‘Red Flag’ Laws At Night, Convenient Delight — ‘Red Flag’ Laws At Morning, Take Warning
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado) is among 11 co-sponsors of a proposed bill that would allocate $50 million in grants to states that allow judges to seize guns and ammunition from people deemed to be in the midst of mental health crises.
HR 5717 would allow states to receive grants for law enforcement training if their red flag law meets certain requirements. The measure is called the Jake Laird Act, named after an Indiana police officer killed in 2004 by a man who was mentally ill, and the measure is modeled after Indiana’s red flag law, which has been in place since 2005.
Under the bill, law enforcement would only be able to seek a court order if someone poses an “imminent risk” of harming themselves or others, has gone off their normal mental health medication, or has shown violent or emotionally unstable behavior, according to the measure.
The measure would allow for a person’s weapons and ammo to be seized without a warrant. Law enforcement officers seizing the weapons would have to be prepared to file all the court paperwork within 48 hours of the seizure.
Nine states currently have red flag laws, and several others discussed passing such a law this year.
Coffman told the Associated Press that the bill addresses due process concerns and is respectful of the Second Amendment. Proponents in Congress say the measure would provide the framework for states that currently don’t have red flag laws.
“Under the Red Flag law, law enforcement will have the tools necessary to step in and remove firearms and defuse a potential tragedy before it happens,” Coffman told the AP.
It all sounds so sensible, of course.
That is what is so scary about it.
For more, go to:
HOW TO DEAL WITH DICK’S
Firearms Manufacturers Boycott Retailer After It Hires Gun Control Lobbyists
O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc., the parent company of Mossberg guns, announced on May 9 that it will discontinue business with the Dick’s Sporting Goods after the retailer reportedly hired three lobbyists in its push for gun control.
“It has come to our attention that Dick’s Sporting Goods recently hired lobbyists on Capitol Hill to promote additional gun control,” said Iver Mossberg, Mossberg CEO. “Make no mistake, Mossberg is a staunch supporter of the U.S. Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, and we fully disagree with Dick’s Sporting Goods’ recent anti-Second Amendment actions.”
Also on May 9, MKS Supply LLC, distributor of Hi-Point Firearms and Inland Manufacturing, also said it was ending its relationship with Dick’s.
“We believe that refusing to sell long guns to adults under age 21 while many young adults in our military are not similarly restricted is wrong,” said MKS Supply President Charles Brown. “We believe that villainizing modern sporting rifles in response to pressure from uninformed, anti-gun voices is wrong. We believe that hiring lobbyists to oppose American citizens’ freedoms secured by the Second Amendment is wrong.”
Springfield Armory has also criticized Dick’s for hiring lobbyists following the removal from and destruction of firearms at stores.
“Their position runs counter to what we stand for as a company,” Springfield Armory wrote in a Facebook post. “At Springfield Armory, we believe in the rights and principles fought for and secured by American patriots and our founding forefathers, without question. We will not accept Dick’s Sporting Goods’ continued attempts to deny Second Amendment freedoms to our fellow Americans.”
For more, go to:
Oklahoma’s Fallin Violates First American Commandment: Don’t Veto The Constitution
On the same day Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill allowing for the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, she vetoed a ‘constitutional carry’ gun bill that would have allowed people to carry a weapon without a permit.
In a statement released after the Oklahoma Senate adopted SB 1212, Fallin said on May 11 that she supports the Second Amendment and owns firearms herself, but was concerned, apparently, that other people might own firearms.
Which, apparently, is “unsafe.”
“Oklahomans believe that law-abiding individuals should be able to defend themselves,” Fallin said. “I believe the firearms requirement we currently have in state law are few and reasonable. Senate Bill 1212 eliminates the training requirements for persons carrying a firearm in Oklahoma. It reduces the level of the background check necessary to carry a gun. SB 1212 eliminates the current ability of Oklahoma law enforcement to distinguish between those carrying guns who have been trained and vetted, and those who have not.”
SB 1212, introduced by Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, passed the Senate by a vote of 33-9. It passed the House in a 59-28 vote on April 25. The bill would “allow” law-abiding Oklahomans to carry a loaded, concealed handgun without a permit in most public places.
The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation had expressed concerns that the bill would impact “the safety and security” of Oklahomans.
The Oklahoma Second Amendment Association — OK2A — strongly supported the measure. The association has proposed permit-less carry since 2010 in one form or another, OK2A President Don Spencer told The Tulsa World.
“She had a great opportunity to defend our liberty and leave a wonderful legacy and she chose not to,” Spencer said.
For more, go to:
IN THE COURTS
NRA Sues New York After New York Sues Its Insurance Provider After NRA Sues Its Insurance Provider
The National Rifle Association is suing New York’s insurance regulator and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, alleging the state overstepped its regulatory mandate through its investigation into the NRA-branded Carry Guard insurance program, which the NRA is suing for breach of contract because New York’s investigation disqualified it from being an insurance provider in New York.
It all makes sense for attorneys on the clock.
For the rest of us, here goes: The NRA filed a May 11 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York that maintains the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) overstepped its regulatory authority through its investigation into LockCarry Guard’s insurance program.
The lawsuit claims the DFS’s investigation encourage institutions to manage reputational risk that may be posed by dealing with gun promotion organizations.
The NRA maintains that a press release issued by Cuomo includes a statement from Vullo urging insurance companies and banks to discontinue their arrangements with the NRA. The complaint states that these moves by DFS have led several insurance companies to sever relationships with the NRA and to cancel insurance policies of New York customers.
“Political differences aside, our client believes the tactics employed by these public officials are aimed to deprive the NRA of its First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and in defense of the Second Amendment,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to the NRA, in a statement. “We believe these actions are outside the authority of DFS and fail to honor the principles which require public officials to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.”
On May 4, the NRA sued insurance broker Lockton Cos, alleging the firm breached its contract to administer an insurance program after it was, essentially, banned from doing so in New York and, likely, everywhere else soon.
The NRA suit came two days after Lockton agreed to pay a $7 million fine imposed by New York regulators for violating state law.
Missouri-based Lockton told New York officials it would cancel the 680 Carry Guard policies it sold over the past year to New Yorkers.
The company announced in February that it would stop providing brokerage services for all NRA-endorsed insurance programs.
Lockton advertises Carry Guard as the nation’s “most complete self-defense membership program” on its website, referring to its plan as “comprehensive personal firearms liability insurance.”
New York regulators said the insurance unlawfully offered protection for certain acts of intentional wrongdoing and improperly provided coverage for acts of self-defense.
For more, go to: