San Bernardino
-
The bill would give the attorney general discretion to “deny the transfer of a firearm” if he or she “determines that the transferee is 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” and “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”
In other words, the bill would have given the [Democratic] Attorney General of the United States the power to define terrorism, and then deny anyone who falls under his or her definition their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Based on the AG’s “reasonable belief.”
Statism baby! That’s how the Dems roll.
The Obama administration’s no-fly lists and broader watchlisting system is based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses, the government has been forced to admit in court.In a little-noticed filing before an Oregon federal judge, the US Justice Department and the FBI conceded that stopping US and other citizens from travelling on airplanes is a matter of “predictive assessments about potential threats”, the government asserted in May . . .The declaration comes in a longstanding case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), arguing that the government does not provide significant steps for someone caught in the “predictive assessments” to get off the blacklists.Note that the above-named Senators (not to mention our NY RINO pal Peter King in the House and his Democratic pals) want to duplicate the No-Fly List to create a No-Gun List. It would involve the same secret determination according to secret criteria, without prior judicial oversight.
While the No-Fly List appeals process is ultimately adjudicated by . . . wait for it . . . the Transportation Safety Administration, someone on the No-Gun List would have to take Uncle Sam to court, where they would NOT be able to see the evidence against them (ex parte all the way baby!).
While we await the return of the No-Gun list proposal, the civilian disarmament industrial complex continues its clarion call for federal laws to prohibit people on the No-Fly list from purchasing firearms. This recent revelation about the No-Fly list’s unproven, unconstitutional “predictive” process should completely undermine that effort. But won’t.
On Friday, the ACLU asked Judge Anna Brown to conduct her own review of the error rate in the government’s predictions modeling – a process the ACLU likens to the “pre-crime” of Philip K Dick’s science fiction. -
People who are on the no fly list can buy guns.
It'd probably be good to have some sort of law to prohibit that, don't ya think?
---
I'm not saying that would have prevented this or many others obviously, but dismissing every kind of gun reform is foolish.
Mohammed Al-Zarkaweri-Fleshbong who is on the no-fly list because he's a suspected terrorist shouldn't be able to go buy an AR-15.
At least in my opinion.
He also shouldn't be in our country.People who are on the no fly list can buy guns.
It'd probably be good to have some sort of law to prohibit that, don't ya think?
---
I'm not saying that would have prevented this or many others obviously, but dismissing every kind of gun reform is foolish.
Mohammed Al-Zarkaweri-Fleshbong who is on the no-fly list because he's a suspected terrorist shouldn't be able to go buy an AR-15.
At least in my opinion.
Gun problem solved.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
So, you posted the link, then dumped the text from the link? I'm capable of clicking on the link. It basically said "government baaaaaad"
"...based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses..." So, now we're saying intelligence is a bad thing?
Aside from being scared of the governmental boogie man, what legitimate reasons are there for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns?
-
He also shouldn't be in our country.People who are on the no fly list can buy guns.
It'd probably be good to have some sort of law to prohibit that, don't ya think?
---
I'm not saying that would have prevented this or many others obviously, but dismissing every kind of gun reform is foolish.
Mohammed Al-Zarkaweri-Fleshbong who is on the no-fly list because he's a suspected terrorist shouldn't be able to go buy an AR-15.
At least in my opinion.
Gun problem solved.
He also shouldn't be in our country.
Gun problem solved.
The shooter today was born in the US. Which country should he have been in?
-
It is better to incorrectly call a good part defective than to call a defective part good and ship it to the customer.
-
It is better to incorrectly call a good part defective than to call a defective part good and ship it to the customer.
It is better to incorrectly call a good part defective than to call a defective part hood and ship it yo the customer.
Spell check man. Like it or not, your point carries significantly more legitimacy if the spelling and grammar is on point.
To your point, that works in parts, but the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing disagrees.
-
So, you posted the link, then dumped the text from the link? I'm capable of clicking on the link. It basically said "government baaaaaad"
"...based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses..." So, now we're saying intelligence is a bad thing?
Aside from being scared of the governmental boogie man, what legitimate reasons are there for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns?
So, you posted the link, then dumped the text from the link? I'm capable of clicking on the link. It basically said "government baaaaaad"
"...based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses..." So, now we're saying intelligence is a bad thing?
Aside from being scared of the governmental boogie man, what legitimate reasons are there for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns?
What is hard to understand about getting the process right first before enacting yet another law that will infringe on the rights of innocent people. The system that puts people on no fly lists is flawed as has been demonstrated. Fix the system where actual terrorists are on the list instead of those just suspected such as conservative journalists.
