President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice announced on Saturday the launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a Saturday press release that the new national resource center “will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.” Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly referred to as “red flag” laws, allow authorities to confiscate firearms from a person whom a court deems to be a risk to himself or others. ERPOs also prevent a person from buying or possessing a gun for the duration of the order.
“The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence,” Garland said.
The resource center, which was launched with a new website, is described as “a resource for implementers” that will “provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.”
Thoughts?
This has been tried before and has failed.
I know of a case where a woman said her husband was a danger to himself and others. The police confiscated his rare gun collection. This happened the day he told her he was leaving her. After all of the court battles he was given a cash settlement because his rare gun collection had been auctioned off by the county where he resided.
This is the first step toward gun confiscation. Maybe there are liberals who understand guns, but I've never encountered any. The ones I've encountered don't know the difference between a magazine fed handgun and a revolver. Ask them what is an assault weapon and you get the most bizarre answers based on nothing other than pure ignorance.
I think it is important for people to be armed. I suggest, instead of confiscating guns, ALL people be required to take a gun safety course and qualify at a authorized shooting range. Maybe make it part of getting a driver's license.
People usually have a different attitude when they actually learn about guns rather than scream emotional nonsense based on a news story.
It works for Switzerland, it is considered part of their duty as a citizen to learn how to use a rifle and maintain one.
Since the origins of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, it has been the duty of every male Swiss citizen to be armed and to serve in the militia. Today, that arm is an “assault rifle,” which is issued to every Swiss male and which must be kept in the home.
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/vital-si … citizenry/
Keep in mind... the goal of the Biden Administration is to move America toward UN Agenda 2030 goals.
One of those goals is the disarmament of the American people.
The Secretary-General’s Agenda for Disarmament further recognizes the important contribution of disarmament and arms control to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Agenda for Disarmament addresses six different Sustainable Development Goals through nine actions. Disarmament and arms control remain inextricably connected with development in a multitude of ways, providing a unique opportunity to advance both the implementation of the SDGs and the Agenda for Disarmament.
https://www.un.org/en/observances/disar … re%20items
The Human Rights Council regularly addresses the impact of arms transfers and civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms on human rights. It thereby focuses on the impact of arms on the enjoyment of human rights and promotes efforts to protect those rights more effectively.
The United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) is the UN system-wide internal-agency coordination mechanism on small arms, the arms trade, ammunition and armed violence issues. Since its inception in 1998, the CASA has been taking stock of diverse and specialized expertise of 24 UN partners from a wide variety of perspectives, including economic and social development, human rights, disarmament, organized crime, terrorism, conflict prevention, peacekeeping, public health, environment, gender and children. CASA aims to innovate itself as the main platform for coordinating holistic UN action to assisting States regarding the aforementioned issues, as a key component of the Secretary-General’s prevention agenda. Most recently, CASA focuses on supporting country-level programming by leveraging closer cooperation within the UN and with regional actors and civil society.
UNODA also actively supports the comprehensive mainstreaming of gender perspectives in all dimensions of small arms and light weapons control.
https://disarmament.unoda.org/convarms/salw/
As I try to emphasize, the closer we get to aligning with (or handing over authority to) the UN (which is partnered with the WEF) the WHO, the IMF, the closer we get to becoming akin to the UK and CCP China.
Rights to Protection, Rights to Property, Rights to Free Speech will be stripped away... and the difference between being a citizen of China, the UK or America will be negligible.
https://education.unoda.org/docs/sdg.pdf
“We must accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, recognizing that prevention and sustainable development are interdependent and mutually reinforcing,” Mr. Guterres said.
I cannot help but think about the numerous comments, not only by Joe Biden, but every Democratic participant, here in the political forums. They aren't bashful in condemning all who believe in the greatness of America. They are so blinded by hate of MAGA, that I, personally, believe, they see MAGA as the "posing threat".
Because of their hate for MAGA - law-abiding citizens, Patriots, lovers of America, good people, will be the ones targeted by this.
I am wide open to having my mind changed!
Kind of a common sense thing. Not everyone is of sound mind to be in possession of deadly weapons. Just as the First Amendment is not absolute, neither should the Second be.
