Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy says bipartisan gun reform talks don't involve
an assault weapons ban, expanded background checks

Sen. Chris Murphy (D - Conn)  — who is playing a major role in crafting a bipartisan gun reform bill
following deadly mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas — said that potential legislation resulting
from the current talks will not include an assault weapons ban or "comprehensive" background checks.

Murphy, during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," told host Jake Tapper that a bipartisan
contingent of senators met on Saturday, with the group eyeing increased mental health funding,
additional safety measures for schools, and "modest" gun control regulations as part of a package
that could pass the upper chamber.

"We're not going to do everything I want," the Connecticut Democrat said of a potential Senate bill.

He added: "We're not going to put a piece of legislation on the table that's going to ban assault weapons,
or we're not going to pass comprehensive background checks. But right now, people in this country want
us to make progress. They just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years."

https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-sen-chris-murphy-says-201152712.html

The anti-gun zealots are going to be pissed -- as usual. 

They gonna pass red flag and call it a "compromise". At least it wont affect HI and many other states. Feel bad for the ones that dont have red flag law.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

They gonna pass red flag and call it a "compromise". At least it wont affect HI and many other states. Feel bad for the ones that dont have red flag law.

The more cases of red flag laws which result in the unconstitutional confiscation of guns, the sooner the laws will be repealed.

If passed,  "Red Flagging" will take the place of "SWATTING".  Not only will the Cops bust in, but they will take your guns in spite of there being no evidence that a crime has been committed.

It's a hell of an incentive not to register weapons. Too bad the politicians are so crazy kowtowing to their NWO masters that they can't see the graves they are digging for themselves.

Edit: I should probably clarify that's not a threat, but when the ruling class encourages criminal behavior and undermines the foundations of civil society in order to convince everyone that we need communist world government then it's a foregone conclusion that things are going to go really really bad for them when their crappy plan falls apart. 

The more cases of red flag laws which result in the unconstitutional confiscation of guns, the sooner the laws will be repealed.

If passed,  "Red Flagging" will take the place of "SWATTING".  Not only will the Cops bust in, but they will take your guns in spite of there being no evidence that a crime has been committed.

This essentially already happens with TROs, what makes you think a red flag law will be repealed if TROs haven't been? If anything a TRO is more restrictive than a red flag system (may vary in some jurisdictions)

This essentially already happens with TROs, what makes you think a red flag law will be repealed if TROs haven't been? If anything a TRO is more restrictive than a red flag system (may vary in some jurisdictions)

How does a TRO infringe on anyones constitutionally protected rights? 

There's a big difference between a TRO and being Red Flagged so you have your guns immediately taken from you. 

Being told to stay away from someone or risk being arrested isn't violating anyone's Constitutional rights.

How does a TRO infringe on anyones constitutionally protected rights? 

There's a big difference between a TRO and being Red Flagged so you have your guns immediately taken from you. 

Being told to stay away from someone or risk being arrested isn't violating anyone's Constitutional rights.

Here in Hawaii if a TRO is filed against you, your guns get taken away. I don't know if this is true for every jurisdiction but it is common in restraining order laws. Aside from firearms, restraining orders also end up restricting parental rights.

If I remember correctly, a red flag order in Hawaii gets you a court hearing within 2 weeks but it takes a whole month or 45 days before you get a hearing for a restraining order filed against you. So a restraining order takes away more rights and it takes it away for a longer period before you can appeal it.

Here in Hawaii if a TRO is filed against you, your guns get taken away. I don't know if this is true for every jurisdiction but it is common in restraining order laws. Aside from firearms, restraining orders also end up restricting parental rights.

If I remember correctly, a red flag order in Hawaii gets you a court hearing within 2 weeks but it takes a whole month or 45 days before you get a hearing for a restraining order filed against you. So a restraining order takes away more rights and it takes it away for a longer period before you can appeal it.

Is that your story now?

That is good. TRO's usually follow a certain template but judges can amend them as they see fit to include special exemptions. There was someone years ago who had a TRO against them but was still able to have access to guns.

HRS states restraining order. Does this differ from a TRO? If yes, then a person with a TRO doesnt get their guns taken away. But it goes on to "or any extension".

To qualify for both, red flag needs less evidence.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Is that your story now?

The initial TRO always takes away guns. After the first hearing judges can modify restraining orders and set specific things. They tailor the restraining order to the situation after learning more.

It is all in the context

HRS states restraining order. Does this differ from a TRO? If yes, then a person with a TRO doesnt get their guns taken away. But it goes on to "or any extension".

To qualify for both, red flag needs less evidence.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There are two types, one has to do with civil restraining orders, these usually involve neighbors and such. The other type has to do with family members. They generally do the same thing but have slightly different names. The temporary restraining order is the initial one that's valid for 30 or 45 days where they have the hearing to determine what else to do. Following that a restraining order can be issued which can have stipulations tailored to the situation. 

I'd have to look it up again but there are at least four different labels to cover the two categories. There is order for protection, injunction against harassment, and the temporary portions I can't recall the names exactly. I think one is temporary order for protection.

Red flags require more evidence from my understanding. Restraining orders usually only require an allegation, but it can also depend on the specifics of the situation