Graham Announces Gun Confiscation ‘Red Flag’ Legislation Backed By Trump |
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he plans to introduce a bipartisan “red flag” gun confiscation bill that will have President Donald Trump’s support.
Graham announced he had reached a deal with Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal to create a federal grant program to help states establish “red flag” laws, or laws that facilitate gun confiscation when a threat is detected, according to a statement.
“I have reached an agreement with Senator Blumenthal to create a federal grant program to assist and encourage states to adopt ‘Red Flag’ Protection Order laws to timely intervene in situations where there is an imminent threat of violence,” the South Carolina senator said.
Read more on Red Flag / Extreme Risk Protection Orders.https://t.co/vkV5kRcUQv
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) August 4, 2019
Graham, the Senate Judiciary chairman, also indicated that his legislation has Trump’s support. “I spoke with the President this morning about this proposal and he seems very supportive,” he said.
Graham’s announcement came shortly after Trump addressed the nation regarding the shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, this weekend that killed more than 30.
“Red flag” laws, also known as gun confiscation orders, are designed to enable people to report the authorities when someone appears to be a threat, so that their firearms can be confiscated for a term.
No details of Graham’s planned legislation were released. Graham’s office did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Gun rights groups say red flag laws lead to confiscation without due process.
“It is frustrating to see President Donald Trump’s continued support for so-called Red Flag laws. These Red Flag laws, properly known as Gun Confiscation Orders, are incompatible with actual due process and allow for the confiscation of firearms from innocent Americans,” Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America vice president, told the DCNF.
Graham promises to introduce the legislation shortly, adding that he hopes “that my Republican and Democratic colleagues will join us to finally move forward in the effort to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
Keep them out of the hands of dangerous people, and who is to say someone is dangerous ? The police are dangerous!
Any Infringement on the 2nd Amendment is unconventional, and antiamerican period. No amount of sugarcoating will change the fact that in all the states who have instituted red flag laws, the Democrats used that as a springboard to push for more restrictions.
The war on alcohol , war on poverty , the war on racism , the war on drugs , war on organized crime etc. have all been so successful that now our officials have so much experience fighting such social issues their war against the 2nd Amendment should easily prevent homicidal maniacs from committing murders !
Trust your government representatives to fix anything …examples include elections , court rulings , bids. ….name some more y’all .
Red Flag laws have not been proven effective, while suicide rates have dropped slightly, gun crimes (with illegally obtained firearms) are at all time highs.
It will be weaponized 3 minutes after enacted.
Somebody wants to invade your home?
Red flag ’em the week before.
Piss somebody off on the internet?
They Red Flag you.
I can’t see how this denial of due process survives a Constitutional test.
Looks like I won’t be voting for Graham in the up coming elections
Just last week, a man in Florida had his firearms confiscated simply because he had the same name as a criminal. That’s right. A man was stripped of his Second Amendment right…because the police failed to differentiate a law-abiding citizen with a thug.
There go the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and/or 7th, 8th and 10th Amendments… great idea.
A really bad move. As I see it, if someone is angry at another person, for any matter, they could claim the person they are angry with is a ‘threat’. Once the accusation is made, the accused has to go to court to prove their innocence, and litigation can be extremely costly. How in the world is that constitutional???
And if our President gets to have a say in this, he may also think ….and this is the way it begins….that kind of law wpis Always twisted and used in an opposite and overbearing,y wrong way tho completely unintended from first padding. No law of this kind is ever kept within strict confines.