Seriously, what is going on?

[Clay C]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...cation-orders/

I know the NRA hasn't been as stead fast on the 2nd amendment as they should be in recent years, but in the world is going on? First Trump sells us out, now the NRA?

[DJM]

The orders allow police to enter a citizen’s home and confiscate firearms upon issuance of a court order.

Anybody want to take a wild guess how entry will be made?

DJ

[BrandonA]

Appeasement never works. This is opening Pandoras box

[Neck]

Appeasement never works. This is opening Pandoras box

Yup.

I posted this in another thread but I'll post it here too. Worth the couple minutes it takes to read it.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/03/total-gun-confiscation-is-on-the-horizon-heres-why/?cat_orig=health

Has anyone noticed how common it is these days that House and Senate bills all seem to have both a Republican and Democrat cosponsor? I’m guessing this is supposed to make us think the proposed legislation must be fair and balanced.

Such is the case with the latest boondoggle coming out of the Senate entitled “The Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act” which was recently put forward by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal. As is all too often the case, the title of that Act must have been created by some kind of in-house phony-baloney title-writing staff. (Of course, if you read it the right way i.e., an act to protect the federal government from extreme risk, it makes perfect sense.)

Unfortunately, as of this writing I have been unable to see the actual text of the Graham/Blumenthal bill. That means that I am forced to depend upon their description of it, and this is always problematic. After all, can you tell when a politician first begins to lie in his official capacity? It occurs after the words “…so help me God.”

I’m not going to get involved in trying to outline what this bill will be attempting to standardize across state lines, but gun violence protection orders (GVPO) are already becoming popular state governance tools and appear to be pretty much cut from the same cloth. For a simple explanation of such a standard GVPO, you can look at this guide from the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV). (For an additional clear graphic, see this link.)

Note that the standard GVPO request can be filed by immediate family members. Also note, an “immediate family member” can include (per statute) spouses (current or former), cohabitating couples, custodians, children, parents, siblings, and persons in a current or former dating relationship. (My, how your immediate family has grown!) Also note, after an individual has become restrained by such an order, if he wishes to have it removed he must prove to the court that he no longer poses a serious threat of causing injury to himself or others. Kind of makes you wonder how you prove a negative, huh?

There can be no doubt GVPOs are a massive violation of the Constitution and are in direct opposition to your rights as defined by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. But apparently, the “for the children” clause trumps all of those.

In a press meeting with fellow traveler Graham, Senator Blumenthal addressed their brave new bill and stated, “We know these laws work.” He refers, I assume, to the fact that state governments have successfully used GPPOs to separate gun owners from their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

But one needs to wonder about a few things:[BULLETS]

Just how quickly will a defendant actually be allowed to reach an over-worked (or slacker) judge to challenge this unlawful taking; and who pays the petitioner’s attorney fees?

How do you “prove” you’re not a threat?

Does a GVPO remain on your record? According to the fact sheet on the EFSGV web site: “The GVPO is based on the long-standing infrastructure and procedure of domestic violence laws (in place in all 50 states) and involves a court hearing and clearly defined due process protections.”

Can an existing or previous GVPO be used in a contentious divorce battle to “prove” parental unfitness? Will having had a GVPO on your record cause you to lose a job or fail to get one with the now-common background checks made by potential employers?

How will your confiscated guns be secured?

How likely are they to be returned if you actually succeed in getting a likely liberal judge to overturn the GVPO? According to the EFSGV site: “Once the order has expired, the respondent may petition the court to have their firearms returned.” [Emphasis added.] May petition? Why is that necessary? And how long does that take? And what happens if the custodian of your rightful property is reticent or unresponsive?

What about any confiscated ammunition? Some police jurisdictions officially consider confiscated ammunition as unstable munitions and destroy them. If any of your firearms are “inadvertently” damaged or destroyed, will you receive fair compensation?

Will your spouse also have his or her right to keep and bear arms infringed? How about people you closely associate with?

