this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
-9 points (40.8% liked)

conservative

932 readers
196 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Tldr: going after guns, not violence. Remember its the tool not the action

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FireTower 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Actual TLDR: -Fund programs to encourage states to adopt red flag & safe storage laws. -Crack down on firearms theft within the common carriers. -Encourage less leeway for FFL errors. -Funding for ballistic analysis studies & a victims of crime fund. -Try to renew undetectable firearms act.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You do realize that red flag laws bypass due process, right?

[–] FireTower 3 points 1 year ago

Re read my comments on this thread and tell me where I said otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] FireTower 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Op being combative aside. The suspension of any rights or takings of any item after a court hearing the subject isn't informed of or entitled to attend absolutely is problematic. And has 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th amendment implications.

[–] PizzaMan 2 points 1 year ago

after a court hearing the subject isn’t informed of or entitled to attend absolutely is problematic.

Which doesn't inherently apply to red flag laws, as they vary significantly from state to state. We ought to have them, with informed/entitled participants.