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

[barnbwt]

"Due Process" just means that all of the applicable laws are followed that pertain to the case in question

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The fifth is pretty clear that sufficient legal protocols must be followed if consequences as vital as life, liberty, or property are on the line. I'd argue all three are, here. Which means the threshold for that process must be the same or greater for the State winning its case, vs. other systems with the same level of importance (i.e. criminal court).

The fourteenth basically amends the fifth amendment with the 'equal protection' clause, though explicitly with regards to the States (conveniently leaving out the federal government), though I understand the 'equal protection clause' was subsequently incorporated at the federal level (i.e. federal courts must treat all comers as equal in the eyes of the law, and can't themselves pass laws against minorities/etc.). To my way of thinking, the 'equal protection' part strongly implies parity of process for similarly vital consequence. That's why you can't have a separate but equal court for Black Americans and White Americans, that's why you can't have parallel processes for denying firearms rights (one through the court of law, one through some anonymous bureaucrat's say-so).

If it takes a court of law to strip you of your RKBA --even over something as minor as a domestic violence misdemeanor these days, a court is still required to disenfranchise the accused-- then it takes a court of law to put your name on a list that accomplishes the same thing. That your system of relief after-the-fact is 3 days (for now) vs. a largely-theoretical dumpster-fire that isn't even funded at this point, doesn't change the difference in Due Process on the front end.

TCB

 

[gc70]

If you think Cornyn's proposal would be a drag on the system, take a look at Senator Toomey's effort to find middle ground between Feinstein and Cornyn.

BTW, here is Feinstein's proposal.

 

[Crawdad1]

Trump said he wants to ONLY open a dialogue with the NRA on this subject That's not the definition of 'in staunch favor of this' to me.

 

[barnbwt]

Didn't Trump propose pretty much the exact thing Feinstein is now pushing last Christmas after San Bernadino? He's meeting with the NRA (and likely Republican leadership) to see if they can't turn this into a national security plank issue for him to run on. Our only hope is that he realizes that what he wants (a ban by Executive fiat) will be a non-starter with a huge portion of the party, and brings him into embarrassingly sharp alignment with none other than Dianne Feinstein (whom he has supported financially in past elections, coincidentally) and Hillary Clinton (same, also coincidentally)

For the record, Trump is 'staunch' about pretty much everything. I have to assume he's pretty dramatic about eating a bowl of Grapenuts in the morning . Whether he's serious about pursuing action now or later, or is merely making noise, he was quite clear about the need to restrict the ability of folks on the Terror Watch List and no Fly List buying firearms, without formal charges or conviction in a court of law.

TCB

 

[gc70]

Didn't Trump propose pretty much the exact thing Feinstein is now pushing last Christmas after San Bernadino?

No. As CBS reported:

After this week's massacre of over a dozen people at a social services center in San Bernardino, California, Donald Trump is floating an alternative to recent calls for gun control: Arm people with more guns.

 

[Onmilo]

Didn't Trump propose pretty much the exact thing Feinstein is now pushing last Christmas after San Bernadino? He's meeting with the NRA (and likely Republican leadership) to see if they can't turn this into a national security plank issue for him to run on. Our only hope is that he realizes that what he wants (a ban by Executive fiat) will be a non-starter with a huge portion of the party, and brings him into embarrassingly sharp alignment with none other than Dianne Feinstein (whom he has supported financially in past elections, coincidentally) and Hillary Clinton (same, also coincidentally)

For the record, Trump is 'staunch' about pretty much everything. I have to assume he's pretty dramatic about eating a bowl of Grapenuts in the morning . Whether he's serious about pursuing action now or later, or is merely making noise, he was quite clear about the need to restrict the ability of folks on the Terror Watch List and no Fly List buying firearms, without formal charges or conviction in a court of law.

TCB

yep.
One can only wonder what may come out of Trump's mouth next.
I don't think he even knows.

 

[Highcaliber]

yep.
One can only wonder what may come out of Trump's mouth next.
I don't think he even knows.

True...but we dont have to WONDER what Hillary will say. We already KNOW.

 

[jcv]

So, if I understand this correctly, a person can be denied their Constitutional rights on the basis of a suspicion, but permitted to attempt to prove their innocence after the fact in the name of due process? Guilty until proven innocent seems to turn things backwards. Count me as someone in opposition.

 

[barnbwt]

After this week's massacre of over a dozen people at a social services center in San Bernardino, California, Donald Trump is floating an alternative to recent calls for gun control: Arm people with more guns.

