Senate blocks gun measures offered in wake of Orlando shooting

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
isis just cheered, they don't have to use bombs over here, just buy guns

Yup, now let everyone carry a gun. Wouldnt see 49 dead in that scenario.

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: lostbook

Make it required that to be put on that list in the first place, the feds need to go through a judicial review and due process. Anything less is a violation of the United States Constitution. The Senate Dems just voted that detail down today. Ask them why....

I'm not denying anyone's right to own a gun if they want to. However, you can't have a gun with you everywhere you go; alert and ready to shoot at a moments notice all of the time. Who wants to live like that?

More guns isn't the answer. These mass casualty, gun events happen without rhyme or reason and you can't protect everywhere-all the time. We need to be pro-active and not re-active.

by not requiring complete due process to be put on that list, and an equivalent process to be removed, yes, you are asking for every citizen to give up their rights at the whim of some desk jockey in the government. Laws are supposed to apply EQUALLY to every citizen....right? So, that means without due process, you could be added to that list, and all of a sudden your rights are now stripped. How do you fight it? Who put you on the list? Why were you put on the list? See, without due process, all those questions mean you are guilty and need to prove your innocence.

That is not how our judicial system is supposed to work under the constitution.

Why do seemingly intelligent people not actually UNDERSTAND that fact?????

So, you want to give terrorists and other crazies due process just so it doesn't make you feel un-easy about your rights to own a gun? I'm not asking for every citizen to give up their rights, I'm only asking that we approach this problem the right way. I believe the right way is to investigate mental health issue in this country.

Remember, I said let's be pro-active not re-active on this gun issue. Why do you have an issue with not allowing people on no-fly lists or terrorists to have a gun? Of course they can get them illegally anyway but at least it's a start.

If they are United States citizens, they DESERVE due process, just like you and I do. If, after being found guilty of a felony crime (or failing a background check which includes that) then due process has been served. Tossing out due process for suspicion of maybe doing something is so unconstitutional it is not funny. And you advocate that here? Who declares them "terrorists"? What is the criteria? Can someone be labeled a terrorist of they do not break the law? Just because we "want to" does not men we can willy-nilly throw out our laws to speed things up because you are impatient.

Due process is required for ALL citizens....innocent until proven guilty right? Or is it unless it takes too long?

Agreed. CITIZENS deserve Due Process but the laws in question are for Terrorists and people on no-fly lists....whom I assume aren't citizens or citizens who aren't in good standing with the law. I didn't see anywhere in the O.P. where it stated CITIZENS would be denied due process and that isn't what I said either.

Due process has nothing to do with the Mental Health issues in this country. It's a totally separate issue. That's the angle I want to debate.

Are you aware that it having your name put on one of those lists does NOT (I repeat, does not) require due process. Therefore, those who find themselves on the list cannot have their rights stripped until due process has been achieved. Right now, that is not the case. Until the process to put names on these lists goes through a judicial review and due process, then that has no direct bearing on whether U.S. citizens on that list can own any firearms. That is the problem with the lists. IT only takes some federal pencil pusher to type your name into this list...no oversight, no judge, no warrant, nothing. Is that what you are advocating be the basis for stripping someone of their rights?

What's the issue with these lists you speak of...? I work, pay taxes, and go home. If I'm on any lists, it's not stopping me from being free and I don't worry about lists or big brother. I'm not advocating stripping people of their rights; namely, citizens. I do support taking guns away from terrorists, people on no-fly lists, and people with Mental Health Issues....

The issue is there is absolutely no due process to end up with your name on the list....period. So, basing or preventing the ability to own or purchase a firearm because your name appears on the list side-steps the Constitution. If a bill was passed that did not require due process to be put on the list (and redress to be taken off the list which also does not exist yet) then your right was stripped without any judicial review.

I understand people when they say, "I don't want terrorist to get weapons"....I get that. But, EVERY citizen, regardless of party affiliation, religion, race, etc is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is how the system is supposed to work. Currently there is no accepted legal designation of "terrorist". None. Just because someone accuses you of something is not reason to have your rights stripped form you without your ability to fight it in court, and face your accuser. That is also in the Constitution.

One of the bills shot down by the Democratic party in this vote DID have due process added as part of the solution. Why did they vote that down if they wanted a real solution? One democratic senator claiming that "due process is what is killing us" is saying that they should not need due process to strip a constitutionally protected right from someone, even YOU, without a judge or jury making that decision. He, a single non judicially elected official should NOT have that much power in his hands.

We must NOT succumb to fear and pass unconstitutional laws just because we are afraid.

Sheesh people.....let's do this right for a change.

I'm not asking for every citizen to give up their rights, I'm only asking that we approach this problem the right way. I believe the right way is to investigate mental health issue in this country.

a reply to: lostbook

A mental health evaluation is an infringement. Who would do this evaluation? What guidelines would they follow? Who would pay for it? How long would it take?

Anti-gun mental evaluation: Any one that wants a firearm is insane. If you want a firearm you are insane therefore your request is deigned.

It is very dangerous territory to give the government the permission to dictate sanity, especially when so many of them fail the test.

However, isn't a background check already a mental health evaluation? The individual has acted in a way to not get them in prison or otherwise of note by authorities. They are able to function within the boundaries that society considers as sane.

a reply to: LuFri

It would not be an infringement if a judge review the case and determines the person is legally a danger to themselves or others. Then, and only then, would it be legal to strip them of these constitutional protections. An evaluation on its own is NOT a legal determination. We need to not act out of fear and haste when considering stripping away a person's constitutionally guaranteed protections....ALL protections.

Here is the form 4473 wiki that all the gun deniers seem to forget about. If you fill it out and lie on it, you have committed a felony. It is used for all legal gun sales and sales from gun shows. The only times that it is not normally used, that I know of, are sales from one individual to another within the residing state, but several states are requiring a 4473 for even that and if caught doing this within the state that requires documentation, you are committing a crime.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can click on the form on the page for a complete read.

One of the questions are, (paraphrased) Are you plotting to overthrow the government of the US?



Upon further study, that overthow clause is not there anymore!!?? The older 4473's had it. NM

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Not yet that I'm aware of, but

Thank you.

What a disingenuous crock. You keep asking people if their rights have been infringed by these things or not. Apparently you're just asking people who haven't been unduly put on a watch list and acting as if you're making a point.

What about the people who ARE on those lists for no good reason? Are you claiming THEIR rights aren't being infringed upon?

Ridiculous.

www.law.cornell.edu...

some info on due process

edit to add more info www.usatoday.com...

► An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list. ► An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. ► An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination. ► An amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, and to expand the background check database.

corbins bill was the only one that would have protected due process rights ,unsure how to look up who voted for what but perhaps another member could clarify why Senator Corbin's bill failed and how republicans and dems voted

originally posted by: LuFri

I'm not asking for every citizen to give up their rights, I'm only asking that we approach this problem the right way. I believe the right way is to investigate mental health issue in this country.

a reply to: lostbook

A mental health evaluation is an infringement. Who would do this evaluation? What guidelines would they follow? Who would pay for it? How long would it take?

Anti-gun mental evaluation: Any one that wants a firearm is insane. If you want a firearm you are insane therefore your request is deigned.

It is very dangerous territory to give the government the permission to dictate sanity, especially when so many of them fail the test.

However, isn't a background check already a mental health evaluation? The individual has acted in a way to not get them in prison or otherwise of note by authorities. They are able to function within the boundaries that society considers as sane.

So, you want crazy people to have guns just because there's no legal recourse against it? People love their rights to a gun...I get that. I'm not saying take everyone's guns away but with enough guns for every man, woman, and child in America do we really need more...?

We can debate this issue forever and never come to any conclusion........Talk to you later-after the next mass murder........

a reply to: atomish

I did make a point.

This was not an attempted assault on the 2nd amendment that seeks to ban guns as is claimed.

These measures do not endanger the 2nd amendment. People still have the right to purchase and bear arms.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
isis just cheered, they don't have to use bombs over here, just buy guns

Yup, now let everyone carry a gun. Wouldnt see 49 dead in that scenario.

Nope.

You'd probably see a lot more.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: atomish

I did make a point.

This was not an attempted assault on the 2nd amendment that seeks to ban guns as is claimed.

These measures do not endanger the 2nd amendment. People still have the right to purchase and bear arms.

Unless they end up on a list in error, without notice?

a reply to: Liquesence

Then you do not understand what the 2nd Amendment and constututionality actually means if you think that. Right now, I can report you, yes you, to the FBI or other government entity (or even my state senator) as being a potential terrorist. They could, legally right now, put your name on the terror watch list. Period. Due process has been tossed aside "for the children". Ask yourself:

Where did you get your day in court?
How would you know you were added, can you face your accuser?
How can you get yourself off that list?

Now, let's say for the sake of this discussion Sen. Feinstein's bill passed and being on that list now is part of the background check system. You went to purchase a firearm and were now prevented from doing so because your name is on the terror list. So, without any due process, without being reviewed by a judge, your 2nd Amendment has been STRIPPED from you due to mere speculation. After all, "it's for the children" right? Oh, so sorry....they do not have to tell you why you are om the list either. Good luck getting those constitutional protections back. How much $$ do you have to spend in lawyers fees and days out of work now to prove you are innocent? Hers (and the other bills) that do not REQUIRE due process are wrong and unconstitutional and assume you are GUILTY before proven INNOCENT (at your expense as well).

THAT is what those bills are saying. Do you still agree with them? If you do, then you are a fool and anyone else that does is as well.