Steve Dickerson (R-Nashville) to Introduce Red Flag Bill

[E4 No More]

3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

The “unsuspecting” relative didn’t have his house and family in order if a 14 year old that was a nut case and willing to kill someone had access to his guns. It’s a text book example of what the anti-gunners use to get laws passed making gun owners responsible for securing their weapons.

I don’t think gun owners should be held responsible for criminals breaking into their house and getting their weapons. But not allowing homicidal family members access to them is their responsibility. 

You may be jumping to conclusions about the relative. You assume the relative is a parent, but I think if it was a parent they would have said so; not just say a relative.

To put it this way, what if the relative was uncle Bennie who has no idea his nephew planned to assist in the killings by stealing his guns? Do you police have the right to go seize uncle Bennie's guns because the nephew planned to steal them? If so, what keeps them from seizing every relative's guns and even friends?

[xsubsailor]

53 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

You may be jumping to conclusions about the relative. You assume the relative is a parent, but I think if it was a parent they would have said so; not just say a relative.

To put it this way, what if the relative was uncle Bennie who has no idea his nephew planned to assist in the killings by stealing his guns? Do you police have the right to go seize uncle Bennie's guns because the nephew planned to steal them? If so, what keeps them from seizing every relative's guns and even friends?

 This is along the lines I was thinking also. 

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, SWJewellTN said:

You may be jumping to conclusions about the relative. You assume the relative is a parent, but I think if it was a parent they would have said so; not just say a relative.

To put it this way, what if the relative was uncle Bennie who has no idea his nephew planned to assist in the killings by stealing his guns? Do you police have the right to go seize uncle Bennie's guns because the nephew planned to steal them? If so, what keeps them from seizing every relative's guns and even friends?

If the kid gave detailed information and descriptions that he had access to uncle Bennies guns; yes, they are going to seize them as evidence for a conspiracy to commit murder case and they have the right to do that. You were a cop; you know that is true.

Someone admitting to conspiracy to commit murder is no different than someone threatening suicide or homicide. The guns they have access to will be seized. Anything less is unacceptable. There is no violation of 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd amendment does not now and never did protect the rights of those that can’t keep their firearms from criminals. After the trial Uncle Bennie can petition the court to get his guns back.

If my kid had access to my guns and then was arrested for conspiracy to deliver the guns in a murder case; my guns would be seized. But I don’t think I would be screaming about my 2nd amendment rights when I found out my kid was homicidal; I would have bigger issues to deal with.

[E4 No More]

13 hours ago, DaveTN said:

If the kid gave detailed information and descriptions that he had access to uncle Bennies guns; yes, they are going to seize them as evidence for a conspiracy to commit murder case and they have the right to do that. You were a cop; you know that is true.

Someone admitting to conspiracy to commit murder is no different than someone threatening suicide or homicide. The guns they have access to will be seized. Anything less is unacceptable. There is no violation of 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd amendment does not now and never did protect the rights of those that can’t keep their firearms from criminals. After the trial Uncle Bennie can petition the court to get his guns back.

If my kid had access to my guns and then was arrested for conspiracy to deliver the guns in a murder case; my guns would be seized. But I don’t think I would be screaming about my 2nd amendment rights when I found out my kid was homicidal; I would have bigger issues to deal with.

If the guns were in the suspect's home and there's no way to secure them then yes, but by your logic, (unless I'm misunderstanding you), they could confiscate everyone's guns because someone, somewhere says they were going to steal a gun from someone, somewhere whether be it a relative, neighbor, or stranger. Heck, that includes cops considering how many times they lose their weapons either due to negligence or in a fight.

And let me ask this: Do you know what your kids are thinking all of the time? I know that I don't. Most parents don't even entertain the idea that their kid can be homicidal even after the kid has killed let alone before. The parent has to be made aware and allowed a remedy on their own first.

[owejia]

I believe it is called due process. If the law can take your property without due process, we are in bigger trouble. If they take your guns without due process why would you have to petition the court to get them back? Should be returned in same condition as when they took them at no court to you. Just because it is the law does not mean it is right.  Remember what Kruschiev said about not having to invade America "we will destroy you from within".

[DaveTN]

On 12/20/2018 at 7:30 AM, SWJewellTN said:

If the guns were in the suspect's home and there's no way to secure them then yes, but by your logic, (unless I'm misunderstanding you), they could confiscate everyone's guns because someone, somewhere says they were going to steal a gun from someone, somewhere whether be it a relative, neighbor, or stranger. Heck, that includes cops considering how many times they lose their weapons either due to negligence or in a fight.

