I hope people are listening to Trumps meeting with the Senators and Congressman on gun control. He is very much in the gun control corner. The only thing slightly on the pro gun side is wanting to arm teachers. Everything else is anti gun and gun control. By the way the Republican Senators are talking they are all for it too. If they agree on the Manchin Toomey bill we will have universal gun registration.

We?
You have a mouse in your pocket?
I ain't registering jack-mf-chit...ever.
I'll sell my guns first.

Still listening and Trump just said he wants gun registration. This is why I didn't vote for him in the primary. I didn't trust him on this issue and now my fears are coming true.

When he was crowing about being one of 5 in new yak to have a concealed carry, was my red flag.

I watched the whole thing. We are SOOOO screwed.

So, do you think Jeb Bush would be better? Hillary?

I’m going to wait until something appears to be about to happen before I get pissed. Trump says a lot of dumb schit and it appears to be like magic. It sort of weaves a spell over people. It is almost like a Jedi kind trick and then the opposite of what he said happens.

That sumbiotch would sign a full AWB so fast it would make our heads swim.

JAH,
Maybe you ought to email your thoughts to the Whitehouse after you are done here. Nothing has been signed into legislation and fyi, Trump met with the NRA this past Sunday.
So get a grip and ease off the ledge.

I don’t think so, but I guess we’ll see.

Anybody got a link?

Already sold all mine.

If he wants to see just how fast he can lose everyone that has had his back... he just needs to this talk up.

No doubt if he isn't re-elected he'll have to get a job to make ends meet.

And as those of you spassing out about what he is saying, I’m not saying that you are wrong. But what can we do about it at this particular moment? Hillary would have already signed an AWB.

I’m hoping that like DACA he isnsuckering the Dems into bringing a completely unreasonable bill to the table. But, he’ll, I don’t know. I just don’t.

Another one the ledge - lot of early jumpers here.

funny I did too

and stay outta my basement

Are you shi!!ing me???

"Trump expressed a willingness to be open to proposals from Democrats that Republicans usually reject outright, telling Feinstein he would review her assault weapons ban legislation."

Sure, put something together. I’ll look it over.

I just got back from selling my last 22...and renting a bobcat.

He received her "documentation letter" on the benefits of the AWB 1994-2004. Another jumper.

Trump just being Trump! He's 3 steps ahead of the Dims. Cool your jets!

I am presuming "bump stocks" are gone and there will be a change in the age of purchase. Say - to all you jumpers - you better be paying attention to what your state legislators are doing! It'll be a lot easier for them to change state law.

Wow.. just... wow.

Di Fi is trying to cement her legacy with another AWB in the sunset of her all too long 40+ year career.

Straight, unadulterated business-speak that means nothing, but suckers people into thinking he may be leaning their way.

Well, had Cruz been the nominee, Hillary and her Democratic Congress would be celebrating a new AWB today.

So if the NRA says they are for raising the age limits to 21, and cops should confiscate weapons from people they believe are mentally unstable, it would just be a business diversion tactic?

Trump is shrewd and has learned the process of the swamp a lot quicker than anyone before him. He'll negotiate, he'll "consider", he'll bargain, and in the end he'll get exactly what he wants.
He's already shown how worthless the career politicians are. Drain the swamp!!!!

Whatever he does, he'd better pull a feather out of his hat PDQ.

I imagine his approval ratings dropped 20% after that televised meeting today.

Midterms are in full swing too....

There were some posters on here, who had one time, would gladly have done to Trump what Monica did to Bill. I wonder what they think about this.

You have a lot more faith in him that I do.

Me too.

Too funny. He's playing the demoncraps and you're all falling for it. Don't you know by now, he's a business man first and not a politician. By the time they figure out what's going on the deal is done. That's why we win so much. He told Feinstein he'd look at her assault weapon stuff but when she wanted an audience he told her to do that with her "colleagues". CCW reciprocity may be in a separate bill but not bundled. I'd like to see that but on the heels of this last school shooting it's a bridge too far. Calm down. Be still and know that he is Trump. lol

So, you're saying he's so scared of the anti-gun lobby that he's having to troll his own base out of fear of Soros/Everytown/Feinstein?

