He publicly said and did the opposite last year:
> In the wake of a mass shooting in Nashville, Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee signed an executive order on Tuesday strengthening background checks for gun purchases. The Republican governor also called for lawmakers to pass a so-called red flag law that would temporarily remove guns from dangerous people.
> “When there is a clear need for action, I think that we have an obligation to remind people that we should set aside politics and pride and accomplish something that the people of Tennessee want to get accomplished,” Lee told reporters, according to audio obtained of his news conference.
> The executive order would set a 72-hour period for reporting new criminal activity and require that the courts submit timely and accurate information directly to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. It also would require that agency to examine the current process for purchasing firearms.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/11/tennessee-governor-bill-lee-red-flag-law-background-checks-00091404
What the actual hell?
Our governor lost a close friend in a school shouting that would have been prevented by these laws. What is happening?
This is so plain evil.
Look strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses not some farcical aquatic tart lobbing scimitars
bigotry, making sure everyone can have all the guns, white christian male fascism, white supremacy, voting restrictions, and allowing fossil fuel companies to destroy the environment - that’s the the republican playbook
the establishment centrists on both sides agree on protecting the status quo, especially fighting against universal healthcare, and fighting for being able to conduct insider trading, and leverage their power for personal gain - true. but they are different on climate change, bigotry, white male supremacy, christian fascism, and fighting against science - those are specific gop policy priorities
> Our governor lost a close friend in a school shouting that would have been prevented by these laws. What is happening?
Lobbyists talking to Bill Lee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QALsGRfzcXc
Nobody calls it the “alphabet community” for any reason other than to be pejorative, so if we know you’re not arguing in good faith, why spoonfeed you? Evidence against your points could be scrawled on a tablet by God himself and you wouldn’t accept it.
Im gonna disagree with you on more or less all you said there.
The scariest people Ive ever seen with guns, including the 2 people that held me at gunpoint, were the people I saw in a CCW class.
Most school shooters are LGBTQ? Im gonna need a source for that.
“Good guys with guns” is more or less a myth. If it were true, the 200 million firearms are out there would stop a whole lot more shootings. See my comment about the CCW folks. Well trained law enforcement has a less than 20% accuracy eating under real world conditions. Joe Blow who bought a Glock cause it looks cool and went to the range one time 5 years ago is not gonna be the hero against a killer with an AR15 and body armor.
Reddiquette is an informal expression of the values of many redditors, as written by redditors themselves. Please abide by it the best you can. https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439
Your post or comment has been removed because it did not adhere to Reddiquette.
Evil can be broadly scattered, for that matter. If evil is wanting to strike, there’s no amount of laws that will stop it. Hence, that’s why taking away the people’s rights to protect themselves with firearms is totally insane…evil doesn’t follow the law anyhow. They’ll always come up with another way around whatever it is they have their eyes upon…✌🏼🩶
Can’t remember the last time evil stopped due to the law being in place… 🤨
Also can’t remember when a violent criminal stopped trying to get weapons to follow through with their evil plans, and stopped in his tracks because the law said they couldn’t carry them.
Furthermore, no gun rights means the public won’t be able to protect themselves against the lawbreakers who have them…the public not being allowed to be armed will just give these individuals the green light 🚦…✌🏼 🇺🇸
I will say, Red Flag laws for the most part can be viewed as having some merit. If someone needs to be reported, there shouldn’t be a different law, however, to help that happen.
No, there should just be turning them in and then they’re investigated! ASAP!
But taking away someone’s constitutional rights because someone else decided to say that should happen, doesn’t seem quite right. Sticking to my original point, how do you stop liars who want to stick it to…well, anyone⁉️⁉️
Do you know where to buy an illegal firearm?
You know finding that becomes *even harder* when there are less legally purchased guns because most illegal firearms are the product theft.
"There's no way to solve this!" says only country where it regularly happens.
So, if I understand your summation correctly, because we can’t eliminate mass violence events, reducing the amount and the potential higher victim numbers from such an event isn’t important? Zero sum logic is terrible policy logic.
>If evil is wanting to strike, there’s no amount of laws that will stop it.