And let me ask this: Do you know what your kids are thinking all of the time? I know that I don't. Most parents don't even entertain the idea that their kid can be homicidal even after the kid has killed let alone before. The parent has to be made aware and allowed a remedy on their own first.

There is apparently going to be a court hearing on the guns. If the kids plan was to break in and steal them; I would guess the guns will be returned after the trial or resolution of the case. If the kid had routine access to the guns and ability to open the safe; that's a problem for the relative.

If this case is going to go to trial the Prosecutor is going to want those evil black rifles so he can parade around the courtroom holding them in the air and making wild claims about the firepower these kids would have had when the entered the school. So I don't see him getting them back until there is a resolution in this case; they are physical evidence.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting someone be held accountable for a criminal stealing their guns whether they are locked in a safe or not, or that someones gun could be seized because they were the target of a theft.

 

Quote

 

The second student involved allegedly said he could obtain a weapon from a relative.

"They provided us this information in pretty graphic detail," Middlebury police Chief Tom Hanley told CNN affiliate WPTZ. "As to what the plans were, very specific: date and time, target, where this was going to happen ... very specific. As opposed to the normal kind of idle chatter where there's nothing specific at all."

Working with social workers, counselors and the State's Attorney Office, police had one student taken to Porter Medical Center for psychiatric counseling and treatment.

The firearms from the other student's relatives were seized pending a court hearing, though police say the relative had no knowledge of the students' plans. All of the relatives' firearms were secured in safes, police said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/us/vermont-middlebury-school-shooting-thwarted/index.html

 

 

My kids are grown; so no I don't know what they are doing. I'm not suggesting the parents be held responsible criminally.

Based on what the suspects are apparently telling the Police; they need to be in reform school or a mental facility. This is beyond any remedy by the parents.

Sorry if that sounds cold hearted; but I have zero tolerance for people who threaten or commit violent acts. The fact that someone heard this and came forward, stopping the plan, shouldn't mean these kids get a pass. Quite the opposite; they should be made an example of.

 

[tnvarmint]

As a veteran who suffers from anxiety, depression and PTSD, this law absolutely scares me to death.  I am by no means a threat to my self or my community but all it takes is someone to say otherwise no matter what evidence they have.  Because of my health issues, I would stand little to no chance of a legal defense.  

Keep in mind, I am a veteran.  I have served my country and know a thing or two about respecting firearms.  After leaving the military, I served my community for over 15 years working as a civilian employee for a local police department.  Although I was not sworn, I worked closely with our officers on a daily basis.  I have nothing but love and respect for my country and community and the laws that we must abide by.  I can not fathom breaking those laws especially to do something as crazy as a mass shooting or anything like that.  

All this being said, do you really think the court or liberals would care about any of this?  All they would see is someone dealing with health issues and who has guns.  It doesn't matter to them that I am actually a law abiding citizen much like so many of our current veterans who deal with the same problems that I have to deal with.  

Honestly I am terrified to even make this post but people need to understand there are plenty of veterans and others like myself who are healthy members of our society that contribute to the well being of our citizens on a daily basis but also deal with, dare I say it, "mental health issues."  This does not make myself or anyone else a threat to our communities, regardless of the fact that we are also responsible gun owners.  All it takes is a single person who thinks differently and all of this would go away for myself or any others in similar circumstances.  Again, this scares me greatly.  

As with many shooters, it is very relaxing for me.  I am an accuracy nut, albeit not that great of one.  I love reloading and squeaking every once of accuracy out of my firearms that I am capable of.  It is fun for me and is a family "tradition" that has been passed down to me and I have in turn passed down to my children.  The attention to detail that shooting and even hunting takes is something that takes my mind off of my own personal problems and is very therapeutic for me.  This doesn't even take into account the self defensive rights that I also have as a father, husband and responsible citizen.

Please do not allow a bill like this to be passed in our state!

[E4 No More]

The VA has repeatedly asked me if I have symptoms of PTSD. I refuse to answer each and every time.