Didn't know he was in such a weak position. With NRA and a majority in Senate and House, seems he could just stand up and say he's standing for the Constitution.

I don’t trust any of them. But what are you going to do? All you can do right now is call and write your congressmen and tell them to hold firm. As long as they do that, there is little chance anything makes it out of the House. And of course, if after all that your ass is still chapped over this, in 2020 you can vote for Oprah.

He has to make them feel like he's listening to the other side......that's what he does.....and has done it before. Actions and talking are two different things.

Much like a ventriloquist.

You are all acting like something has already been written, passed, and signed into law.

Let's just wait and see what transpires, okay?

But, but, we must do something---

Bull!!!

I watched the full show, looks like we're going to get screwed BIG time, and he'll sign the bill.

Quick, boycott Dick AND Don

We'll see.

I know there's many a slip twixt a cup and a lip. But what he said today doesn't give me warm fuzzies.

Watched some of that crap, saw Feinstien pass him a paper for Assualt weapons ban--

Too damm many "republicans" agreeing to gun control

Yep Feinstien asked him about an AR ban, he said work with the other side...and "I'll sign it", and he wants it VERY strong on background checks.

If Trump does half of what he seemed agreeable to today, our President will have a different name in less than 3 years.

Yup, Joe Biden

Hey Rick, we need a "Jumpers Forum".

You boys will be the jumpers if trump sells us out

But they won't be able to see where to land with egg smeared all over their faces.

You must smoke a lot of weed.

He's a liberal; its a mental disorder.

Jebs dad signed a ban on importing them in 89.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second,"

LINK

What a f'n retard.

trump is just making sure the dems are all in a line and bent over. then he'll get a running start and ferk up there little plan.

He's Einstein smart. I wonder why he didn't do better in school?

If it saves just one child.

🤣

No. I'm not saying that. You appear to be. You must have quite a comprehension problem going on. Hope you can get it sorted out.

I find it disturbing that all of "answers" are to take someone's guns...

Take somone's guns? Really? And leave them out on the street to steal a dump truck, or fill 2 5gal gas cans and buy a lighter...


Lock the fuggers UP, if they are so damn dangerous!

President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain dangerous individuals, even if it violates due process rights.

"I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time," Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families should have tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.

"Allow due process so no one's rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons," Pence said.

Trump met with lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss gun laws and school safety in the aftermath of a Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 people dead.

The alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was able to legally purchase the AR-15 used in the shooting despite numerous calls to law enforcement about his violent behavior.

Post it all. He's just talking about for crazy people like about half of you suddenly appear to be.

How did Trump go from banning sales of AR's till 21 to Universal Registration?

Yeah, just crazy people, like half of us appear to be.

That's my point. When the govt gets to decide who's crazy do you think they might include the angry patriots that are MAD AS HELL that he isn't holding up the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Mom, is that you?

"But they are just words". "He won't actually do anything"

One thing I've learned about Trump is, you need to watch what he does, not what he says. And I sure hope that holds true here.

and just where do you think we would be were hillary sitting in the oval office?

The same place we were with Obama after Sandy Hook?

Because he is not, and had never been a conservative not a gun rights advocate.

Gun companies need another stimulus right about now.

So, who do we boycott?

Al Franken

^^^^

This is the way things go so the Dems "THINK" they are getting their way but will not.

So they will go Democrat?

Gonna get interesting for sure. Congress has faced extreme heat for opposing Trump. Now he wants to diminish the 2nd Amendment. How many will suck up? Remember...he did say NYC was the greatest place on earth.

A hard line is a hard line.

If we give a fraction of an inch based on this shooting, and all the emotions and propaganda afterwards, and it works.... You can bet there will be another one, and another one...

We should have learned the hard lesson by now of giving ground on the 2nd Amendment based on an incident and the emotional fallout.

