Lynx Defense

Red Flag law discussion

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    Classifying an accessory (bump stock) as a “banned” NFA item is probably extralegal, and no one is arguing that!

    Making “current” possession of something illegal is not an ex post facto law.

    Making the “prior” purchase illegal and punishable would be an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional.
     

    WAYnorthTX

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 6, 2019
    387
    46
    Way Up North
    Classifying an accessory (bump stock) as a “banned” NFA item is probably extralegal, and no one is arguing that!
    Making “current” possession of something illegal is not an ex post facto law.
    Making the “prior” purchase illegal and punishable would be an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional.
    Maybe you can clear something up for me- I am not just trying to be stubborn. OK, someone bought a bumpstock in 2010. It was perfectly legal. Then, they made possession of a bumpstock a crime. You cannot keep your previously legal bumpstock. You must turn it in. If you are caught with it, you will be charged with a felony. How is this not ex post facto ? Or is there something else that I am not getting ?
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    Ex post facto = retroactive.

    Let’s say you used to drive 45 mph on the road in front of your house. They change the speed limit to 35 mph. You cannot be charged for what you did (ex post facto) prior to the change, but you can if you do 45 today.

    Possession was legal. You cannot be charged for possession prior to the change. Possession now (post facto) is illegal (again, I believe that it is an extralegal perversion of the law).
     

    WAYnorthTX

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 6, 2019
    387
    46
    Way Up North
    Ex post facto = retroactive.

    Let’s say you used to drive 45 mph on the road in front of your house. They change the speed limit to 35 mph. You cannot be charged for what you did (ex post facto) prior to the change, but you can if you do 45 today.
    Possession was legal. You cannot be charged for possession prior to the change. Possession now (post facto) is illegal (again, I believe that it is an extralegal perversion of the law).
    OK. By George, I think I've got it. Thanks.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    At least hearing what Trump had to say today makes it seem he's listening to the right people. When asked about UBC's he said that we already have strong background checks and that he is hearing the fears of gun owners about losing their 2nd Amendment rights and that he's not going to let that happen. I didn't hear him say anything about red flag laws. Anyway, it's sounds like he's backing down from all the gun control hype.
     

    AustinN4

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Nov 27, 2013
    9,853
    96
    Austin
    At least hearing what Trump had to say today makes it seem he's listening to the right people. When asked about UBC's he said that we already have strong background checks and that he is hearing the fears of gun owners about losing their 2nd Amendment rights and that he's not going to let that happen. I didn't hear him say anything about red flag laws. Anyway, it's sounds like he's backing down from all the gun control hype.
    TRUMP 2020!!
     

    TheDan

    deplorable malcontent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    27,551
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    At least hearing what Trump had to say today makes it seem he's listening to the right people. When asked about UBC's he said that we already have strong background checks and that he is hearing the fears of gun owners about losing their 2nd Amendment rights and that he's not going to let that happen. I didn't hear him say anything about red flag laws. Anyway, it's sounds like he's backing down from all the gun control hype.
    Key word "today". Who knows what happens tomorrow. He waffles a lot on issues that he doesn't really care about, and it's clear he's not really interested in 2A matters.

    TRUMP 2020!!
    Yep, even if he does end up supporting UBC or red flag BS. The judicial appointees he's making are more likely to overturn those laws than anyone else.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    Trump? Surely not...

    Have we bought Greenland yet?
    Tax cuts? Oops. That was this morning. Never mind.

    We should buy* CUBA ! and make it the 51st state. You can bet that the Cubans would not vote with the democrat/socialists.

    *or some other way

    Don’t buy the media hype, his interest in Greenland is not in any way outlandish.

    Off the top of my head, there was the Louisiana purchase. The purchase of Alaska. In 1917 we purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark.

    Greenland is subsidized to the tune of about 6 billion dollars. It’s rich in natural resources and is used by the US as a strategic military asset. Offering to remove the costly burden from Denmark and secure our military presence in the region as well as the ability to line the abundant resources in the area makes plenty of sense.

    All the boohooing about the ~50,000 residents is way overblown. Firstly because that’s a relatively smaller number in modern times, and secondly because there would surely be talks and negations resulting in some form of compromise as to their status. Possibly ending up somewhat like Guam. But who knows.

    Don’t believe everything you hear from the MSM.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,430
    96
    Don’t buy the media hype, his interest in Greenland is not in any way outlandish.

    Off the top of my head, there was the Louisiana purchase. The purchase of Alaska. In 1917 we purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark.

    Greenland is subsidized to the tune of about 6 billion dollars. It’s rich in natural resources and is used by the US as a strategic military asset. Offering to remove the costly burden from Denmark and secure our military presence in the region as well as the ability to line the abundant resources in the area makes plenty of sense.

    All the boohooing about the ~50,000 residents is way overblown. Firstly because that’s a relatively smaller number in modern times, and secondly because there would surely be talks and negations resulting in some form of compromise as to their status. Possibly ending up somewhat like Guam. But who knows.

    Don’t believe everything you hear from the MSM.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Not a matter of believing what I am hearing from MSM. It is a matter of his own words.

    We already have enough liberals under our umbrella, we don't need any Danes as well.

    And even if his idea was well thought out (doubtful, but not impossible), announcing it to the world without first privately discussing with Denmark was not the smartest thing.

    I like much of what the Trump administration has done. But I am not going to say everything he says is brilliant.

    And while it may be a negotiating tactic at times (not always), he does waffle a good amount.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    Not a matter of believing what I am hearing from MSM. It is a matter of his own words.

    We already have enough liberals under our umbrella, we don't need any Danes as well.

    And even if his idea was well thought out (doubtful, but not impossible), announcing it to the world without first privately discussing with Denmark was not the smartest thing.

    I like much of what the Trump administration has done. But I am not going to say everything he says is brilliant.

    And while it may be a negotiating tactic at times (not always), he does waffle a good amount.

    Nobody in Guam has a vote...wild speculation is meaningless.


    And he didn’t announce it to the world, he asked staffers to look in to it and it was leaked.

    The MSM narrative should not be trusted.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    DougC

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2021
    1,609
    96
    Texas
    This discussion has been around awhile so let me add this June 2022 commentary from the Four Boxes Diner. The speaker explains his creds up front constitutional attorney, author, proud gun owner. What I like best he makes a whole lot of common sense in explaining why 'red flag' laws should be called gun confiscation laws. Something to write to our elected state/federal reps. On another forum topic I explain what I wrote Senator Cornyn with a copy to Senator Cruz.
     

    Attachments

    • ABTN_410_TN_Red-Flag-Laws.png
      ABTN_410_TN_Red-Flag-Laws.png
      74.2 KB · Views: 46

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    This discussion has been around awhile so let me add this June 2022 commentary from the Four Boxes Diner. The speaker explains his creds up front constitutional attorney, author, proud gun owner. What I like best he makes a whole lot of common sense in explaining why 'red flag' laws should be called gun confiscation laws. Something to write to our elected state/federal reps. On another forum topic I explain what I wrote Senator Cornyn with a copy to Senator Cruz.
    If you haven't noticed, 'Red Flag' laws are just another erosion of the Constitution. In this case the 2nd, 4th & 14th amendments. The democrats already have detained so called 'insurrectionists' without due process. And set up a committee to limit speech under the guise of 'misinformation'.

    Now I'm not letting the republicans off the hook, for if they can't see this and fight it with their very being, then they are complicit and have no right to be in office.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Not much to discuss. Lautenberg Amendment and 18 USC 922 (g) (8) already serve this function at the federal level and most states also turn DV batterers into prohibited persons re: firearms.

    Can’t just use the laws on the books and won’t admit the need for a new law is directly due to failure to enforce existing laws. Which is the root cause and won’t change, ever.
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,119
    Messages
    2,953,343
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom