DOJ Launches National ‘Resource Center’ To Take Firearms

1. 76

   Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks ago

   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?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
   2. 67

      abwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
   3. 85

      Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
2. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      "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."

      replyreport
3. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
4. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         "Without people, guns harm nobody." And what convoluted plan do you have to deal with that?

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  replyreport
            2. 85

               Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                        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.

                        replyreport
                  2. 85

                     Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                           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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                              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.

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 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

                                 replyreport
                     2. 94

                        Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                           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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 94

                              Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                              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).

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 Yeah, after at least ten years or when absolved of their crimes through pardons...Which means they have gone through a lengthy transition and proved that their violent days are long gone.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 96

                              wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                              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.

                              replyreport
                  3. 77

                     Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Banning assault weapons would be worth it - It was before.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                        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?

                        replyreport
                     2. 94

                        Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                        What is an assault weapon?
                        
                        How do you define it?

                        replyreport
5. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks ago

   Willowarbor: Thank you.

   replyreport
6. 94

   Readmikenowposted 3 weeks ago

   The members of "The Five" has a good take on crime.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cco3EM2aisc

   replyreport