Police Ordered To Seize Guns

Rhode Island’s Democrat Gov. Gina Raimondo signed an executive order Monday directing authorities in the state to use all legal steps to remove firearms from the home of those they feel are a danger.

Raimondo’s action, signed before a crowd of gun control advocates, comes in tandem with a measure introduced in the state legislature to enact so-called extreme risk protective orders which would allow police to take guns from those a judge feels may be a threat to themselves or others. While the bill progresses to her desk, Raimondo said her executive action will help pave the way.

“We cannot wait a minute longer for Washington to take action to prevent gun violence,” Raimondo said. “The executive order I signed today is an immediate step we can take to make residents safer. It sets the table for a complementary legislative effort.”

The order directs state police to take steps consistent with “all applicable state and federal laws and regulations” to remove guns from the household of those that investigators believe pose a significant danger to themselves or others in a “red flag” report. The investigation would follow up on tips received about recent threats of violence such as posts or statements made on social media coupled with, say, evidence of access to firearms. State police, working with local law enforcement as a part of Raimondo’s order, would follow-up with the person reported by a tipster and conduct background checks and information searches before acting.

The executive order is the precursor to the ERPO bill filed by House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello (D) with the support of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs’ Association. Under Mattiello’s bill, a judge would determine if an order to seize a person’s guns is needed following an affidavit from police, prosecutors or members of the individual’s family. The order would force those affected to hand over their firearms to police or a licensed gun dealer for safekeeping pending a hearing. It would also report the subject to the FBI to be placed in the records of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as a prohibited firearms possessor, which would bar them from buying more guns.

“Behavioral health issues are increasingly causing irrational and unacceptable behavior and these individuals should be stripped of their firearms to protect our children and our society,” Mattiello said. “This legislation is an effective step and an important tool to help law enforcement intervene and prevent tragic outcomes from occurring.”

Passed in California, Oregon, and Washington recently with help of national gun control groups, ERPOs have generally been panned by Second Amendment groups as a violation of due process rights that offer to medical help to those found genuinely in need of treatment.

source: guns.com

  • tdunn

    this is so wrong !!! and the voters need to vote this oath breaker out at next election !!

    • Mad Scientist

      Don’t hold your breath. Rhode Island has not voted red since Bush senior in 1988.

      • greg

        I agree, libs and there ways will keep taking over the whole country someday, i’ll be worm dirt, but i feel bad for the grandchildren. We will never fight back like a 1860 civil war, so short of that this country will die also. We are way to far apart with our issues and voting will never win either. This time we will enjoy a couple yrs but we will be returning it back to liberals someday and they will attack our 2nd hard and heavy then.

  • ronportsmouth

    There we go, no due process. The law keeps getting in the way with these pin heads. Yes, something needs to be done but there is a process and it isn’t letting police make those decisions. People like this moron are frightening.

    • K W

      …and how does one legally define “determined” and “mentally ill” without that person already having a medical record that proves them ill, which should then prevent them from owning firearms if they were run through a proper background check. It’s all there in the paperwork that needs to be filled out and run prior to a purchase.

      • Dave Hinkle

        KW, licensed health practitioners are supposed to report anyone who is a physical threat to themselves or others to law enforcement, yet such reports and substantiating medical records DO NOT get reported to NICS currently. Dangerous psychotic people apparently have a right to privacy that is more important than public safety. Why not amend HIPAA to allow reporting of certain classes of diagnosed mental illness to NICS? It’s a glaring gap in the background check data.

        • K W

          I agree with your statement other than saying it is a gap in the background check data, it’s a matter for HIPPA that has created that gap, as you mentioned.

        • Jim

          Good idea, but then innocent gun owners would be allowed to keep their guns. This can not be allowed to happen. This is all about banning guns not safety. You can’t control an armed populace. The left let the cat out of the bag back in 1968 with the Brady Bill. A Handgun Control spokesman stated, and I quote,
          ” It’s not what we wanted, but it’s a start”. They haven’t given up for fifty years and won’t give up now. Too many people have good paying jobs in this quest.

    • Terry Butts

      Had the EXISTING laws been enforced the incident in Florida and many others would never have happened.

      The law ALREADY prohibits those who are dangerously mentally ill from LEGALLY getting a gun but when the AUTHORITIES do not put the past criminal actions on the record because the FEEL BAD for the JUVENILE and do not want to RUIN HIS LIFE by making his mental illness a matter of state record the BACKGROUND CHECK fails to find them a danger and the sale goes through.

      But instead of ADDRESSING the actual issue of NOT REPORTING those who are ineligible as REQUIRED that has been the case in at least three most likely more of these incidents they demand that even MORE restrictions be imposed that they know want the power to WITHOUT DUE PROCESS declare someone a DANGER and take their arms until they PROVE they are Innocent of the accusation.
      1) The military person CONVICTED of a crime but the government failed to put the fact he was ineligible to own a gun in the system.

      2) the one who shot Gifford who was REGULARLY returned to his parents with nothing put on his record on just the PROMISE they would get him the MENTAL HEALTH help he needed.

      3) The one in Florida not only did they not put his actions on his record to prevent him passing the background check they FAILED to stop him after repeatedly being told what he planned.

      The fact that it is nearly impossible to PROVE you will never be forced to use a gun to protect yourself allows such TYRANNY to run rampant in the nations where people have no rights and is the main reason the founders CLEARLY stated or justice system is based on innocent until the STATE provides IRREFUTABLE proof of ones guilt. Not GUILTY by accusation until you can PROVE you are innocent.

      Remember that one ANTI GUN ACTIVIST working as a prosecutor openly stated that DESPITE the capacity restriction NOT PASSING he was going to ACT AS IF IT DID he even charged a man with MURDER in an open and shut case of self defense because it took ONE ROUND more than what that prosecutor FELT he should have been allowed to stop the attacker even stating had it been ONE ROUND LESS no charges would have been filed against the man for shooting the VIOLENT attacker he already had a RESTRAINING order against after the last VIOLENT attack the man committed.

      • Jim

        Excellent post! It won’t have an impact to brain dead liberals though.

    • Mad Scientist

      We already have that tool in place. Anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent in a court of law is barred under federal law from legal purchase and possession of firearms.

      • Nightwing K’Trevala

        well that should get all the Demoncraps off the firearms lists

  • Joseph Morgan


  • Oldman054

    What a bunch of crap. No one has told the police to take our guns. The statement was said during a meeting where it might be one idea to take the guns from a total nutcase. That is all it was. It wasn’t an order or anything like that. Quite lying. This how crap spreads. That is something I would expect liberals to do.

    • Terry Butts

      Then link the actual document she signed. Otherwise we will have to accept that it was EXACTLY what she BLATANTLY STATED in her own words as she signed the document.

      Then they show how IGNORANT they are on the entire issue for example.

      “State House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello has co-sponsored legislation that
      would allow courts to order guns seized from people deemed a serious
      threat to themselves or others.”

      This would be REDUNDANT LEGISLATION as it is already the law that those who are PROVEN through due process to be a danger to themselves or others are NOT ABLE to LEGALLY PURCHASE or POSSES a firearm. What they are wanting is to REVERSE the Innocent until proven guilty requirement of US LAW and making it GUILTY by accusation until the MILLIONS of US citizens already FALSELY BLAMED for Florida simply because they REFUSE to DISARM knowing full well it would have done NOTHING to stop the crime PROVE they are not guilty of the ACCUSATION before being allowed to exercise their right to PROTECT THEMSELVES.

      Remember that one judge STOLE MILLIONS of dollars worth of MILITARY COLLECTABLE firearms from a retired military officer not because he WAS A DANGER TO ANYONE but because the JUDGE FELT that JUST HAVING THE GUNS made him a POTENTIAL DANGER. In other words just being able to PROTECT himself or others was enough for the JUDGE to decide he had to be DISARMED.

      I find it odd that Rhode Island does not list any executive orders that have been done recently regardless of if we believe she did what she STATED at that meeting and signed the RED FLAG EO we know there were others done by her more recently than the 9th month of last year.




    • Chained

      The Democratic Socialist party declared war on we the people and the constitution long ago in conjunction with the Satanic globalists. Their dream has been to disarm us to enslave us in their demonic utopian new world order one world government through ever so slowly removing our rights. WE ARE AT WAR and we must act accordingly. Politicians are the scum of the earth.