If you work in a high-risk environment with co-workers where a weapon for self-defense is kept behind the counter, or (God forbid) if you work at a gun store or a big box store that sells guns and ammunition, will you be required to quit? Or be fired? Will the rights of the co-workers also be infringed?

Will having had a GVPO cause you to be pulled over more often? Many police jurisdictions now are using continuous license plate readers in their cars. Will they also receive the information that you’ve had a GVPO?

[END]These are just a few of the questions that won’t be answered by politicians (who are accountable to voters) but will be determined by bureaucrats (who aren’t). And most of the questions above are rhetorical because we already know the answers, don’t we?

Folks, this is just one more of the tiny streams that lead inexorably to the river of total gun confiscation. “Armed” with nebulous definitions but continuing socialist desires, the well-guarded members of the United Government of America will quickly start stretching GVROs to fit any needed situation.

While I will continue to tell you that you need to join any and all gun rights organizations, to pepper your legislators with instructions and dire political warnings, and attend freedom rallies, nevertheless prudence suggests you take a more proactive stand closer to home. Head for the closest gun show and purchase some weapons and ammo – while you still can – from private parties. If your state has already closed that loophole, head to a gun show located out of state. Then with all the OPSEC you can muster, hide those newly acquired guns and ancillary ammunition where they won’t be found.

Am I paranoid? No. I’m a student of history. You should be one too. Because columns like this will someday become a crime and evidence of instability sufficient to deny me my God-given rights. And reading this will place you in the same category. Get prepared.

[Landrover]

Wow........sooooo, basically someone reports you, crap can go downhill pretty fast! Niiiiiiiice!!!!
Or, posting on TBH or going hunting or attending a hunting show.........yep, could get messy pretty quick!

[Mike D]

Doesn’t surprise me from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[texansfan]

Damb liberals.

[Artos]

Do we have any other 411 / links outlining what the details are in regards to due process other than 'court order'??

This is creepy without knowing what steps are being taken to avoid liberty being stolen. The article makes it sound like an accusation & judge alone can make a decision for confiscation & gotta believe both the admin & NRA wouldn't support such actions like it appears on the surface.

[grizzman]

Do we have any other 411 / links outlining what the details are in regards to due process other than 'court order'??

This is creepy without knowing what steps are being taken to avoid liberty being stolen. The article makes it sound like an accusation & judge alone can make a decision for confiscation & gotta believe both the admin & NRA wouldn't support such actions like it appears on the surface.

Except Trump's statement about taking the guns first then due process.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second

[SOLID EAGLE]

Just think Waco X 1000.

[Buff]

The orders allow police to enter a citizen’s home and confiscate firearms upon issuance of a court order.

Anybody want to take a wild guess how entry will be made?

DJ

I can only suppose it would have to be the state police or ATF.
My little Marion county sheriff Dept would want no part in trying to take my guns and they know it.

I have way cooler class III weapons and better armor they they do not to mention I really like those fellows

[MLAH]

^

[100%TtId]

The orders allow police to enter a citizen’s home and confiscate firearms upon issuance of a court order.

Anybody want to take a wild guess how entry will be made?

DJ

I'll take "no knock at 3am" for a $1000, Alex.

Shall not be infringed.

[Ætheling]

I'll take "no knock at 3am" for a $1000, Alex.



Shall not be infringed.

Good thing I sleep with my AR, selector on semi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ttechdallas]

Maybe I am just naive but I do not buy into the assumption or assumptions upon assumptions that every proposed gun control regulation is a tactical step in the overall strategy of reversing the 2nd amendment.

With that said, how do we enable law enforcement to prevent a mass shooting or potential terrorist attack without such a regulatory change as described above? For all the blame put on law enforcement for the many visits to the Florida school shooter's home, there was nothing they could really do. This would have given them that option. Same with the Orlando nightclub terrorist shooting. Might the shootings have still happened? Maybe. But if the police come in take your guns away on the basis of court order which explains why, that is going to be mighty big deterrent. And it puts the authorities in much better position to watch what that individual is doing.