I think that every single one of us gun owning and loving Americans have been guilty of placing too much confidence in our government, and our politicians, and our SCOTUS, and the NRA, to forever and always uphold our Second Amendment rights..........while at the same time, somewhat ignoring the reactions to these mass shootings.

Now, before some of you get your panties in a wad, hear me out. I think the writing has been on the wall for a long time, that some day, there would be stricter gun controls passed, and frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened before now. We are a nation divided along many lines, and the Second Amendment is just one of them. The liberals have done a much better job than we have in promoting their anti-gun agenda. We have simply sat behind what we perceive to be our unalienable rights guaranteed us by the Second Amendment......while we have ignored, to some extent, what the other side has been doing.

Most politicians blow with the wind, and Trump is no different. What he says, and what he does, are often two different things......and he talks a lot. I have no problem with some things that have been suggested, ban on bump stocks, expanded background checks, and I don't mind taking a closer look at the mental cases.....as should have been done in the case of Nickolas Cruz.

But, I fear that as gun owners who don't want any more forms of gun control, we are in a minority, and up against politicians who aren't as strong on the Second as they once were. Time will soon tell.

Do t worry the bill will have funding for the wall, DACA kids that Democrats will not like at all and some gun legislation.. it will lose steam because the dems will my roll the DACA kids under the bus. They sure in the hell aren’t going to support funding the wall..

He handed them the farm on DACA and they still screwed it up.

I don't think so. Hopefully, people will realize that their own representatives are more important than ever. His endorsement may not help though.

You must be a crazy MFer if you think there's anything wrong with that.

That fuggin' John Cornyn is a damn turncoat.

He needs primaried for sure.

Any Trump voter who pitched me [bleep] about voting for Obama's first term can EAT MY ASS.

Especially you, Scott.

My GOD you guys are gullible. This clown spun his fairy tales and you lapped it up.

But don't worry. He'll be gone soon.

NO, the one that would give you whiplash is Hillary.... although I don't know if trump would sign the bill, but someone did once in 94.... and it did no damn good back then either.

Damn Jeff, I do believe you have not gotten any smarter over the years. Who did you vote for this go round?

Go play with yourself in your own little jackoff thread and let the grown men talk here.

Off with you!

Shoo!

Have you considered that the reason we are where we are at is because of your hero zero and his 8 years of pure unConstitutional BS that cut this country in half and fed our enemies our American money? Trump has been nothing but dealing with the aftermath of Obamas divisiveness and treasonous policies for a year now! Govt is polluted with trash left over from your hero's terms in office. The crazy people on the left have been emboldened by the lawlessness embraced by Obama the Tyrant. The right is on mop up detail. We may never recover from the damage.

Plus, Hillary would have slaughtered this country by now had she been elected.

Why the request, has Paddler had his fill?

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are.

Trump was the only choice given the two. However, understand to most in the "swamp" the Constitution comes second to getting re-elected. The wind blows hard enough and they will bend. Not sure if this shooting will be the one, but if not then the next may be. It keeps up and something is coming downwind and they could care less about the Constitution.

5 million voting NRA members is slowly becoming a joke to them. 10-15 million would make them pay attention. Hunting license sales are down, our influence is dwindling and obviously most gun owners don't belong to the NRA.

Politicians for the most part will piss on the Constitution to get re-elected. You give them too much credit to keep spouting "shall not be infringed" and expect them to care about getting it right. The only hope is the Supreme Court, because they will vote against the 2nd then let the SC court decide. If they lose, their excuse will be "I tried."

My prediction will be a push on mag capacity. I wouldn't be surprised if 3 is the number.

We will lose more gun rights under this Republican messiah than we lost under 8 years of Obama..... And his supporters will cheer him on every step of the way.

Bite your tongue!

Under a Clinton Rule you would have lost ALL YOUR GUNS!!!

That's a pretty [bleep] litmus for freedom.

Like we did after Sandy Hook?