Technically, I recall he said he'd have fought back had he been there...only he wasn't, so...

Oh, and he said this;
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/2016-election-guns-no-fly-list/index.html
Which is what I had remembered. Yup, sho'nuff, he was the first one to propose this scheme now being championed by Feinstein. I know it's confusing, Trump has said a lot of things, after all.

Google. Use it.

JCV has the best/shortest summary I've seen so far; I would only add that they are "secretly denied their constitutional rights" --not even fair warning from the authorities, a rather obvious indicator Due Process is not present.

TCB

 

[gc70]

Oh, and he said this;
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/2016-election-guns-no-fly-list/index.html
Which is what I had remembered. Yup, sho'nuff, he was the first one to propose this scheme now being championed by Feinstein. I know it's confusing, Trump has said a lot of things, after all.

Your link is bad (you entered the link as text and the text as a link).

"I'm very strong into the whole thing with Second Amendment -- but if you can't fly, and if you've got some really bad -- I would certainly look at that very hard."
Still, he said, in mass shootings, more gun owners could prove helpful.

Looking at Feinstein's scheme is far from being "the first one to propose this scheme now being championed by Feinstein."

=====

BTW, I think both the no-fly and gun ban ideas are worse than useless. Any "suspected terrorist" who is too dangerous to fly on a plane or buy a gun should be arrested - right now! Being in jail neatly solves the question of flying on a plane or buying a gun.

 

[NMPOPS]

You're not alone.

A secret government list of people that are prohibited from buying guns based on the decision of some bureaucrat? No, thank you. That's definitely an infringement. We've already seen people talk about patriotic organizations and veterans being considered suspect of terroristic leanings. If the "watch list" is added to the list of prohibited persons, how long before every member of the TEA party, or the Oathkeepers, or whatever is added to the list by the stroke of a pen?

I would be OK with the NICS check triggering a flag on the Terrorist Watch list to check the person again, but preventing someone exercising their rights based on suspicion and not judicial conviction is unconstitutional.

If the NRA is going to sell us out on this, I hope they we get something good in return.

Bingo! I totally agree with NICS flag idea. No delay let them buy and them FBI can go check them out.

Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk

 

[hdwhit]

"At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. "

As a NRA life member I support their position. The key being due process.

Due Process alone is not sufficient in my book. What is the "due process"? The government can put you on the no-fly or terrorist watch list on little more than a whim. But the bills currently being marked up in Congress would provide "due process" by allowing the person wrongly put on the list to sue the government in Federal District Court to prove they were wrongly put on the list. I don't consider "allowing" me to spend thousands of dollars across several years to try and prove a negative to be meaningful "due process".

 

[230RN]

Makes me wonder if they put this out to stir up opposition to any "lists" and point up the hypocricy of even having a post-denial appeal process.

If not, then they are returning to the "good ole boys" and "brown wood and blue steel" attitudes of the 70s. (Or whatever decade.)

What's funny-tragic to old-timers like myself is how things like this become "normalized" over time.

Terry

 

[barnbwt]

Makes me wonder if they put this out to stir up opposition to any "lists" and point up the hypocricy of even having a post-denial appeal process.

Originally, it was to try and steal the thunder (a more publicly palatable but functionally impractical solution) from the proposal Trump made (I believe he was the first person yakking about Official Secret Enemies Lists, but it's possible Feinstein beat him to the punch) last December after the San Bernadino attack. It seemed to work as a feint then, but this time the knee-jerk support by the NRA, Trump, and key Republican senators (same ones as before) seems more earnest. Time will tell if they are simply trying to distract from the ban proposals harder, or if they really do see these measures as solutions.

I hate not being able to tell for sure where any of my current or potential representatives stand on these issues . We're left in a reactionary position, where our only recourse is the nearly impossible repeal process decades down the road if any of these players decide to sell us down river to distract from the failures of the National Security apparatus.

TCB

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

I'm comfortable being alone on this.

We have a group of people who are barred from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights here in America. Read down the list of questions on the 4473, and you'll read through the varied categories of that group.

I would prefer that we not continue to add categories of people to that group, but instead we would remove categories of people from that group. I know many gun owners differ from me on that.

I would rather 100 criminals walk free than for 1 innocent person to be punished.

I agree. We already have law enforcement training their officers that constitutionalists are considered a threat and in some cases compare them to ISIS. How long until we end up on a terrorist watch list? It's funny how many people believe in the 2nd amendment but seem to disregard the 5th and 14th. We have a right to due process.

