The graph above being used by Democrats talking points is a bit disingenuous. Firearms would be removed BEFORE any judge hears the matter or orders such action to be undertaken. When you craft questions like "judge finds dangerous" of course most support that but fact remains the proposals are about the removal first without due process.
Senate Bill 240:
SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Firearms; removal from persons posing substantial risk; penalties. Creates a procedure by which any attorney for the Commonwealth or any law-enforcement officer may apply to a general district court, circuit court, or juvenile and domestic relations district court judge or magistrate for an emergency substantial risk order to prohibit a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm. If an emergency substantial risk order is issued, a judge or magistrate may issue a search warrant to remove firearms from such person. An emergency substantial risk order shall expire on the fourteenth day following issuance of the order. The bill requires a court hearing in the circuit court for the jurisdiction where the order was issued within 14 days from issuance of an emergency substantial risk order to determine whether a substantial risk order should be issued. Seized firearms shall be retained by a law-enforcement agency for the duration of an emergency substantial risk order or a substantial risk order or, for a substantial risk order and with court approval, may be transferred to a third party 21 years of age or older chosen by the person from whom they were seized. The bill allows the complainant of the original warrant to file a motion for a hearing to extend the substantial risk order prior to its expiration. The court may extend the substantial risk order for a period not longer than 180 days. The bill provides that persons who are subject to a substantial risk order, until such order has been dissolved by a court, are guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor for purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm; are disqualified from having a concealed handgun permit; and may not be employed by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill also provides that a person who transfers a firearm to a person he knows has been served with a warrant or who is the subject of a substantial risk order is guilty of a Class 4 felony. The bill creates a computerized substantial risk order registry for the entry of orders issued pursuant to provisions in the bill
Red Flag laws as we have covered before here: https://conservativestateus.blogspot.com/2019/12/red-flag-laws-new-front-on-guns.html
Some Republicans are in support of these measures and all conservatives in Virginia should be concerned with these developments.
State Senator Tommy Norment (R), Minority Leader of GOP appears willing to endorse these measures along with State Senator Hanger (R-24):
https://conservativestateus.blogspot.com/2020/01/tommy-norment-r-betrayal-of-trust.html
Important to begin to support those voices in the Assembly that are vocal supporters of the Second Amendment and oppose such red flag proposals as part of any consideration of "public safety" that does not involve addressing criminals with guns and gun violence at the hands of illegal aliens and criminals who have bee stripped of the right to possess firearms but still have them in their hands and commit more crime.
Senator Amanda Freeman Chase has been a strident advocate of the Constitution and has been engaged in opposition long before the election last November. Chase warned Virginians what was coming.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/999287823791649/
********************************************************************************************
Earn Free Crypto with Crypto Earn
Simply Join Coinbase and Take Free Courses and Earn. Simple
https://tinyurl.com/sn7kggx
No comments:
Post a Comment