The 2nd amendment, gun laws and some ideas

Can we create an approach to gun reform that protects the 2nd amendment while taking into account changing times?

I have been watching the threads on this topic as well as the news and it got me thinking.

The problems / issues we face today

No Fly list / Terrorist Watch list
The no fly list is arbitrary and when it involves a US citizen there is no due process. A recent court action dealing with the no fly list saw a judge ask council representing the US how to challenge the listing. The government lawyer hemmed hawed around the question and finally said they would have to take it up with Homeland security (even though the list is created / maintained by the FBI and not DHS). During the back and forth the government lawyer essentially told the judge that the courts really have no jurisdiction when its comes to the lists and how they work.

The Question and the Ideas

The question -
Would you be willing to accept a 5 day wait on purchasing a firearm for the background check / no fly list / terrorist watch list check to be conducted provided -

The Ideas -

* - The delay would apply to all weapons, including long rifles (nationwide standard).
* - The no fly list / terrorist watch list were codified with guaranteed redress up to and including access to the federal courts to challenge a denial.
* - The government would be required to prove their case as to why a person was denied.
* - The government would not be able to use "national security" to deny access to documents should a denial go to court.
* - Heavy fines / jail times for the people / agency responsible for denying a purchase, who loses in a court challenge, and fails to remove the persons information from the active no fly / terrorist watch list.
* - Having an exemption to the 5 days wait for individuals involved in criminal cases as a victim whom have a legitimate need for immediate protection (Domestic violence / stalking / etc).
* - The wait would apply to all, including law enforcement (with an exemption for agencies who issue department duty weapons).
* - A uniform federal firearms law that applies to all 50 states / DC / etc that defines what the federal government can regulate while the states can define where guns can be carried and the types of weapons that can be sold in the state (Supreme Court just ruled that municipalities / government entities can ban the purchase / sale of "assault rifles" within their jurisdiction.
* - A Uniform Federal conceal carry law, removing the CCW laws / positions from the states while establishing uniform training requirements for CCW carry. Again the states can define where a person can or cannot carry a concealed weapon (bars / etc).
* - A notation in any law associated with the above that reaffirms the right to bear arms applies to the individual.
* - Personal information required to purchase is established by the Federal government however all collected data remains with the state.
* - A uniform system where if law enforcement ran a persons name it would denote the person lawfully has a ccw.
* - A uniform notice / marking / symbol / word / etc standard established by the federal government to be incorporated into state ID / Driver's licenses to denote CCW status.
* - The Federal Law could be prosecuted at the State level or the Federal level, depending on the type of violation.

I view this as a more responsible approach that weighs the rights of the individual with a system that is more uniform and fair and takes into account societal change / world change. We are not going to get anywhere with the Democrats wanting to shred the 2nd amendment to the constitution while Republicans block meaningful ideas / reforms based on an all or nothing approach.

This country is not 100% republican or democrat and we need to break Washington of the deadly mindset that they will not compromise with each other.


Thoughts?

Not as long as the politics can alter or control the list.

I would let you get your gun anywhere,anytime 24/7/365 with the internet you can more or less do that anyway,banning guns is stupid due to the amount already in circulation,bear any arm you want,but when it comes to getting ammunition you'd be getting that at the sheriffs office and well and truly have to pass muster for it.

With all that government oversight what could possibly go wrong? (Not trying to sound snarky)

I would propose:
-No weapons for anyone not a legal U.S. Citizen.
-Firearm education paid for by the NRA. Guns always have and hopefully always will be part of American culture. The way youngsters these days are exposed to firearms is from video games or enlisting. Embrace the reality that they exist and the damage they can do. Maybe (and it's arguable) this will make kids think twice about bringing guns to school knowing everyone is on an equal ground training wise.

Criticisms to points (others to be considered as agreeable)

"National security" requirement would seem to be redundant to its preceding requirement.

Penalties for bureaucrats will never fly.

The emergency clause is a bit irksome. I understand the rationale but it seems to lean on a presumption of guilt on the part of the "perp."

The federal aspect. Redundant. Been there. Federal assault weapon ban, expired. Could come back.

CCW. Too much federal control.

Reaffirmation of 2nd amendment. Highly redundant lip service.

Data; I think an overall database would be an effective tool. Interstate cooperation is unreliable without federal oversight.

I don't understand this one:
* - A uniform system where if law enforcement ran a persons name it would denote the person lawfully has a ccw.
Is it not in conflict with the prior one?

This one is in direct conflict with the Constitution:
* - The Federal Law could be prosecuted at the State level or the Federal level, depending on the type of violation.

