Judiciary Republicans kill bill blocking gun sales to suspected terrorists

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/161037-judiciary-republicans-kill-bill-blocking-gun-sales-to-suspected-terrorists-

Republicans on the House Judiciary panel shot down a proposal Thursday to prevent weapon sales to suspected terrorists.

In a party-line vote of 21-11, the committee Republicans killed an amendment from Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) that would have blocked firearm purchases by those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. The vote came during the markup of legislation renewing certain provisions of the Patriot Act that are slated to expire later this month.

Quigley accused the Republicans of limiting certain civil liberties for the sake of fighting terrorism in the underlying Patriot Act bill, but refusing to restrict Second Amendment rights for the same purpose.

"We’re here today to try to resolve the question of how best to strike the proper balance between ensuring our national security and protecting our civil liberties,” Quigley said in a statement.

<more>

What part of 'serving your base' don't you get?

Again more of our government bought off.

...I couldn't agree more.

He's trying to do EXACTLY the same thing the Republicans did, just in this case it's with a civil liberty he doesn't care as much about or view as "important" apparently.

Let's make this loud and clear: YOU CANNOT RESTRICT SOMEBODIES CIVIL RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, AND THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS INVOLVED IN PLACING A NAME ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST. Republicans were wrong for doing it with the Patriot Act, Democrats are wrong for trying to do it now.

But we can't have a "No Buy" list?

We can frisk children at TSA checkpoints and secretly monitor American phone calls and emails without a warrant, but we can't stop selling guns to suspected terrorists?

Is this a f*cked-up country, or what? :crazy:

...because people for some reason think that if we are doing screwed up shit with civil liberties in one area, we should do them in ALL of them. In stead of fixing the issues of the "No Fly" list, we want to use it to restrict MORE civil liberties. Indeed, what a fucked up country.

We have restricted civil-liberties in this country in an attempt to bring us under the watchful eye of fascists and their minions in government.

But, there is sill an underlying foundation of hypocrisy that prompts us to take ridiculous measures (No-fly lists, no-ride lists, unlawful search and seizures, warrant-less wire-taps, etc), but, when there is an attempt to include a sacred cow (i.e., "no-buy" list for gun sales), then we "fight for civil liberties."

...not just firearms sales, for a long time now. It's a little thing called "Due process." How about you? Sounds like you have no problem with restricting firearms sales, but are against no-fly/no-ride/unlawful search and seizures. If that is the case, then the hypocrites are yourself and the dems on the hill that are pushing for this crap. It works both ways, KansDam.

...in the name of "national security," then I find it hypocritical they do not want to restrict gun sales to suspected terrorists.

What is their reasoning? The NRA told them "no?" It turns out, a majority of NRA members think differently:
But while the NRA leadership may feel this way, its members do not. Last year, ThinkProgress attended the NRA’s annual conference in Charlotte, NC and asked dozens of NRA members if those on the terrorist watch list should be able to purchase firearms and an overwhelming majority agreed that they should not.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/12/republicans-terror-watch-list-guns

It's all about "consistency:" If the Reubs want "watch lists," they should have no problem with this one...

...that the Republicans weren't just as hypocritical as the Dems in this case? The Republicans know who butters their bread just as much as the Dems do, and neither are above some hypocrisy if the need it. The fact that the Dems were pushing for this bill in the first place proves that, as much as the Republicans being against it proves it for them.

It restricts "civil rights," and that's there raison d'etre!

So why not support Rep. Quigley's bill?

...should want to vote for this bill or any other like it. If you don't understand my point by now, then I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss.

...and their gross hypocrisy, then I concur.

But at least we agreed on something.

...but mine also goes for the Dems who put up legislation such as this because it's just as hypocritical of them to be against the other listed restrictions but then in support of this one.

hand out guns to everyone at the airports as they land and at high school graduations with their diplomas and to prison inmates upon their release and to blind people and to the mentally unstable (oops, I forgot, they already have them)

What civil liberty is being infringed upon?

"hand out guns to everyone at the airports as they land and at high school graduations with their diplomas and to prison inmates upon their release and to blind people and to the mentally unstable"

Make it a double espresso.

...do I get a better gun?

STI's for the Admirals' Club....

...an Edge...