-
So, you posted the link, then dumped the text from the link? I'm capable of clicking on the link. It basically said "government baaaaaad"
"...based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses..." So, now we're saying intelligence is a bad thing?
Aside from being scared of the governmental boogie man, what legitimate reasons are there for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns?
What is hard to understand about getting the process right first before enacting yet another law that will infringe on the rights of innocent people. The system that puts people on no fly lists is flawed as has been demonstrated. Fix the system where actual terrorists are on the list instead of those just suspected such as conservative journalists.
What is hard to understand about getting the process right first before enacting yet another law that will infringe on the rights of innocent people. The system that puts people on no fly lists is flawed as has been demonstrated. Fix the system where actual terrorists are on the list instead of those just suspected such as conservative journalists.
Even by your own logic, the part of the process that is (apparently) at fault is not the "suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns" but the "this person is a suspected terrorist" part. By all means fix that if it's broken, but I'd rather a few people get inadvertently caught in the "is this persona terrorist? maybe, let's keep them under serveillance for a bit" net than a few actual terrorists slip through.
I'm honestly staggered that we're even having this debate.
-
It is better to incorrectly call a good part defective than to call a defective part hood and ship it yo the customer.
Spell check man. Like it or not, your point carries significantly more legitimacy if the spelling and grammar is on point.
To your point, that works in parts, but the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing disagrees.
Spell check man. Like it or not, your point carries significantly more legitimacy if the spelling and grammar is on point.
To your point, that works in parts, but the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing disagrees.
That was in response to Ed and having people incorrectly on the no fly list be unable to get guns.
-
He also shouldn't be in our country.
Gun problem solved.
The shooter today was born in the US. Which country should he have been in?
-
What is hard to understand about getting the process right first before enacting yet another law that will infringe on the rights of innocent people. The system that puts people on no fly lists is flawed as has been demonstrated. Fix the system where actual terrorists are on the list instead of those just suspected such as conservative journalists.
Even by your own logic, the part of the process that is (apparently) at fault is not the "suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns" but the "this person is a suspected terrorist" part. By all means fix that if it's broken, but I'd rather a few people get inadvertently caught in the "is this persona terrorist? maybe, let's keep them under serveillance for a bit" net than a few actual terrorists slip through.
I'm honestly staggered that we're even having this debate.
-
What is hard to understand about getting the process right first before enacting yet another law that will infringe on the rights of innocent people. The system that puts people on no fly lists is flawed as has been demonstrated. Fix the system where actual terrorists are on the list instead of those just suspected such as conservative journalists.
Even by your own logic, the part of the process that is (apparently) at fault is not the "suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns" but the "this person is a suspected terrorist" part. By all means fix that if it's broken, but I'd rather a few people get inadvertently caught in the "is this persona terrorist? maybe, let's keep them under serveillance for a bit" net than a few actual terrorists slip through.
I'm honestly staggered that we're even having this debate.
Even by your own logic, the part of the process that is (apparently) at fault is not the "suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns" but the "this person is a suspected terrorist" part. By all means fix that if it's broken, but I'd rather a few people get inadvertently caught in the "is this persona terrorist? maybe, let's keep them under serveillance for a bit" net than a few actual terrorists slip through.
I'm honestly staggered that we're even having this debate.
Just saying whatever is done to fight terrorism must follow our constitution and we should not suspend our constitution to fight terrorism. Fix the no fly system and make it better first before passing a law stating if you are on the no fly zone you cannot own a weapon is all that I am asking. Of course I do not want to see terrorists legally buy weapons here (but seriously they aren't getting them legally anyway). In principal I am for this law but I want it to pass our constitutional muster where law abiding citizens don't find themselves in this net meant for terrorists. It is easy to say if it is just a few it is alright as long as you are not the person who is one of the few.
-
I wasn't expecting any level of comprehension from you. Thanks for not letting me down.While I agree that in this current climate, disarming U.S citizens while allowing these fucks into the country is beyond Retard, to say your logic string here is fail is being nice. Equating an SUV with a gun that was built for one purpose and one purpose only........I mean just stop. We can have other valid arguments but this constant insistence on your part to equate guns with other innocuous "things" is getting absurd.
I wasn't expecting any level of comprehension from you. Thanks for not letting me down.
there's nothing of value to comprehend with your logic. I technically see what you're always trying to do but it's stupid. Wholesale stupid. It's just a pre rendered boiler plated narrative that's been put on you, and you can't for the life of you see through it.
-
A. Edw is an asshole for talking about how I and anybody else want no fly people suspected of
terrorist ties/leanings...to buy guns.
Stop being an asshole, edw. The problem is, we've had a pres/AG who would happily put entire classes of
groups of people on the no fly list. He's that corrupt in his leftism. Social security folks
who have friends/family handle their finances... returning veterans... tea party folks...pro-Constitution folks....
anti-abortion folks....anti-mmgw folks.....anti-perverse redefinition of marriage folks....any American with
more than one or two guns....
so please STFU about your knee jerking politics. Opposing a very bad law that the left wants and falsely claims
"it will solve the problem"....doesn't mean that those who rightly oppose the very bad law want the problem to stay.
That is just so intellectually dishonest it's amazing that so many libs go for that nonsense.
B. Obamao has brought this on us - unlimited, unvetted mass immigration, extreme weakness and cowardice,
biased way over the top towards MUSLIMS and MUSLIM COUNTRIES, refusing to say the words "Islamic
extremists/terrorists".....
C. It is the usual corruption of leftism - encourage a crisis so you can use it for political gain against your political opponents.
Look at how he has acted on mmgw, 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, Christian moral stances, siding with all blacks
in any shooting or violence or legal controversy....
California already has nearly the strongest gun control in the country..., how many times has this been shown
to be exactly what NOT to do to regular Americans? These Bern. terrorists had bombs. Those are illegal.
They planned this for a good while.
D. The brother-in-law of Syed gave a short pres conference statement - he emotionally said he never, ever saw this coming,
and he was so sorry, for the victims of the violence....... he is very much devastated.
E. I reckon I will never understand liberals turning on their fellow Americans when terrorism hits, like the Bern. terrorists
did. What kind of sick idea do they have, to go after hundreds of millions of decent American folks, every time
a mentally sick individual/and/or/ISLAMIC TERRORIST acts out in hideous violence?
What the hell is up with blaming the "NRA" or "Tea Party" ?
F. I understand they are not declaring this an act of terrorism until the facts are in. But, more and more the facts
are saying just that. Don't be surprised if ObaMao never does admit it. He just wants to go after
political opponents, including the American people who aren't like him....
G. Gee, another gun free zone...dammit. It seems that the Saudi wife of Syed? got a job there...to scout the place,
or maybe I didn't hear it right - I was in the other room answering the phone....
-
If I am one of the few I'm going to have other issues, like not being able to fly, but honestly if it all comes out fine and I get an apology, I'm ok with it.
Fix the 'selection process' by all means, but that shouldn't be the reason to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns at will. That's where your problem is.
-
You already suspend your constitution plenty. Prisoners, drug addicts, mental patients, and a bunch of other groups of people aren't allowed to buy guns.
So, given that the 'suspending the constitution = terrorists winning' argument doesn't hold much water, why should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy guns exactly? Chris
****************************************************
Wrong on all counts. They aren't allowed to guy guns because they went through due process, and violated
their responsibilities as American citizens, and lost their rights and went to a ward/prison.
A suspected terrorist is only as possibly guilty as the evidence that he really is a terrorist, or not -
In America, we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Obamao doesn't get to declare all those who
object to mmgw, oppose abortion and perverse marriage and who own guns as "suspected terrorists".
The "no-fly" list must not be allowed to be used as a political weapon. And ObaMao has used the IRS
as a weapon already. And the BATF. Remember 'fast and furious" ? That was a political weapon gambit
that backfired.
That is how corrupt Obamao, Holder, Lynch and the whole bunch are.
-
I wasn't expecting any level of comprehension from you. Thanks for not letting me down.
there's nothing of value to comprehend with your logic. I technically see what you're always trying to do but it's stupid. Wholesale stupid. It's just a pre rendered boiler plated narrative that's been put on you, and you can't for the life of you see through it.
no you actually don't. Which is comical (read: sad).there's nothing of value to comprehend with your logic. I technically see what you're always trying to do but it's stupid. Wholesale stupid. It's just a pre rendered boiler plated narrative that's been put on you, and you can't for the life of you see through it.
-
A. Edw is an asshole for talking about how I and anybody else want no fly people suspected of
terrorist ties/leanings...to buy guns.
Stop being an asshole, edw. The problem is, we've had a pres/AG who would happily put entire classes of
groups of people on the no fly list. He's that corrupt in his leftism. Social security folks
who have friends/family handle their finances... returning veterans... tea party folks...pro-Constitution folks....
anti-abortion folks....anti-mmgw folks.....anti-perverse redefinition of marriage folks....any American with
more than one or two guns....
so please STFU about your knee jerking politics. Opposing a very bad law that the left wants and falsely claims
"it will solve the problem"....doesn't mean that those who rightly oppose the very bad law want the problem to stay.
That is just so intellectually dishonest it's amazing that so many libs go for that nonsense.
B. Obamao has brought this on us - unlimited, unvetted mass immigration, extreme weakness and cowardice,
biased way over the top towards MUSLIMS and MUSLIM COUNTRIES, refusing to say the words "Islamic
extremists/terrorists".....
C. It is the usual corruption of leftism - encourage a crisis so you can use it for political gain against your political opponents.
Look at how he has acted on mmgw, 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, Christian moral stances, siding with all blacks
in any shooting or violence or legal controversy....
California already has nearly the strongest gun control in the country..., how many times has this been shown
to be exactly what NOT to do to regular Americans? These Bern. terrorists had bombs. Those are illegal.
They planned this for a good while.
D. The brother-in-law of Syed gave a short pres conference statement - he emotionally said he never, ever saw this coming,
and he was so sorry, for the victims of the violence....... he is very much devastated.
E. I reckon I will never understand liberals turning on their fellow Americans when terrorism hits, like the Bern. terrorists
did. What kind of sick idea do they have, to go after hundreds of millions of decent American folks, every time
a mentally sick individual/and/or/ISLAMIC TERRORIST acts out in hideous violence?
What the hell is up with blaming the "NRA" or "Tea Party" ?
F. I understand they are not declaring this an act of terrorism until the facts are in. But, more and more the facts
are saying just that. Don't be surprised if ObaMao never does admit it. He just wants to go after
political opponents, including the American people who aren't like him....
G. Gee, another gun free zone...dammit. It seems that the Saudi wife of Syed? got a job there...to scout the place,
or maybe I didn't hear it right - I was in the other room answering the phone....
-
The devil is in the details:
In their zeal to defeat Republican terrorists, Democrats have decided that the constitutional right to due process is a loophole that must be closed
Their new secret weapon? A bill that would ban anyone whose name appears on a terror watch list from buying or possessing a firearm. The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.
The new bill, which Democrats have dubbed the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015, gives the U.S. attorney general the authority to “deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists.”
According to several Democratic sponsors of the bill, the proposed law would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list. The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list. In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.
It gets even worse, though. If your name erroneously appears on that watch list, which as of 2013 included nearly 900,000 names (hardly a few), the Democrats’ proposed legislation renders you virtually powerless to find out why your name is on there, let alone to have it removed. And having your name erroneously or fraudulently added to that list isn’t as far-fetched as you might think.In 2014, for example, Weekly Standard writer and Fox News contributor Stephen F. Hayes was informed that somebody added his name to the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorist watch list. There is zero credible evidence that he has any ties whatsoever to terrorism or to any terrorist organizations. Yet, under the Democrats’ new bill, he and everyone else who is erroneously listed would be banned from ever purchasing or possessing a firearm. Hayes’ apparent crime was traveling overseas for a cruise. Hayes is not alone. Each year, thousands of names end up on the terror watch list for no good reason whatsoever.
Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.
Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence–evidence which will almost certainly be redacted–in order to strip you of your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family from terrorists:
Remember, you don’t have to be convicted of any crime whatsoever to end up on the terrorist watch list. You don’t even have to be charged with a crime to lose your constitutional rights under the proposed law. If this proposed legislation were to become law, some DHS bureaucrat–perhaps the type of bureaucrat who wrote earlier this year that “right-wing terrorists” pose the biggest threat to American national security–only needs to snap his fingers and add your name to the blacklist in order to immediately deprive you of your Second Amendment rights and your constitutional right to due process. You don’t even get to review the entirety of the evidence against you.
The blatant unconstitutional deprivation of due process is more than sufficient reason to oppose this piece of legislation, but it’s not the only reason. There may actually be an even bigger reason to reject it: it is completely unnecessary, because the U.S. attorney general already has the power to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally buying guns, and that power can be exercised without unconstitutional deprivation of due process.
All the attorney general has to do to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them. That’s it. Charge these terrorists with terrorism, and their legal right to purchase firearms goes up in smoke. That’s because existing federal law states that anyone who’s been indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year–and felony indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorism certainly satisfies that standard–automatically becomes ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm:
-
So you're saying your problem is *still* with the people being put on the list? OK got it. You can stop dumping other people's words and try having a thought of your own some time maybe?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login