Daniel Defense just shot themselves in the Foot...

[Artos]

On it's face, there is no logical reason to not support but we really need to watch some of the wording in this bill as written. There is too much room to deny without due process & getting mislabeled. In the comments, this was posted:

Here is some of the text of the bill that just passed in FL. SB7026

856-857(c) In determining whether grounds for a risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

891-892 3. EVIDENCE OF RECENT ACQUISITION OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION BY THE RESPONDENT

Buying a gun or ammo could be used to say you are mentally unfit to own a firearm.

Remember Schummer & Feinstein also have their tentacles in this too & we know they have zero interest in fixing NICS vs severely crippling the 2nd. THEY ARE COSPONSORS. Again, I urge everyone to note the finalized language before blindly supporting. IMO, there is nothing wrong with NICS...there is a problem with our own govt getting NICS the 411.


From the textbook diagnosis...we need to watch our 6 here:

excessive emotions; problems relating to others, including feeling or showing affection; difficulty falling or staying asleep; irritability; outbursts of anger; difficulty concentrating; and being "jumpy" or easily startled.


Worth your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7SKCEqA0k&t=1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R_LuBwf76w

From DD:

https://www.facebook.com/DanielDefense/posts/1510727965641724

Message from Marty Daniel on the Fix NICS Act (S.2135)
Dear Friends,
I need your help. I believe the Fix NICS Act (S. 2135), sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is presently the only common sense approach to keeping firearms out of the hands of the wrong people. This bipartisan bill, which aims to keep firearms from being sold to criminals and other dangerous people, was introduced by U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas. All provisions of this bill have already been voted on and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. While the bill has enough votes to pass the Senate, we must put pressure on our representatives until the President puts pen to paper.
Our Senators, by passing the Fix NICS Act, can take logical steps TODAY to improve background checks through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). By doing so, states would not only be required to, but would be held accountable for not complying with new reporting procedures which would ensure background checks are complete and reliable. The Fix NICS Act would:
• Mandate federal agencies to report criminal convictions to the
Attorney General
• Require reporting of select mental health records that prohibit the
purchase of firearms (Fix NICS only seeks to require mental health
records that fit current federal categories)
• Hold states and federal agencies accountable for failing to upload
records
Here’s how you can help.
1.) Send an Email to Your Representatives at: http://bit.ly/2FFsmg0
2.) Share this Post & Tag Your Representatives in the Comments
Together, we can get this thing passed.
- Marty Daniel

[Artos]

Not much interest here but glad to see a retraction of sorts:


Daniel Defense

Message from Marty Daniel:

Friends,
First and foremost, let me say that I have heard your voices. I put out a statement on Friday, supporting Senate Bill S.2135 also known as the Fix NICS Act. I have received overwhelming feedback since putting out this statement, which has brought to my attention that there are significant and justified concerns regarding this bill. I can no longer in good conscience put my support behind S.2135.
I released the original statement because I believed it was the best option available at this time to hold back the continued attacks on the Second Amendment and the erosion of our rights. I was wrong.
Let me be very clear:
• My life’s work is to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms by holding our lawmakers accountable to the Second Amendment.
• I believe that all firearms laws that limit the rights of law abiding citizens are unconstitutional.
• I will never support any legislation which infringes on any individuals rights, and could potentially subvert due process.
• Myself, my Family, and Daniel Defense love and serve our Veterans every day. I would never support a legislative measure which would strip them of their rights based on their history of service and sacrifice.
Thank you to everyone who reached out and voiced your concerns. You are a motivated and passionate group of people which I am proud to call my peers, my friends, and my family. We are all united in one fight – the fight to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I will never turn my back on you. I stand with you and I am ready to continue to fight for our rights.
-Marty

[SOLID EAGLE]

Thanks for posting.

[Clay C]

Yup we need to get this struck down. What Thomas Massie said is spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[35remington]

When a bunch of Facebook comments make you change your mind about something, that should be evidence that you were a fool to speak before getting wise counsel.

[Buff]

After the law is in place, they could decide that the fact that you wanted to own a gun was a sign of a mental disorder

[sierracharlie338]

Slippery slope here boys. . . curious to see what pans out.

[Neck]

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.