OtherGround Forums Kamala Harris is coming for your guns...

9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 23125
Considering that the Left has pretty much labeled everyone who leans Right as a racist white nationalist, this would be pretty scary if I thought she had a chance of winning...

It's talk like that coupled with talk like this that pretty much guarantee 'Red Flag' laws gain no real traction.
________________________________

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-nationalists-could-have-firearms-taken-under-red-flag-law-proposed-by-kamala-harris/ar-AAFNQpN?ocid=ientp

Kamala Harris on Wednesday said if elected president she will press Congress to pass a red flag law that would allow law enforcement officials to temporarily seize the firearms of white nationalists that may be on the verge of carrying out a hate crime.

The Democratic presidential candidate's proposal calls for the creation of “domestic terrorism prevention orders” that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.

“We need to take action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and stop violent, hate-fueled attacks before they happen,” Harris said. “By focusing on confronting these domestic terror threats, we can save lives.”

Harris' decision to focus on the risk of white nationalists comes at a moment when there's a growing push at the state level to enact red flag laws that allow law enforcement, or in some cases family members, to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person determined to pose a danger to themselves or others.

Twelve states passed red flag laws — orders that typically are issued for two or three weeks — following last year’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead. President Trump and Republican lawmakers, who in the past have been resistant to restricting gun owners’ rights, have embraced red flag laws in the aftermath of mass shootings this month in El Paso and Dayton.

Adam Skaggs, chief counsel to the gun control advocacy group Giffords, said that an individual making credible terrorist threats could be disarmed under statutes in existing red flag laws on the books in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

“It’s great that states are making progress on this on a state-by-state basis, but this is a nationwide problem and we need a nationwide solution and that is where a federal solution comes in handy,” said Skaggs, who was among gun control advocates briefed by the Harris campaign about the proposal. “(Red flag laws) have been particularly effective in preventing suicide, but there is another problem that really needs attention and that is the rise of hate-fueled crime.”

The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.

Harris rolled out the new policy ideas as many of the two dozen Democrats running for the 2020 presidential nomination try to stand out as gun control champions with the nation’s gun laws once again in the spotlight following this month’s mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.

Candidates try to rev up gun control advocates: For 2020 Democrats, hammering on gun control comes with upside: Energized, angry activists

Former Vice President Joe Biden has vowed to re-implement an assault weapons ban if he’s elected. He helped pass a ten-year ban on military-style weapons in 1994 when he served in the Senate, but the ban expired as Congress failed to extend the law.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said last week she’d set a goal of reducing gun violence deaths by 80% if she’s elected and offered a long list of proposals she would pursue. Among her ideas are creating a federal gun licensing system; banning assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and other accessories that make weapons more deadly; increasing taxes on gun manufacturers by 20 percent, establishing a one-week waiting period for gun purchases and raising the minimum purchase age to 21.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has called for a federal licensing system, and along with Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has pushed for Walmart, one of the world’s biggest sellers of guns and ammunitions, to cease firearms sales.

In addition to closing the online background sale loophole and pressing for temporary weapons seizures, Harris said she wants to expand the purview of the National Counterterrorism Center, so it can address the domestic threat of white-nationalist terrorism. The agency is currently prohibited by Congress from handling domestic terrorism cases.

Harris also knocked President Trump, claiming his Justice Department failed to prioritize domestic terrorism investigations. She said under her administration federal authorities would more vigilantly monitor white nationalist websites and forums.

She vowed to commit $2 billion over 10 years to bolster federal law enforcement’s ability to combat and prosecute domestic extremists.
9 days ago
9/23/07
Posts: 79386
For 2020 Democrats, hammering on gun control comes with upside: Energized, angry activists


No it doesn't.


I didnt vote for trump last time, but if they are pushing gun control nonsense I will this time.
9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 34857

Either she's a former Attorney General who has no familiarity with crime statistics or she's  completely dishonest.

 

9 days ago
7/15/04
Posts: 56876

.

9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 92367

Kamala Harris is Coming.......

9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 7807
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.
9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 23128
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

Do you somehow believe that online sales don't require background checks!?
9 days ago
6/27/05
Posts: 25952

That cunt’s voice is so annoying that I would seriously consider going off the grid if she is elected...

9 days ago
2/29/16
Posts: 2460

lol "white nationalists" is "satanic panic" 2.0

9 days ago
9/27/15
Posts: 64
stickman -
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

When Trump said Fredo should lose his rights because of that stupid argument.....That right there is why red flag laws will never work. People are going to abuse it the second it passes. Then you are going to fuck with the wrong guy and we have the next Ruby Ridge or Waco.

9 days ago
11/17/10
Posts: 49452
stickman -
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

ill speak to the first quote about "suspected white nationalists"

we've all seen how easily poiliticians, media, normal people, etc. can label somebody a "nazi" or "white nationalist"

we have POTUS hopefuls actually calling Trump a RACIST and a WHITE NATIONALIST or WHITE SUPREMACIST

those people would hae no problems labeling the supporters of a "white racist nationalist supremacist" as "white naitonalists" as well

9 days ago
9/27/15
Posts: 65

Also they are lying. When you buy a gun online you still get it transfered through a FFL that runs your name.

9 days ago
3/13/08
Posts: 9371

We need to pass a law to allow cops to take guns away from someone in the process or comitting a crime....really?

 

This is just one of the reasons I don't support any new gun laws until we figure out how to properly enforce the ones that already exist.

9 days ago
6/18/19
Posts: 203
I wish that sociopathic cunt would just die already...
9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 7808
GoDieInACarWreck - 

Also they are lying. When you buy a gun online you still get it transfered through a FFL that runs your name.


