NRA, Repubs block new law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns

Don't fly. I haven't flown since the late 90's. I think driving or the train are excellent options. You can eat, drink and in the case of the train, sleep. My 4th amendment rights haven't been violated IMHO.

 

Do you know how many thousands of people are on the no fly list who's names shouldn't be on the list ?

 

Does AmTrak have routes from Detroit to Honolulu? San Juan? Charlotte Amalie?

 

uhhh can you name a single person on the "terror watch list", who bought a gun, and used it in a crime?

can you name a single one who completed those three actions in america?

no? oh... hmmm...

now don't get me wrong, I think some laws are reasonable, this seems like a reasonable step, if we were taking it on face value... "people on a terrorist list, should not be allowed to purchase guns until they are removed from it"... that sounds totally reasonable right? I would agree to that... so then I decided to go find the bill proposed that they were talking about... I mean it must be straight forward right? instead of just reading the summaries others tell us, lets read the actual text of the bill, and then open other windows, and apply those changes, and then re-read the new law that would result after all the amendments, additions, and subtractions of this bill...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076/text

so now I've ended up with 4 browser windows open, because its another goobly guck amendment bill that strikes words and periods and removes this that and the other thing to create annoying conflicts of statement... according to the changes, if you apply them, and then read through them with a legal cap on, and not just read the shortened summaries at the top telling you what they wanted it to do, you begin to see what it really does... so what does it really do, does it stop watch list folks?

it would require anyone who sells a gun, or transfers a gun, to check the terror watch list before selling or transferring a gun... sounds simple right... not so much... nobody but the government has access to that list... so this ultimately would end up requiring background checks on every gun sale and transfer in america... failing to do so, now would make the gun owner, or private seller, criminally responsible for the sale... yeah thats how much the subtle changes in verbiage have suddenly made it...

and now if you go to a gun store, and they send off this background check, and it comes back denied... you won't know why its denied... they don't have to tell you why they rejected you... this changes some more subtle things so they don't have to tell you that you are on the terror watch list, because it might compromise national security now if you found out... so you just get denied with no recourse... you can file a petition against the united states of america, but lets be honest, how many folks are going to have the money, knowledge, or time to go through this process when they very well might have to leave their town and/or state to go through this process?

now lets be honest, I don't suspect many folks would end up on that list accidentally, I'm sure we can both agree on that... however the attorney general is being given blanket power to assign people to that list now, without proof, just a mere belief he suspects you are connected in some way... so now the attorney general is being given even more power to just throw you on a list that could disrupt your life, and you have little to no recourse unless you're very well versed in law and proceeding and basically have enough money to hire people to do this for you in most circumstances... and of course the paranoia this power would be abused as its very broadly defined...

so basically this law doesn't just stop people on a terror watch list... it compels background checks and makes people criminally liable for sales, and it has no carved out exceptions in case the government screws up, the way this reads, you're still on the hook now, despite you having no physical access to the terror watch list... we can hope they would use common sense and not punish people, but I prefer my laws to have very clear and concise action/reaction... rather than broadly painted brushes that can be interpreted several ways and each new attorney general will pick and choose his path, I dislike giving them choice and power... it should be clearly defined...

so this ultimately forces mandatory background checks on all weapons, shifts legal liability to sellers, and would broaden the powers of the attorney general...

seems to me, if we suspect these people of belonging to terrorist groups, maybe we should get enough evidence and prosecute them, instead of just keeping a list...

P.S. the boston bombers failed to make the list, despite the information given to our government about them... so how good is this list itself? like I said, I'm willing to be reasonable with a bill that does what it says, not all the hidden things because nobody bothered to read and comprehend the verbiage and what that means legally... its a poorly written bill that could be IMMENSELY cleaned up and shortened to achieve the stated goals, without all the unintended consequences, or were they intentional?

P.S.S. I especially love the part where its sponsored by a republican, and all 18 cosponsors are democrats... the republican threatened to switch political parties, remember that... so is he really a republican if he can't get a single republicans to cosponsor his bill, and only democrats will? maybe theres a reason why this guy has threatened to switch political parties numerous times... because he's not really a republican...