You have a couple good Ideas. But ultimately. No. No. And more No. I did like the idea of a federal CCW, one that would be recognized by all states. But in my state you don't need a CCW to conceal carry lawfully.

As far as wait times for some odd reason whenever I bought a firearm before I had my CCW the feds always put a hold on me. I am a born US citizen with no criminal record and they would always deny me a same day purchase. Keep in mind this is in Arizona with the some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation. When the Feds put a hold on you they typically have 5 days to respond back with a purchase approval or denial. If they don't respond then the gun store can legally give you the firearm. I have had the feds release my gun the next day and sometimes they don't call back at all meaning I waited the full 5 for my gun. It became a hassle so I just got my CCW. Point is if the feds want to put a hold on you they will regardless of state law.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Not as long as the politics can alter or control the list.

Thats why I suggest the lists in question be codified with specifics. Could always loook at adding something that would require a process to modify thats spelled out with appropriate amounts of time for political debate in Congress and the state level.

a reply to: khnum

Yeah im not a fan of internet sales for weapons purchase unless a system is in place to verify its on the up and up. I know there was discussion about the ammunition however I dont know how far it got (identifiable ammo).

originally posted by: JinMI
With all that government oversight what could possibly go wrong? (Not trying to sound snarky)

Your good and I agree. Thats why I was looking at very specific language spelling this stuff out.

originally posted by: JinMI
I would propose:
-No weapons for anyone not a legal U.S. Citizen.

The FBI sheet for non residents / aliens and hun purchases is kind of scary. I suppose one issue is going to be the US Constitution. It applies to everyone in the US, regardless if they are a citizen or not.

originally posted by: JinMI
-Firearm education paid for by the NRA. Guns always have and hopefully always will be part of American culture. The way youngsters these days are exposed to firearms is from video games or enlisting. Embrace the reality that they exist and the damage they can do. Maybe (and it's arguable) this will make kids think twice about bringing guns to school knowing everyone is on an equal ground training wise.

An interesting idea. Why should the NRA pay for it if you dont mind me asking.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You have to be a victim already to deserve immediate protection?

We have had 5 day waiting periods before.
I remember waiting.
What good did it do?
The instant background check did away with them.
Now we need them again.

I saw nothing in your items stating the due process was required to get on that list....only to get off the list. That, to me, indicates guilty until proven innocent. Last I checked, that was not how our system works. And neither should it work that way.

originally posted by: Phage
Criticisms to points (others to be considered as agreeable)

"National security" requirement would seem to be redundant to its preceding requirement.

The current use of "national security" with the lists (fly/terror) allows the government to use national security as grounds to place people on the list as well as being able to refuse to turn over any info for those trying to get off the list. Feinsteins bill from 2015 would allow national security to be used to not only deny the accused access to the information, but the judges as well. Anything turned over to the courts would be heavily redacted provided they get info at all. That language is actually used in her bill.

originally posted by: Phage
Penalties for bureaucrats will never fly.

Or some form of punishment for failing to follow the law by not removing info as required.

originally posted by: Phage
The emergency clause is a bit irksome. I understand the rationale but it seems to lean on a presumption of guilt on the part of the "perp."

Given domestic violence laws and how operate some exemption would be needed.

originally posted by: Phage
The federal aspect. Redundant. Been there. Federal assault weapon ban, expired. Could come back.

That could be fixed by adding language to the "law".

originally posted by: Phage
CCW. Too much federal control.

Not really.. It would establish uniform guidelines for training / conceal carry in other states. Where they could carry etc would be up to the individual states. When the feds passed HR 218, SB1132 and HR 4310 it exempted current and retired law enforcement for the individual state conceal carry laws. We can carry concealed in any state regardless if the state has laws that dont allow conceal carry.

A similar setup could be adapted to ccw and I know there has been on and off again conversations at the federal level for something like that.

originally posted by: Phage
Reaffirmation of 2nd amendment. Highly redundant lip service.

An ever present reminder to those who want to change the bill that the 2nd amendment applies to the individual.

originally posted by: Phage
Data; I think an overall database would be an effective tool. Interstate cooperation is unreliable without federal oversight.

I don't understand this one:
* - A uniform system where if law enforcement ran a persons name it would denote the person lawfully has a ccw.
Is it not in conflict with the prior one?

Each state has their own requirements for how their law enforcement information systems displays information when police run a person. Some only mark the DL or state id card, others attach information to the return when a person is run.

Each state has their own privacy laws as well which affects the information officers can receive. As an example if an officer from Illinois runs a person who lives in Illinois they get access to the info, including DL photos. If the citizen from Illinois is stopped in Missouri and is rn by Mo law enforcement, we would get a different return information wise and we would not have access to their DL photo.