      • Rick6981

        Try National Socialists Party…

        • Chained

          Yes, probably more correct since Rinos are involved too.

  • Terry Butts

    There are no LEGAL steps to take ARMS away from law abiding citizens. FEELING they MIGHT be a threat simply because they own a gun is NOT A VALID EXCUSE to disarm the CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    I suggest these politicians read HISTORY and learn why the American revolution started. It was when the BRITISH government in control of the colonies moved to DISARM the colonists and ARREST those they FELT were a threat to the king for nothing more than voicing their opinion of his tyrannical actions. Those tyrannical actions violated even the LAWS of that time that PROTECTED peoples rights by restricting the kings authority. It was called the Magna Carta. Of course being written over hundred years before the king felt it was JUST AN OUTDATED DOCUMENT that gets in his way.

    • Journalist_r_liars

      I believe you are correct. For a state police ossifer (sp) to do this by himself, he would also have to be a legally sitting judge and also is a licensed physician ( Medical Doctor ) for sure and possibly have a PhD in Psychology might also be required as well. I haven’t seen any judges that were also doctors recently that had to work part time as state police cops.
      I am not a lawyer; but from listening to what the Governess said, she isn’t either.!

      • Terry Butts

        What these politicians seem to forget is that they passed a law years ago that if they suspect someone is a danger they can detain them for up to 48 hours and have a court order issued in that time to have the person evaluated.

        They did not need a law to TAKE his guns away first nor did they need to go to court before detaining him while they investigated the threats he made as long as they filed charges before that 48 hours was up.

        • Jim

          One thing you are forgetting Terry, (maybe not), is that old laws do not generate new votes.

          • Terry Butts

            I think it is more they want to make one that changes it so DUE process can be delayed indefinitely or even reverse the burden of proof from the accuser proving they are guilty to the accused being forced to prove they are not guilty.

            They even parroted this idea in one of the crime drama shows they had within the last year when they implied it was up to the ACCUSED to prove they were innocent instead of the prosecution being required to prove they were guilty.

            They actually had a section in the show where the accused stated they did not do what they were accused of and the ACCUSING officer demanded he PROVE it as if all they had to do was accuse him with no proof and then it was up to him to prove he was innocent.

            Far to many of our politicians are drawing their beliefs about US law from Hollywood fiction instead of our actual laws and the constitutional restrictions on what the government is and is not allowed to do.

    • Jim

      “OUTDATED DOCUMENT”; just like the democrats thinking the Constitution is a “living” document to be amended and altered to suit party dogma. The similarities are scary between the two.

      • Terry Butts

        Yes they are.

        There are also similarities with other past horrific acts that may happen again.

        It is a little known fact that during prohibition the GOVERNMENT actually poisoned the industrial alcohol they knew would end up in the hands of those who would drink it in fact until the source was identified as people drinking stolen industrial alcohol the FBI was actually investigating it as a serial murder case.


        Yet people still insist the government would never do such a thing. That it is safe to give up our rights and let the government “protect” us.

        There are already politicians and others calling for the murder/punishment of every gun owner in this nation for nothing more than protecting the US constitution from those who want to scrap it and create another tyrannical dictatorship where the only rights we have are decided by government and changed on the whim of politicians.

      • Chained

        As they say history repeats itself. Is it time to fertilize the tree of liberty?

  • Mad Scientist

    Has the governor heard of a little thing called due process?

    • SZ939

      Demoncrats don’t understand the concept of Due Process except when it happens to them!

      • coolman11

        And then it’s Stonewall Stonewall

    • Rick6981

      No, being a Demoncrat… she doesn’t. Hillary & Bill taught the DNC they can violate the law and get away with it. Those two along with others belong in club Fed for life… Period!!!

    • disqus_cmq36MfAQs

      dont aply logic=doesnt work.

  • Lee J

    Typical politician! Let’s not enforce existing laws. Nooooooo. Let’s write NEW laws. This way it looks like you’re REALLY doing something. If those assholes in Florida and the FBI had followed EXISTING laws this would not have happened. But lit’s write some new ones. It worked so well with drugs!

    • SZ939

      And in Chicago, with the most Gun Laws in the Country!