Very handy and shockingly accurate little rifle! :D

Especially when I put a BSA red dot sight on it. Real fast in any light.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

The amazing part was I literally had to do zero adjustments to the sight when I put it on. It was perfectly zeroed for 25 feet and I had a nice ragged hole dead center of the target first time out with it on there. I know it was mainly just luck that I didn't have to adjust the sight, but still the accuracy of that little rifle impressed the heck out of me. One of my favorite guns to shoot, if only because the 9mm ammo is so cheap! :D

who's retiring to the Phillipines.

Also got a Russian-made SKS and a Series 80 Colt 1911.

Really need to get to the range this weekend to try them out...

How much did that all set you back, if you don't mind my asking???

The Colt has a fair amount of custom work done, the SKS has a polymer skeleton stock and the H-P has a Tasco 4X scope. So, not the smokingingest deal in the world, but I didn't walk away feeling cheated, either.

With yourself coming out a bit ahead of anything. It's been a while since I was looking around for the prices, but I think the Colt goes for around 700-800 usually (and over 1000 if it's a good custom job), which would leave 200-300 for the H-P and SKS, which is a heck of a deal! :)

My bad! Meant "Fair deal!" :P

I don't think it goes far enough.

I say revoke their voting rights, prohibit them from entering places of worship and community centers, prohibit them from conversing or meeting with "others".

Yank their library card and drivers license too... after all, you can never be too safe.

I mean... think of the children, it's for their and our safety!!!.



:sarcasm:

I mean... think of the children, it's for their and our safety!!!.

That's what I think of every time I see a child frisked at a TSA checkpoint and then read the sign posted, "TSA -- Your security is our priority"

We already have a "No Buy" list and it gets used every time someone buys a firearms. It's called the NICS background check system. No felons, no one with a history of mental illness, no minors, no one with an order of protection etc. Now, you, your friends and Quigley want to add people Bush and Cheney didn't trust to the list?

The people on this "watch list" are not frisked, patted down or bothered by any of the things you listed. They never make it that far. They are told they may not try and board any flights so they never make it to the TSA screening point. They are not told why they are on the list, or how they can correct the issue.

It's a relic of the Bush/Cheney era that not only won't go away like GITMO, now we have some of our own people like Quigley embracing it as long as it involves firearm sales.

So, tell us more about the people on the watch list, how dangerous they are, the crimes they are suspected of and while you're at it what other Constitutional rights should we take away while we're at it?

But not always the case (at least in Ohio):'

Basic regulations like restricting guns and alcohol are designed to allow Ohioans to practice their second amendment rights while still keeping our families and communities safe.

While the House should stop this outrageous bill, there is another huge loophole in our gun regulations that remains untouched, the gun show loophole.

Right now, if you want to buy a handgun, you go to a licensed gun dealer, show a photo ID to prove you are a resident of Ohio, and depending on the results of a background check, leave with your gun. Gun dealers must have a federal firearms license (FFL) and they must run the names of buyers through the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) to make sure that the person is not a convicted felon, domestic violence offender, mentally unstable, or other another type of prohibited purchaser. FFLs must keep records so that if the gun is later found at a crime scene, law enforcement can trace it to the buyer.

Now how about instead of going to a gun store, you went to the dealer's booth at a gun show. The system would still be the exact same. You would have to present photo ID and submit to the same background check before you could leave with your new handgun.

But here is where it gets weird.

If you were to step over one booth and buy the EXACT SAME handgun from a private dealer you would not have to submit to a background check. In fact, undercover investigations here in Columbus have discovered dealers who don't check ID, even after the buyer says they could not pass a background check.

Let's summarize.

Gun store: Photo ID and Background Check

Gun Dealer at Gun Show: Photo ID and Background Check

Private Dealer at Gun Show: NO Background Check, Inconsistent ID Checks

This is the gun show loophole. Felons and people with dangerous mental illnesses, who would not be able to buy a gun through a licensed dealer, can step across an aisle at a gun show and buy the same gun, no questions asked. The ATF has tracked 30% of guns in the illegal market back to sales at gun shows.

http://www.progressohio.org/blog/2011/04/closing-the-gun-show-loophole-a-primer.html

Felons and terrorists can still be firearms at gun shows...