As for AB's comment about this being a policy issue directed toward MAGA, that's just more fearmongering when in reality it's a step to try and stop mass shootings, which are committed by people from both parties as well as Independents.
Considering that more than twice as many conservatives own guns as liberals, it does appear to be directed at conservatives (not just MAGA). Reasonable, as conservatives are the ones that do not trust government and must therefore be under tighter control by that same government.
If someone's gun(s) is taken by mistake but a dangerous person's gun(s) is taken and a tragedy is prevented, to me that is the unintended consequence of taking at least some action to prevent more deaths in this country from gun violence. It is also a mistake worth making. What is the worst result? A law-abiding citizen has to go buy another gun. What is the worst that can result from not removing it?
"Gun violence in this country has become the leading cause of death in children." - Forbes, National Institute of Health, and the CDC among others.
Reasonable steps are long overdue to deal with the increasing violence perpetrated especially by automatic weapons that kill many easily.
At the time the second amendment was written it guaranteed the right of American citizens to own a single action rifle, a cross-bow, or a cannon - not an AR-15 or an AK-47.
There are guns in my home and I know how to use them. That fact doesn't change my opinion on this issue.
"automatic weapons that kill many easily."
They have been illegal to own for decades.
it guaranteed the right of American citizens to own a single action rifle, a cross-bow, or a cannon - not an AR-15 or an AK-47.
Not true, "single action rifle" is not mentioned in the constitution.
I think it says something like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So people have a right to own and AR-15 as well as an AK-47 as they are considered "arms."
RMN: I was referring to the "arms" that were available at the time. No one could have imagined weapons of mass destruction that are available to the individual today.
Using your logic I suppose we should then end free speech.
From the constitution "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
There was no social media, computers, internet or the dissemination of information online.
Should we say the dissemination of information was done by the printing press at the time of the creation of the Constitution so the 1st amendment is outdated and no longer relevant? There is no way the founding fathers could have ever imagined the media we have today.
I don't think the rights freedoms of citizens should change because of advancements in technology.
I don't recall seeing anything in the Constitution that mentioned that any weapons developed in the future, that government decided were more "deadly" were to be banned. Matches rather than flint and steel might be a consideration for banning, right?
Only that the right to arms was not to be abridged, including the right to bear arms that government doesn't like in the hands of the citizenry. The writers, after all, were intimately familiar with actions of government.
RMN: "Using your logic I suppose we should then end free speech." This is an example of the convoluted arguments that are the reason mass shootings increase year after year.
The only convoluted arguments I see are the ones that say guns are the problem and not people. Guns are inanimate objects and can do nothing without a human being using them. People are the problem and not guns. Without people, guns harm nobody.
"Without people, guns harm nobody." And what convoluted plan do you have to deal with that?
Maybe the focus on dealing with gun violence starts with working to change people. Taking away or limiting access to guns by law abiding gun owners is not the answer.
Passing gun laws is not the answer. Criminals who use guns to commit crimes don't obey the laws.
I don't want schizophrenic people who are actively hearing voices to be able to purchase the guns of their choice. Second amendment rights are not absolute.
You might want to look up the laws on that topic. That is already against federal law.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
So, now that is the law, I guess we don't need any more restrictive gun legislation.
And how many of the mass shootings being committed were done by people with criminal records? Many times, it's the isolated lone wolf shooter. Hence why red flag laws may have some effect if someone suspects a person is giving off signs they intend to harm themselves or others, the government can step in.
Throughout the history of our country we have paid a high price for our freedom - the blood of millions of people.
You would give that freedom up now for the possibility that it might save one life. ("Hence why red flag laws may have some effect..."). Experience says it won't have an appreciable effect, but will be done anyway...freedom isn't worth much to some people.
Biden laments that we have to save lives by taking away weapons from Americans and is actively making it so that people are taught to snitch on their neighbors and family members, like they did in Nazi Germany... same thing... strip the weapons from the people, one of the most important first steps.
Biden while preaching to America of the dangers of weapons, is happily funding the destruction of nations, with our weapons and bombs, his death count has to be nearing a million now just between Ukraine and Israel.
I don't think liberals realize that banning things with laws doesn't work.
If it did, we would have no problems with illegal drugs in this country. People would simple obey the laws and not purchase or sell them.
With the major illegal drug problem in the United States I can say so much for laws banning it.
