Republican Marco Rubio is Pushing a Major Gun Confiscation Bill Through Congress

Marco Rubio pretending to support guns

Earlier this month, the Republican turncoat senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, introduced a bill to push gun confiscations throughout the United States. The Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019, is essentially a version of what Florida put in place that will allow the government to seize your weapons if they deem you are a threat to yourself or public safety.

Rubio teamed up with another turncoat Republican, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, and a handful of other traitors including 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.”

In order to make sure states comply, Rubio’s gun confiscation program will modify the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, essentially bribing states into implementing the Florida-style gun control program. To receive federal funding for state and local police agencies, states must have laws allowing courts to issue risk protection orders.

Rubio first unveiled the bill last March after the Parkland shooting. When he introduced the bill earlier this month, Rubio said his proposal would 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.”

This is not a school safety bill; this is another attack on the second amendment by another Republican who we warned would do this!

Of course, Rubio wants you to believe that this is for the good of the country and public safety; after all, you wouldn’t want another school shooting that could have been prevented like in Parkland, right? The problem here is instead of going after actual criminals, the bill is yet another attempt to disarm the public.

In order to seize a person’s firearms, all someone has to do is make a bullshit claim to the police that the person is a danger to the public and the police will then be able to petition the court, beginning the legal process of lawfully stripping that person’s second amendment right to bear arms.

Anyone who becomes the target of such an order will have to surrender all firearms and ammunition to the police and will be unable to purchase new firearms until the order expires or is vacated. 

According to Rubio’s team, here’s what the bill will do:

  • Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice
  • Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.
  • Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including:
    • Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm. roviding a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
      • The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted.
      • Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal.
    • Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
    • Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter.
    • Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order.
    • Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.

What the actual Bill Says:

Again, Rubio is full of shit! According to language in the actual bill, something like having too much to drink could now put you in jeopardy of losing your right to bear arms.

The actual language in Rubio’s bill says judges will consider as relevant evidence:

“(aa) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others;

“(bb) a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months;

“(cc) evidence of a serious mental illness;

“(dd) a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme riskprotection order;

“(ee) whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence;

“(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;

“(gg) the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent;

“(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;

“(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;

“(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and

“(kk) witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court;

NRA Yet Again roles over and Backs Red Flag Gun Control!


This really shouldn’t be a shocker for anyone who reads articles on this site, but the Spineless bastards at the NRA who helped push the bump stock ban late last year, are yet again helping the government push another piece of gun control legislation. Backed with millions of fund-raising dollars from gullible funders who believed they were supporting a firearms rights organizations, the NRA has yet again screwed their members and decided to back these gun confiscation orders.

Late last year, Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, put out a statement endorsing “red flag” gun confiscations: “We need to stop dangerous people before they act,” … “So Congress should provide funding to states to adopt risk protection orders.”

Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have voiced concerns over red flag laws. Late last year, Gun Owners of America put out a statements saying:

“If a person is truly so dangerous that he must be separated from his firearms, it’s illogical to still leave him active in society. Removing firearms does not stop violence.”

Worse yet, gun confiscation orders are suggesting we take away an individual’s constitutional right without probable cause of a crime having been committed — much less conviction of a crime.

It’s absurd to take away a Constitutional right by predicting future action. What in the Bill of Rights is so fragile that a judge can remove it by playing “thought police,” claiming that you might misuse it in the future?”

Shirts of Liberty

OFFGRID Survival book



      • Yes! I say this to people all this time. “Shall not be infringed.” No other right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights includes this provision. The Founders were serious about the 2nd. Really serious.

        • Well when they try to red flag the country. the patriots will assemble and form a new state or die trying. Any one who wants my guns better pry them from my cold fingers. If there are any confederates left we must rally and soon seize a state or occupy Mexico. seriously we could take over a part of Mexico with just the stuff I have in my shed and I have a whole warehouse full of class 3 toys

    • There’s a problem with this article. Rubio is a senator. Not a Congressman.
      He can’t push anything through Congress.

      • Maybe you should pick up a copy of the constitution and learn how your government actually works before attacking my article, otherwise you just look like an idiot!

        Senators are indeed members of the United States Congress! Congress is the Legislative branch of the federal government; it has two chambers (or houses of congress): the House of Representatives and the Senate.

        Article One, Section One of the United States Constitution: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

        • He probably has a college degree and still doesn’t know how to even read. Excellent response “Off Grid Survival”!

        • Run that asshole across the river and the part of the article about the NRA is the reason I dont sent them any contributions the NRA, they are behind a lot of legislation against Wayne Lapierre Can kiss my ass!

      • Stop.

        “Congress” refers to both the Senate AND the House of Representatives; two parts of the legislative branch of government. All bills (laws) must clear the House FIRST, to proceed to the Senate and then, if passed will go to the POTUS for final “approval” or VETO if he sees fit.

        Rubio is a Senator. So, his “bill” must clear the House to even make it to the Senate for vote. Slow down and remember American Govt class.

      • The simple fact he would back this, is more than enough to send his ass back to Cuba. See if he changes his trader ass mind !

