This is a worrisome statement

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

“The police saw that he was a problem, they didn’t take any guns away,” Trump said. “Now that could have been policing, but they should have taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not."

People worry about 2nd amendment rights? I hope everyone is also worried about further chipping away of our other rights, like due process.


www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gun-control_us_5a97112ae4b09c872bb0d969

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of his party's stance regarding gun ownership?

Doesn't that also fall under illegal search and seizure since, up until the shooting, he had never committed a crime?

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Feb 28, 2018 16:16:52 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of his party's stance regarding gun ownership?

Doesn't that also fall under illegal search and seizure since, up until the shooting, he had never committed a crime?

My point maybe wasn't clear. If this becomes the norm in situations like this, how soon would it become the norm for anything else?

[NastyWoman]

Feb 28, 2018 16:27:02 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Feb 28, 2018 16:16:52 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of his party's stance regarding gun ownership?

Doesn't that also fall under illegal search and seizure since, up until the shooting, he had never committed a crime?

My point maybe wasn't clear. If this becomes the norm in situations like this, how soon would it become the norm for anything else?

Your point was perfectly clear and very well taken! This is another, not too subtle, step away from law and order and towards the "law of the jungle"

[dezii]

Feb 28, 2018 16:14:25 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

“The police saw that he was a problem, they didn’t take any guns away,” Trump said. “Now that could have been policing, but they should have taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not."

People worry about 2nd amendment rights? I hope everyone is also worried about further chipping away of our other rights, like due process.


www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gun-control_us_5a97112ae4b09c872bb0d969

He more and more talks like Schlep at the end of the bar who has been downing boilermakers all night and comes out every now and then with his pronouncements of how the world is all screwed up but he has the answer to fix it all and then starts his monologue...so many time a violation of written statutes,,

Disses the law enforcement community, the courts, the judges, the laws on the books...enough already.....though to replace him with Pence and his holier then though feelings....hate to say it but am starting to really get pissed at Hillery on this one...

[mollyanna58]

But, no; Mr. Trump was complaining just recently about the lack of due process.

Fortunately, most people in the criminal justice system do follow the law.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Feb 28, 2018 16:27:02 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Feb 28, 2018 16:16:52 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of his party's stance regarding gun ownership?

Doesn't that also fall under illegal search and seizure since, up until the shooting, he had never committed a crime?

My point maybe wasn't clear. If this becomes the norm in situations like this, how soon would it become the norm for anything else?

My point was this isn't exactly his party's stance.  I find it fascinating when he flip flops like this.  If I was a Republican I would be doing everything in my power to distance myself from that comment.

What Congress should do is check his ass because that's their job.  What he's suggesting is against the fourth amendment.

But since Congress hasn't had the balls to do their constitutional duty in a long time at the very least they should not want to bite the hand that feeds them.   They know the NRA lobby isn't going to tolerate any discussion of search and seizure.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Goodness....he makes me sigh a lot...and not in a good way.

[steff]

He also shot down (pun sorta intended) Steve Scalise when he pushed the NRA new push to expand conceal carry laws.  Told him it would never get passed and to not put it in the imaginary "bill".  

Diane Feinstein was damn near giddy when he said that AR-15 should be banned.  

A Republican aide after the meeting said "Someone didn't brief him properly before he went in there"  He was the NRA worst nightmare today & the Democrats best friend.   LOLOL   Pence looked like he wanted to scream "STOP STOP STOP!".  

Oh and we need a rating system for movies and video games!  What a novel idea, I wonder why no one thought of it before. 

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2018 16:32:52 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Feb 28, 2018 16:27:02 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

My point maybe wasn't clear. If this becomes the norm in situations like this, how soon would it become the norm for anything else?

My point was this isn't exactly his party's stance.  I find it fascinating when he flip flops like this.  If I was a Republican I would be doing everything in my power to distance myself from that comment.

What Congress should do is check his ass because that's their job.  What he's suggesting is against the fourth amendment.

But since Congress hasn't had the balls to do their constitutional duty in a long time at the very least they should not want to bite the hand that feeds them.   They know the NRA lobby isn't going to tolerate any discussion of search and seizure.

Do you believe he even knows what his party's stance is on most issues? I mean I can appreciate a person choosing to think for themselves, but I'm not too sure that he thinks period before popping off at the mouth or with the fingertips.

[thyme4change]

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to rich republicans, not poor assholes.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Feb 28, 2018 17:14:46 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Feb 28, 2018 16:32:52 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

My point was this isn't exactly his party's stance.  I find it fascinating when he flip flops like this.  If I was a Republican I would be doing everything in my power to distance myself from that comment.

What Congress should do is check his ass because that's their job.  What he's suggesting is against the fourth amendment.