That's why Rep. Quigley wants to end the Gun Show loophold and restrict gun show sales.
http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mike_Quigley.htm

But it still doesn't answer why the Republicans want to start upholding "civil rights" with its stance on "No Buy" lists.

it has nothing to do with gun shows - the issue is private sales of guns. If I do not make a living selling guns (i.e. a gun dealer) I do not need a license to sell a gun in the state I live in to someone that also lives in my state. By law I am forbidden access to NICS to do a back ground check. But it has nothing to so with gun shows - I can sell it in the parking lot, in my house, on the internet, in a newspaper classified add. You can shut down every gun show and I can still legally sell my gun with out background checks.

You are either a dealer or a private citizen and the BATFE has some pretty straightforward, legally enforceable definitions of which is which.

When you sell your used 1996 Toyota Camry to your neighbor's college kid, does that make you a Private Car Dealer? Are you required to meet all the EPA, OSHA, proof of insurance etc. and other legal requirements of a Toyota dealership?

Use of the term "Private Dealer" is a purely Brady inspired approach to try and confuse the "less than aware" of the difference between a simple private transaction and something vaguely illegal.

If I sell an older 12 gauge to my neighbor in my kitchen, back yard or at a gun show, I still am not allowed to access the NICS system and neither Brady nor the BATFE wants it opened to the public. But in my kitchen I don't have to conduct a check, at a gun show in Illinois I have to pay an FFL a transfer fee and for the actual NICS check.

Quigley is either full of shit, or at minimum disingenuous, because in Illinois, his home state and mine, there are no private sales allowed at gun shows with out passing through an FFL with a regular NICS check. Any state that feels strongly about it can regulate it at the state level.

could stop on may 27th with no action at all.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/12/patriot-act-rushing-toward-renewal-again/

all that has to happen for this giant Turd of a law to go away, is for the house, senate , and the president to let it expire on its own.

While we are here, arguing about how many more liberties, this monstrosity should take away from the american people, we could be writing and calling representatives, senators, and the president asking them to TAKE NO ACTION, and let this so called Patriot Act go the way of the dinosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

You think they might be catering to their new "Maverick" base?

Oh , here it is

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


The US Constitution, making it hard for authoritarians like JPack to violate our civil liberties since 1787

...apparently they feel that due process is required to restrict some rights, but not others. I honestly wonder how they view themselves as being any different at all than the Republicans when it comes down to it. What really bothers me is when Dems like Quigley come out in support of bullshit like this, which then makes them look like total hypocrites, and somehow they don't realize it. Just spending more political capital on their anti-gun bias.

and they never will be in our society. Nor is it a necessity for all other rights we hold dear. Yours is a right to a fucking HOBBY.

And we folks who don't believe in living with the damn things(perpetuated by a gun lobby$$$$ and the Gun Manufacturer$$$) everywhere will ensure it never becomes a priority.

"Well regulated Militia"

The constitution is not on your side of this issue, no matter how much you spin it.

get over it

..and will continue to be on my side, no matter how much you "spin it." If you want to live in a fantasy land where "Well regulate Militia" hasn't already been determined to mean something else than you wish it to, then that's your prerogative.

...no twisting required. The word "regulated" was used very differently at the time of the writing of the constitution.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Feel free to try and twist around that one.

if a gun lobbying website says so it must be true... I'm sure they are unbiased in their reasoning too.

...or did you even bother to read it at all? Did you simply dismiss it because it's a "gun" website? You know what's interesting is that ANY site I bring forward to counter your idiocy is going to be dismissed by you as a "gun lobbying website" so really, you've placed yourself in a position where you are unable to have your beliefs even remotely questioned. You are a closed mind.

Or are all of them shills of the NRA/Gun Lobby/Gun Manufacturers too?

They have all said very clearly that firearms ownership and possession is an individual right, not connected with militia service. Hell, even Ginsberg's dissent in Heller agreed with that interpretation. But we all know she's such a flaming right winger, right?

It must be getting lonely out on that limb with fewer and fewer people out there with you, but keep sawing away.

In the meantime more and more states are loosening their CCW laws and the President or the Senate don't seem inclined to do any gun control either.

And the absolute worst of it, is that the crime rate, including gun related crime continues to fall.

Maybe you and a couple of your friends can get some petitions started to repeal the 2nd amendment. You have to start somewhere.

He doesn't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment, if you take his words at face value. Since I'm not one of those tin foil wearing birther/truther types I'll figure he's not lying until he proves he is.

The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right. It is no less a right or no less important than any of the others.

He's just being used as a shill by the "all powerful protocol of the elders of the NRA" to do their dirty work.

When he said it's an individual right, not connected with service in a militia that's not really what he meant, I'm sure.