[tnvarmint]

I get ya man.  I was the same way for a long time.  About 15 years to be exact.  But some of us do need some help and eventually I felt the need to get that help.  I just hope because I sought out that help that I am not criminalized because of it.  In truth what are we telling our veterans and even civilians who suffer from these things.  Basically damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[chances R]

I don't know, but doesn't this RED FLAG LAW for guns apply equally to rape?  Remember that guy, Brett Kavanaugh?

[E4 No More]

43 minutes ago, tnvarmint said:

I get ya man.  I was the same way for a long time.  About 15 years to be exact.  But some of us do need some help and eventually I felt the need to get that help.  I just hope because I sought out that help that I am not criminalized because of it.  In truth what are we telling our veterans and even civilians who suffer from these things.  Basically damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The problem is it's a broad term being used to diagnose a broad condition that can potentially  be severe. My PTSD is minor compared to other people's PTSD, and it expresses itself accordingly

[DaveTN]

2 hours ago, tnvarmint said:

As a veteran who suffers from anxiety, depression and PTSD, this law absolutely scares me to death.  I am by no means a threat to my self or my community but all it takes is someone to say otherwise no matter what evidence they have.  Because of my health issues, I would stand little to no chance of a legal defense.  

Keep in mind, I am a veteran.  I have served my country and know a thing or two about respecting firearms.  After leaving the military, I served my community for over 15 years working as a civilian employee for a local police department.  Although I was not sworn, I worked closely with our officers on a daily basis.  I have nothing but love and respect for my country and community and the laws that we must abide by.  I can not fathom breaking those laws especially to do something as crazy as a mass shooting or anything like that.  

All this being said, do you really think the court or liberals would care about any of this?  All they would see is someone dealing with health issues and who has guns.  It doesn't matter to them that I am actually a law abiding citizen much like so many of our current veterans who deal with the same problems that I have to deal with.  

Honestly I am terrified to even make this post but people need to understand there are plenty of veterans and others like myself who are healthy members of our society that contribute to the well being of our citizens on a daily basis but also deal with, dare I say it, "mental health issues."  This does not make myself or anyone else a threat to our communities, regardless of the fact that we are also responsible gun owners.  All it takes is a single person who thinks differently and all of this would go away for myself or any others in similar circumstances.  Again, this scares me greatly.  

As with many shooters, it is very relaxing for me.  I am an accuracy nut, albeit not that great of one.  I love reloading and squeaking every once of accuracy out of my firearms that I am capable of.  It is fun for me and is a family "tradition" that has been passed down to me and I have in turn passed down to my children.  The attention to detail that shooting and even hunting takes is something that takes my mind off of my own personal problems and is very therapeutic for me.  This doesn't even take into account the self defensive rights that I also have as a father, husband and responsible citizen.

Please do not allow a bill like this to be passed in our state!

Thank you for your service. 

Again… We need to know what is in this bill. The fear you have of someone complaining to the Police that you are a danger and having your firearms seized without due process is very real right now; PTSD diagnosis or not.

Failure to do something will leave things the way they are now. I say this as a former Police Officer that has been involved in these kinds of cases; not in this state, but I doubt there are any protections here either.

Do I think this legislation will allow for someone’s immediate due process? I doubt it because it’s being written by lawyers. Lawyers expect cops to make slit second decisions; yet they want weeks or months to make decisions. Heck with that; if they have evidence you are a danger to yourself or others they need to detain you for a reasonable amount of time (hours) and present their case to a Judge.

[Dirtshooter]

I don't post a lot but let's face it, there are plenty of gun laws on the books now that aren't being abided by the crooks and thugs. Look at the facts, when I was a kid in the 50' & 60's you didn't hear about folks shooting up schools. The AR's made in the 60's are just like the ones made now, they haven't changed. PEOPLE have changed. Start by putting God and prayer back in schools, whipping a kid's butt if he/she needs it, ban all the stupid computer games that encourages shooting people etc. We don't need any more gun laws, we need to change the idiots that abuse them!

[Wheelgunner]

I have not yet read Representative Dickerson's bill.  Consequently, I do not have a concrete or meaningful opinion on it.

However, I deeply distrust any individual who uses the phrase "gun violence".  It is a cheap catchphrase often used by a segment of the American population that seeks at all costs to do two things: 1) convince us that individual responsibility is somehow inadequate; and 2) convince us that there is such a thing as perfect and constant safety.

My starting point is a firm belief that grown folks should be left alone until their conduct puts others in immediate danger, and that when that happens, it is sufficient to hold the wrongdoing man responsible without looking beyond him.  