  1. EXTREMELY vulnerable to heresay (which anti’s drool over) and rife with PRESUMPTION of guilt – BOTH of which are illegal.
    I am a life member of NRA. I joined BECAUSE of NRA’s staunch, no compromise stand. I’m damned displeased. If NRA supports this treachery to completion it will cost it dearly – most likely giving rise to it’s replacement.
    What is the org thinking? The 2nd Amendment is NOT negotiable. It was written to be non compromisable. NONE of the three branches have the authority to compromise the right – other than by means specified by the constitution itself. Those in Congress who promote, author, sponsor or vote in favor of anti liberty legislation are simply treasoners of the Constitutional and God given rights of the citizenry.
    It is incumbent upon the federal Admin and SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution’s requirements – and here we even have a president we tend to trust in on the act. THIS one, Mr. President, is NOT a good deviance!

    • I canceled my NRA membership…Bump-stock issue.

      Rubio took an oath to the U.S. Constitution. He is breaking that oath.

      I recommend that we “harden” our schools. If we don’t do this, more mass murders will take place in the schools (soft targets). ….lessons from Israel.

    • The NRA will support this and any other “small” anti gun measures. They need to have something to justify their existence.
      If the NRA had done their job since it’s inception, we wouldn’t have any gun control laws in this country at all.

    • Where do we get to take legal action against those who swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” and then work against important parts of it.

  2. Maybe we should start doing what the liberals are doing to this country. Judge shop. President Trump appointed a record number of constitutional federal judges, let’s use them. Is the NRA or any other pro second amendment group doing this?

    • Sorry, my fault for not reading the whole article, I see the NRA rolled over on it. I hope one of the others find a way.

  3. The purpose in owning a weapon is to defend against tyranny If gun owners don’t use their weapons in the that manner, then fuck ’em.

  4. Basically, if I sneeze and fart all at the same time in the presence of someone that is having a bad day or is pissed off at the world, I could lose my 2d amendment rights. ( or if I even looked cross eyed at somebody )

  5. How much longer will we as U.S. citizens sit back and do nothing but complain? In this age of amazing technology, someone with IT experience could organize a mass on-line system to send our voices to Congress demanding change.
    These politicians allegedly are an intelligent species. They all swore an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States against all aggressors, both foreign and domestic. They have all read and can understand the Second Amendment.
    By voting for sweeping gun confiscation, any such politician has acted with both malice and forethought voting for a measure that will arm criminals and cause deliberate harm to law abiding citizens. He or she should be removed from office for violating their oath of office.
    Look what’s happening in France. People are sick of oppression from their governments. Time for sweeping change to bring back a government of, by and for the People.

    • the systems are already in place, primarily Email, but finding their emails to send your thoughts is a pain, next big problem is actually organizing people of the same thought, as many of them work varying shifts, and some don’t even have enough motive to pick up a mouse and keyboard and type something to create effectual change.

      again the issue is with organization, which i don’t understand to be fully honest. a bunch of misfit thug teens can gather hundreds together locally via social media, but we can’t do the same? maybe that’s where we should start.

  6. They can’t just lock somebody away. But taking away their guns is a start. Some people just should’ve have guns and sometimes they lack evidence to keep them locked up.

    • It seems you are upset that you can’t deny people’s freedom when you want to lock them up so you have decided instead to restrict their freedoms instead? Seems to me if you don’t have enough evidence to lock up a person because they have committed an actual crime taking any rights from them is also wrong. Not to mention unconstitutional and against the principles this country was founded on.

    • FL Red Flag Law prevents you from ever purchasing any weapons if yours have been seized and even if you were cleared and got them back. Guy right now is going to prison because he refused to hand them over from an ex girlfriends BS call to police.

  7. They tightened gun laws here in the UK to a point where only criminals have guns because they dont give a shit about the law.
    Keep fighting to keep what you have, and then fight some more and get back what you’ve lost.
    Good Luck and fight on.

    • I have posted this many, many times on other boards. I, too, have a friend still at home (Leicester) who was robbed at gun point. Wasn’t sure if it was a starter pistol or a cap gun painted black with the red stopper popped out. But what he was sure of was that it was pointed at him and the wielded thing looked damned convincing. It is believed that the MP’s have directed the magistrates to under report or deny altogether these stories. One true difference between the United States and the United Kingdom is that the person in the UK are subjects, while the people of the US are citisens. One need look no further than Australia to see that giving up your firearms is a bad idea. Maybe Miss Thatcher was a bit odd, and perhaps Helmut Kohl (Ger.) was a bit tyrannical, but the citisens had a voice. Today, in the UK, that voice is only heard as a snarl of frustration.

  8. Thank you everybody for addressing this BS that Rubio wants, time to reject him in 2020, they have ways to get these misfits from getting guns.

  9. How about an organization Called (The American Constitutional Organization) We The People For The People!!!!!

  10. This legislation is the exact same legislation that Hitler and mousalini used in Europe to control the people. Read the 2 amendment really is. Who makes the determineation. Anyone makes an accusation and your screwed. Perhaps we should accuse Rubio’s bodyguard.

    • Resist, no one will take a weapon away from someone who
      Knows how to protect themselves. Would be a risky adventure to try to take a weapon away from ones home.

  11. So,if I have had the misfortune of being forced to use my gun in a legal self-defense, I am now a target for confiscation? ” Language from the bill: “(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;” This sounds like infringement to me.

  12. soon to be the most misused, gun grabbing bill ever implemented, and after all is said and done, the thugs will still have theirs and no one else will.
    You don’t see them using Red alert warrants to go into the hoods to get those guns do we?

  13. Another crack appears in Rubio’s facade. No one who opposes the Second Amendment or who wishes to restrict it any way at all can be called an American or a patriot. I hope Rubio’s voters see this for what it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.