Besides what would he or Bill Clinton or all those law school professors know about these issues. We have very "knowledgeable" Constitutional scholars here who outrank POTUS, SCOTUS and the entire legislative branch ... at least in their own minds.

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms" or "The right of the "people" to keep and bear arms" ?
TYPO

a firearm free self defense solution that works as well?

funny how I'm still alive and don't live in fear, so there is no motivation for me to sign up for a gun cult membership.

...therefore nothing ever happens to ANYBODY." Oh yes, clearly that brain of yours is up to full working speed....

and therefore allow your fear of something happening to motivate you to buy a gun and place everyone around you at risk... how thoughtful and civil of you to think of our rights. All for a fucking hobby and for the paranoids who are constantly afraid of being killed. Your line of thinking is that of a paranoid and as most rational thinkers know, paranoids are the first to pull a trigger.

You seem to exist in a constant state of fear when it comes to firearms and their owners, yet somehow I am paranoid? There is a difference between taking precautions for a possible eventuality and living in fear of something happening. I keep a fire extinguisher in my home, but does this mean I live in constant fear of a fire? No. It's a basic precaution that I take for the safety of myself and my family in the unlikely event that a fire were to occur in my home. Firearms are much the same. I know it's easier for you to believe I'm some fringe paranoid lunatic because that way you can hold on to your ignorance of the issue and dismiss anything I have to say out of hand, but that is simply not the reality of myself nor the vast majority of gun owners.

After all, it won't happen to you ever so why waste the time and money replacing batteries every year. Why be paranoid.

Don't waste money on those child protective seats for the car either. Just something or paranoid parents to use because you'll never have an accident you can't avoid or handle safely, right?

You'll never have a grease fire in the kitchen or a drier problem so skip all that insurance too and think of the money a smart, non paranoid guy like you can use for other things.

Youre no better.

...

...one is paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after him... ;)

I wasn't talking about you. Do you have a solution for everyone else including the old, weak, disabled, or anyone else that would lose in a contest of strength against an assailant armed with maybe a knife or club? A lot of murders are commited with just hands and feet you know.

Civil rights are not a consumer item provided for our personal convenience. Get out of the mall and try thinking about others for a change.

Gotta love auto complete.

I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem with gun entusiasts warping the constitution so they can avoid all gun regulations, like this one. Why should we allow a terrorist or someone on that list the right to purchase a gun. That's what this is about. And so far the reasons cited in this thread in defense of a position against a bill disallowing folks who are on a terrorist watch list from purchasing a gun is ridiculous.

denying the exercise of a civil right without due process is unconstitutional. There is no way to tell how to get on or off the list or to appeal that decision as far as I know. It was designed by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION to lay the groundwork for a whole host of repressive anti sedition laws to support a fascist corporate takeover. Now, for some reason it's a good idea when it supports some consumercentric partisan bugaboo from the left.

Consumerism will be the death of this country.

Nobody knows who is on it, or why, or how to get your name off it if you aren't a powerful politician or very rich. It is simply a list of people the government deems guilty without the benefit of due process. I can't say I care for that concept one little bit. Apparently you do.

You're either a hypocrite or suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.

Is your stupidity a natural condition or an adopted affectation?

In the 2010 election the NRA made strong gains. Over half of the House and almost half of the Senate has an NRA rating of "A". That means that the voters overwhelmingly elected pro-gun legislators. Your side is losing.

You're in a minority, and it's only getting smaller.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=414564#414912

"Well Regulated Militia"

twist away

and I'm the guy w/ the gun remember?

"And we folks who don't believe in living with the damn things(perpetuated by a gun lobby$$$$ and the Gun Manufacturer$$$) everywhere will ensure it never becomes a priority."

Nobody is forcing you to live with a gun. Or to own a gun. Or to possess a gun.

People in your camp however, would like nothing more than to force everyone NOT to have them.;


"The constitution is not on your side of this issue, no matter how much you spin it."


Pfft. The right in question belongs to the PEOPLE, not the militia. And its the right which belongs to the PEOPLE which is protected.


Not that I expect you to ever admit how wrong you are.

astro turf of a couple of celebrities and foundations? Most of what the Joyce Foundation gives to Brady goes to salaries. Helmke makes over a half mil, more than Obama and he has a real job.

Which enumerated civil right talks about the sale or purchase of a firearm? Or the sale or purchase of anything, for that matter. Nice try.

...how quickly some so-called liberals forget the 9th when it comes to firearm sales. Just about as quickly as conservatives forget it when it comes to issues like privacy.

The 9th is a catch-all, but I'm not sure it applies here. Government restricts all kinds of sales to various classes of people. Most of those restrictions are unfair and we deal with them as individuals, deciding whether to abide by them or not.
Personally, I think the bill is pointless, except as a political ploy to embarrass the GOP.
Terrorists can buy guns as easily as anyone and how many of them even use guns, except maybe for self-defense.

the government to suspend due process to restrict a civil right you're going to need to come up with a really, really good reason.

Am I missing something? I know I do from time to time

A warrant for arrest is the due process required to restrain you (an infringement to your liberty of travel and association). A warrant for search is the due process required before the cops get to rifle through your things (an infringement of your right to be secure in your person and effects).

A competency hearing is the due process required before the state can appoint a guardian for you and your estate (infringing any number of rights.)

A foreclosure hearing is the due process required before the state revokes ownership of your house.

An eviction hearing is the due process required before a landlord can proceed to kick you out of your apartment.

A reposession hearing is the due process required before a lender can take ownership of your car.

A conviction of a felony is one due process required before the government can deny you ownership or purchase of firearms.

An involuntary commitment (a judicial hearing) is another due process required before the government can deny you ownership or purchase of firearms.



Now.. what's the due process involved with removing a person's ability to deny purchase of firearms based on the inclusion on a secret watch list?

Nada. Zip. Zero.

Generally-

Look into the congressional debates surrounding auction houses of the 1820s. There's a treasure trove of information available.

One link from a quick google- http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/47776538/The-Right-to-Purchase-Is-as-Free-as-the-Right-to-Sell-Defining-Consumers-as-Citizens-in-the-Auctionhouse-Conflicts-of-the-Early-Republic

Even taxes on items needed for the exercise of protected rights have been successfully challenged- see generally MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REV., 460 U.S. 575 (1983) -- that was a tax on printer's ink ruled to be unconstitutional.

Regarding firearms-

The federal government exercises it's control of arms mainly via regulations surrounding the purchase of arms- Federal Firearms Licensees and 'prohibited persons' as defined by the 1968 Gun Control Act. Later amendments added in possession.

Am I correct? Is it not possible to challenge being on this list? Is there a process for that, and if so, would that be due process?
What do you think about this link? Is the FBI out of line?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc/tsc_faqs

They won't tell you if you are on the list. If they won't verify your presence on the list, how will you know who has your name to begin the redress process or even that your name on the list is the problem? Where is it written that they have to verify your presence on the list to any other governmental agency, and how long does that take? Does the inquiry itself constitute criteria for inclusion on the list? Who knows? It is a classic authoritarian catch-22. If you have "a problem" you have to address a separate government agency for each "problem". One's life can quickly become a morass of bureaucratic hell trying to secure a civil right that shouldn't have been denied in the first place. Simple denial of rights by governmental opacity.

I provided a light answer, with the means to do more research, if you so choose.



I'm not sure I even understand your question. The issue is about denying the means to exercise a constitutionally protected right without due process of law.

The government can make all kinds of lists- but when the list is then used to deny the free exercise of a right without due process, that's where it bumps over into unconstitutional.



No, there is no way of knowing if you're even on the list, much less be removed. I think you've confused the TSA's 'no-fly' list with the FBI's 'terrorist watch list'.

The DHS TRIP site (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1169676919316.shtm) does allow users to file a complaint that they *think* they've been incorrectly identified and placed on the 'no fly' / 'additional screening' list.

Nobody has challenged the validity of this process and whether it meets due process burdens. I doubt it would- you are not involved in the redress process (other than giving your personal details), you have no ability to see why you were placed on the list, and the process is not overseen by a member of the judicial branch.

The funny thing about the FBI's 'terrorist watch list'? The most dangerous people the FBI identifies actually aren't on the list- being so identified and denied boarding might tip the FBI's hand that the government was aware of their activities.

Gov't agencies make lists all the time, with or without consent of those listed. Like scofflaws, sex offenders, convicted felons, aliens, suspects.
Bottom line, though, the bill was pointless, I agree. Let's move on.

sex offenders -- convicted (due process)
convicted felons -- had due process
aliens (legal)-- abided by the process to become a citizen
aliens (undocumented) -- faced an immigration hearing

as to 'suspects' and 'scofflaws'-- what rights have been infringed for these folks?