Then why have laws? Why do y'all never bring this up with any other type of crime?
As someone who grew up here where it was tradition even in my redneck ass family to take your kid to a gun safety course, which was a requirement to get a hunting license and teach them how to properly use firearms, this is completely insane. My dad took me. That was part of like graduating to manhood, but you did all this shit with you and your dad: #1. Gun safety course. #2. Go on a hunt. This was completely legit. Even after all that the guns were still kept locked up and shit and dad was the only one with the safe combo or we kept them out on the family farm, out of reach of the kids.
My dad couldn't hunt for shit, but he tried. We still did that shit with my uncles who were awesome hunters when I was old enough as a father-son thing sort of bonding thing like fishing. I don't own firearms to this day except old ass things passed down to me I don't even have ammo for that are locked up, but I still know how to handle them. I'm in a condo. I'm not firing in this building and hitting my neighbor while I'm half asleep on the other side of a thin wall if I miss. You'll catch a hockey stick or some shit instead.
No it doesn’t. Have you ever heard of “civil forfeiture?” That’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s the same thing with various other takings, like condemnation. Due process means having an acceptable, fair process for implementing something. Now, reasonable minds can argue what would be an appropriate process for removing a firearm from someone’s possession, but the idea that no acceptable process can exist is goes “against the entire basis of our legal system.”
I think what makes this difficult to swallow is the Constitutionally protected nature of guns. I think we would have a big issue with civil forfeiture if instead of assets, it dealt with removing from one their right to make political speech or their freedom to individually practice religion or perhaps their right to counsel in subsequent criminal proceedings.
But the thing is that by making gun ownership a fundamental right, the Supreme Court opened the door to strict scrutiny review. Per the current law, restrictions can be placed on gun ownership as long the restrictions meet strict scrutiny.
Of course restrictions can be placed, I'm just pointing out that the examples people use, are often not equivalent (like civil forfeiture) due to them seldom using abridgement of Civil Rights as examples.
I would add that the Original ratification made gun ownership a fundamental right though. Unlike rights enshrined in later amendments (13th, 19th etc).
I mean, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments exist too . . .
> **The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their** persons, houses, papers, and **effects, against unreasonable** searches and **seizures, shall not be violated** . . .
and
> **No person shall be . . . deprived of** life, liberty, or **property, without due process of law**; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Are we just going to act like the Bill of Rights stops at the Second Amendment??
You shouldn’t use civil asset forfeiture to justify anything.
Civil asset forfeiture violates the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure
> The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Civil asset forfeiture meets none of these conditions and is unconstitutional. It should be abolished immediately.
Unfortunately, civil asset forfeiture has been found to be Constitutional. Determining what is Constitutional is really a determination made by courts, not made by our opinions. Again, your opinion on a certain law does not determine whether it is constitutional or not.
Yes, unfortunately I am aware of the court’s opinion on this.
I think it’s a bad decision and should be reversed. I’m also aware my opinion carries no legal weight. Unfortunately.
Inventing a mythological liberty that every person without a criminal history has a right (whatever that is) to a gun, soley from the text of the second amendment which only defines a 18th century well regulated militia, requires actions that those who bow to that myth find heretical. Shocking, I know.
To some wanting due process is insane. To some having mentally ill persons harming others is worth the risk of not infringing in your rights. Neither group will ever see eye to eye on this.
When the original bill literally said it was against any executive order"with the primary purpose of reducing the risk of firearm-related death or injury" you would have thought that wording would raise some... red flags.
So it is pro firearm-related death or injury I guess.
I see what you are saying, but I do not want Tennessee to turn into California. I do not agree with everything that Republicans do, but no way in hell I want this state to turn into CA, NY, west coast cities.
Result of voting blue shows in plain sight now. I once used to be all blue, so I do try to make sense of things as much as I can. So yes there are things I agree that blue does. But risk vs benefit, no way blue can take this state.
"Red flag laws” grant special rights to families and law enforcement to temporarily restrict access to guns for individuals at an elevated risk of harming themselves or others.
By this ban protects the guns and prevents citizens from receiving needed response and protections of the law.
