NRA is for the 2A infringement of those on any 'terror watch list'. What? Really?

His parents came from Afghanistan, his father was a Taliban supporter which makes you wonder what kind of a deal he had made, and why they ever let him in. The shooter was US born but had been announcing his allegiance to ISIS for more than a year.

Would seem to me that even his citizenship should be in question after he renounced it by swearing his allegiance to the Islamic State.

 

DUE PROCESS - How our "leaders" view it...

For those here who cling to the aspirations of sweet tasting gun control legislation, so long as 'due process' be the saving grace of the laws we will all suffocate without...

Your keepers want nothing more than to prohibit with no due process whatsoever. But go ahead, trust your government to pass a bill that will strip someone else of their liberty and keep you warm and comfortable.

 

The country's founders gave us the Second Amendment.

176 years later, LBJ and a Democrat-controlled Congress gave us the concept of "Prohibited Persons".

 

What bugs me is why the second?

If people are deemed enough of a risk to society to loose that right then why not go for the 1st and 4th and actually make it hard on these people to conduct whatever nefarious intent the .gov thinks their up to?

If they cannot travel or communicate the gun part becomes moot

 

Dale, the no fly list and secret surveilance warrants barf already cover those injustices. Terror activity still continues, largely unfettered.

 

Terror activity and crime will ALWAYS be here. Always. No amount of appeasement will ever satisfy them. I contacted the NRA-ILA today and voiced my concerns about their support of "No Fly, No Buy". Would have contacted my senator, but he was on the radio just after I was. And we were on the same page.

 

I get what you're saying and agree.

The pen is mightier than the sword... right?

The patriot act was the camel sniffing under the tent in regards to the 4th.

 

Laws and law enforcement as a rule, can only react to crime, not prevent it. Being arrested, added to no fly/watch lists for something a person *may* do in the future is no bueno. Our Republic was founded on good law. This isn't Minority Report... yet...

 

Oh, by the way. Just to be clear, the Orlando shooter was NOT on the terror watch list. He had been removed two years ago.

This proposal to ban people based on some bureaucrat’s opinion would not have stopped the Orlando shooting. We bring these crazy radicals into the country, just look at his family, then we're surprised when they do something like this. This open border policy is unacceptable and is no justification for suspending parts of the Bill of Rights.
Mauserguy

 

And he passed numerous background checks and psych evaluations to be employed as a security guard. I can't imagine why so many gun control proposals purport to be "in response" to an incident, when they would have done nothing to stop said incident if they had been in effect.

 

(Reposting from a thread in Activism)

First off, let me just say that like I HOPE most members here, I oppose the Democrat-headed proposal to outright add the terror watchlist to the prohibited persons category, and I also oppose the Republican-headed proposal to apply the terror watchlist to the existing 3-day delay standard written into NICS.

I will however say, that I feel that this proposal from the Republican side is mostly posturing. They're most likely putting forward a proposal at all to boost Trump, and also swing a few Senators that are inclined to vote for a proposal (any proposal), as opposed to voting against one.

Their proposal itself seems remarkably status-quo to me, it's just that the FBI has understaffed and undersupported NICS to the point that prohibited people are not even entered into the database, let alone being able to use the EXISTING 72 hour delay that NICS was designed to accommodate. As is, a NICS process is allowed to take 72 hours, at which point the FFL can legally perform the transfer without approval. The Republican proposal (which I must repeat that I am AGAINST) would simply enable the FBI to apply people to that existing standard, at which point they must file charges, or let it go.

 

Not another decade of "compromise"...

We cannot afford another NRA like that under the Clinton Administration.

No compromise should be allowed. Gun ownership and carrying is a *right*. Just like Freedom of Speech.

Period.

 

I think Ben Franklin said it best, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

russellc.

 

I also think it is dumb to "compromise" since Obama is so close to ending his administration.

Don't give in *now*!

 

It was more like the camel kicking the tent over, honestly. The tent is still there, it just is no longer performing its intended function.

Personally, I think it suspiciously odd that any form of compromise is being entertained. I am slowing coming to the conclusion --based in large part on Cornyn's actions as well as Feinstein's-- that the "National Security Hawk Republicans" may be planning to sell us down river in order to deflect from their precious security theater's utter failure. Seems ridiculous that such treachery is afoot, but we've learned that there are very real fault lines in that party, and certain subsets really don't value individual civil liberties any more than the gun-banners. I really hope it backfires gloriously, but I worry that their numbers combined with the Democrats' are greater than the remainder in the House or Senate.

TCB

 

This^^^

 

Here is Cornyn's proposal -Senate Amendments 4720 and 4749- which the NRA presumably supports as it includes the factors listed in the NRA position statement.

Note how sections (3) and (4) work together. The government has 72 hours to go to court and convince a judge there is probable cause that a person is involved in terrorism. If a judge finds probable cause, a firearm purchase may be barred AND the person may be arrested. Actually, barring a firearm purchase would be academic if a person was arrested for being involved in terrorism.

 

Ok, great, so presumably it's a bit more difficult for a terrorist to get a gun. So too was it supposed to be difficult in Paris, right? But they found a way. More than likely, the terrorists didn't keep making plans to fly planes into buildings after 9-11. They found new methods, like shoe bombs. Mcveigh used fertilizer for crying out loud.

the conversation should be about how this guy was flagged several times and no agency was able to put the pieces together. I've seen interviews where his coworkers were quitting because of the things he said. There were indicators that could have prevented the whole thing.

 

If people can be denied for merely being put on a list without any rhyme or reason (no criminal convictions) you can bet that political opponents will be put on the list just like the IRS harassed Tea Party groups.

This is a Trojan Horse.

 

The missing text in 4 screams very loudly to me. If the judge determines that there is probable cause that you "will commit an act of terrorism", you're denied the purchase of a gun and, I'm assuming, become a prohibited person. That means that if you already own guns, you lose them. It also means that you're released to walk the streets based of the fact that you're not arrested for a future potential act. How do you determine that someone "will commit an act of terrorism" without having them conspire to or attempt to commit said act. Are we delving into Minority Report territory here? You can lose your rights based on some potential future act that you (obviously) haven't committed yet. You haven't attempted it, otherwise you'd be arrested for having attempted it. You haven't even discussed it with your "friends" because then you'd be arrested for conspiracy. Now if it's someone who is here on a visa or an illegal alien, or even a green-card holding resident alien, that may be enough to get them deported. But the Orlando shooter was an American Citizen so that wouldn't have been an option.

Losing your rights for something that might happen in the future is, in my mind, unequivocally NOT "Due Process".

Matt

 

"Due Process" just means that all of the applicable laws are followed that pertain to the case in question. If the law says you cannot eat ice cream on Tuesdays and the courts have upheld that law as constitutional and you are convicted of eating ice cream on Tuesday then you have been given due process. Due process also means that non of your rights to trial, evidence, a lawyer, appeals etc. were violated.

 

I think some of this boils down to Trump's position on this. He came out yesterday in staunch favor of this. Today the NRA is taking his stance also. Trump is the NRA's candidate of choice. Trump has been quickly loosing ground in many recent polls. In lieu of him potentially loosing even more ground, better to adjust or slightly change one's position and still appear to wholly support him, than to disagree, even ever so slightly, and loose valuable potential votes, when every vote is critical. Trump is going with it because the majority of Americans are in favor of it. Hard to swim against the tide and stay afloat.

 

I know the definition of Due Process, but there is no "trial", no indictment, no possibility of conviction, no finding of fact. There can't be in this situation because it's depending on something that might, again, MIGHT, MIGHT, happen in the future. All the hearing (not trial) would determine is probably cause. Probable cause is generally the start of the process, but it can't continue because the violation of law is a potential (in the future, not-yet-happened, maybe-maybe-not) action, not an actual (in the past, yep-he-did-it, um-yeah-I've-got-the-video, why-are-there-all-these-reporters-here) action.

 

Glad to finally see the text of the proposal.