If LE didn't compile lists of suspects, they wouldn't be able to do their job. Question should be "Do we trust those lists?"
If so, then would you issue a permit to someone on the list? Would you let them on a plane? I think at the very least, they should be subjected to higher scrutiny, or the whole process becomes absurd.

Keeping someone on such a list indefinitely, under constant scrutiny, with no recourse and no due process, is an egregious human rights violation. It's odd that some progressives forget this as soon as the word "guns" is mentioned.

The 2A itself doesn't mention licenses, permits or sales and seeing as how anyone can buy a gun with or without a background check or permit, how are their rights being violated? Or am I just stupid? Could be, you know. I am a bit slow at times.

Regardless of its constitutionality (which has recently been upheld), the NICS system very clearly mandates a background check. The question is whether being on the watch list should be a disqualifier. To make it such would clearly be a violation of rights, IMO. But then, I think the mere existence of the list is reprehensible. The government should bring charges or get off the pot. These watch lists are free passes to violate rights.

Question: Are 1A rights infringed upon by restriction texting while driving?

I still don't know what you're talking about. Restrictions on texting while driving are at best a minor inconvenience and don't IMO rise to the level of an outright infringement. What one earth does this have to do with watch lists?

So do we agree then that these lists are abusive and should be abolished? And that the defeat of this bill is one step in that direction?

The texting was just an example of justifiably restricting a civil right for common sense reasons and the protection of society as a whole.

To follow your texting-while-driving analogy, I would say then that laws against brandishing accomplish pretty much the same thing, in that they allow the individual to possess and carry the item, but restrict irresponsible use.

What if the local/state legislature determines that carrying on campus is irresponsible?

They would be wrong. Brandishing is irresponsible; carry is not.

What if local/state legislature determines that possession of a cell phone is irresponsible?

cellphones aren't designed to kill. Why would anyone carry a loaded firearm if they did not consider the possibility of brandishing or firing it? Innocent bystanders, who would have no problem asking someone to turn off their cellphone in churches, classrooms, theaters and many other places, may well be hesitant, if not intimidated to ask a toter to unload or remove his gun from those environments. There are legitimate reasons why many people are averse to being in the presence of loaded firearms.

not remove them from the premises or demand their owners leave. No different from asking people to not shoot guns in a theatre (unless they have to). Would you deny someone the use of a phone in an emergency?

Would you care to list those legitimate reasons and prove their legitimacy?

...if he or she didn't intend to use it irresponsibly? See how that game works?

"Innocent bystanders" should immediately leave the area and call 911 if they see someone brandishing a firearm. As for asking aperson to unload or remove a gun being "toted," please be advised that handling a gun increases the possibility of negligent discharge, even if only very slightly. They don't just "go off" when they are left holstered.

Guns are lethal devices. See how that game works?

in the design of the object at whom that lethality should be directed?

The question assumes emperical terminology.

Edit for fucking auto complete

Has to, by law. Otherwise how would you know who you have to shoot? Cellphones, of course, have numbers stored, so lethality can be speed dialed.

...using them irresponsibly can cause injury and death. Your point is...?

Any object regardless of it's intended design may be used intentionally or accidentally or negligently to cause injury or death. If you see them as equal, then you may as well just carry a cellphone, which you probably do anyway.

First, let's separate out the guns whose intended purpose has nothing to do with causing injury or death (to humans): trap and skeet shotguns, target rifles and pistols, hunting guns. That leaves the self-defense guns, whose purpose is... defense, i.e. the avoidance of my injury or death. If I can escape death or injury merely by showing the gun (not "brandishing" per se, because that word implies that I am not in imminent peril), then the gun has been successfully used without causing injury or death. Win-win. If that does not suffice, then yes, injury or death may result, but not my own, which is really the whole point, isn't it?

:evilgrin:

The question is "do we trust LE?" And the answer is NO. That's why we have judges and due process.

A class action suit by people who may or may not be on the list, because we don't know who's on it? Or dismantle the FBI? Don't think that's going to happen.
Is the whole thing just smoke and mirrors by the bill's proponents, so they can point fingers at the NRA and GOP?

If it pays to write bad legislation so be it.