This is a big problem I've had some the gun control "debate". It seems like a lot of times, proponents mention stuff that already exists, but just is poorly executed.
9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 7809
amadeus - 
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

Do you somehow believe that online sales don't require background checks!?

I believe that any sales, online or otherwise (like in proper gun stores, or gun shows) should have background checks.
9 days ago
2/13/07
Posts: 3105
In Limbo - 
stickman -
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

ill speak to the first quote about "suspected white nationalists"

we've all seen how easily poiliticians, media, normal people, etc. can label somebody a "nazi" or "white nationalist"

we have POTUS hopefuls actually calling Trump a RACIST and a WHITE NATIONALIST or WHITE SUPREMACIST

those people would hae no problems labeling the supporters of a "white racist nationalist supremacist" as "white naitonalists" as well


I guess this is the abuse area.

"if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger"

What is our definition of clear evidence?
9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 23129
stickman - 
amadeus - 
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

Do you somehow believe that online sales don't require background checks!?

I believe that any sales, online or otherwise (like in proper gun stores, or gun shows) should have background checks.

That's not what I asked... You seem to think that when you buy a firearm, online you get to skip the background check.
9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 7810
amadeus - 
stickman - 
amadeus - 
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

Do you somehow believe that online sales don't require background checks!?

I believe that any sales, online or otherwise (like in proper gun stores, or gun shows) should have background checks.

That's not what I asked... You seem to think that when you buy a firearm, online you get to skip the background check.

I don't know, one way or another. That's why I'm approaching this from a position of asking, as opposed from a position of "I know something, and this is my conclusion".

In anotherpost, in this thread, I mentioned that a big problem in gun control advocates is that they sometimes say stuff like, "we should do XYZ", but XYZ is already being done, either badly or just being done, and the politicians are ignorant of that, or saying if to look good to their base.
9 days ago
10/2/12
Posts: 11039


9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 96442
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

"online gun sales" could mean different things.  If you order a gun from a gun store online, they *WILL NOT* ship it to you; they will ship it to a licensed dealer near you (you usually can chose the dealer during the 'checkout' process).  You then have to go to the dealer, and the dealer is required to run the background check.  In some states, after you clear the background check, you may have to wait a period of time (days) before you can come back and actually take possesion of the gun.  

On the other hand, there are "online" websites were private individuals can sell their guns to other private individuals.  Depending on the state, such private, person to person sales between residents of the same state do not require a background check (and arguably a federal law requiring such would be unconstitutional).  States that allow this usually require the seller to verify the buyer is a resident of the state (i.e. driver's license), otherwise it is an illegal sale that violates federal law. 

The article is misleading, likely intentionally, perpetuating the myth that "online gun sales" do not require background checks. Private sales between residents of the same state are not 'interstate commerce,' and are therefore not under congressional authority, so long as the seller is not engaging in the equivalent of unlicensed gun sales (e.g. acting like a gun seller, but without a license). 

If I have an old gun I no longer need, and decide to sell it, that's fine.  If I go buy several guns, and turn around and sell them for a profit, I am an unlicensed dealer.    

The so called Red Flag laws are a great idea in principle, but there isn't really a good way to implement them that will prevent serious abuse.  If you have a disagreement with a crazy neighbor, and they know you have guns, they could call the police and claim you threatened them; the police would then be required to act.  You would have to wear a body cam and record yourself 24/7 to avoid a "your word against theirs" situation where the police would be required to assume the accusation is true. 

I work with a family law attorney who handles a lot of divorce cases.  In about half the cases he works on, the woman claims domestic abuse, and most of the time it's bullshit.  That happened to a friend of mine, but fortunately, unbeknownst to his ex, he actually did have a camera recording at the time she claimed the attack happened.  The court still took action against him, until he could prove it was a complete fabrication, and that was not a trivial process.  

9 days ago
10/2/12
Posts: 11040
stickman -
amadeus - 
stickman - 
amadeus - 
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

Do you somehow believe that online sales don't require background checks!?

I believe that any sales, online or otherwise (like in proper gun stores, or gun shows) should have background checks.

That's not what I asked... You seem to think that when you buy a firearm, online you get to skip the background check.

I don't know, one way or another. That's why I'm approaching this from a position of asking, as opposed from a position of "I know something, and this is my conclusion".

In anotherpost, in this thread, I mentioned that a big problem in gun control advocates is that they sometimes say stuff like, "we should do XYZ", but XYZ is already being done, either badly or just being done, and the politicians are ignorant of that, or saying if to look good to their base.

Name a single law that could be passed that would have prevented the two mass shootings that happened. Also everything they did is already illegal. 

9 days ago
11/1/06
Posts: 2132

"Temporarily" is the key word here. 

If someone is a known terrorist sympathizer and has been saying or posting violent statements, should they be allowed to just go on their merry way or should the authorities have the right to ban them from buying guns?

9 days ago
3/20/15
Posts: 12205

If it'll get her 6 miles down the road.....well you know...

9 days ago
10/2/12
Posts: 11041
LoveToChoke -

"Temporarily" is the key word here. 

If someone is a known terrorist sympathizer and has been saying or posting violent statements, should they be allowed to just go on their merry way or should the authorities have the right to ban them from buying guns?

Due process is still a thing here. Are we going to toss out double jeopardy as well? Toss freedom of speech? Toss the second amendment? Fuck while we’re at it why are we still letting women vote? Man those black people should be put to work again! We’ll start forcing soldiers to live in you house too! And everyone must be Mormon!