Trump: Take Guns Before Due Process

Status
Not open for further replies.

<*(((><

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
2,747
Well it seems we are headed down the road of "guilty until proven innocent."

LINK: Video


http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-secondhttp://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second

President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded.

Trump met with lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss gun laws and school safety in the aftermath of a Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 people dead.

The suspected shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was able to legally purchase the AR-15 reportedly used in the shooting despite numerous calls to law enforcement about his unstable behavior.
 
Trump speaks like a regular guy down the road....hes not very ''eloquent'' but blunt and a bit sarcastic.....

Trumps looking at it as all lawmaker do.

Its the way policy, regulations and laws are made;

Design, Implement , then survive the court challenges while screwing over the innocent....happens all the time.

Trump removed the regulation in the Social Securiy Admin earlier in the 2017, that had them send info to the FBI gun background checkers (?) on people who recived social security benifits for those who had a third party minding their matters (could be crazy, could be in a coma, extended recovery from illness/accidents, old age, dead parents, etc.) and it was challenged by the ACLU in court, due to a person losing their 2nd A Right, without due process, also violated their 4th A Rights...A judge has to declare a body mentaly incapable, and why/how.

The trick would be to identify and bring the PERSON before a court insted of bringing in the guns.......the Police would obviously would have the info to get there in the first place....


I cannot for the life of me understand why a ''Constitutional test'' of some sorts is implement BEFORE a Law/regulation/policy is put into effect.....
 
Last edited:
I didn't see the whole round table he had today, it had already gone on for a while when I turned to it. I pm pretty sure I heard Trump say he wanted Manchin-Toomey. Maybe what I heard was out of context but if true it puts him in dangerous territory and he had better tread carefully. Somebody needs to remind the President about how long the memories of gun owners are.
 
Police (already) have a great deal of leeway under exigent circumstances...

...requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.
[Wiki]

... were such circumstance present before the Florida event ?

Some say obvious evidence leading into the final conflgration -- and the very deliberate sweeping of it under the rug -- in the Florida case was egregious enough to set a new standards both as to duty, and "pre-crime" actions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My BIGGEST concern is that Trump may be agreeing to things that he doesn't realize the content of....
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-d...ump-seems-to-endorse-her-assault-weapons-ban/
 
Last edited:
Concerning....

I hope this is a case of “look at what he has done”, vs. “what he is saying....”

Best
 
No big deal I'm not worried. He's done a lot already for the 2A and will do more. Not much he can do in the writing of the law anyway.
 
For those charged with domestic violence in NC, guns are automatically taken along with CCW permit before court. In fact, I know people who have had warrants sworn against them by people who claimed they were "afraid" of so-and-so and had their stuff taken. Not new.
 
Maybe his strategy is similar to the one he took on illegal immigration. Offer the other side more than they want and just because it would give him a mark in the "win" column they say no. He then uses that as a cudgel to beat them into submission on a different issue that he actually wants because he can point to the unreasonableness of their actions.
But, if Trump thinks the people that voted for him are willing to let his administration trample on their 2A rights, he is in for a rude awakening, indeed.

We'll see.
 
He’s going to end up being worse for gun owners than BHO was. At least they stood against him, now they’re falling like a house of cards. And for some insane reason a large part of the firearms community is ok with it.

Well, yeah! If a Democrat said something like that, the gun crowd would fly their "Don't tread on me" flags and go armed and barricaded. But unfortunately, many of them are so brainwashed that if a GOP president walked off the edge of a cliff, they'd gladly follow.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid a hard lesson is being learned by the gun community: don't put your faith in glib promises made just to get your vote. Support for candidates and officeholders must remain conditional, depending on what they actually do. None of this mindless adulation because of what a guy appears to advocate. Remember that campaign speeches are cheap.
 
In Alaska, if you are under indictment for a felony, or on bail, you cannot have a gun, and Thats before your found guilty.....Generally ''they'' let you take care of such matters, but ''they'' will come and check you out if ''they'' like.......cops, troopers, probation officer, FBI, etc.
 
He also told Toomey to to add Feinstein's assault weapons ban to his bill and belittled Toomey for being afraid of the NRA. It was a very weird meeting to say the least.
 
He also told Toomey to to add Feinstein's assault weapons ban to his bill and belittled Toomey for being afraid of the NRA.
Adding Feinstein's AWB to Toomey's bill would kill Toomey's bill. Anyone familiar with how these things work would know it's a poison pill, but I'm not sure Trump is that clued in. Two possibilities: either Trump is naive or he's fiendishly clever.
 
Well it seems we are headed down the road of "guilty until proven innocent."

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

That's the scariest thing that I have heard from a high government official Ever. So now we execute the suspect and then find out if he's guilty? Nothing could be more opposite to the "rule of law" and to Constitutional principles.

And Trump basically abandoned any pretense of standing against hysterical gun control legislation, calling for "comprehensive" gun control, saying that he would ban bumpstocks *Now*, on his own authority, dismissing any thought of national reciprocity, presenting the 21-year age limit as a fait accompli, and soliciting a new "assault weapon" ban.

My favorite President since Eisenhower just went to the top of my personal crap list.
 
I don't think Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. His ego and desire to be loved will have him breaking campaign promises. He apparently isn't smart enough to realize that the people that hate him will continue to hate him. He can only lose votes by doing this stuff
 
The honeymoon is apparently over. The account I read indicates that immediately after he told Feinstein to "put her stuff in there" he told another senator that if he tried to put concealed carry reciprocity in the bill it would kill it. And no, I don't think he is being clever like a fox. Although I intend to not give an inch, I'm pragmatic enough to know that the ruling crowd is going to try to do something amongst this current hysteria. The least that can be done is to obtain reciprocity and remove silencers from the NFA out of what will result. To do otherwise will either prove stupidity, duplicity or both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top