The federal system is different as well and we get different info than what a federal officer would (in general).

originally posted by: Phage
This one is in direct conflict with the Constitution:
* - The Federal Law could be prosecuted at the State level or the Federal level, depending on the type of violation.

Actually it doesn't. The federal law would spell out crime violations and can classify certain crimes that the states would be responsible for. The states would then adopt the respective section and incorporate them into their respective bodies of law.

The section assigned to the states would not be prosecutable by the feds and the federal section would not be prosecutable by the states.

a reply to: butcherguy

For specific victims of certain crimes. Like I said they are just ideas.

The waiting period (time frame was a number I chose) was designed to allow for the no fly list / terror watch list checks to be completed. Currently the background checks does not automatically hit those databases.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Thats why I said the watch / terror list should be codified and include redress. The standard is reasonable suspicion and not probable cause for the list.

If I am investigating a potential law violation, say terroristic threats, I have reasonable suspicion a crime may have occurred. I am not required to notify the suspect and can take time to investigate /speak to people (if info is required that needs subpoenas then the investigation is moved forward). Adding a persons name to a list based on the reasonable suspicion grounds would be acceptable (given that the lists are codified and spells out specifics). After a certain time has elapsed and if no information has come to light to advance the investigation beyond initial stages their info would be removed from the active lists.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But as you state "reasonable suspicion" does NOT require judicial review (for expediency sake I am sure). So, making reasonable suspicion a condition of preventing a citizen of exercising their right, or infringing their right to keep and bear arms is still unconstitutional. No matter how you try to word or spin it, that is a fact. Due process is REQUIRED to be placed on that list in the first place if it is to be added as a condition of firearm ownership. Anything less is unconstitutional and wrong. This leads the way toward another era of McCarthyism IMO. I would rather we, as a country not repeat that dark period in our history. When FEAR ruled the actions and ruined the lives of so many innocents that were forced to PROVE their innocence.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Due Process is a guarantee that people will have full and complete / fair access to the legal system.

Reasonable suspicion is not a due process violation.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Again that's why I said the lists would be codified with specific language protecting peoples rights whose names end up on the list and would spell out the procedure to clear it off (by the responsible agency if an investigation doesn't move forward) or the person in question if the investigation does move forward.

What the government is doing with the no fly list right now is jacked up because redress is missing / a procedure for a person to defend himself. The current suggestions on being able to deny a firearm purchase if the name is on the list with the current setup would be unconstitutional as you are being denied a constitutional right outside the judicial system.

That's why they would be codified and specific language added to guarantee due process / redress of grievances.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But, you fail to understand that having your name put ON the list does not require that. As reasonable suspicion is legally defined as:

Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. It is looser than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions, but not enough to justify a full search. When determining reasonable suspicion, courts consider the events leading up to the brief stop and a decide whether these facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.

Source for definition


As you can see, it was never meant to be a long-term stoppage, but only a BRIEF STOP or DETENTION. Granted, the word "brief" is debatable in this case....as it is a gray area and not clearly defined. Is brief 30 minutes, 30 days, 1 year? After all, if the average American lifespan is approx 70 yrs, then 1/70th of ones lifetime does seem brief in that context. Also, since a police officer testimony (or LEO to be more broad) is NOT needed to get on the list. Your suggestion addresses the legal means to fight being on the list afterwards. My point is that it does not address being put on the list in the first place. Unless, if course, I am misunderstanding your idea. So, I will ask you for direct clarification.

Does your idea require legally defined "reasonable suspicion" as a condition to be placed upon the list (implying judicial review prior to being added)?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The NRA is made up of donations to keep it running, donations from many people who wish for them to keep lobbying for right's protection. They also already provide classes. I feel they should "lobby" the youth of America to know about the their rights and educate them to the beneficial and destructive properties of firearms.

Its early in the morning and maybe I'm missing something here, but if the primary purpose of this is that you want to stop people on the watch lists from purchasing firearms, why subject the entire population to this when only a small subset of that population is actually on the watch lists?

originally posted by: vor78
Its early in the morning and maybe I'm missing something here, but if the primary purpose of this is that you want to stop people on the watch lists from purchasing firearms, why subject the entire population to this when only a small subset of that population is actually on the watch lists?

Very small, but also wrong.
I remember Ted Kennedy had trouble flying before because he was on a no fly list.
Yet the shooter in Orlando was taken off of the watch list.
WTF good does it do?
Keep good people from having a g I n and let bad guys keep them?