Marco Rubio pretending to support guns

Earlier this month, the Republican turncoat senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, introduced a bill to push gun confiscations throughout the United States. The Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019, is essentially a version of what Florida put in place that will allow the government to seize your weapons if they deem you are a threat to yourself or public safety.

Rubio teamed up with another turncoat Republican, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, and a handful of other traitors including independent U.S. Sen. Angus King of Maine and U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, to reintroduce the bill which “will dedicate Department of Justice funds to incentivize states to give law enforcement the authority to prevent individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others the ability to purchase or possess firearms, while still providing due process protections.”

In order to make sure states comply, Rubio’s gun confiscation program will modify the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, essentially bribing states into implementing the Florida-style gun control program. To receive federal funding for state and local police agencies, states must have laws allowing courts to issue risk protection orders.

Rubio first unveiled the bill last March after the Parkland shooting. When he introduced the bill earlier this month, Rubio said his proposal would help protect students. 

“A gun violence restraining order is one of the most effective policies we can put in place to prevent another tragedy like Parkland,” Rubio said. “We can help keep our schools and communities safe by empowering law enforcement or family members to use the judicial system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. This idea has already proven successful in states like Florida, and it is my hope that this bill will get other states to do the same thing.”

“Our schools and many other public places are too often the targets of gun violence. We have a duty to do more to prevent this kind of violence. This bipartisan bill gives law enforcement and concerned family members a way to petition state and tribal courts to keep guns away from people who have exhibited serious, documented signs of danger and violence to themselves or others,” said Reed. “Red and blue states alike have been out front on this issue, adopting so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws. Our bipartisan initiative builds on these state solutions that already exist in states like Florida and Rhode Island, and provides incentives to effectively run and improve these important state efforts. It doesn’t force states to act, but encourages states that do. We must come together and do more to prevent gun violence, and passing this bipartisan bill would be a major step in the right direction.”

“Too many families, in too many communities across America, have felt the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence,” said King. “Far too often, we learn after the fact that many tragic mass shootings were committed by individuals who displayed warning signs of emotional or mental distress, and were still able to purchase a gun. These horrific losses could have possibly been prevented — but they weren’t, and that’s simply unacceptable. This isn’t about infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun-owners – it’s about using due process to pursue a proactive approach to save lives by intervening early with those who have shown significant danger to harm themselves or others.”

“Gun violence is a problem that affects far too many communities across the country,” said Collins. “Family members and law enforcement officers are often in the best position to identify when someone poses an immediate threat to themselves or others, but in many cases they are unable to intervene before it is too late. Our bipartisan legislation would provide a way for them to temporarily prevent dangerous individuals from possessing firearms. Several states already have ‘red flag’ laws, which enhance gun safety while retaining important due process protections and preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

This is not a school safety bill; this is another attack on the second amendment by another Republican who we warned would do this!

Of course, Rubio wants you to believe that this is for the good of the country and public safety; after all, you wouldn’t want another school shooting that could have been prevented like in Parkland, right? The problem here is instead of going after actual criminals, the bill is yet another attempt to disarm the public.

In order to seize a person’s firearms, all someone has to do is make a bullshit claim to the police that the person is a danger to the public and the police will then be able to petition the court, beginning the legal process of lawfully stripping that person’s second amendment right to bear arms.

Anyone who becomes the target of such an order will have to surrender all firearms and ammunition to the police and will be unable to purchase new firearms until the order expires or is vacated. 

According to Rubio’s team, here’s what the bill will do:

  • Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice
  • Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.
  • Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including:
    • Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm. roviding a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
      • The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted.
      • Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal.
    • Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
    • Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter.
    • Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order.
    • Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.

What the actual Bill Says:

Again, Rubio is full of shit! According to language in the actual bill, something like having too much to drink could now put you in jeopardy of losing your right to bear arms.

The actual language in Rubio’s bill says judges will consider as relevant evidence:

“(aa) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others;

“(bb) a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months;

“(cc) evidence of a serious mental illness;

“(dd) a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme riskprotection order;

“(ee) whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence;

“(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;

“(gg) the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent;

“(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;

“(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;

“(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and

“(kk) witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court;

NRA Yet Again roles over and Backs Red Flag Gun Control!


This really shouldn’t be a shocker for anyone who reads articles on this site, but the Spineless bastards at the NRA who helped push the bump stock ban late last year, are yet again helping the government push another piece of gun control legislation. Backed with millions of fund-raising dollars from gullible funders who believed they were supporting a firearms rights organizations, the NRA has yet again screwed their members and decided to back these gun confiscation orders.

Late last year, Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, put out a statement endorsing “red flag” gun confiscations: “We need to stop dangerous people before they act,” … “So Congress should provide funding to states to adopt risk protection orders.”

Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have voiced concerns over red flag laws. Late last year, Gun Owners of America put out a statements saying:

“If a person is truly so dangerous that he must be separated from his firearms, it’s illogical to still leave him active in society. Removing firearms does not stop violence.”

Worse yet, gun confiscation orders are suggesting we take away an individual’s constitutional right without probable cause of a crime having been committed — much less conviction of a crime.

It’s absurd to take away a Constitutional right by predicting future action. What in the Bill of Rights is so fragile that a judge can remove it by playing “thought police,” claiming that you might misuse it in the future?”

Order by: 
Per page:
  • There are no comments yet
0 votes