But since Congress hasn't had the balls to do their constitutional duty in a long time at the very least they should not want to bite the hand that feeds them.   They know the NRA lobby isn't going to tolerate any discussion of search and seizure.

Do you believe he even knows what his party's stance is on most issues? I mean I can appreciate a person choosing to think for themselves, but I'm not too sure that he thinks period before popping off at the mouth or with the fingertips.

I figure he had to in order to get the nomination.   That being said I don't think he cares.  I also don't think he has any actual stance on issues because he has no moral compass of his own.

He's the type of person who changes on a dime based on what he feels will make him popular.   Since America is crying "Do something!" he knows that saying stuff like this will get him attention.

First rule of reality TV stardom: the more outlandish crap you say the better your ratings.

I still maintain he ran thinking being President was the biggest popularity contest of all time.

[happyhoix]

Feb 28, 2018 17:14:46 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Feb 28, 2018 16:32:52 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

My point was this isn't exactly his party's stance.  I find it fascinating when he flip flops like this.  If I was a Republican I would be doing everything in my power to distance myself from that comment.

What Congress should do is check his ass because that's their job.  What he's suggesting is against the fourth amendment.

But since Congress hasn't had the balls to do their constitutional duty in a long time at the very least they should not want to bite the hand that feeds them.   They know the NRA lobby isn't going to tolerate any discussion of search and seizure.

Do you believe he even knows what his party's stance is on most issues? I mean I can appreciate a person choosing to think for themselves, but I'm not too sure that he thinks period before popping off at the mouth or with the fingertips.

No, he adopts the stance of whoever he most recently talked to, which is why the flip flops frequently on issues.

He did the same thing on DACA, he was for it until he was against it a few days later. He'll change his mind on seizing weapons without due process in a day or two, after he talks to some of his staff and/or Hannity.

So no point in the GOP and NRA getting upset at this, it will be reversed and denied shortly.

[billisonboard]

It is actually a brilliant mind game strategy that President Trump is employing here. What strategy you might ask. Well, to be honest, I don't know yet. But I am confident that as soon as they come up with what it is, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP will let us know.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 28, 2018 16:14:25 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

“The police saw that he was a problem, they didn’t take any guns away,” Trump said. “Now that could have been policing, but they should have taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not."

People worry about 2nd amendment rights? I hope everyone is also worried about further chipping away of our other rights, like due process.


www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gun-control_us_5a97112ae4b09c872bb0d969

He wasn't allowed to come to school with a backpack because they felt he was a security risk. He was ultimately expelled from school. There were somewhere between a minimum of 39 calls to the police and 66 calls to the police over the last 24 months depending on the reports you believe. There were two specific threats called in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and one specific threat called into the Broward County Sheriff's Office. There was at least one visit and evaluation by DFS which determined he was not a threat to himself or others. Obviously, they were wrong. But you have to wonder why in all those calls, no one saw fit to make an arrest? I'm all for due process, but there's also this other thing called "probable cause". 

Florida has something called the Baker Act. Seems perfectly appropriate for this guy- but it was never used once because Broward County had a policy of not making arrests because not arresting people is how they improved their crime stats-- for which they got money.


 

[thyme4change]

Mar 1, 2018 19:28:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 28, 2018 16:14:25 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

People worry about 2nd amendment rights? I hope everyone is also worried about further chipping away of our other rights, like due process.


www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gun-control_us_5a97112ae4b09c872bb0d969

He wasn't allowed to come to school with a backpack because they felt he was a security risk. He was ultimately expelled from school. There were somewhere between a minimum of 39 calls to the police and 66 calls to the police over the last 24 months depending on the reports you believe. There were two specific threats called in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and one specific threat called into the Broward County Sheriff's Office. There was at least one visit and evaluation by DFS which determined he was not a threat to himself or others. Obviously, they were wrong. But you have to wonder why in all those calls, no one saw fit to make an arrest? I'm all for due process, but there's also this other thing called "probable cause". 

Florida has something called the Baker Act. Seems perfectly appropriate for this guy- but it was never used once because Broward County had a policy of not making arrests because not arresting people is how they improved their crime stats-- for which they got money.


 

It sounds like he didn't meet the criteria for the Baker act. We need to expand the criteria of involuntary commitments to include potential violence with no other markers to make them applicable in situations such as this one.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 1, 2018 19:44:36 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Mar 1, 2018 19:28:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

He wasn't allowed to come to school with a backpack because they felt he was a security risk. He was ultimately expelled from school. There were somewhere between a minimum of 39 calls to the police and 66 calls to the police over the last 24 months depending on the reports you believe. There were two specific threats called in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and one specific threat called into the Broward County Sheriff's Office. There was at least one visit and evaluation by DFS which determined he was not a threat to himself or others. Obviously, they were wrong. But you have to wonder why in all those calls, no one saw fit to make an arrest? I'm all for due process, but there's also this other thing called "probable cause". 

Florida has something called the Baker Act. Seems perfectly appropriate for this guy- but it was never used once because Broward County had a policy of not making arrests because not arresting people is how they improved their crime stats-- for which they got money.


 

It sounds like he didn't meet the criteria for the Baker act. We need to expand the criteria of involuntary commitments to include potential violence with no other markers to make them applicable in situations such as this one.

He absolutely met the criteria. Friend of mine was undiagnosed bi-polar. I lost count how many times he was Baker-Acted for things as innocuous as playing his music too loud and refusing to answer the door. On Janurary 5th of this year, they got a specific threat with a name attached. They knew. This kid was on EVERYONE'S radar. 

But the policy was leniency. 

www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

If this guy doesn't meet the criteria for Florida's Baker Act- then any gun control law re: mental health-- is moot.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 1, 2018 10:44:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It is actually a brilliant mind game strategy that President Trump is employing here. What strategy you might ask. Well, to be honest, I don't know yet. But I am confident that as soon as they come up with what it is, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP will let us know.

Its true brilliance lies in its total lack of resemblance to brilliance.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Trump apparently has a concealed carry permit for himself. He's apparently a hand gun type of guy.

[thyme4change]

Mar 1, 2018 19:54:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Mar 1, 2018 19:44:36 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

It sounds like he didn't meet the criteria for the Baker act. We need to expand the criteria of involuntary commitments to include potential violence with no other markers to make them applicable in situations such as this one.

He absolutely met the criteria. Friend of mine was undiagnosed bi-polar. I lost count how many times he was Baker-Acted for things as innocuous as playing his music too loud and refusing to answer the door. On Janurary 5th of this year, they got a specific threat with a name attached. They knew. This kid was on EVERYONE'S radar. 

But the policy was leniency. 

www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html

I was only repeating what a legal guy said after doing the analysis of available information and what the emergency psychologist said about a similar case. You are correct that they didn't even try., so we don't know if the person on duty that day would find that the criteria was met.

[NastyWoman]

Mar 1, 2018 19:55:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

If this guy doesn't meet the criteria for Florida's Baker Act- then any gun control law re: mental health-- is moot.

You know who else meets these criteria (on a daily basis)?

"The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person: possibly has a mental illness "

[dezii]

Mar 1, 2018 20:23:42 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Trump apparently has a concealed carry permit for himself. He's apparently a hand gun type of guy.

does he? If so, doubt he would use/carry  while POTUS...SS is charged with his protection, even to the point of taking one for the office...last thing they need is a amateur getting into a confrontation with a assailant...especially a over weight, not very athletic 71 year old male... more danger to himself and the agents....IMHO...

[mollyanna58]

Mar 1, 2018 20:23:42 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Trump apparently has a concealed carry permit for himself. He's apparently a hand gun type of guy.

1) I am always surprised by the number of people who own guns.

2) I am always surprised that people feel the need to carry guns around.

3) I suppose I am not surprised that Trump owns and carried a gun.  Even before he was President, he had people who hated him for cheating them; or beating them in a business deal; or groped them; or whatever.  I just hope he knows how to use it; it would be a tragedy if he accidentally shot someone.

[billisonboard]

Yes, I am quoting myself

Mar 1, 2018 10:44:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It is actually a brilliant mind game strategy that President Trump is employing here. What strategy you might ask. Well, to be honest, I don't know yet. But I am confident that as soon as they come up with what it is, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP will let us know.

Man, I hate being wrong. Apparently this statement by President Trump was so ... so ... something that not even Scott Adams nor AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP could come up with a way to make it brilliant.

[Virgil Showlion]

Who needs Pres. Trump when you have Seattle?

Currently making the rounds though the rightosphere:

In what many believe is the beginning of a Constitutional crisis, the Seattle Police Department confiscated a firearm from an individual. The new “red flag” law, which has taken hold in other states already, allows the courts and police to take away guns from individuals they deem are dangerous.

A man living in the Belltown neighborhood of Seattle, Washington became the first individual in the state to have his firearm confiscated without any formal arrest or charges.

The Washington man has not been identified, but he was the first victim of the new protection orders allowing police to confiscate his firearm amid mental health concerns. Neighbors complained that the man had been “staring” at people through storefront windows while wearing a holstered firearm.

Open carrying is legal in the area, so he was allowed to carry a firearm. Other residents also complained that the man’s open carrying made them feel “uncomfortable” and “unsafe.”

“He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic,” said Tony Montana, a man who lives in the same apartment complex as the alleged suspect. “And it created a lot of fear obviously because I didn’t know if he was coming after me or gonna just start shooting the place up,” he added.