Look at the terrorist attacks around the world and you'll find that they are happening in countries that have draconian weapons control laws. Political correctness and a liberal world view has caused this. These animals are freely traveling back an forth to terrorist host countries, finding brides on jihadidate.com, and posting #DeathToInfidel status on their martyrbook.com feed and yet our government closes their investigations on them. No government system run by politicians is ever going to solve this problem without a highly scrutinized border, even greater scrutiny of those traveling both to and from, or communicating with host countries, and a total disregard for political correctness. Our government won't even send reinforcements to protect their own ambassadors when they are under attack, what on earth makes you think they will protect you? Now you want these same inept politicians to be able to deny your right to protect yourself by simply putting your name on a list without any due process?

 

[Warp]

I agree. We already have law enforcement training their officers that constitutionalists are considered a threat and in some cases compare them to ISIS.

Link?

 

[316SS]

We already have law enforcement training their officers that constitutionalists are considered a threat and in some cases compare them to ISIS.

Link?

This site purports to show a scan of an FBI flyer indicating that "'defenders' of the US Constitution" or those that "make numerous references to the US Constitution" should be suspected of being domestic terrorists.

This article describes a Washington state sheriff conflating Constitutionalism with domestic terrorism and implying the threat they impose is equal to that of Daesh. Neither side comes out looking too good.

 

[barnbwt]

Look at the terrorist attacks around the world and you'll find that they are happening in countries that have draconian weapons control laws

And also America, so... I'll grant you they don't seem to be as consistently successful here without careful planning and multiple attackers, though

We already have law enforcement training their officers that constitutionalists are considered a threat and in some cases compare them to ISIS.

Yeah, I suspect it's mostly lip-service, but not a week goes by that there isn't some news story about a federal or military directive or training seminar describing 'patriot' groups as a greater threat than any other --again, I suspect it's mostly top-level lip-service, though it'd be interesting to see how/where undercover officers are deployed given the administrations firm opposition to surveillance of mosques (admittedly an 'unpalatable' prospect, though there seems to be a consistent pattern of mosque-centric radicalization with these so-called 'lone wolves,' often with many immediate family or friends being sympathetic/complicit). My understanding is these biased promotions are typically seen at the federal or military level, rather than at local institutions (obviously this will vary)

It makes sense the feds would be overly concerned with militias or patriot-type groups, seeing as they caught so much flack over those misunderstandings at Waco & Ruby Ridge. On the flip side, Islamic terrorism has been an absolute boon in terms of funding and jurisdiciton

TCB

 

[gc70]

Originally, it was to try and steal the thunder (a more publicly palatable but functionally impractical solution) from the proposal Trump made (I believe he was the first person yakking about Official Secret Enemies Lists, but it's possible Feinstein beat him to the punch) last December after the San Bernadino attack. It seemed to work as a feint then, but this time the knee-jerk support by the NRA, Trump, and key Republican senators (same ones as before) seems more earnest. Time will tell if they are simply trying to distract from the ban proposals harder, or if they really do see these measures as solutions.

You are certainly persistent in wanting to blame Trump for the "No Fly, No Buy" concept.

Former Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the first "No Fly, No Buy" bill in 2007 (S.1237). Lautenberg reintroduced the bill in subsequent years until his death in 2013, after which Feinstein became the champion of the bill.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Link?

Well, let's start with West Point
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf

Department of Homeland Security
http://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Coast Guard
http://www.infowars.com/military-bulletin-labels-patriot-groups-militia-domestic-terrorists/

FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...stic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement

Department of Justice
http://static.infowars.com/2010/08/i/media/DoJTerrorismCriminalExtremismTerms.pdf

Local LEO
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/05/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406
http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/...lists-and-why-would-a-deputy-worry-about-them

I could do this all night but you get the picture. Essentially, constitutionalists, patriots, pro 2nd amendmentists, those who are anti-Obama, those who think we pay too much taxes, Militia members, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, those who are upset over the poor economy, veterans, and anti-abortionists are all described in these official government documents right along side of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, and Skinheads. How long before participating on a forum like this is considered sufficient "evidence" to put you on a list. If you don't focus a bit more on the rights described in the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments you will soon lose the rights outlined in the 2nd. Once the 2nd falls the rest will soon follow.

No doubt simply writing this post is cause to get me on someone's list.

 

[cdk8]

Like socialism, this sounds amazing on paper...but, in practice, socialism has so many failures that it is almost comical.

It is concerning to see just how liberally the term "due process" has been used by conservative and liberal lawmakers alike. With the way this system will work, it appears that the burden of proof is placed on the defense -- I dare say most people would agree that guilty unless proven otherwise is not the due process.

I may be reading into this wayyyy too much, but I do NOT think that is coincidental. This might well be laying the groundwork for the best devised justification for sweeping gun control efforts, ever. Removing Amendments from the USC isn't going to happen...however, if you can slowly change the interpretation of these Amendments bit-by-bit, and then reinforce this new interpretation, I think it is possible to completely undermine an Amendment without removing or rewriting it! Then, using "the interest of national security" as justification, the interpretation of laws, or the implementation of anti-gun policy, can ramp up, and quite a bit of these efforts may be intentionally shielded from public eye.

There are other concerns, still...

• How much PII does this list contain?
• Who can access this list and in what situations?
• How will someone be informed they are on a list?
• What actions or rights do they have to appeal?
• How long will this take?...government isn't known for doing things fast, and we could be taking months or even years to clear up an internal error.

 

[barnbwt]

This might well be laying the groundwork for the best devised justification for sweeping gun control efforts

Nah, their just trying to set up a system of 'second class citizens' they can toss anyone into at the drop of a hat & disavow any legal responsibility to. Same game they've been playing since the slavin' days, and were prepared to dive headlong into with the various "immigration reform" proposals that'd have allowed illegal trespassers to remain so long as they were good for a day's labor. I guess since half-legalization appears off the table for the time being, that this is their best chance for a 'kept' population as basically a workaround for constitutional restraints on their authority.

TCB

 

[Tuxedo007]

Have been an NRA member for the better part of 52 years! Also, have had many life changing experiences; enough to have learned that there comes a time where you must stand by your principles, no matter the costs! I absolutely would not support the "No Fly, No Buy" rule. I could wax eloquent on how the government would abuse it, but I would for the most part be preaching to the choir! Donald Trump may not be the best choice we have for president, but he is far & away a better choice than "Hillary Obama"! This is the most crucial election we've faced in my lifetime. For the 1st time, as a US Citizen, I am fearful of what could happen!
Say a prayer for our country & vote for the good of our great nation!

 

[Sam1911]

Interesting today that I heard of the "alternate" proposal being floated by some Republicans in the Senate, wherein only folks who are on the super-naughty secret lists (No-fly and secondary screening lists) would be denied due process.

You know there's always a risk here when trying to assure your faithful that they won't be affected by the legislation you're laying down, that you'll come off as either racist or condescending.


Fortunately we have Senator Lindsey Graham to speak for us. As he put it today referencing the "no fly, advanced secondary screening" list proposal he's helping push, (paraphrased from memory as I can't find the quote I heard him deliver on the radio) "You aren't going to get on this list for attending a TEA Party rally or being critical of the government. Or for being a liberal. There are no 'Bubbas' on this list. Ha ha!"


I mean, sure, if you're a red-blooded 'Mercan we promise we won't put you on our list, cross mah heart, y'all! But (wink wink) if you're name's Mohammad, you best watch'cher ass!


Oy. So you don't have to worry that we're either racist OR condescending. No! We can be racist AND condescending in the same paragraph! Yaaay.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The problem with denying people anything, especially their rights, just for being on any given "watchlist" is that there are no controls reigning in the government on this at all.

AT ALL.

The whole foundation for protecting "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" deal lies on barring the government from taking any or all of that away willy-nilly in the first place. Put simply, it's pretty straight forward that Uncle Sam IS NOT ALLOWED to do this WITHOUT due process.

Our laws aren't written to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by RESTORING them through due process...the protection is there to PREVENT them from taking away the rights in the first place THROUGH due process.

Restoring them is more along the lines of "redress". That's an entirely different matter.

Further, another HUGE deal to our Founding Fathers was this whole "secret" process of taking away people's rights. The lessons of the Star Chamber were not lost on them. It would seem that they're totally lost among many people today, but I assure you that those in power have very much NOT lost sight of those lessons at all.

Denying based on secret watchlists? I don't think so. That seems to dovetail quite nicely with "tyranny".

If the government believes a right is to be denied FOR ANY REASON, then the government needs to go about doing so appropriately. This means applying due process to remove that right. It is incumbent up on the government to do this...not upon the people to retain or recover a right.