If gun owners think that red flag gun confiscation orders are scary, wait until they get a load of Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety Act of 2019 (S.265).
David Leach of the Strident Conservative reports that the TAPS Act is “Sort of like red flag laws on steroids.”
TAPS has been introduced in the past, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy drafting his own version (H.R. 5611) in 2016. The bill McCarthy introduced would have allowed “the government to deny gun rights without charges being filed, a trial, or a conviction based merely on a prediction that you’ll someday be a terrorist.”
Red flag laws have become very popular across the nation since the Parkland shooting and now the federal government has entertained its own versions of this law. Senators like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio have drafted their own iterations of red flag legislation.
However, red flag bills are not enough for them. Rubio is now teaming up with Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Thom Tillis to co-sponsor the Senate version, S.265. According to Leach, “Rubio’s TAPS Act would encourage law enforcement to give EVERYONE a personal threat assessment (adults and children) and single out those they deem as future threats.” This information could then be used to “stop dangerous individuals before they can commit an act of violence.”
It’s not just the Senate that has a TAPS bill in the pipeline. Republican Representative Brian Bain and Democratic Representative Val Demings have joined forces to draft a House version of the TAPS Act that deems “mass casualty attacks” as a “threat to public safety.” In turn, these incidents require “a proactive solution … in order to prevent future tragedies.”
Given the bipartisan nature of this legislation, these pieces of gun control have a better chance of passing both the House and Senate compared to other bills like universal gun registration, which Republicans tend to oppose.
There might not be enough momentum at the present for the passage of such a bill, but another mass shooting incident could be the necessary catalyst for the TAPS Act to pass
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?
Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?
Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.
Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”
However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.
The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.
In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.
One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.
The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”
The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”
Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”
Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.
His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”
Sanders responded, “Yes.”
Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.
All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.
Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.
News4 days ago
Bernie Sanders 2020 ‘Win’ in NH Netted a LOSS OF 80,000 VOTES from 2016
News4 days ago
Virginia State Police are Silent About Door-to-Door Enforcement of Suppressor Ban
Violent Left3 days ago
New Mexico Bureaucrat Arrested for Vandalizing State GOP Headquarters
Violent Left4 days ago
New Hampshire Thug Arrested After Assaulting ‘MAGA’ Hat-Wearing 15-Year Old at Polling Site
News3 days ago
MS-13 Thug Gets Life Sentence in Virginia for Rape and Abduction
Tech3 days ago
More Censorship: Controversial Right-Wing YouTuber Nick Fuentes is Booted From Platform, Even Ben Shapiro Says It’s Too Far
Deep State3 days ago
Bill Barr Pushes Back Against Trump, Criticizes President’s Comments on Stone, Drops Case Against McCabe
Culture3 days ago
How Vulture Capitalists Use Their Ill-Gotten Gains to Push Transgenderism Onto Children
Violent Left4 days ago
Wife of ‘Proud Boys’ Member Imprisoned for Self-Defense Pleads for Help for Their Three Children
The Swamp2 days ago
SWAMP: FBI Press Officer Accepted Baseball Tickets From CNN Reporter
News4 days ago
GUILTY: Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti Convicted in Extortion Trial
Politics4 days ago
MIT Warns That Voting App Used in Several States is Vulnerable for Hackers to ‘Alter, Stop or Expose’ Votes