These lousy complaints from neighbors allowed police to use the newly passed state law to confiscate the man’s firearm because the man apparently stared at others. Under the extreme risk protection orders — also referred to as “erpos” or “red flag laws” — police and courts are allowed to infringe on a person’s Second Amendment rights and take their firearm if they are deemed dangerous. That means state government officials can now take guns away from an individual without even making an arrest.

This overreaching new law allows for dictatorial actions to confiscate weapons from citizens that are arbitrarily deemed guilty and/or dangerous without due process.

What say you, YMAM? A step toward safety? A tottering toward tyranny? Both? Neither?

[Tennesseer]

Mar 6, 2018 20:01:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Who needs Pres. Trump when you have Seattle?

Currently making the rounds though the rightosphere:

In what many believe is the beginning of a Constitutional crisis, the Seattle Police Department confiscated a firearm from an individual. The new “red flag” law, which has taken hold in other states already, allows the courts and police to take away guns from individuals they deem are dangerous.

A man living in the Belltown neighborhood of Seattle, Washington became the first individual in the state to have his firearm confiscated without any formal arrest or charges.

The Washington man has not been identified, but he was the first victim of the new protection orders allowing police to confiscate his firearm amid mental health concerns. Neighbors complained that the man had been “staring” at people through storefront windows while wearing a holstered firearm.

Open carrying is legal in the area, so he was allowed to carry a firearm. Other residents also complained that the man’s open carrying made them feel “uncomfortable” and “unsafe.”

“He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic,” said Tony Montana, a man who lives in the same apartment complex as the alleged suspect. “And it created a lot of fear obviously because I didn’t know if he was coming after me or gonna just start shooting the place up,” he added.

These lousy complaints from neighbors allowed police to use the newly passed state law to confiscate the man’s firearm because the man apparently stared at others. Under the extreme risk protection orders — also referred to as “erpos” or “red flag laws” — police and courts are allowed to infringe on a person’s Second Amendment rights and take their firearm if they are deemed dangerous. That means state government officials can now take guns away from an individual without even making an arrest.

This overreaching new law allows for dictatorial actions to confiscate weapons from citizens that are arbitrarily deemed guilty and/or dangerous without due process.

What say you, YMAM? A step toward safety? A tottering toward tyranny? Both? Neither?

I give little credence to the linked story. Too vague-could be anywhere USA or no where USA. No names other than a Tony Montana which could be a made up name. I found a similar story almost verbatim. Additionally, the similar story had this picture:



Here is the link to the story with the picture: Seattle Police Begin NAZI STYLE Gun Confiscation: No Laws Broken, No Warrant, No Charges

With 20 seconds of searching I found a April 25, 2017 article with the same picture. Link to the 2017 article: Washington D.C. To Hold Massive “Coordinated Terror Attack” Drill This Wednesday

So the picture is used to incite and scare. Lying in an article as if that was the police in this supposed event in Seattle is not good.

This reviewer gives the alleged incident, based upon existing information,

[Tennesseer]

Additionally, the link within the link Virgil provided uses some stock photo of a swat team in front of a some anonymous building.  Another attempt to scare the reader.  Pitiful.




Seattle police confiscate first gun under new ‘mental health’ law

SPOILER: Click to show

BOO!

[tallguy]

Chapter 7.94 RCW EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT

(3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against self or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence involves a firearm;
(b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent within the past twelve months including, but not limited to, acts or threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;
(c) Any dangerous mental health issues of the respondent;
(d) A violation by the respondent of a protection order or a no-contact order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.50, or 26.52 RCW;
(e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(g) A conviction of the respondent for a crime that constitutes domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
(h) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;
(i) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
(j) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person, or the respondent's history of stalking another person;
(k) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony offense or violent crime;
(l) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent; and
(m) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent.

The court will, if it deems necessary (i.e. finds the person a threat) issue an order for a period of one year.  That will either expire or be extended as the result of another hearing request by the petitioner.  The respondent has the right every 12 months to request a hearing to prove he is not a threat.  If he can do that, his gun(s) will be returned.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 6, 2018 20:31:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Additionally, the link within the link Virgil provided uses some stock photo of a swat team in front of a some anonymous building.  Another attempt to scare the reader.  Pitiful.




Seattle police confiscate first gun under new ‘mental health’ law

SPOILER: Click to show

BOO!

They put stock photos in to depict tyranny, not because they expect readers will believe a 20-man SWAT team is needed to confiscate a single, law abiding man's gun.

It's rank editorialism, but it's not deceptive.

If your beef is with people using shocking imagery to stir up people's emotions for political reasons, go after the activists lying in heaps in front of the White House, or feminists dressed up as giant vaginas, or the groups setting up billboards to troll Hollywood about sexual misconduct, or...