Hey "jumper" you must have a crystal ball I guess. So Trump is now a dictator? You'd better go do some reading about how laws are made. I assume you've called your Congressman, emailed your state legislators and sent the NRA some money?

Now here is a guy who has no clue. Must have lost his moderator status on HuffPo. But he is good for an occasional laugh as even morons have 1st Amendment rights.

The battlefield is getting closer.

He barely got back in last time.

If he runs again it will be even tougher for him.

If he actually said that, that's pretty damning. It shows zero respect for the rule of law and core principles of American jurisprudence.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, and Fifth Guarantee in our Bill of Rights. Seems pretty clear to me. What part doesn't he understand? It nowhere states that the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights are subject to nullification in case a mass murder occurs.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-full-transcript-atlanta-592039

So, a person is entitled to a preliminary hearing or grand jury indictment before they can be arrested?

Warrants constitute due process for arrest. Arrests under certain circumstances prior to due process have been part of American jurisprudence from the beginning, e.g., you see someone commit a felony. Trump, it would seem, is talking about backing up the police van to your house and confiscating your firearms based on someone believing you're unstable, then arranging for a hearing on the matter at some later date. That doesn't equate to an arrest based on probable cause. That's a taking without due process. Apples and oranges.

Trump's proposal sounds more like civil forfieture and likely has the same potential for abuse. My thoughts are that Trump will walk this proposal back due the brewing backlash of a storm on the horizon. The momentum to pass something is here, but I don't believe this is it.

An arrest can be made upon probable cause, without waiting for a warrant. If a LEO has probable cause that a crime has been committed, he can make the arrest, and comport with the principles of due process.

The LEO don't hafta get a warrant, nor anybody's permission, and it's completely constitutional.

And, that ain't to take your guns, it's to take your whole Hawkeye ta jail.

And keep ya there.

Even without bail, for a period of time. Or even tellin ya why you're locked up.

And it's constitutional, according to the Superme Court, *right now*. This very minute.

So, the Fifth Amend can be constitutionally complied with, by arrestin some Hawkeye that desperately needs it, upon probable cause.

Immediately.

Constitutionally.

You, it would seem, would let a Cruz shoot up a school, while in a faraway court, somebody mulls over whether or not ta stop him.

Your analysis is absurd. First you restate what I already said, then suggest it's the same as backing up a police van to someone's house and taking their stuff based on someone's arbitrary judgment of their mental state. It's not. You can pretend apples are oranges to your heart's content, though.

It's gettin pretty bad, when *you* don't even know what *you* posted.

You are bitchin cause you don't believe government action, without prior due process, in seizing someone's firearms, comports with the constitution.

I've pointed out that government can, right now and constitutionally, seize your whole person, upon probable cause and without prior due process.

Obviously, if your entire person can be seized, your property, a lesser interest, can also be seized, upon probable cause.

To break it down even further, if a LEO has probable cause that your firearm was used in the commission of a crime, they can seize that firearm from you, right that instant.

Without a warrant or court process.

And it's constitutional.

Right now.

I've already disposed of this same nonsense. Reread my prior post.

You're too stupid to argue with.

Reread your first grade primer.

Trump did say all of the things you guys are worried about. It was really hard to watch.

But the one consistent thing about Trump is that he is easily walked back from positions like this (anti-guns) once it is explained to him how it will hurt him with his base. His campaign was given 30 million dollars from the NRA and once he does the math on this he isn't going to follow though on any of this anti-gun nonsense he spewed in that meeting.

It sounded really bad, but nothing will change. Or at least he won't be the cause of any change that happens.

What was the high point of not only Obama's first but also second term when it comes the 2nd-remember now, he would have if he could have-the economy. i.e. the market and getting more people working, individual savings, health care? Perhaps 2014 when you could legally grow weed in Oregon. Yea that has to be it.

I've written the White House 3 times. My congressman and Senators twice. I have also written Senators Cruz, and Paul to get someone to educate the President and I have written Toomey to call him out for the lie he told the President today. What have you done?

