Skip to comments.Rand Paul signals support for Red Flags
Posted on 08/13/2019 11:32:24 AM PDT by RandFan
Paul, a strong gun-rights advocate, signaled his willingness to support something along the lines of "red flag" laws that allow guns to be removed from those who may be a danger to themselves and others.
"I'm not opposed to sort of an emergency order for 48 hours and then you get a hearing in a court where you get the full due-process protections," he said in the interview. "It's the one thing that could fix a lot of stuff. I think most of these homicidal attackers ... are sending off signals to their family and community."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
DON'T LET RAND DO THIS!
CALL HIS OFFICE NOW:
167 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC, 20510 Phone: 202-224-4343
Main State Office 1029 State Street Bowling Green, KY 42101 Phone: 270-782-8303
lindsay Graham does too- claims the 2n’d amendment isn’t a ‘suicide pact’ whatever the hell that is supposed to mean
Look Rinos in government- the left do not even respect the constitution, and you think they will respect ‘strong protections for due process’ once the red flag laws get passed thanks to gullible dorks like you all?
Have conservatives and libertarians as short sighted as that? really?
He, of all people, should know that if people are sending off signals@ then thats legally conspiracy to commit and people can be arrested on that basis via due process.
And the red flags wouldnt have stopped him from being attacked either because his attackers family backed him up.
Graham’s bill is a gun grabbers charter. They will SWAT people for their guns. I’m not kidding.
The only reason the GOP-e Senators are coming out of hiding is they have the votes to pass this monstrosity.
Linda is pushing it and lying to GOP leadership.
I’d like to see no Red Flag law.
But if they do impose a 48-hr rule (or whatever) and the targeted person gets their day in court, with full due process, and is found harmless and competent to own a gun, then I would like the original instigator of the “emergency” to be fined $50,000 directly payable to the victimized gun owner. Seems only fair.
SECOND - No matter what the bill at the National level says about "Due Process", when it is implemented at the State Level, THERE WILL BE NO DUE PROCESS!!!!
THIRD - NO CONFISCATED WEAPON WILL EVER BE RETURNED!!!
Almost every state in the union has in place a law for judicial commitment, akin to Florida’s Baker Act.
We need nut control, not more gun control.
I actually think the “red flag” concept, if done right, is a solution that could actually work to avoid these sorts of things. Of course, it would have to include safeguards that:
1. Apply stiff penalties to anyone who tries to frivolously red flag someone.
2. Still put the burden of proof on those supporting the removal of guns from the person flagged.
3. As Rand said, it is only temporary until the person gets their “day in court” to make it permanent or long term.
One of the strengths of this concept is that it is not a blanket law. It only affects individuals that allegedly cross a line.
A big problem with this is they will start looking for so-called red flags.
We already have state laws for judicial commitment. And those laws cover people who are imminent threats no matter the weapon of choice.
There’s not a politician out there who would not be happy to see the citizenry dis-armed.
We saw what happened with FISA.....
that’ll never happen- and forcing people to go to court because someone makes false accusations, which will happen a LOT if red flag laws are passed- puts a huge burden financially on people that likely will not be able to afford it, they will get crappy representation, and likely lose-
The risk of red flag laws is just too great- our constitution never envisioned such nonsense-
Sending a signal like a post on Facebook.
Use the word “Christian”, get banned and swatted.
Yep and as bob says due process is a joke, no one will afford the lawyers etc.
light up Rand’s office switchboard...
COME ON FREEPERS, WE CAN DO THIS!
If they are so dangerous why not commit them?
So you take away the guns and they run a car up a curb or jump off a bridge.
The only red flag here is that the law is focused on the gun not the person.
If Rand likes it you know there’s kickback money.
[[2. Still put the burden of proof on those supporting the removal of guns from the person flagged.]]
Nope- when someone wants to frame someone, they will invent ‘evidence’ against the person- too many innocent peopel will be jailed, then labelled a felon
The red flag laws can not work- we already have laws that designate truly mentally ill people too dangerous to own guns, but the standard is much higher now- once red flag laws get enacted, this standard of proof will be lowered- a lot- democrats are out to confiscate guns AND turn law abiding citizens into felons-
3: As Rand said, it is only temporary until the person gets their day in court to make it permanent or long term.
Many people can’t afford competent representation-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.