The (certainly unconstitutional) so-called Red Flag Laws that are popping up around the country--why would the gun-grabbers
not want to take firearms away from criminal gangs rather than from otherwise law abiding citizens?
House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to
pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that
authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.
California will soon allow teachers, neighbors, and co-workers to identify "dangerous individuals", who will then have their 2nd Amendment right removed without due process. But let's continue.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during
a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue
extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an
amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists
as a gang member.
“The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in
the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado
Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is
quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against
anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause
to include that individual in the database.”
Democrats objected with reasons that sounded very familiar to Republicans...
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California offered to support the
amendment if Buck agreed to include those listed “individuals affiliated
with white nationalism.”
Buck agreed, but he said the language should include “any type of supremacy.”
“Let’s add Cosa Nostra to this,” Buck added.
The amendment ultimately failed 11-21, but not before the
top Republican on the panel, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, called out
Democrats for their hypocrisy. link
Democrats? Hypocrites? Say it isn't so.
No comments:
Post a Comment