Posted on 09/15/2024 7:16:54 PM PDT by RandFan
This evening, gunshots rang out across the parking lot of one of Trump’s golf courses in what some are calling a second assassination attempt. The President is fine. But Laura Loomer is racing to the scene anyway, as she did the last time—later claiming that it was the President who wanted her there to confort him in the aftermath of Thomas Crooks’ failed shooting.
How Loomer expects to protect Trump isn’t clear, given that she is barred from owning a firearm anywhere in the United States. In fundraising emails, Laura Loomer tells her fans that she has been targeted by the FBI for political persecution. They’ve blacklisted her from owning a gun, she says, which threatens her physical safety.
But Loomer’s account misses out a critical detail: It’s not her politics, but rather her fragile mental state that prompted the Bureau to block her from possessing a firearm. Far from singling her out, the FBI has bent over backwards to gently explain to Loomer why she is not a fit person to own a gun.
For instance, a letter they sent her in 2020, in response to her appeal, delicately cited the two involuntary psychiatric holds her own father, Jeff Loomer, had placed her under in the prior half-decade. I know because I’ve seen the letter they sent her in response to her appeal. I have a copy of it in my safe in Los Angeles.
And I know because Jeff, at first reluctant to speak with me, but eventually, once again fearing for his daughter’s mental health this week, confirmed it by telephone on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
Where does it mention psych holds in the Constitution...
> That’s STILL a 2A violation in my book.... <
Yep. And it’s but a small step from the government saying you’re too unstable to own a gun to saying you’re too unstable to vote.
You believe in limited government? You think illegals should not be allowed into the country? That’s crazy talk. You’re unstable! No guns for you. And no voting for you.
Sounds like BS: a relative, even a parent, can say what they want but a ban under the law requires a judge ordering an -involuntary- commitment.
Probably because psychopathy wasn’t even a thing until after the constitution was written.
I took a gun from someone and never gave it back because they became crazy and went from the people in the TV telling him what to do, to talking about his neighbors and his gun in a chilling way, I took it that night.
Months later when I asked him about his gun he said the police had come in and taken it and he did not want it back.
> I took a gun from someone and never gave it back because they became crazy… <
You did the right thing. Nevertheless, it’s a tough call. In a way, it’s like taking the car keys away from an older relative who cannot possibly drive safely, but wants to drive anyway.
I’d prefer that the government not arbitrarily make that decision (guns or driving). But, yeah. Sometimes someone must intervene. A few years ago, I was involved in an intervention where a 90+ relative was told that she simply could not drive ever again.
I hated it. But it had to be done.
Is this a case of a “Red Flag Law” state? i.e. Leftie Daddy submits letter to the authorities under “ERPO” (extreme risk protection order) rules? Or is some other “law”/rule/Exec. Order involved?
Milo: “... the FBI has bent over backwards to gently explain to Lara Loomer why she is not a fit person to own a gun.”
There is no way to gently explain how f**ked in the brain Milo is.
Only someone ADJUDICATED mentally ill can be denied.
When I had looked him up to find out what was going on in his life and why he had quit coming around knowing that he had started using crack, I saw that night that the crack had triggered a mental illness, he was extremely rich and when he was describing the killing talk from the voices on the TV I got up went to his master bedroom and searched for the gun, and took it, later I called his very wealthy father and told him his son needed help.
When he came over months later and we had the gun conversation and he said the cops, I figured that his brain had agreed with my action and he didn’t need a gun in his life.
A really tyrannical dumbass way to violate the second amendment:
“Well, HE shouldn’t have a gun !”
Shall not be infringed...
Nowhere in that pesky constitution thingie are the words Unless deemed mentally unstable.
He agreed, and that personal event between two Americans had nothing to do with the second amendment, your post is pretty silly, and overly excited.
The stuff coming from Milo sounds more like the rantings of a lunatic.
Milo is a flaky guy, I don’t pay attention to him and didn’t know he was still around.
> A really tyrannical dumbass way to violate the second amendment… <
I’m not quite sure what you mean there, strike. But I will say this. A private individual cannot violate the 2A, or any of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was meant to protect folks against government overreach, and not against the behavior of private individuals.
For example, a government agent cannot search my child’s room without a search warrant. Doing so would violate my child’s 4A rights.
But I sure can search my child’s room without a warrant. And if I have good reason to do so, I will.
I don’t trust the government but I also don’t trust unmedicated crazies with guns.
I agree with you but it’s a hardcore position.
Also I would argue a slippery slope if you let them do this incrementally.
I wouldn’t give an inch
I’m not a fan of Loomer, but Milo?
Please tell me he’s not back.
And of all things, talking about someone else’s mental state.
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.