SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed


Marco Rubio Brings Back 'Red Flag' Bill for New Congress

January 3, 2019 - 4:45pm
Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio

On the first day of the new Congress, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., brought back the “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act.”

On Thursday, Rubio paired up with Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins and 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.”

Rubio first unveiled the bill in March after the Parkland shooting. When he showcased the bill on Thursday, Rubio said his proposal will 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.”


Your comments are difficult to decipher without appropriate punctuation. That can lead to improper interpretation. You need a grammar checker!

Well it might be just one long rambling sentence, but I feel there is no misunderstanding the message! At all!

Rubio,you are falling into the socialist trap,we will NOT give up our rights,due process...period!!!

Florida already has its own red flag law. It is a major component of the Stoneman Public Safety Act, passed by republicans in 2018. Marco Rubio, the former Tea Party darling... don't blame me, I voted for Alex Snitker.

Guilty until proven innocent, are you out of your mind. If you must have this law put solid consequences for false allegations. If proven to be frivolous make the accuser liable for 10 times the expense of the attorney's fees incurred and 100 times the attorney's fees in punitive damages. Also, appoint private attorneys not affiliated with or paid by the government to represent those people who can not afford an attorney. Force local, state and federal police departments to pay for the attorneys with their forfeiture funds that were kept without a conviction of a crime. This is a jackboot tactic brought about because the police have failed and are failing at a ludacris rate. They now have no duty to protect anyone other than themselves and their fellow officers. This is a court documented fact. Another fact is the jackboots have already murdered one man executing one of these frivolous orders and many, many others have been ran through the system from false claims using this on a state level. Like I said you want to give crazy Aunt Mable the right to turn Cousin Ed's life upside down because they had a disagreement about her casorole. Then make him fight the system for return of his property. If you want this so bad make the old bat pay and pay BIG when Cousin Ed proves she's a lying harpy.

Define dangerous. It's arbitrary. If someone threatens you the law is broken. By the way, mental illness is more a predictor of non violence. This breaks several rights even free speech, the 5th, the 4th and the 2nd. Red flags are a myth and the law insulates people enough. Break the law, arrest them, not a witch hunt. Mental illness is arbitrary and mostly suffering. Diagnose the human condition after you get a PhD and suddenly you can know who or what is dangerous. A Cuban is trying to infringeme on the 2nd. Sounds about right.

This is NOT due process ! Just because of someones word the police come and take your guns, then you have to prove you can legally own guns ! What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty ?? This is plain and simple illegal gun confiscation ! Pure anti Second Amendment ! Pure Socialist agenda ! Term limits might solve this problem !! Bye Bye ! WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!!

The founding fathers really only big mistake was not putting trim limits on Congress put back in that error people came served diligently did your term went home and picked up with their lives I don’t think they ever anticipated people making a career in Congress and being there 40 or 50 years and Congress will never ever allow Tramun much to even be brought up yet voted on

This is EXACTLY what "government" did in New Orleans during "Hurricane Katrina"..!

Basically, if someone thinks your dangerous you lose your rights without due process. Rubio is a traitor.

If your family or community thinks the person buying a gun is a crazy nut bag. It’s perfectly fair for that person to prove they don’t have a mental illness. Most, if not nearly all mass shooting are from people that have a serious problem. Sh!t is just not clicking upstairs. It’s a fair compromise I think both sides can agree on and be able to keep our right to bear arms.

Imagine you have an abusive ex-husband that went lied and said that you were dangerous so that your guns would be taken away. He sat down the street and watched. After the cops left with your guns, he came up, kicked in your door, and raped you and beat you near to death, then stabbed you before leaving. As you lie there dying, do you still believe that the law that allowed this happen is so great, or even 'common sense'? Think about it, because that is exactly the kind of thing that will happen when these laws are passed.

So guilty by accusation until which time you are able to prove your innocence? Have you lost your mind? We do not need to compromise to keep our inalienable rights - The word refers to a natural right that cannot be revoked by an outside force. ... In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson (using the un- variant) wrote that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” You are part of the problem and not the solution as you have suggested. How about taking the guns out of the hands of criminals - there are many many laws trying to do that and they all have failed - now you want to pass laws against "crazy" law abiding Americans because some people consider them crazy! GTFOH!

People can be diagnosed with a mental illness and still go out there to purchase a gun. That’s not an issue with you. It should be. Problem is that those criminals are probably just getting the guns black market or even a Gun show. So of course they have failed. So your suggestion is let’s just do nothing at all. If that’s your attitude why do anything about: drugs, immigrants, drug prices, the wall, border security. You think like a caveman with that type of mentality.

Why must I pay for other people's actions?? Why must i pay (with the erosion of MY freedoms) for the hypothetical, theoretical, "they might..." actions of OTHERS??? Good little sheep you are, voted yes!! Herd mentality bull****!!! Ps, criminals DON'T go to gun shows to get guns, they go where they KNOW they can't be traced OR tracked. Gun shows I've been to, either the individual seller calls into a number (and the buyer pays for that call/"transaction") or there's a single phone for all sellers to use TO call it in! This bill is intended to save lives?? Tell THAT to Maryland. Already had one guy killed because of this UNCONSTITUTIONAL bull**** law!!

Your erosion of freedom has been happening since congress started making laws. You should be up in open arms about any and every law that passes. They are essentially taking a little piece of your freedom on every stroke of the gavel republicans & democrats alike. Hard for me to understand how you are going to pay.

What about the law enforcement failures that have repeatedly occurred in your own state, Marco? The “system” worked before, but LE failed to act properly on these warning signs. So what in this legislation will make LE not fail to act again? What in this new legislation will prevent LE from failing to act & just sit on the sidelines once again? Quit wasting taxpayer dollars and time with passing more worthless legislation. All this does is put even more burdens on the good people who are trying to do the right thing, and does NOTHING to truly curb criminals, let alone force police to do their jobs.

So you would have to go to court first, where the person in question would be there to offer a defense BEFORE they were prevented from purchasing a weapon right????? Otherwise it isn't "due process." It's "guilty before proven innocent."

Rubio your out. There is enough laws on the books restricting the 2nd amendment. Votes lost. I’ll spread the word you ignorant politician.

But there sure as hell isn’t any laws in the books that prevents someone that has a mental illness from buying a gun. Don’t see anything wrong trying to stop someone that is legitimately f’ed up in the head from buying a gun. Sounds like something we probably should have pass long ago.

You should not talk about what you don'e know about. There are laws in every state and on the federal books on HOW A DOCTOR OR SHRINK CAN GET YOU COMMITTED AND HAVE YOUR RIGHTS "TEMPORARILY" CURTAILED. So yes, there are rules. Go back to watching Dancing with the Stars. Don't strain yourself with things like your rights and what they mean.

I see this as reason enough to delve DEEPER "into the issue" in order to prevent "mentals" from marrying and reproducing ! (THAT'S THE TICKET !)

For once we happen to agree on something. We should dive deeper into the conversation. Marrying or reproducing is taking it to far. That I know of neither of those will kill you if you have a breakdown.

Castro would be proud. What about due process? Happy New Year you freedom hater!!


Comments are now closed.



Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.