Republican Compromise on ‘No Fly List’ Gun Ban Revealed

[Blade13]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/republican-compromise-on-no-fly-list-gun-ban-revealed/

 

“Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s ‘probable cause’–the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant–that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright.”

 

The measure received 55 votes in the Senate. It it secured the backing of staunch conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio as well as moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. The only Republican to oppose it was Mark Kirk.

[blazzinbird]

Mark Kirk needs to go, sadly Tammy is going to anialate him. They also have the same voting record.

[ScopeEye]

Mark Kirk needs to go, sadly Tammy is going to anialate him. They also have the same voting record.

We Lose either way

[POAT54]

This idea stinks, the cops get search warrants for any reason. No Due Process.

 

No due process! The prohibited buyer has no ability to confront his accuser. Make his case. Defend his rights.

someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s ‘probable cause’ — the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant

[Kaeghl]

Kirk voted against it? Why am I not surprised?

 

I heard a radio commercial about how Kirk is all gung-ho on national security and not allowing 200,000 Syrian refugees in country, unlike Duckie wants to do.

 

I still want anyone but Kirk, though.

[McCroskey]

Kirk is a fraud of a Republican. At least Tammy isn't a fake.

[Pipedoc]

A right delayed is a right denied.

[TRJ]

The actual excerpt:

( Upon being notified of a prospective transfer under

subparagraph (A), the Attorney General or the United States

attorney for the district in which the licensee is located

may–

“(i) delay the transfer of the firearm for a period not to

exceed 72 hours; and

“(ii) file an emergency petition in a court of competent

jurisdiction to prohibit the transfer of the firearm.

“©(i) An emergency petition filed under subparagraph

((ii) shall be granted upon a showing of probable cause to

believe that the transferee has committed or will commit an

act of terrorism.

“(ii) In the case of an emergency petition filed under

subparagraph ((ii) to prohibit the transfer of a firearm,

the petition may only be granted after a hearing–

“(I) of which the transferee receives actual notice; and

“(II) at which the transferee has an opportunity to

participate with counsel.

“(D) The Attorney General may arrest and detain any

transferee with respect to whom an emergency petition is

granted under subparagraph ©.

“(E) For purposes of this paragraph–

“(i) the term `known or suspected terrorist’ means a

person determined by the Attorney General to be known (or

appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in

conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or

related to terrorism, or providing material support or

resources for terrorism;

“(ii) the term `material support or resources’ has the

meaning given the term in section 2339A; and

“(iii) the term `terrorism’ includes international

terrorism and domestic terrorism, as defined in section

2331.”.

So, the person is:

notified((I)

Allowed counsel ((II)

(D) indicates such “probable cause” should lead to an arrest. Which is the legal standard.

 

 

 

Seems better than what the Democrats want. At least this plan allows you to attend the hearing with a lawyer.

[defaultdotxbe]

Being better than bad doesn't make it good

 

What do they mean "upon being notified of a prospective transfer" Does that mean they will be delaying to notify the AG, then delaying again to get a warrant? Or will the AG just issue a standing directive to delay everyone whether they pursue warrants or not?

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[Hap]

(D) indicates such “probable cause” should lead to an arrest. Which is the legal standard.

 

Seems better than what the Democrats want. At least this plan allows you to attend the hearing with a lawyer.

 

What the Democrats want is acceptance of the idea that a government official can make a list of people whose 2A rights can be denied without due process. Followed to its logical conclusion, this idea would spread to the state and local levels, effectively giving every jurisdiction a veto over 2A rights.

 

It would be ironic to have won the battle for shall-issue carry only to wind up with the Darts of this world having a veto on firearms purchases.

[transplant]

The D bill rejected a week or two ago was terrible for all the above reasons. I don't really see any problems with the R bill. It has due process built in and a proper standard of probable cause built in. Looks like a good bill to me.

[defaultdotxbe]

The D bill rejected a week or two ago was terrible for all the above reasons. I don't really see any problems with the R bill. It has due process built in and a proper standard of probable cause built in. Looks like a good bill to me.

It allows them to delay a transfer without probable cause though, so they could essentially turn it into a 72 hour waiting period on all transfers

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[POAT54]

 

The D bill rejected a week or two ago was terrible for all the above reasons. I don't really see any problems with the R bill. It has due process built in and a proper standard of probable cause built in. Looks like a good bill to me.

It allows them to delay a transfer without probable cause though, so they could essentially turn it into a 72 hour waiting period on all transfers

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

It creates a review board for the entire country, how does that work for the few that get caught up in that process. 72 hours before they tell you about the issue, then how long before you get a hearing? How long before the hearing has to return a decision? How do you defend against this he said she said court? Each state is different but in Illinois it takes at least 2 yrs to get a divorce, another he said she said court. It is a star chamber system where the lawn darts of the world control you.

What is that called?

[defaultdotxbe]

If the standard of evidence is the same as required to make an arrest then why not arrest all the "suspected terrorists" for whom such evidence exists, then there's no more need to have a list at all

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[.40carry]

Am I looking at this wrong? The libs propose a wakadoo plan that gets rejected. The R's write a bill that moves closer to lefts ultimate desires. We call this a win? It's just another small step towards what the left wants. We're losing and some celebrate the fact. Then in 10 years when the left gets fully what they want, we will scratch our heads and wonder how we got there. We are defeating ourselves and the libs laugh while they win.

[POAT54]

Borrowed from America's 1st Freedom. An Article called "The Faces Of The FBI’s Secret Lists".

 

If you’re comfortable denying countless people like them their constitutionally protected right to bear arms, without any semblance of due process, then it’s time to face the fact that you’re part of the problem.

[defaultdotxbe]

Am I looking at this wrong? The libs propose a wakadoo plan that gets rejected. The R's write a bill that moves closer to lefts ultimate desires. We call this a win? It's just another small step towards what the left wants. We're losing and some celebrate the fact. Then in 10 years when the left gets fully what they want, we will scratch our heads and wonder how we got there. We are defeating ourselves and the libs laugh while they win.

That what the "comprises" always are. The antis move a few items from today's wishlist to tomorrow's, and we get the shaft

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[MrTriple]

The D bill rejected a week or two ago was terrible for all the above reasons. I don't really see any problems with the R bill. It has due process built in and a proper standard of probable cause built in. Looks like a good bill to me.

No, this is a bad bill, and the Republicans can (and must) kill it. Nobody should have their right to buy a gun subject to the ruling of a bureaucrat or any sort of list. Even with the comprise we still lose. Sure, you can attend a hearing to dispute the ruling, but unless you're wealthy or have a good lawyer, you can't afford it.

[BobPistol]

What's a two party system? We have the left-a-whacka-doo party and the "we want to follow right behind them" party.

[rmart]

What would prevent a bureaucrat from just reposting your name on the list every 72 hours?

[defaultdotxbe]

What would prevent a bureaucrat from just reposting your name on the list every 72 hours?

The fact that your name is not removed from the list even if the transfer is allowed. Once you're caught in the net it's basically a 72 hour wait for every transfer from then on

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[Neumann]

In the words of Obama, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the greatest threat to homeland security are right-wing radicals. Specifically, veterans returning from the middle-east are prime suspects. One of the questions asked of would-be immigrants is, "Do you have knowledge of explosives and the use of firearms?". That applies to almost 100% of veterans. So it goes. Have you been to a shooting range lately? Syed Farook and his bride did that regularly, so you're in bad company in Obama's way of thinking.

[Uncle Harley]

What would prevent a bureaucrat from just reposting your name on the list every 72 hours?

The fact that your name is not removed from the list even if the transfer is allowed. Once you're caught in the net it's basically a 72 hour wait for every transfer from then on

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I think they do this now lol , I've never had anything more than a speeding ticket yet every firearm I purchase I'm delayed

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

 

[chibooey]

If a person has already committed sufficient acts to be placed on the no fly list then the purchasing of a firearm should be considered an overt act of terrorism thus providing probable cause fort their immediate arrest followed by trial in a court of law. If there is insufficient probable cause to arrest a person then they should not be on the no fly list and their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty simple in my mind although we the people have never been told what the current government believes is an acceptable reason to place someone on the no fly list.

[chibooey]

 

 

What would prevent a bureaucrat from just reposting your name on the list every 72 hours?

The fact that your name is not removed from the list even if the transfer is allowed. Once you're caught in the net it's basically a 72 hour wait for every transfer from then on

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

I think they do this now lol , I've never had anything more than a speeding ticket yet every firearm I purchase I'm delayed

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

 

I feel you Harley. I have never had an transfer completed in less than 36 hours due to waiting for the approval. Some have taken more than 48 hours and no one can tell me why.

[IH8IL]

So whats new on this? This is honestly no good. Like noone can take advantage of this. They'll just reword it later and boom, noone gets anything.

[Uncle Harley]

If a person has already committed sufficient acts to be placed on the no fly list then the purchasing of a firearm should be considered an overt act of terrorism thus providing probable cause fort their immediate arrest followed by trial in a court of law. If there is insufficient probable cause to arrest a person then they should not be on the no fly list and their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty simple in my mind although we the people have never been told what the current government believes is an acceptable reason to place someone on the no fly list.

 

This is the direction they need to go, There should be a hearing with probable cause to be put on the list and if found enough then to be put on the list then they should be arrested , if they do that, then the whole purchasing a gun thing would be moot because there is no way they would pass if they were in jail or out on bond awaiting their trial.

[LannyH]

know one knows who is on the list or how they are put on it this list this is very Un-American. Can you be put on for a post on FB Like, Being a member of this Forum, Voting Republican, bring a member of NRA or INRA there is people on the list that has the same name as someone else. with over 700,000 name on it I really wonder how many are really terrorist and not just someone that Ticked someone off. and these were not on it

 

The suspects, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were allowed to travel freely and had not been placed on the Department of Homeland Security's no-fly list.