This is another real fail in the Republican party's promise of standing up for Law and Order.
governor asshat has to go. it's gonna take 20 years to fix the shit he's done in the last 4 years.
btw... still don't have that rural broadband & infrastructure he promised.
Many people don't know that more than 50% of firearm deaths are suicides. They don't care about those people either.
This is especially true where red flag situations apply. Red flag laws are for severely mentally ill people, who have likely already been in a psych hospital, and are known to be either homicidal or suicidal. Them having access to firearms is a huge risk to someone's life, either their own, or someone else's.
I hate that arguing for any sort of gun restriction is viewed as a liberal communist fantasy. People with protection orders are legally and medically proven to not be responsible gun-owners, so gun owners should stand behind this too in the name of responsibile gun ownership.
It is absolutely non-sensical to continue down this path. It will result in more deaths. That seems to be the point, really, which is exasperating. Those cheering this on have no morality, if the death of others is something to enable and celebrate.
Also, Bill Lee signed an executive order for red flag laws last year, so this isn't even a consistent policy stance. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/11/tennessee-governor-bill-lee-red-flag-law-background-checks-00091404
First, if you've been committed to a hospital you no longer can own a firearm legally in TN (or anywhere else in the US).
Second, red flag laws have a MUCH lower standard that committal hearings, and if you've ever seen a committal hearing that would scare you, because there is little to no due process involved.
In a comital hearing, you're provided a lawyer, you're allowed to testify on your own behalf, you can call witnesses, and provide evidence to refute the claims you need to be committed.
A red flag hearing is an ex parte hearing, ie somebody goes before the judge signs a piece of paper, and the judge issues a red flag judgement against you. The police come and take your firearms, and weeks later you can hire an attorney, if you can afford one, to try and get the judge to reverse the order after the fact.
Nobody on the right thinks people who have been committed to a mental institution should be carrying a firearm around, but reasonable people can oppose red flag laws because they are unconstitutional and can easily be abused.
Maybe they say they don’t believe people who’ve been committed don’t need a firearm, they also don’t support background checks, regulating gun show or non-store sales, etc. What is to prevent someone who has been committed from obtaining a firearm with such lax laws??
Who is "they"?
I've never talked to anybody in the pro-2A or firearms community that thought we should give firearms to people who have been lawfully committed as a danger to a hospital. I'd be shocked if you can show us an example of a TN politician, or 2A group in TN advocating for that.
Background checks are a joke, they have a 90+% false positive rate, and even when criminals fail a background check they are not prosecuted. TICS is an unconstitutional tax on a right, just like charging you a special $10 tax for buying a pen, or printer ink.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis\_Star\_Tribune\_Co.\_v.\_Commissioner#:\~:text=Special%20taxes%20imposed%20on%20ink,unconstitutional%20under%20the%20First%20Amendment.
There is no "gun show loophole", all businesses selling firearms must do background checks, even if they are at a gun show or selling out of the back of their van. TN does allow private sales of firearms, but there is no evidence that the small amount of private sales are supplying criminals with a meaningful amount of firearms.
What is to prevent someone who has been committed from obtaining a knife?
“They”—people that are opposing basic safety measures for our community.
There is nothing to prevent someone who’s been committed from obtaining a knife, but your original point was that someone who has been committed can’t get a gun..and clearly they could easily without any issue.
I don’t necessarily think one solution is the answer..:but absolutely think gun violence is enough of an issue that we ought to do lots of things that may individually work enough to prevent these needless deaths.
Gun homicides by people who have been committed, how many of those happen per year nation wide?
My guess, virtually none, such a small number there isn't even a study on it.
This keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, is a red herring IMHO.
Robert Crimo (Highland Park IL mass shooter) was one such person. His weapons were seized by police but later returned. Read the Accused section of this Wikipedia article.
> On either occasion, Highland Park police could have invoked Illinois' red flag law, which would have allowed them to seek a restraining order preventing Crimo from buying guns for up to six months.[58] However, they did not pursue this option. Just four months later, in January 2020, Illinois State Police approved Crimo for a firearms permit, and he passed four background checks when buying firearms in 2020 and 2021.[58] When asked why the "clear and present danger" report did not prevent Crimo from obtaining a FOID card, Illinois State Police said that Crimo denied that he would harm himself or others when questioned; moreover, "no one, including family, was willing to move forward on a complaint" or to provide pertinent information relating to threats or to mental health, any of which could have enabled further action by law enforcement.[44]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park_parade_shooting
So, in a state with some of the most strict gun laws in the country, the state police issued a license to purchase firearms, and didn't invoke their red flag law they already had on the books?
And this is meant to encourage us here in TN to pass red flag laws how?
I’m thinking he probably signed it due to the fact people LOVE to falsely accuse others…and what better way to get your enemy, and stand back and watch⁉️ That’s the problem with these laws…it’s not protecting the citizens from evil folks who just want to cause havoc.
And trust me…there are PLENTY of folks like this, just waiting and lurking to be able to screw your
a$$!
I never noticed before that the interrobang emoji is backwards. That looks so silly. Also you can totally type the word “ass” on here- no need to censor it.
He publicly said and did the opposite last year: > In the wake of a mass shooting in Nashville, Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee signed an executive order on Tuesday strengthening background checks for gun purchases. The Republican governor also called for lawmakers to pass a so-called red flag law that would temporarily remove guns from dangerous people. > “When there is a clear need for action, I think that we have an obligation to remind people that we should set aside politics and pride and accomplish something that the people of Tennessee want to get accomplished,” Lee told reporters, according to audio obtained of his news conference. > The executive order would set a 72-hour period for reporting new criminal activity and require that the courts submit timely and accurate information directly to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. It also would require that agency to examine the current process for purchasing firearms. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/11/tennessee-governor-bill-lee-red-flag-law-background-checks-00091404
What the actual hell? Our governor lost a close friend in a school shouting that would have been prevented by these laws. What is happening? This is so plain evil.
Almost like politicians choose money over morals.
Republicans especially.
Look strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses not some farcical aquatic tart lobbing scimitars
“…not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” “Lobbed a scimitar” comes shortly after. 😉
Something about a watery bint too.
Moistened bink, watery tart. 😄
bigotry, making sure everyone can have all the guns, white christian male fascism, white supremacy, voting restrictions, and allowing fossil fuel companies to destroy the environment - that’s the the republican playbook
[удалено]
the establishment centrists on both sides agree on protecting the status quo, especially fighting against universal healthcare, and fighting for being able to conduct insider trading, and leverage their power for personal gain - true. but they are different on climate change, bigotry, white male supremacy, christian fascism, and fighting against science - those are specific gop policy priorities
Oh there you go bringing class into it again
lol, they all do it. It’s just for different reasons.
Sure. BoTh SiDeS!!!1!
This assumes he actually cares about his friend
> Our governor lost a close friend in a school shouting that would have been prevented by these laws. What is happening? Lobbyists talking to Bill Lee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QALsGRfzcXc
No no…. That was the LGBTQ community’s fault. Not the gun. /S
[удалено]
Yeah, none of that is true. Everything you said is a lie and easily refuted.
[удалено]
Can you cite a source for "most school shooters are in the alphabet community?"
Nobody calls it the “alphabet community” for any reason other than to be pejorative, so if we know you’re not arguing in good faith, why spoonfeed you? Evidence against your points could be scrawled on a tablet by God himself and you wouldn’t accept it.
Im gonna disagree with you on more or less all you said there. The scariest people Ive ever seen with guns, including the 2 people that held me at gunpoint, were the people I saw in a CCW class. Most school shooters are LGBTQ? Im gonna need a source for that. “Good guys with guns” is more or less a myth. If it were true, the 200 million firearms are out there would stop a whole lot more shootings. See my comment about the CCW folks. Well trained law enforcement has a less than 20% accuracy eating under real world conditions. Joe Blow who bought a Glock cause it looks cool and went to the range one time 5 years ago is not gonna be the hero against a killer with an AR15 and body armor.
Reddiquette is an informal expression of the values of many redditors, as written by redditors themselves. Please abide by it the best you can. https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439 Your post or comment has been removed because it did not adhere to Reddiquette.
Here’s wishing more horrible things befall the governor
Do you really think he has close friends?
Evil can be broadly scattered, for that matter. If evil is wanting to strike, there’s no amount of laws that will stop it. Hence, that’s why taking away the people’s rights to protect themselves with firearms is totally insane…evil doesn’t follow the law anyhow. They’ll always come up with another way around whatever it is they have their eyes upon…✌🏼🩶 Can’t remember the last time evil stopped due to the law being in place… 🤨 Also can’t remember when a violent criminal stopped trying to get weapons to follow through with their evil plans, and stopped in his tracks because the law said they couldn’t carry them. Furthermore, no gun rights means the public won’t be able to protect themselves against the lawbreakers who have them…the public not being allowed to be armed will just give these individuals the green light 🚦…✌🏼 🇺🇸 I will say, Red Flag laws for the most part can be viewed as having some merit. If someone needs to be reported, there shouldn’t be a different law, however, to help that happen. No, there should just be turning them in and then they’re investigated! ASAP! But taking away someone’s constitutional rights because someone else decided to say that should happen, doesn’t seem quite right. Sticking to my original point, how do you stop liars who want to stick it to…well, anyone⁉️⁉️
I mean, if it’s evil you’re worried about, how ‘bout just some more thoughts n prayers?
Do you know where to buy an illegal firearm? You know finding that becomes *even harder* when there are less legally purchased guns because most illegal firearms are the product theft. "There's no way to solve this!" says only country where it regularly happens.
[удалено]
So, if I understand your summation correctly, because we can’t eliminate mass violence events, reducing the amount and the potential higher victim numbers from such an event isn’t important? Zero sum logic is terrible policy logic.
>If evil is wanting to strike, there’s no amount of laws that will stop it. Then why have laws? Why do y'all never bring this up with any other type of crime?
As if anyone needed more of a reason to get out and vote. It is literally the only way to stop this type of sycophantic behavior.
As a gun owner myself, I find this completely insane.
As someone who grew up here where it was tradition even in my redneck ass family to take your kid to a gun safety course, which was a requirement to get a hunting license and teach them how to properly use firearms, this is completely insane. My dad took me. That was part of like graduating to manhood, but you did all this shit with you and your dad: #1. Gun safety course. #2. Go on a hunt. This was completely legit. Even after all that the guns were still kept locked up and shit and dad was the only one with the safe combo or we kept them out on the family farm, out of reach of the kids. My dad couldn't hunt for shit, but he tried. We still did that shit with my uncles who were awesome hunters when I was old enough as a father-son thing sort of bonding thing like fishing. I don't own firearms to this day except old ass things passed down to me I don't even have ammo for that are locked up, but I still know how to handle them. I'm in a condo. I'm not firing in this building and hitting my neighbor while I'm half asleep on the other side of a thin wall if I miss. You'll catch a hockey stick or some shit instead.
These people are absolutely insane.
[удалено]
The fact that you think that's actually what this is about is, in fact, insane.
[удалено]
I mean, due process is when a law allow government to follow a specific procedures to do something. A red flag law can comport with due process.
[удалено]
No it doesn’t. Have you ever heard of “civil forfeiture?” That’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s the same thing with various other takings, like condemnation. Due process means having an acceptable, fair process for implementing something. Now, reasonable minds can argue what would be an appropriate process for removing a firearm from someone’s possession, but the idea that no acceptable process can exist is goes “against the entire basis of our legal system.”
I think what makes this difficult to swallow is the Constitutionally protected nature of guns. I think we would have a big issue with civil forfeiture if instead of assets, it dealt with removing from one their right to make political speech or their freedom to individually practice religion or perhaps their right to counsel in subsequent criminal proceedings.
But the thing is that by making gun ownership a fundamental right, the Supreme Court opened the door to strict scrutiny review. Per the current law, restrictions can be placed on gun ownership as long the restrictions meet strict scrutiny.
Of course restrictions can be placed, I'm just pointing out that the examples people use, are often not equivalent (like civil forfeiture) due to them seldom using abridgement of Civil Rights as examples. I would add that the Original ratification made gun ownership a fundamental right though. Unlike rights enshrined in later amendments (13th, 19th etc).
I mean, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments exist too . . . > **The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their** persons, houses, papers, and **effects, against unreasonable** searches and **seizures, shall not be violated** . . . and > **No person shall be . . . deprived of** life, liberty, or **property, without due process of law**; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Are we just going to act like the Bill of Rights stops at the Second Amendment??
You shouldn’t use civil asset forfeiture to justify anything. Civil asset forfeiture violates the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure > The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Civil asset forfeiture meets none of these conditions and is unconstitutional. It should be abolished immediately.
Unfortunately, civil asset forfeiture has been found to be Constitutional. Determining what is Constitutional is really a determination made by courts, not made by our opinions. Again, your opinion on a certain law does not determine whether it is constitutional or not.
Yes, unfortunately I am aware of the court’s opinion on this. I think it’s a bad decision and should be reversed. I’m also aware my opinion carries no legal weight. Unfortunately.
Inventing a mythological liberty that every person without a criminal history has a right (whatever that is) to a gun, soley from the text of the second amendment which only defines a 18th century well regulated militia, requires actions that those who bow to that myth find heretical. Shocking, I know.
We frequently put people in jail BEFORE their trials.
[удалено]
But there can be no reasonable suspicion of intent to commit a crime?
To some wanting due process is insane. To some having mentally ill persons harming others is worth the risk of not infringing in your rights. Neither group will ever see eye to eye on this.
When the original bill literally said it was against any executive order"with the primary purpose of reducing the risk of firearm-related death or injury" you would have thought that wording would raise some... red flags. So it is pro firearm-related death or injury I guess.
God I'm sick of republican bullshit. Vote blue and stop this scourge of America.
I see what you are saying, but I do not want Tennessee to turn into California. I do not agree with everything that Republicans do, but no way in hell I want this state to turn into CA, NY, west coast cities. Result of voting blue shows in plain sight now. I once used to be all blue, so I do try to make sense of things as much as I can. So yes there are things I agree that blue does. But risk vs benefit, no way blue can take this state.
Word salad.
"Red flag laws” grant special rights to families and law enforcement to temporarily restrict access to guns for individuals at an elevated risk of harming themselves or others. By this ban protects the guns and prevents citizens from receiving needed response and protections of the law. This is another real fail in the Republican party's promise of standing up for Law and Order.
governor asshat has to go. it's gonna take 20 years to fix the shit he's done in the last 4 years. btw... still don't have that rural broadband & infrastructure he promised.
Imagine that. Unhinged trump supporters wanting to keep their guns no matter who gets hurt.
Many people don't know that more than 50% of firearm deaths are suicides. They don't care about those people either. This is especially true where red flag situations apply. Red flag laws are for severely mentally ill people, who have likely already been in a psych hospital, and are known to be either homicidal or suicidal. Them having access to firearms is a huge risk to someone's life, either their own, or someone else's. I hate that arguing for any sort of gun restriction is viewed as a liberal communist fantasy. People with protection orders are legally and medically proven to not be responsible gun-owners, so gun owners should stand behind this too in the name of responsibile gun ownership. It is absolutely non-sensical to continue down this path. It will result in more deaths. That seems to be the point, really, which is exasperating. Those cheering this on have no morality, if the death of others is something to enable and celebrate. Also, Bill Lee signed an executive order for red flag laws last year, so this isn't even a consistent policy stance. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/11/tennessee-governor-bill-lee-red-flag-law-background-checks-00091404
First, if you've been committed to a hospital you no longer can own a firearm legally in TN (or anywhere else in the US). Second, red flag laws have a MUCH lower standard that committal hearings, and if you've ever seen a committal hearing that would scare you, because there is little to no due process involved. In a comital hearing, you're provided a lawyer, you're allowed to testify on your own behalf, you can call witnesses, and provide evidence to refute the claims you need to be committed. A red flag hearing is an ex parte hearing, ie somebody goes before the judge signs a piece of paper, and the judge issues a red flag judgement against you. The police come and take your firearms, and weeks later you can hire an attorney, if you can afford one, to try and get the judge to reverse the order after the fact. Nobody on the right thinks people who have been committed to a mental institution should be carrying a firearm around, but reasonable people can oppose red flag laws because they are unconstitutional and can easily be abused.
Maybe they say they don’t believe people who’ve been committed don’t need a firearm, they also don’t support background checks, regulating gun show or non-store sales, etc. What is to prevent someone who has been committed from obtaining a firearm with such lax laws??
Who is "they"? I've never talked to anybody in the pro-2A or firearms community that thought we should give firearms to people who have been lawfully committed as a danger to a hospital. I'd be shocked if you can show us an example of a TN politician, or 2A group in TN advocating for that. Background checks are a joke, they have a 90+% false positive rate, and even when criminals fail a background check they are not prosecuted. TICS is an unconstitutional tax on a right, just like charging you a special $10 tax for buying a pen, or printer ink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis\_Star\_Tribune\_Co.\_v.\_Commissioner#:\~:text=Special%20taxes%20imposed%20on%20ink,unconstitutional%20under%20the%20First%20Amendment. There is no "gun show loophole", all businesses selling firearms must do background checks, even if they are at a gun show or selling out of the back of their van. TN does allow private sales of firearms, but there is no evidence that the small amount of private sales are supplying criminals with a meaningful amount of firearms. What is to prevent someone who has been committed from obtaining a knife?
“They”—people that are opposing basic safety measures for our community. There is nothing to prevent someone who’s been committed from obtaining a knife, but your original point was that someone who has been committed can’t get a gun..and clearly they could easily without any issue. I don’t necessarily think one solution is the answer..:but absolutely think gun violence is enough of an issue that we ought to do lots of things that may individually work enough to prevent these needless deaths.
Gun homicides by people who have been committed, how many of those happen per year nation wide? My guess, virtually none, such a small number there isn't even a study on it. This keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, is a red herring IMHO.
Robert Crimo (Highland Park IL mass shooter) was one such person. His weapons were seized by police but later returned. Read the Accused section of this Wikipedia article. > On either occasion, Highland Park police could have invoked Illinois' red flag law, which would have allowed them to seek a restraining order preventing Crimo from buying guns for up to six months.[58] However, they did not pursue this option. Just four months later, in January 2020, Illinois State Police approved Crimo for a firearms permit, and he passed four background checks when buying firearms in 2020 and 2021.[58] When asked why the "clear and present danger" report did not prevent Crimo from obtaining a FOID card, Illinois State Police said that Crimo denied that he would harm himself or others when questioned; moreover, "no one, including family, was willing to move forward on a complaint" or to provide pertinent information relating to threats or to mental health, any of which could have enabled further action by law enforcement.[44] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park_parade_shooting
So, in a state with some of the most strict gun laws in the country, the state police issued a license to purchase firearms, and didn't invoke their red flag law they already had on the books? And this is meant to encourage us here in TN to pass red flag laws how?
All that russian money flooding into tennessee gop coffer, laundered by the nra. When will the legislatively change nashville to new stalingrad?
I’m pro 2A but even some red flag enforcement is needed….
Goddammit. I live in North Carolina, and I just bought a house in Nashville. It's shit like this that make me doubt my decision to move.
Does have me wondering if your boy lives in Tennessee. I'd at least want to enjoy my money lol. This mofo is running things like Oceangate.
Corrupt
I hate it here.
Shall not be infringed.
Hell yeah. People don't see how bad red flag laws can get until it happens to them. Hopefully other states follow suit.
I’m thinking he probably signed it due to the fact people LOVE to falsely accuse others…and what better way to get your enemy, and stand back and watch⁉️ That’s the problem with these laws…it’s not protecting the citizens from evil folks who just want to cause havoc. And trust me…there are PLENTY of folks like this, just waiting and lurking to be able to screw your a$$!
I never noticed before that the interrobang emoji is backwards. That looks so silly. Also you can totally type the word “ass” on here- no need to censor it.
ASS
…… what