Few thoughts;
-It certainly appears to be two-parts poison pill, one-part promised-panacea. I still think Cornyn is an idiot for playing with fire this way; it's the same sour drink Feinstein is mixing but with a jigger of strychnine...which somehow still strikes me as a stupid thing to offer someone in the first place.
-Poison Pill #1 is the notification of the entire Chain 'o Command everytime one of --what're we up to now, like 2.5 million, plus a zillion more false positives with similar names?-- people tries to buy a gun. It'll be ignored every single time
-Poison Pill #2 is the high priority given to these hearings. Most likely, the intent is that they would be foregone for the sake of judicial sanity, but I'll bet in practice they would simply become rubber-stamp kangaroo courts
-The opportunity to confront your accusers (or rather, representatives of the organization who received a summary of another organization's secret intelligence dossier composed most likely of inadmissible evidence) sounds good in theory, but three days is not enough time for the defense to build a case, or even to get to a federal court house on the other side of the country that isn't bogged down with these stupid things. Considering Uncle Sam has a detailed map of your lower intestine and entire life's activities in your dossier by the time we even get to this point, three days is an awful short period to make your case. Defense discovery is made impossible (as though the secret evidence would even be available for discovery; once again proving this whole Watch List system is incompatible with Due Process)
-The one good point of the list #4 is that the three day period seems to be intended to force the feds to "**** or get off the pot" as the saying goes, and be ready to bring charges the minute they put a name on the Watch List. Sadly, the threshold of evidence required to bring charges is wholly incompatible with what the Watch List is intended to do, which is to slowly collect and compile circumstantial evidence from inadmissible sources to ultimately build sound cases from what any decent judge would toss out as frivolous paper-thin charges, otherwise.
-Number five would be a great way of trapping the Director into a tedious life of actually validating & defending their terrorist accusations, but there is no way to force that official to undertake the project themselves. It would be passed off to an underline, with very low expectations and priority.

Loud and glaring is the fact that none of these explicitly requires any form of formal Due Process to get on the list in the first place, even though the consequences kick in immediately (gun sales, background checks, police encounters, surveillance, etc.). There's a reason judges are required to sign off on search warrants, and it's because there is no justification for enforcement to go a-snoopin' without oversight. The Watch List is basically a set of names (ideally, individuals) who are fair game for whatever digital or physical 'stake out' the feds feel they can get away with. "Increased scrutiny" they call it (so is a wiretap). The addition of a procedure to quickly engage a system of relief is a welcome change, as is the addition of several checks on enforcement that would seem to encourage them to tailor their 'listing' of folks judiciously.

However, it's still all after-the-fact relief, and therefore not real Due Process. Also conspicuously absent, is the requirement that the accused be presented with the evidence against them; all of it, even if classified. Very noteworthy given Cornyn's important, if not pre-eminent position as congressional oversight for Intelligence. Because ALL the evidence is classified; that's why the list itself is classified. And that's why it is so difficult to get off the list.

Plaintiff-"Judge, I shouldn't be on this list, which I can only guess I'm on, since they won't show it to me but also won't let me buy a firearm (or tell me that that's why I was denied)"
Judge-"Okay, 'suspected' terrorist/sympathizer , let me get the skinny from the folks who would know. Justice Department; what's your story on this guy?"
Defense-"We think he's very dangerous, or supports people who may be very dangerous, or lives across the street from people who may know someone who's dangerous. Also, he has a beard."
Judge-"Okay, I'm gonna sustain your position on the list and--"
Plaintiff-"Wait, wait, wait...your Honor. You aren't gonna make them tell us why they think that, why exactly they put me on the list? They could just be making it all up--"
Defense-"That's classified citizen...and your Honor. Neither of you are cleared to view the information, you'll just have to take our word we're being Honest *nativeamerican* this time. And if that's not good enough, we have an Authentic permission slip from the secret FISA court that says we're following the rules..."
Judge-"Oooh, shiny! Well, far be it from me to overrule my faceless peers who for all I know may or may not exist; keep him on the list, it's definitely safer for everyone else that way"
Plaintiff-"...[redacted]..."
My understanding of the system as it is currently for someone petitioning to get removed from the list (except I think it's not even a judge that's involved, but bureaucrats from the same department as the defense/Justice laywers). Other than an allegedly more rapid timeline & real consequences for someone who ends up kept on the list (which at least makes real judicial review ultimately more likely), I'm not really seeing how the rubber-stamp nature of this self-serving process would be changed.

On the upside, we've got four whole years to find & promote a primary challenger to Cornyn if he pursues this idiocy.

TCB