It would be unthinkable to enact a law allowing judicial circumscription of a man's freedom of religion because others believe he's off his rocker.  Heller and McDonald are the law; the right is as much an individual right as the right to worship God as each man sees fit. There is no clear or persuasive reason why one constitutionally protected right is due less legal protection than another.

Many in the State House are not attorneys and are not even well-read on legal issues.  I hope Representative Dickerson is aware of the constitutional issues raised by any preemptive curtailment of a Tennessean's rights.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Wheelgunner
Spacing revision.

[bersaguy]

Because I am not all that smart at politics I want to aska  question. When a representative presents a bill for consideration doesn't the Governor have to sign the bill before it becomes law? .......................Just curious??

[Garufa]

1 minute ago, bersaguy said:

Because I am not all that smart at politics I want to aska  question. When a representative presents a bill for consideration doesn't the Governor have to sign the bill before it becomes law? .......................Just curious??

After a bill is introduced it must pass both the house and senate then it is sent to the governor.  He can sign it and it then becomes law or he can veto it and it goes back.  The governor can also choose not to sign a bill once it reaches his desk.  It then becomes law after 10 or so days.

[DaveTN]

4 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Because I am not all that smart at politics I want to aska  question. When a representative presents a bill for consideration doesn't the Governor have to sign the bill before it becomes law? .......................Just curious??

Quote

 

The Governor may sign the bill; veto it; or allow it to become law without his signature. The Governor is allowed ten days (Sundays excepted) after a bill is presented to him to approve or veto the bill; if he takes no action within that period, the bill becomes a law without his signature. The Governor also has constitutional authority to reduce or disapprove any sum of money appropriated in any bill while approving other portions of such bill.

If the Legislature is still in session, the Governor returns all bills and joint resolutions to the house of origin after he has taken action. After adjournment of the General Assembly, bills are returned by the Governor to the Office of the Secretary of State.

If the Governor has vetoed a bill or reduced or disapproved an appropriation within a bill, the veto can be overridden, or reduced or disapproved sums of money restored, by a majority vote of the membership to which each body is entitled under the Constitution.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/about/billtolaw.html

 

 

[bersaguy]

Ok Thanks, now how many people think Lee will approve and sign this bill? I for 1 hope he does not sign it or veto's it or what ever it takes to not let it get made into law but that is just me. One of his campaign promos was safer schools and I think training and arming teachers but not sure. I am not sure that is a bad idea and I am sure there are probably some teachers that probably have CCW permits already. I do know one thing for sure. Something does need to be done to protect our children across the state.............JMHO

[DaveTN]

2 hours ago, bersaguy said:

Ok Thanks, now how many people think Lee will approve and sign this bill? 

There is no bill. He will probably wait to see if there is a bill, and what it says. That’s what I will do.

[xsubsailor]

 It seems as if "Little Marco" is trying to get a similar bill passed on the federal level . I guess we're lucky he's not President.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/7/text

[DaveTN]

12 hours ago, xsubsailor said:

 It seems as if "Little Marco" is trying to get a similar bill passed on the federal level . I guess we're lucky he's not President.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/7/text

It defines due process that is not in place now.

It requires a hearing that day, or the next business day on a protection request. It requires a hearing within 14 days if an order is issued. It requires witnesses to testify under oath.

If firearms have been seized, and then the order is vacated; it directs the court to issue an order to law enforcement agencies to return the firearms.

These protections and requirements (for the accused) are not in place now. What’s the problem with this bill?

[Guest BCR#1]

Here is an update. https://newschannel9.com/news/local/tennessee-bill-would-allow-police-courts-to-remove-a-persons-firearms-and-ammunition

Bill

[RED333]

There are a more few things that scare me about this bill, this is just one.

"If ordered, subjects would have to surrender firearms and ammunition to law enforcement for safekeeping or sell the firearms and ammunition to a licensed dealer."

 

[bersaguy]

4 hours ago, RED333 said:

There are a more few things that scare me about this bill, this is just one.

"If ordered, subjects would have to surrender firearms and ammunition to law enforcement for safekeeping or sell the firearms and ammunition to a licensed dealer."

 

There are so many things about these RED FLAG Bills/Laws that bother me I don't know where to begin!!!!

[RED333]

The reason that scared me so much Doug was the fact you couldn't give your firearms to a family member or friend or sell them to a friend. You had to give them up to a gun shop or the police.