      • Rick6981

        You forgot to add, an amongst the highest in gun violence in the country… the DNC doesn’t understand that “gun control does not work”…

    • johnmcv

      Don’t forget prohibition and how well thatworked. Those people are delusional.

    • Jim

      Yes, Heroin has been illegal for decades, how’s that working out?

    • disqus_cmq36MfAQs

      over 3,400 people die every day from cars.
      90+ from guns of which the resulting number after subtracting suicide is 34.
      so…. 100x more people die from cars than guns.
      Posture much?

      Ban cars-same argument with more significant results… see where that gets you.

  • fbair1

    Have fun in the Bible Belt, south, and Midwest getting the guns. The west coast and eastern coast have proven how stupid they are…..

    • Gary Moeller

      Not East coast, just New England.

      • Paul F Wozniak Sr

        Not all of New England residents want these false laws being stuck up our a$$ by the democrap governors here.

  • BriannaR


  • Paul Erwin

    and who decides is mentally ill and whose guns get taken and who’s dont

  • Jmanjo

    Well I know they probably have not given any thought to it but perhaps they should also make it a crime to knowingly falsify a report about someone just to get their guns removed and leave them defenseless. Democrats never care how many innocent people they leave in harm’s way and we know people abuse laws all the time and the courts could care less to remedy those issues. I hope Trump stands firm and does not allow the gun grabbers to go ape sxxx !

    • jwright673

      Exactly. It’s not like neighbors don’t have differences now and then (i.e. your dog pooped in my yard) that could lead to one (unjustifiably) claiming the other is insane and has a house full of guns. My guess is the very first case under this “law” will not end well.

    • pat

      Trump already caved on gun rights but tomorrow he might change his mind,he goes which ever way the wind blows him. Trump needs to be tutored on due process before he opens his big mouth. He should check in with his advisers before making such ridiculous statements. He is use to bargaining his way out of trouble in big business but if he keep this shit up he is going to get his teat in the ringer big time. He won’t have anyone left to advise him or lie for him. Hicks already had enough of his bullshit,I think she wanted to support Trump but you can only go so far without get throwed under the bus. Good for her! It would be a hard job to keep up with Trump,every new day is an adventure with that guy just to find out which direction he is headed in.

  • Alan404

    It would appear that The Police State has arrived.

  • Ed Cooper

    Waiting for the first confiscation without due constitutional process…, who decides who’s a danger, please tell me, going to appoint a panel to make these determinations or just leave it to the law enforcement personnel? These friggin liberal morons don’t care about the constitution, due process or the law in general, I feel sorry for the residents of Rhode Island, but then you voted her into office so guess what, live with it!

  • L Cavendish

    and yet they will leave ALL the other weapons…knives…swords…bats…chainsaws…etc etc etc

    • Nightwing K’Trevala

      That’s one reason I’m an archer, besides it’s a HECK of a lot QUIETER to fire than a .45.

      • L Cavendish

        a little bulkier, though…

  • Diane Evans

    So if a member of your family, say a great, great uncle, wants to kill you, he can report that you are a danger and have you disarmed so that he can safely kill you.

  • rivahmitch

    Hopefully, some of her gestapo troops will die in the process. Those who are unwilling to kill and die to defend their property, right and lives will surely and deservedly lose them.

  • higgy01

    This bimbo is just another empty headed libtard. I lived in RI for a while, but, like California, it has become a disgrace. So who gets to play God on tips from hateful so-called citizens.

    • Nightwing K’Trevala

      You mean LibTURD?

  • coolman11

    Oh yeah that worked real good with the Florida shooter

  • metheoldsarge

    Once the Second Amendment is gone the rest of the Bill of Rights will soon follow.

  • dstudie

    Gina Raimondo is a lying corrupt Fascist bitch. And Rhode Island is full of really stupid people who elected this treasonous bitch to office. I really hope really bad things happen to her, and her family, and to all of the anti-American, anti-constitututional gun-grabbing traitors. It is time for the Federal Government and the SCOTUS to stand up for real patriotic Ameicans against the treasonous lying murdering ones. We are being played by the left and America is doomed if they win.