 

`
Sorry. I totally reject your personal interpretation of the law. Facts are facts. Deal with it....or better yet, let me help you look it up - Let Me Google That For You - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2nd+Amendment+illegal+immigrants+guns

 

Anti-gun loons hate the fact that NRA lawyers are smarter than they are.

 

How many times have we seen stories about people on the list of suspected terrorists by mistake or were these people put on the list by the 0bama regime to punish them?

In Texas you can't have a gun in your home if you have been indicted for a felony, if you have been judged to be mentally ill or convicted of terrorism but the idea that we would be forced to give up our guns if 0bama and his AG put all Texans on the potential terrorist list isn't going to fly.

How many times have we heard the 0bama gang say that Americans are more dangerous than ISIS is??

 

I gave you the link to the decision which clearly upholds the lower courts decision to deny dismissal on 2A grounds. You can read it yourself.

From one of your links.

That law bans illegal immigrants from owning guns which also means that no illegal immigrants can buy and own guns.

 

It's even funnier - there's another thread about how the progressives are all on board with Obama and letting in these refugees and how they are going to be vetted, blah blah blah... and how these poor people are NOT terrorists and how a refugee has NEVER been part of a terrorist action in the United States.

Now in this thread, however, it's all about how these refugees might buy guns and OMG.... they are going to buy guns and kill us all~!!


The hypocrisy and progressive contradiction is thick.

 

as much as I hate the abuse of democrats lately, don't confuse my challenge of them, to support your own loonacy and name calling... in fact I think its just as annoying and stupid when republicans do it back... don't hijack my posting to serve your agenda of name calling and bashing... if you want a solution, feel free to use my posting and craft it in a way that supports a solutions... but don't just chime in to name call others and demonize them... I hate when they do it to you, so its no more right for you to do it to them...

P.S. I would hardly make a claim NRA lawyers are smarter than anyone else... you've clearly never met many lawyers, you'd be shocked many of them ever made it... some of that has to do with states allowing anyone who graduates to become a lawyer without having the pass a bar exam, my state happens to be one filled with them... well and the states that don't require you to go to law school in the first place before taking the bar exam... but hey I believe in freedom of trial and error...

 

I think this thread is very telling as to priorities.

If you follow the posts of the last few days after the attack, the war hawks are willing to spend billions (trillions?) of dollars for wars, and they are willing to sacrifice lives of untold numbers of "them" across the ocean, in addition to restricting their freedoms. All this if it only could save one victim from a future terror attack.

On the other hand, when it comes to ANY possibility to restrict their own freedom to own ANY and AS MANY guns they like, there can be absolutely NO compromise, future terror victims be damned.

Their messed-up priorities are clear for all to see.

 

Another little problem with the OP: It's title says "NRA, Repubs block new law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns". The original version of this law was brought to the floor in 2007 (18 years ago) It's a dead issue, and no one is blocking it.

 

That bill provides the AG the power to deny the 2nd amendment to anyone he pleases. All he has to do is have a "reasonable belief". What is "reasonable" to a Holder or Lynch you might agree with but like any bill it grants the power to any future AG perhaps one that doesnt believe YOU should have the right..

Partisan hacks always seem to forget that part....

- - - Updated - - -

It was last debated i believe in Feb 2015... You are correct its just yet another paper lying to grab headlines.

 

I didn't make that claim, and I didn't mention Democrats.
-My- claim was that anti-gun loons -- that is, people who want more gun control but can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - hate the fact that the NRA lawyers are smarter than they are.

The NRA correctly opposed this law because its lawyers saw a problem with the lack of due process and how it left the right to arms unprotected; it is clear form this thread that the supporters of this law either never considered the lack of due process, do not care about the lack of due process, or both -- that is NRA lawyers were smart enough to read the law, understand the law, understand the implication of the law and, again, rightfully, opposed it.

 

For once I agree. The Republicans state they want to keep us safe, and want to give due process to the issue. The only reason I can think for denying this bill, is the designation of "terrorist" can be political, as seen by the Democratic Party(and not too recently Hillary Clinton) applying that word to the same effect.

Perhaps if that wording is changed to "Only those on the US No-Fly/suspected list", you might get it passed.

 

We had 700,000 names in Terrorist database as of April 2007 - and the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.

That should put us right a million today.

Do you think we have a million potential terrorists in the US today?

https://www.aclu.org/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus

In an age of IRS' Lois "Slow" Lerner, you think Americans are going to go along with losing their civil rights just because a nameless faceless unaccountable bureaucrat adds their name to a list?

Good luck with that. We would have gotten more gun control post Sandy if Obama and Reid hadn't deliberately thrown the Senate vote by refusing to allow amendments which meant a 60 vote threshold was then needed for passage.

Always blaming someone else for your own failings. That is no way to live your life.

 

Could be right about terrorists. Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list.

 

Well, when GWB put all those names on the no-fly list, and they were also wiretapped without warrant, I didn't hear a peep about violation of rights. In fact, the usual pundits defended the wiretapping by saying: "If you don't have anything to hide who cares if the government listens to you?" Of course, they also thought it is always "the others" that are being listened to. Now, if their own guns are at risk, the stakes are much higher and the screaming starts.

 

At the time who knew the lengths the NSA was taking to spy on us.. Talk about a strawman!

 

Peeing on a golf course? How low brow.

 

Obama renewed the elements of the Patriot Act that expired on May 26, 2011. He signed into law a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.

He was opposed in this by many on the right and even some on the Left, but he signed it anyway and now he owns it. It was opposition to this that has helped drive the wedge even deeper, between the GOP base and the GOP "Leadership" (no one is quite sure who the GOP "leadership" actually leads, they suspected of being little more than politically entrenched crony capitalists and the Tea Party has been challenging and even prevailing over some in their ranks, in the GOP primaries).

As for the Patriot Act, only Senator, Russ Feingold, was vocally in opposition to it.

The Senate was controlled by the Democrats during the 2001 authorization of the Patriot act, and it passed 98-1. Mary Landrieu (D-DC) didn't bother to vote.

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea

JOE Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea

Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea

"Sheets" Byrd (D-WV), Yea

Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea

Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Hillary "The Hag" Clinton (D-NY), Yea

Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea

Tom Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea

Chris Dodd (D-CT), Yea

Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
"Shiny Pony" Edwards (D-NC), Yea

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Graham (D-FL), Yea

Tom Harkin (D-IA), Yea

"Fitz" Hollings (D-SC), Yea

Inouye (D-HI), Yea
"Jumpin Jim" Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
"Snorkel" Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
John "Who By The Way Served In Vietnam" Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea

Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea

Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea

Reed (D-RI), Yea
"One-Eyed Harry" Reid (D-NV), Yea

"I'm Rich!" Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
"Up-Chuck" Schumer (D-NY), Yea

Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

"Torch" Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

That is the "who's who" of the Democrat party all on the record in support of the Patriot Act.

 

Don't know who you were reading/listening to, then. I know that I was against the terrorist watch list the first time I heard about it. I don't mind the concept, provided it had safeguards, such as provisions for getting your name taken off of it. There were no such provisions.

Here's a recent article about it:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ricans_on_its_no_fly_list_on_a_hunch_and.html

We should ban gun ownership based on hunches?

 

No, but you can get to the east or west coast via train and catch a boat to the destinations you need to get to.

 

That's incredibly misleading.

The legislation wants to add the "no fly list" to the NICS, other legislation has been proposed to add other federal watch lists to the NICS.

The problem is that the criteria for being added to a watch list is vague and subjective, there is no way to find out if you are on a list until you are prevented from flying (or buying a gun), its extremely difficult to find out which list you are on, and its nearly impossible to appeal your inclusion on a list and have your name removed.

Remember Senator Ted Kennedy showed up on the no fly list.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html
"U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.

Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed."​

If "The Lion of the Senate" had that much trouble, what chance does an innocent average person have to clear his name from those lists?

And that's just mistakes due to human error and security people being overly cautious and covering their a@@. Add in deliberate abuse and adding these lists to NICS is a total nonstarter. I have no doubt that the grabboid gun banners like obama, Holder, and Lynch would abuse the list as a means to a gun ban.

The NRA is doing the right thing in opposing the addition of these lists.

 

I don't.