permission slips I asked them why they weren't pushing for what is now referred to as constitutional carry. I got no real answer. They didn't answer my questions directly. At that time I stopped supporting the NRA financially and sent my 2nd Amendment money to other groups who in my opinion do far greater work on our behalf. To this day I still feel they don't fully support our rights.
I wholeheartedly concur. They do NOT fully support our Constitutional rights.

I don't tell people to stop their membership with the NRA as some people prefer to only be aligned with the biggest group, and that's fine. Better than nothing. If it was all there was I'd still be fully supporting them. I just think we can get more bang for our buck supporting other groups if you only can afford helping one.
If they'd kept their focus, they'd still probably be the only group. As it is, there are four distinct others.
 
Last edited:

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
453
Location
FreedomVA
Personally and don't see the issue at all.

Red Flag depends on fortune tellers and crystal balls.
An individual s actions cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty until that individual actually DOES OR ATTEMPTS TO commit a crime. End of story.

Red Flag laws are unconstitutional on their face and nothing but a thinly veiled confiscation scheme cooked up by anti RTKABA kooks.

As a side note I wouldn't worry about LEOs HAVING to violate their oath.
They gleefully do so multiple times an hour now. Don't see any visiting therapists over quilt at having done so.
Then have a stiff penalties (Felony) for the accusers that uses malice or revenge. Use the same scare tactic law on the opponents, just like how they use it on us. Strip their rights to see how they feel.

It's sad to see society so easily give in and throw your hands in the air and to accept something that is unjust because it's easy to do so.

Imagine if the Founders of were to have this content mindset, would we still have our Constitution today?

Sometime we just have to stop and open our eyes to actually see the BIGGER PICTURE.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,942
Location
White Oak Plantation
During his testimony, he [Colorado State Attorney General Phil Weiser] nonchalantly admits this bill will be imperfect, that false accusations are just par for the course, and he oddly compares it to copyright infringement claims. I have no idea how he thinks removing copyrighted material from a website based on false claims is at all the same as confiscating an innocent person’s firearms. But apparently he does. He then goes on to make it clear, should this law pass, sheriffs and law enforcement must enforce it until it’s determined to be unconstitutional in the courts, which would be years.

Hmmm....
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Then have a stiff penalties (Felony) for the accusers that uses malice or revenge. Use the same scare tactic law on the opponents, just like how they use it on us. Strip their rights to see how they feel.

It's sad to see society so easily give in and throw your hands in the air and to accept something that is unjust because it's easy to do so.

Imagine if the Founders of were to have this content mindset, would we still have our Constitution today?

Sometime we just have to stop and open our eyes to actually see the BIGGER PICTURE.
Im not aware of a state that if one is adjudicated, in a trial, as a danger to self or others they are not put in a facility and "not allowed" to posses firearms.


Red Flag is simply a,way for LE to be used to disarm as many as possible .

Red flag is not needed nor constitutional.
 

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,555
Location
Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
NRA-ILA just sent me the following, FYI:

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA regarding S.7, sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and other emergency risk protection order (ERPO)/”red flag” legislation.

Not only does NRA oppose Senator Rubio’s bill, but we have not supported ANY of the 14 “red flag” bills that have been enacted into law. Contrary to some claims, we have always demanded that any such legislation include strong criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.

Our opposition to all these legislative proposals is steeped in our steadfast commitment to protecting the due process rights of law-abiding Americans; something that these bills to date have failed to do. In keeping with our commitment to upholding the constitutional due process rights of all Americans, NRA will continue to strongly oppose any proposal that does not fully protect these rights.

Unfortunately, the NRA’s position on ERPOs has been mischaracterized by some who have not taken the time to understand our position, including the anti-gun mainstream media and organizations that claim to support the Second Amendment. Many of the individuals mischaracterizing our position are using misinformation to simply attack the NRA.

A simple search of the NRA-ILA website (https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/emergency-risk-protection-orders-erpos/) provides clarity on our position.

As noted previously, NRA fights for the constitutional freedoms, including the due process rights, of all law-abiding Americans, every day in Congress, the statehouses and the courts. Our record on this is clear. Due process of law is a bedrock of our constitutional freedoms. Without it, we would cease to exist as a free country.

All 50 states currently have civil commitment procedures and many lack basic due process protections. This is unacceptable. The NRA believes that no one should be deprived of a fundamental right without due process of law.

The NRA opposes any effort to create a federal ERPO law, in which federal agents would be tasked with seizing firearms after a hearing in federal court. As states consider ERPO laws, the NRA will continue to fight for the inclusion of strong due process protections.

Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights.

Thanks again for your inquiry and for your support of the Second Amendment.

NRA-ILA Grassroots
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
How DARE anyone insinuate that the NRA has supported any ERPOs? Or been less than 100% opposed to all ERPOs? :mad:

Oh yeah, silly me, might have something to do with stuff like this:


So first play that thang and hear the man say, "we need to stop dangerous people before they act. So Congress should provide funding for states to adopt Risk Protection Orders. This can help prevent violent behavior before it turns into a tragedy" etc.

Now that might give you an uneasy feeling. But no problem, just take some Tums or whatever and then see the big ole comment that NRA stickied on that video to set people straight in their thinking:

The NRA’s position on emergency risk protection orders (ERPOs) has recently been mischaracterized by some who haven't taken the time to understand our position, including the anti-gun mainstream media and organizations that purport to support the Second Amendment. Many of the individuals mischaracterizing our position are using misinformation to simply attack the NRA.
See? If you question any NRA action in any way, you're probably either anti-gun, just purporting 2A support, or just out to attack the NRA. So stop being a scumbug, have total faith, and just swallow whatever they tell you! Which includes:

Some have raised the issue of current ERPO laws in California, Oregon and other states, suggesting that the NRA supports those laws. This is false. The NRA strongly opposed these laws because they do not protect due process rights.
As states consider ERPO laws, the NRA will continue to push for the inclusion of strong due process protections.
The requirements of an ERPO process that the NRA can support should include the following: [many items, READ FOR YOURSELF AT THE LINK ABOVE!]
We will only support an ERPO process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time.
So listen up fools, so what if the NRA has promoted ERPOs or RPOs? Regarding any particular case, they can always say that they didn't support THAT particular one and have vehemently opposed it because it didn't include some of their long list of fine print qualifications. See? They were perfect little angels. 😇

Same thing with the bump ban. They begged for the government to look into the issue of bump stocks and whether they should be restricted in any way, but now they can say that they never wanted any particular restrictions exactly like THAT. 😇

Anyone see a pattern? Kinda neat to be able to support and oppose something at the same time. And very dangerous.
 

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
70
Location
, ,
OLIVER NORTH THREW HIS LT. AT MELI UNDER THE BUS, HE BLAMED THIS LT. I THINK HIS NAME WAS, IF MEMORY SERVES ME,WAS KILEY MAY NOT BE SPELLING IT RIGHT,BUT BLAMED HIM FOR THE MASSACRE WHEN NORTH GAVE THE LT. A DIRECT ORDER WHEN THE LT. QUESTIONED AN EARLIER ORDER. NORTH SHOULD HAVE BEEN COURT MARSHALED , STRIPPED OF HIS COMMISSION AND GIVEN A DISCHARGE OF OTHER THEN HONORABLE, IN MY OPINION. THIS IS FROM PAST MEMORY
 

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
70
Location
, ,
I WOULD NOT COUNT ON NORTH FIXING, OR GOING TO BAT FOR OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT.
 
Top