Jake Laird Act Introduced in US House of Representatives

[penname]

I have the misfortune of being “represented” by Jeff Fortenberry in the US House of Representatives. He just proudly posted the following on Facebook:

“I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Jake Laird Act. This is legislation that allows firearms to be removed from high-risk individuals, while also providing due process to ensure Second Amendment rights are protected.”

I can’t find a copy of this act on the House web site yet but did find this article online with more details.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/09/michigan-red-flag-gun-bill/34731175/

According to the article the act would allow for warrantless seizures but give the officer 48 hours to file with a court and requires a hearing to file for a hearing within 21 days. No details on what criteria an officer must use to justify the warrantless seizure or what happens if the hearing is delayed beyond 21 days. Due process?

I wish any other Republican would run against Fortenberry. He was the only choice on the primary ballet so I left that section blank. Guess I’ll have to research the Democratic candidates before the real election.

[Jito463]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-florida-school-shooting-deutch-federal-gun-removal-20180509-story.html

According to the above, the law is to encourage states to implement laws similar to Florida.  So I suppose the trick is that we need to keep pressure on our local representatives not to fall for this farce of a bill.  I found this part of the article particularly interesting.

Since the law took effect, Broward leads the state in issuance of such orders. “Already in Florida, dozens of incidents now have taken place where law enforcement has used that law to take guns away from people who could do harm who posed a threat to themselves or to their community,” said U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch, a Democrat whose district includes Stoneman Douglas High.

So, they've gone from not doing their jobs - which led to the Parkland shooter being able to legally buy his guns - to suddenly taking the guns of dozens of people (34 separate requests, nearly 3x as many as Miami-Dade, Tampa and Orlando counties combined).

[penname]

https://susanwbrooks.house.gov/hr-5717-the-jake-laird-act-of-2018-one-page-summary

H.R. 5717, the Jake Laird Act of 2018, One Page Summary
Congresswoman Susan W. Brooks (IN-05), Congressman Ted Deutch (FL-22), Congressman Fred Upton (MI-6), and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-12)

Provides grants to encourage states to adopt laws, that require both due process and probable cause, enabling local law enforcement to seize and retain firearms from individuals who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others.

To be eligible for grants states must have a law in force that is substantially similar to the following provisions:

A state or local court may issue warrants for non-federal law enforcement to seize firearms from a person who has been determined by a court to be dangerous.
A person is dangerous if they:
Present an imminent risk of injuring himself/herself, another individual
OR
May present a risk of injuring himself/herself, another individual AND one or more of the following:
Has a mental illness that is controlled by medication, but the individual has demonstrated a pattern of not voluntarily taking the medication.
Is subject to documented evidence that would give reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
Poses a significant danger of personal injury to their self or others by possessing a firearm
Firearm has the same meaning as given in US Code Title 18, Section 921.
Law enforcement may seize a firearm without a warrant if they determine by probable cause that an individual is dangerous.  Law enforcement is required to file a return with the proper court and information about the seizure within 48 hours.
 
Within 21 days of a seizure the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the individual is dangerous.
 
If the individual is found to be dangerous by the court, by clear and convincing evidence, the law enforcement agency shall be ordered to retain the firearms seized, revoke the individual’s license(s) to carry a firearm, and enter an order restraining the individual from acquiring a firearm.
Firearms that do not belong to the individual shall be returned to their proper owner.
An individual may request that the firearms be sold and the proceeds given to them in accordance with local law.
 
If the individual is not determined to be dangerous, their firearms shall be returned to them.
 
180 days after an individual is found to be dangerous by the court, an individual may petition the court to return the seized firearms. The court shall return the firearms if the individual proves they are not dangerous by preponderance of the evidence.
If this petition by the individual is denied, they may file another petition for the return of the firearms 180 days after the last previous denial.
Nothing prevents a court from setting its own hearing to determine dangerousness sooner than the 180-day limit placed on the individual.
 
If an order preventing an individual from possessing firearms is still in effect 5 years after it was ordered, local law enforcement may be ordered to destroy the seized firearms.

[Nettles]

So I guess we’re just admitting now that we’re going to continue ignoring the provisions of the law for disarming people with violent histories, and focusing on disarming people with violent futures, instead. Yeah, that’ll work. 

[Jito463]

So I guess we’re just admitting now that we’re going to continue ignoring the provisions of the law for disarming people with violent histories, and focusing on disarming people with violent futures, instead. Yeah, that’ll work. 

Now, if only we had 3 psychics who could predict the future and tell us who was going to kill someone........

[StuartJ]

I reminded him of his oath, for all the good it will do.    Unfortunately no one is running against him. So best I can do is not fill in the little oval by his name.

[penname]

Now, if only we had 3 psychics who could predict the future and tell us who was going to kill someone........

All explained in this clip from the movie...



“We arrest individuals who have committed no crime.”
“But they will ...”

Now the authorities just need to start looking for precogs.

[Lorimor]

If an individual is deemed "dangerous," why isn't the individual being detained?

Again, more legislation that attempts to place the blame on the tool, not the weapon.   

[eelstrebor1]

I guess you'll need to call the police every time you have an argument with someone or they might call the cops on you and claim that you're a dangerous person. Just a difference of opinion can cause some issues. And the part about returning your firearms if you're found "not guilty" sounds great but the proposal doesn't say when they should return your firearms. The proposal needs work if they seriously intend to go forward with it. I would prefer that it be scrapped because it punishes someone that hasn't committed a crime and red flag laws are going to keep the courts so busy that they might not be able to get to all cases within 21 days. These so-called red flag laws are unnecessary and wouldn't even be considered if LE strictly enforced existing laws.

[depserv]

We don't want thought criminals being armed do we?  And how about deplorables?  Do we want people like that armed?  And then there are those who cling to their guns and Bibles...  We all know that right wing extremists are more dangerous than the poor misunderstood Muslims.

But don't worry, our caring big brother only wants to protect us.  He knows who the bad guys are.  We have nothing to worry about. 

So the question is, is Fortenberry stupid, or evil?  In the final analysis I suppose it doesn't really matter (at least in this life); he's worthless either way.

[penname]

So the question is, is Fortenberry stupid, or evil?  In the final analysis I suppose it doesn't really matter (at least in this life); he's worthless either way.

Hanlon’s Razor “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Or the Napoleonic version “"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"

[StuartJ]

The Abilene Paradox:
      People in groups tend to agree on courses of action which, as individuals, they know are stupid.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
-- Mark Twain

Fortenberry now claims on Facebook that he supports the 2nd Amendment.

[GreyGeek]

So I guess we’re just admitting now that we’re going to continue ignoring the provisions of the law for disarming people with violent histories, and focusing on disarming people with violent futures, instead. Yeah, that’ll work. 

Stalin's head of State Security is quoted as saying "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime".
In America, we say that an overzealous prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

Fortenberry, not being opposed for election, has shown his true colors when no one forced him to.  With friends like him Conservatives need no enemies.