Where do we go from here? The gun vault. Via the voting booth, the media, the streets, the jailhouse and the graveyard. It's the same process. The only thing that keeps us from having to proceed directly to the last one is the Bill of Rights. Including the Second Amendment.

Google "citizens united" or "campaign contribution".

greed of weapons manufacturers and their minions?

A 'suspect' can't be denied their rights (arbitrarily searched, beaten, denied counsel, etc).

You knew this, right? To put it more simply, where an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

but I don't see anything there about refusing to issue a gun license or permit. You can't be deprived of something you don't already have.

The legislation as proposed would have added the names of individuals on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List to the NICS, commonly known as the 'brady background check'.

When a person makes a purchase from a federally licensed dealer, or retrieves a pawned firearm, or in some states gifts a gun to someone- an NICS check is ran on the person.

This legislation would have stopped that sale, transfer, or gift.


Which is not to say that it wouldn't have further reaching consequences regarding permits, but that wasn't the intent of the legislation.

Of course you can. Being blocked from acquiring something is being deprived of it.

de·prive (d-prv)
tr.v. de·prived, de·priv·ing, de·prives
1. To take something away from: The court ruling deprived us of any share in the inheritance.
2. To keep from possessing or enjoying; deny: They were deprived of a normal childhood by the war.
3. To remove from office.

--http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deprive

as were virtually all the guests at Abu Ghraib a while back. You could ask them about any possible infringement of their 'rights'...if they weren't either dead or held incommunicado.

The Selectee (aka "watch") List and the No Fly List contain only names, with no further identifying information. The list, to name but one example, contains the name "Robert Johnson." At least 13 people with that name have been obstructed from boarding commercial flights, even though at least 12 of them aren't the "Robert Johnson" who's notionally a "suspected terrorist." Or possibly a suspected alias of a "suspected terrorist."

Note, moreover, that in regular criminal justice procedure, a "suspect" is someone who is suspected of having committed a crime of which it has been established that it actually happened. There is no such as thing as a criminal suspect in a crime that has not yet taken place, and maybe never will take place. That, however, is exactly what "suspected terrorists" are suspected of.

Here's the relevant text (natch):

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, how does one form a militia? A militia is formed from a selection of citizens. It is a subset of a given population. Citizens are "people". Thus, the second amendment guarantees a civil right to citizens, not to some organization no matter what you call it or what it does. That civil right is the right to keep and bear arms. One does not "bear arms" from the couch to the refrigerator. One "bears arms" outside the home.

Now, since the right to bear arms is a civil right, that right cannot be denied without due process. One cannot bear arms unless one acquires them. Thus, to deny one the right to acquire arms is to deny them the right to bear them. The creation of a list that has no understood criteria regarding how one might find themselves on it, how to remove themselves from it, or to even find out if one is on it, is a egregious violation of all our civil rights, not just the rights of those who want to own guns. If they can take away that right, they can take away all the rest of them - which is what the Patriot Act and all these disgusting "lists" were designed to do. They were designed to lay the groundwork for a fascist corporate takeover of this country.

Indeed, governments make lists all the time. They cannot make lists designed to deny people their civil rights without due process. Such lists are the province of totalitarian regimes.

Yes, the bill was pointless, but it was such a pernicious and anti democratic pointlessness we should be clear on how pointless it is or may not be. Laws get put on the books all the time that seem silly or pointless and lay there like landmines until they are needed by the authoritarian assholes that put them there decide to use them for their own ends. The question we should ask is why did whatsisass write the bill? Was it just to pander to oblivious anti gun liberals on the cheap, or was he responding to some other constituency?

It was designed to be a catch all. Rights flow from the people unless the people decide to confer them on some other body or organization. Restrictions on civil rights are an opt in process, not an opt out process. Some call it democracy.

So by your statement you agree with the "watch list", yes?

I was having the EXACT same thought just a few minutes ago! :P

oh no... he's taking our gunz away. Get a grip...

"Well regulated militia"

as I said before to others, twist that away to your heart's content. We all know the agenda is based on lies.

Here you go buddy.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Feel free to twist away yourself. It's what you're best at apparently.

if you can't and have to rely on gun propaganda you lost. Have a nice day, but be wary of the evil, dangerous people out there....scary.

...can manufacture the quotes of the founding fathers that underscores what they meant when they used the word "regulated." Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. If I were you, I'd step down off my high horse and actually read some of the things on that website. If it's just "propaganda" then it should be very easy for you to punch holes in it. You really need to learn to challenge your beliefs from time to time.