    • Jim

      With the republicans we have in congress, I think they already have>

  • pappadave

    BS. This is a gun-grab, plain and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “safety,” and it’ll be USED by the unscrupulous to disarm and/or embarrass social enemies and cost them thousands of dollars defending a right that NEEDS no defense except the 2nd Amendment.

  • Crew-servedFiddler

    So the people who want this law are identically the same folks who reason that anyone who WANTS a gun is by definition, a dangerous, irrational, anti-social CRAZY. That means “TAKE’em ALL!!!!”

    • Jim

      You wouldn’t be talking about Chuck U. Schumer would you?

  • George Norman Roll


  • ganderdavis

    BFD so she signed an EO. And now on to the court system to declare all of this BS or allow it and watch it go all the way to the USSC. How about we just admit we are a nation of idiots that don’t know when they have TO MANY weapons. The right to bear arms should be replaced with the right to bear an arsenal and that would cover all the whack jobs who own way to many. Instead of buying weapons that allow you to overkill a target why not just go learn how to use the weapon and be able to need only a couple of shots. Over kill and Over ego seems to run hand in hand. The right to bear arms should be allowed, but the right to bear arms should only be for one hand gun, one shotgun and one long rifle. Also confiscating a weapon from someone deemed to be mentally ill and keeping that weapon until the courts decide what should be done with it is nothing more then Commonsense. If we knew Oswald was going to assassinate Kennedy would we have said it’s ok for him to keep his sniper rifle …This problem starts at home and needs parents to know what drugs their kids are being put on and KNOW the possible side affects. And make sure they take them and you continue to look for any signs of change for the good or worst and let their doctor know. Also if it isn’t already mandatory then schools should knows what students are having issues and if they are already on or might need to be using medications or just getting help where needed. The school is where most of these things occur and those students that go there almost always know things before teachers or parents. So to these students I say let someone know what you know and you just might be preventing a shooting or harm at your schools. Call this what you want but know you just might be the one that is saved from harm when a fellow student steps up and speaks out..IMHO Or to some snitches AND SAVES A LIFE

  • Carolann313

    They can’t do that … this is BS.

  • pat

    There no way in hell that this is legal and any cop enforcing this order is is guilty of theft. This is the USA not nazi Germany WTF!!! That bitch took an oath to uphold the constitution, she needs to be impeached. She should be focusing on school security and leave law abiding gun owners the f–k alone!!!

  • pat

    She is emulating black obuma with the executive orders bullshit.

  • Jake

    Don’t ever forget, due process first.

  • donl

    This B S has to stop NOW!!

  • lamarlamar

    Hey, I don’t like the way you think, I’m taking your guns for my (oups) your safety.

  • don lavrich

    we need to vote all of the commy dems out of office before its too late!

  • Tom Potter

    The 2nd amendment was written so the “we the people” could protect ourselves from government tyranny. I’m sure there will be “push back” when Rhode Island law enforcement intervenes “to take guns from those a judge feels may be a threat to themselves or others.” Then “we the people” will have the opportunity to view the “unintended consequences” (I’m not so sure), of people getting shot defending their 2nd amendment right. One more step toward confiscating guns and ridding the country of our Constitution. What a shame, Rhode Island!

  • Deadbad

    Another politician in the proud tradition of Adolf, Joseph and Mao. And one of these days you’ll be talking to your neighbor, “Haven’t seen the Millers lately. I’m real tired of their conspiracy theories…….”

  • Crew-servedFiddler

    Look at the numbers, folks; look at history. In the 20th century more humans were killed by their own governments than as a result of military aggression from outside their home countries. The pattern is instructive. Criminalize private ownership of firearms; require the surrender of those firearms; raid homes of suspected hold-outs and apply draconian punishment “to encourage the others…” Finally, when most firearms have been collected (AND their owners identified) ROUND UP those owners – who are by definition politically unreliable – imprison them, and get those firing squads and crematoriums going. The National Socialist of the Third Reich, of course; Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Argentine Junta of the 1970s, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein… there is a very long list of regimes that have both climbed to power and held on to power on a mountain of corpses of their own countryfolk.

  • Bill

    And just WHO is to decide which people are a danger. I feel that ALL liberal turds are a danger to the safety to our society. Once they get their foot in the door they won’t stop at anything to take away our lives as the lives of the people of North Korea has been taken from them.

    • Doc Graham

      Sorry. I had too much coffee that am.

  • johnmcv

    Are they so naive to think that removal of someone’s guns who might be a danger to themselves or others will change anything? Guns for sale can be found in any dark alley,anywhere. No gun? No prob. More people are murdered using just hands/feet than are murdered with rifles or shotguns.If They want to hurt/kill someone,they will and there is really very little to prevent it without locking up the potential danger or the potential victim gets some type of personal defense.

  • John

    So, in this case, a person is guilty first and then perhaps the person can prove his/her innocence later. And, WHO is to decide a certain person might be a threat? Do they go by criminal activity? Do they go by past actions of threatening or attempting to harm some one? Do they go medical records? Do they count military veterans as threatening? How about hunters? Or maybe target shooter? Or maybe gun collectors? Or maybe a person with a different political view of the liberals?

  • pat

    The liberal politicians would never even consider taking all the cop killing shows off the television which the youth of America are exposed to from the day they are born which nobody knows how much negative effect it has on them. But they have no problem trying to gut the second amendment. Those kids protesting to reinvent the constitution have no idea what they are demanding,America is just supposed to give away what the whole country is built on and what all the soldiers died to uphold. They should be focused on fixing school security and why law enforcement failed to stop this tragedy from happening with all the warnings they received before hand. I’m glad I live where I don’t have depend on the government for protection .

  • Rick6981

    Everyone needs to go back an read the history of Germany from the end of World War 1 to Sunday December 7, 1941. They came for the family across town, then they came for the man family down the street, then they came for the family nextstore, then they came for me and there was no one to speak up for me. History is repeating itself.,.

  • isaiah

    and who decides is mentally ill and whose guns get taken and who’s dont

  • gabriels

    Good idea, but then innocent gun owners would be allowed to keep their guns. This can not be allowed to happen. This is all about banning guns not safety. You can’t control an armed populace. The left let the cat out of the bag back in 1968 with the Brady Bill. A Handgun Control spokesman stated, and I quote, ” It’s not what we wanted, but it’s a start”

  • Kerri Sexton

    Well I know they probably have not given any thought to it but perhaps they should also make it a crime to knowingly falsify a report about someone just to get their guns removed and leave them defenseless. Democrats never care how many innocent people they leave in harm’s way and we know people abuse laws all the time and the courts could care less to remedy those issues

  • disqus_l4edbQ1NL6

    the problem is read what it says…. to remove guns from the household of those that investigators believe pose a significant danger to themselves or others in a “red flag” report….it means that due process is out-it is a judges’ own personal judgement-if he knows the person then he will be biased….

  • disqus_l4edbQ1NL6

    btw….there is no such thing as gun violence….ONLY PEOPLE VIOLENCE…jeez…

  • disqus_l4edbQ1NL6

    this is about disarming the american patriots of this land.

  • mousekiller

    The police chief of N.O. LA went out of his jurisdiction ( city limits) to confiscate guns from people that did not need to evacuate due to flooding from a Hurricane . All legal guns . The looters stood by and watched the guns being taken and then they threaten the owners of the home and the cops did nothing about it. Of course the chief had nothing to say. Nor the cops involved..It was video taped.

  • Daniel Bulmer

    I find this action to be extremely political in nature! Democrats have nothing to offer the American people, so they are hoping by banning our 2nd amendment rights. Freedom of speech is almost gone from a public forum, because of radical beliefs on both sides! If you lean right and try to share your thoughts ,mostly in cali,your audience may suffer great bodily harm for showing up! I’m not sure where exactly, but so many right wingers are as bad! We also have the likes of faracommie and sarsour who believe you should curl up and die if your white or don’t believe in sharia law. There has to be an answer, but taking apart the Constitution is NOT acceptable! I’ve been around for a long time and for most all of my life I have either owned or had access to things that could kill folks. I have never shot, stabbed, or beat on people with any of the things at my disposal. I do, however, want to have that option if I or my family get into harms way! “I pity da fool” that wants to come into my home with bad intent! I can’t find a reason that any of us should not be allowed to defend what we have worked for or that we love(family).