What he is talking about is an emergency ex parte protective order. An affidavit containing certain facts that must meet certain minimum standards and a petition for the order is presented ex parte to the judge. If he grants the order, then the firearms would be confiscated and a hearing MUST be held within fourteen days to determine if the protective order will be extended and granted from that point. That is how it works.

Cordin to The Real Browneye, that's unconstitutional.

Fu-Butt-head, again, apples and oranges. Why can't you get this? What's the mental block you're experiencing?

Of course it's lawful to arrest someone who presents as a danger to himself or others, prior to the actual hearing. That's not the same as collecting someone's firearms prior to a hearing based on someone's arbitrary judgment about his stability. Arrest based on probable cause isn't the same thing as what Trump seemed to be referring to (based on the quote I was commenting on), i.e., simple confiscation followed by due process later.

If it's constitutional to arrest a person, based upon probable cause, it's constitutional to arrest their firearms, based upon probable cause.

You're trying to BS your way outta your stupid statements by imputing your BS interpretation of what President Trump "seemed to be saying".

Then, you compound the BS by throwin in: "based on someone's arbitrary judgment". That's neither been stated nor implied anywhere.

The problem is, you're believing what you *think*. Don't ever do that.

It is now, and has been for decades, legal to seize a person's property, based upon probable cause.

Simple confiscation, based upon probable cause, followed by due process later.

It's the way it is now, and the way it's gonna be in the future.

The notion of backing up the police van and collecting Fu-Butt-Head's guns because someone at the police station didn't like his posts on the Fire isn't what most of us Trump supporters expected to hear him advocate. If that's what you advocate, just come out and say so.

I'm hoping he didn't mean what it sounds like he meant.

California, Connecticut, Indiana Washington, Oregon..., already have statutes allowing temporary seizure of weapons
if a judge deems the person a threat to themselves and/or others.

example, Oregon:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719

in brief...

a judge will consider the following forms of evidence:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request
A history of suicide attempts or threats, or violence against others
A history of attempted, threatened, or actual use of physical force against others
Any previous convictions for: misdemeanor violence, stalking, domestic violence, driving under the influence, animal cruelty
Evidence of recent illicit drug abuse
Previous reckless or illegal use, brandishing or display of a deadly weapon
Evidence of having acquired or attempted to acquire a deadly weapon within the past six months

If the request is successful, the judge issues the order, which applies for one year. The subject of the order has 24 hours to hand in any firearms
or gun license they may possess, either to a law enforcement agent or licensed gun dealer. Law enforcement officials are also authorized to
confiscate such firearms. For the next twelve months, the subject of the order cannot legally buy, possess, or attempt to buy or possess any firearm.
They have 30 days in which to apply for a hearing to overturn the order, and such a hearing must take place within 21 days of their request.

2011 Connecticut Code:

Title 29 Public Safety and State Police
Chapter 529 Division of State Police
Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others.

Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others. (a) Upon complaint on oath by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state's attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms. Such state's attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state's attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the seized firearms should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state. At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it may order that the firearm or firearms seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the seized firearm or firearms to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person's legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person's legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms to the transferee.

(P.A. 99-212, S. 18.)

Subsec. (d):

No clear and convincing evidence defendant posed a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or others. 50 CS 246.

FOX News just now reported that Trump will take Executive Action today to:

1. Expand DHS Test Program to prevent school violence
2. Require Fixes to FBI Tipster Program
3. Take Weapons from someone who threatens an attack on schools
4. Grants for Training for Schools so they can Train & Arm School Faculty

I’m fine with that.

Hopefully you're right. The problem is that plenty in congress are eager to support the President's wishes. If 50% of the Republicans and 95% of the Democrats do what he asks, where are we?

When are you nevertrumpers gonna learn?

Hold out baits to entice the enemy, feign disorder, and crush him. - Sun Tzu

We'll see. I hope you are right.

Crush him with what? DJT is NOT Sun Tzu