How else would you be able to interpret that I am a paranoid gun fetishist from the statement "Your user name is rather ironic" if not for reading a mind. The wrong mind, by the way, since I am neither a fetishist nor paranoid.

Neither can I see how you are able to construe any form of irony in my statement. It does not contain sufficient elements to create irony.

No, genuine irony is created by an individual displaying the user name "facisthunter" supporting denial of constitutionally guaranteed rights based on membership of a "watch list", the addition to which can occur based only on SUSPICION.

Unlike your irrational charges of paranoia, I believe we can safely assume from the content of your posts in this thread that you DO NOT support the concept of due process.

and not Brady talking points, you know.

I mean, I'd need a plasma torch to cut the irony.

Quigley is just an idiot meat puppet for Daley in the House. Anytime a chance shows up to ban gun sales he's for it, even if it means disregarding the constitution.

Now, Quigley and you are both embracing another vile Bush/Cheney policy in the form of a super secret terrorist watch list that no one knows who is on it or how they got there and has no recourse to due process. How terribly progressive of you, literally.

I just wondered if you and Quigley want to start seeing who checks out library books on firearms next? Those people probably can't be trusted either.

Next time you see your buddy Cheney, give him a nice big wet kiss from all of us and ask if he has any other policies you can support.

NRA members?
Tea Party?
DU members?
War Protestors?
People that live in Red States?
Gun dealers?


Who?

It doesn't have suspected terrorists on it, it has suspected NAMES on it. Any one with the same name is also banned from flying. If the first name is just an initial then it picks up all names that include it. So if J Smith is on the list the all John, Jane, Jim, Julie, Jeb...Smith in the entire US. Of course the gun control crowd likes it. With one entry they can deny guns to tens of thousands of Americans.

The list is unconstitutional as it denies a person due process but gun controllers don't mind violating the Constitution

Yeah, right.

Many of them are themselves suspected of being terrorists, but only of knowing some or maybe being indirectly affiliated with some. But that not withstanding, the list should not be used as a basis for curtailing civil liberties, ANY civil liberties.

I'm remarking on making bad policy and then being inconsistent on its premise.

My bad then man.

By using the list the gun controllers can ban all the J. Smiths, J. Does, J. Jones, etc in America. Millions of people suddenly banned from gun bying is a gun controllers wet dream.

more on this story as it develops.

Anyone I dislike I'll call homeland security and tell them they are planning antiterrorist attack. M fucking banana republic bullshit.

...we're all equal, but some are more equal than others.

I wonder these days what schools do in place of teaching the meaning of the Bill of Rights in plain English.

"Judiciary Republicans kill bill that would have stopped Ted Kennedy from buying a gun"

In the interest of accuracy...

The "terrorist watch list," officially known as the "Selectee List," isn't administered by the FBI; it's administered by the TSA.

The list does not contain "suspected terrorists"*; it contains names suspected to have been used by known and suspected terrorists, with no unique identifiers to tie those names to individuals. What Quigley's amendment would have done is not blocked "weapon sales to suspected terrorists," it would have deprived, without due process, of the freedom to purchase a firearm each and every person with the misfortune of having a name that appears on the list. Everyone named "David Nelson." Everyone named "John Shaw." Everyone named "Michelle Green." Everyone named "Mohamed Ibrahim." Everyone named "Alexandra Hay," "Robert Johnson," "Patrick Martin," "Daniel Brown."

There may be as many as a million names on the No Fly and Selectee Lists combined.

* - Note that a "suspected terrorist" differs from a "suspected burglar," "suspected bank robber," "suspected rapist," "suspected identity thief," etc. in one crucial respect: the crime the "suspected terrorist" is "suspected" of committing hasn't happened yet. Indeed, it may, and probably will, never happen.

I thought that due process applied, at least that used to be the standard in the America I grew up in.:shrug:

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/18/govt_sets_up_massive_watchlist_of

As is the concept of "No Fly, No Buy" itself.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/174

It's not "oh, you're name is on the terrorist watch list; we have to give you extra screening to make sure you're no THE John Smith we're looking for."


It's "oh, there's a John Smith on the terrorist watch list, your name is John Smith, ergo you can't buy a gun anymore".

The "terror watch list" is a secret list with no due process for getting on it or getting off of it.

The government has no business composing such lists in the first place, let alone using them for restricting Constitutional rights.