The government removes that 'freedom' from people that have committed crimes because of a history of previous acts. If someone is deemed mentally or emotionally unstable, I don't see a problem removing that freedom until they are better. Like I said, the Second Amendment is already not absolute.
Under the "red flag" laws, government removes freedom from people that the government thinks just might harm someone. This in spite of psychologists country wide telling us they cannot predict who will cause harm to others.
I understand you see no problem with this...but whether you recognize it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not, it is a loss of freedom and a loss with zero predicted return. We gain nothing in return for giving up our rights to government in this case.
Not only the government, but citizens closest to the person being referred. And I would argue the truthfulness of studies predicting who might cause harm to others. There are plenty.
Nor do I agree the argument that there is no predicted return based on the disagreement with the previous argument. What is gained is the avoidance of a mass shooting and the saving of lives by removing guns from those with the highest potential to commit them.
Sorry, but those laws do not allow a "citizen closest to the person" to walk in and confiscate their guns. Only government can do that - the citizens you mention are only an excuse the government can openly use to take the freedom to own a gun away.
Gain avoidance of mass shooting, lose a mass murder by other means. That I fail to cheer the result is because I see no gain - no lives saved (experience tells that is the result) means no gain to me.
You misunderstand me. The people closest refer to the government because they see the person and the things they say, do and post online more closely than what the government might. So, it's not just the government thinking certain people should not be in possession of guns at certain times of instability in their lives. That was the point.
As for avoidance, here is one take on the issue...
https://theconversation.com/red-flag-la … ore-185009
The question then is...does this really keep people from getting guns? The answer is no. MANY convicted felons get arrested each year for having illegal possession of a firearm.
Again, laws like this will only harm responsible gun owners. Those who have no concern for the law or are not in their right mind will find a way to get a gun. It happens again and again and again.
Ah, but does the law actually prevent many convicted felons from getting guns. That is my argument. I would argue that it absolutely does. It keeps guns away from many of the most dangerous in our society. And that prevents more violent crime. Asking a law to be absolute and prevent all crime is an unreasonable expectation from the right.
You know what I find strange? There are states that legally permit convicted felons to own gun. It's true.
STATES THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO POSSESS GUNS OR GET GUN PERMITS AFTER FELONY CONVICTIONS
STATE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH GUNS
MAY BE POSSESSED
Kentucky
Person was granted a full pardon by the governor or the President or granted full relief by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 527.040).
Louisiana
After 10 years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence (La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95.1 (c)(1)).
Minnesota
After 10 years has elapsed since the person was restored to civil rights and during that time the person was not convicted of any other crime of violence (Minn. Stat. § 609.165 subd. 1a).
South Dakota
After 15 years has elapsed since the person was last discharged from prison, jail, probation, or parole (S.D. Codified Laws § 22-14-15).
Wyoming
The person has been pardoned (Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-102).
Your argument is that "many convicted felons can't get guns"? What planet to do reside on? It certainly isn't Earth.
A lot of felons do not have guns, yes. Those with a felony DUI, rioting, a whole raft of white collar crimes, etc. But any person, felon or not, that wants a gun badly enough will have one.
Banning assault weapons would be worth it - It was before.
We have never banned "assault weapons", assuming you refer to the legal definition of some weapons, a definition that changes state to state and has zero to do with the capability of said weapons.
But what can you show to support your claim that a ban resulted in fewer deaths? A period directly after such a ban wherein the homicide rate fell considerably and stayed down?
What is an assault weapon?
How do you define it?
The members of "The Five" has a good take on crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cco3EM2aisc
by Marian L 12 years ago
Why do Americans think their right to bear arms is more important than people's lives?
by SEXYLADYDEE 12 years ago
Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non military individuals?Do you believe that only the military needs assault "type" guns? And that "non military" personal use gun purchases should have access to bullet clips with a maximum of...
by FreedomFighter33 12 years ago
In short the answer is no. Liberals say that less guns out in the people's hands the safer everyone will be, but the truth is the only people that will be safer are the criminals. There is a reason most mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, the perpetrator wants to do the most...
by Jeff Berndt 12 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
by Adamowen 12 years ago
What's your opinion on gun control in the U.S?
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41874You got that right! We can't let that happen here!
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |