Democrats Say Red Flag Databases Cannot Include Gangs
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 1 month ago
Democrats advanced a new measure this week to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws. These so-called extreme risk protection orders authorize removing guns and ammunition from individuals deemed as dangerous by some anonymous, unaccountable person, but it would not include the ready-made lists of gang members.
Republicans tried to add an amendment including known gang members, but the Democrats will not permit the inclusion of gang databases. It’s odd since gangs are the ones causing most of the so-called gun violence.
They would agree to include the names of white supremacists, but not other terror groups.
The House Judiciary rejected any effort by Republicans to include gang databases since they are worried about people mistakenly taken for a gang member. They brought up the ‘no-fly, no-buy’ list which was filled with inaccuracies, but Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican, who hoped to amend the measure to include gang databases, reminded the Democrats the restrictions for placing someone on a gang database are much tougher than the no-fly list.
“White supremacists.” If you believe that the U.S. should close the borders, that includes you. As for the rest of it, this little tidbit is just rich: “They brought up the ‘no-fly, no-buy’ list which was filled with inaccuracies …”
Yes it is, but whether it falsely flags “white supremacists” is another story. They care about the one, but not the other.
On September 16, 2019 at 3:23 am, streamfortyseven said:
The reason that Democrats don’t want known gang members added to red flag lists is that they know – or the police departments in the cities they control know – that gangs have more firepower in a firefight than the police do. I’m talking about automatic weapons and weapons you’d find in a war zone. They’re *very* well supplied, it would be like Fallujah to go in and try to seize *their* weapons. I lived in a neighborhood where the Crips controlled the place, and where every male over the age of 13 could safely be assumed to be carrying a gun. In conversations with them, what was repeatedly said that firearms ownership was the mark of a free man, and they had no intention of ever being made back into slaves, and they’d fight to make sure of that. No local police entered that neighborhood after dark, the last time they tried, they were stripped naked and forced to run out of the ‘hood. And their car was stripped of everything remotely useful and the remains were burned. Incidentally, there was *no* street crime in that neighborhood, I could walk home at 2 in the morning without fear.
The Democrats are looking for the easy targets, and that’s white people in the suburbs, who won’t fight back and won’t resist, as has been recently shown.
On September 16, 2019 at 11:19 am, Andy said:
Exactly why are “republicans” amending this abominable, unconscionable garbage? If they represented us or our constitutional republic at all they would refuse to even consider allowing it to the floor. They may not succeed but it would have to go to vote under extreme protest.
On September 17, 2019 at 12:39 pm, R Leckey Harrison said:
No references to this measure? That makes this claim rather suspicious to me, although, that level of hypocrisy seems standard.
The red flag law that I know of in OR is quite specific on who can file in court a red flag law, so the claim of anonymity seems specious to me without a reference.