If Senate Democrats had accepted due process, we would have gun control

[friendly_iconoclast]

Instead, they figured that 100% of nothing is better than 50% of something

[jamese777]

1. Huh?

say what now?

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. An amendment to include a due process requirement for 'no fly, no buy' lists...

...failed to gain the 60 votes needed for passage (the vote was 53-47).

Senate Democrats voted against it

[metroins]

3. Compromise is better than nothing

I agree.

[Eleanors38]

35. What? A compromise by 2A folks was rejected? Too much due process?

[meaculpa2011]

66. Too much due process? n/t

[Duckhunter935]

4. Yep, the perfect the

Enemy of the good

[drray23]

5. its in the details.

The due process clause the gop was pushing was only giving 72 hours for the justice dept to make the case. Of course its so little time that it would have effectively meant people on that list would just wait out the 72 hours and get the weapon.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. And now DoJ won't have any say whatsoever, beyond the already existing regulations

The Senate Democrats gave up half a loaf in favor of what they actually got

Nothing

[Chan790]

7. It was "nothing" either way...

doing what they did denied the GOP the cover of saying they were compromising when it was a meaningless and ineffective concession that would never have an impact in even one incident.

Why are some Democrats so adamant about giving the GOP political cover in their efforts to do nothing and call it a "meaningful gun-control effort?"

Further, when did DU become so politically-naive and uncontemplative?

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. For one thing, they wouldn't have looked like a bunch of hypocritical sheep...

...who have embraced the notion that "It's OK to take rights away from *those* people,
because they're unpopular and it looks like we're doing something.'

Also, some of them might have wanted to use the vote as campaign tactic-
take one for the team, so to speak.

[skylucy]

10. Thank you. I agree. The Republican bill was actually counterproductive and just an

NRA effort to give their bought-off Republicans something to hide behind. Disgusting. I am surprised that anyone who hoped for a reasonable gun control bill would fall for this ploy.

[Eleanors38]

36. So, the proposal was less effective than the old controller "24-hour cooling off period?"

[former9thward]

42. So you admit it is all just politics.

A compromise is put forward and put down because of politics.

[Chan790]

44. In this case, yes...on both sides.

*The GOP knows they can't continue to stonewall calls for reform, so they offer a "compromise" that doesn't change the arithmetic, just the timeframe, and the next time a tragedy occurs...they can claim they passed a "common-sense reform" that fell short.

*The Democrats saw a compromise that wasn't going to achieve anything of substance and decided that it was better to smother it, with the hopes that public outcry would force the GOP to make a better compromise.

It's problematic because they're both gambling with OPL (other people's lives)...but it's also a (self-justified) game of chicken--both sides have a lot invested in political capital in needing to come out of firearm-access-reform¹ with a "win."

_____________________________________________________________________________________
1: I've decided the term "gun control" is problematic and should be avoided...not everybody believes we need "gun control" but few people would argue against the necessity of reforms that deny access to firearms to terrorists, those with malign motives, and violent criminals in a manner that is least-onerous to lawful, responsible gun-buyers.

[lancer78]

52. The GOP can continue to vote against reform

as long as that is how their constituents want them to vote.

[Chan790]

58. Their problem is the "squishy" middle.

For a long time, that worked for them because a lot of people that don't really want them to vote against reform nevertheless voted for them because it was an issue of low-concern for those in the middle that lean right. Increasingly and with every high-profile incident, this is becoming an issue of high-importance.

As a result, they cannot continue to vote against reform, even if that's what their constituents want, because those constituents are a minority everywhere...even in places long-considered to be "gun country."

John Cornyn didn't bring his compromise bill because he wants political cover for the hell of it...he, like ever more pro-unfettered-RKBA legislators, fears that we're approaching on the day when that minority and the NRA can protect him from a more-engaged growing majority that considers firearm-access-reform a higher priority than it was just a few years ago.

To be blunter, the writing is on the wall and they see they can no longer continue to do nothing if they don't want to face consequences at the ballot box.

[lancer78]

70. you might be right

In 5 years, but the west, midwest, and south will never vote for such useless proposals as another AWB and the ones they tried to pass yesterday.

[Recursion]

9. And that would have been better than the nothing we got (nt)

[Justice]

46. I don't agree -

Under Cornyn’s bill, the attorney general would be given 72 hours to prove there was a probable cause for denying a suspected terrorist the ability to purchase a gun.

If the FBI had probable cause, they would be arresting the would be gun owner. Who can find probable cause in 72 hours?

Remember Dylan Roof - he was able to purchase a gun because the 3 day waiting period ran out and the search was inconclusive because of an error - no yes and no no - but he got the gun because time ran out.

Do you want Dylan Roof's repeated over and over again?

[aikoaiko]

12. If someone is on the no fly, no buy list, the file should be readily available

The investigatory work should be readily available In that role. What would be the problem with providing this evidence in court?

Homeland Secuirty only has to show probable cause.

[uponit7771]

18. No time, 3 days is like 3 minutes for the feds to gather docs and present it to a judge the

... second any of the people on the NF list attempted to by a firearm.

There are also no systems in place to start the clock which again depends on when a person on the NF list wants it to start, the FBI would be missing in action cause they'd have to monitor all on the NF list who attempted to purchase

[former9thward]

40. Excuses

Everyone has them when they don't really want anything passed. Especially when it would mess with an agenda. Nothing you wrote is true. This would all be computerized like the current federal background check for buying firearms is. It occurs at the speed of electricity.

[Chan790]

45. "This would all be computerized like the current federal background check for buying firearms is."

Actually, that's the problem...it can't be. It's an issue of "actuality."

To actually be done right, it has to be done in an investigatory manner by actual human beings that actually go before a judge to present actual evidence for the individual in question to have their rights curbed or reinstated that can actually be reviewed and weighed and considered so that a decision can be made...by an sworn arbiter of the law tasked with upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the actual public and the actual attempted purchaser.

I think 3 days is the minimum that can be done in, with an average closer to 5-6 and occasionally take as long as 30 days. After about 2 weeks, the investigators and jurists are either dragging their feet or the issues at-hand are complex enough to justify the delay.

There is no excuse for why the process should be rapid rather than thorough. Rapidity benefits only purchasers with malign motives at the expense of lawful gun-owners, the general public, and the welfare of both.

[HereSince1628]

22. Black lists create fear, awe, and doubt. All likely desired features

It all seems a part of the vortex of distrust that traps security states.

Convincing people the state has a broad and effective net of surveillance, without actually revealing much about the surveillance net seems useful. It makes citizenry think the state is protective, and the doubt generated by the secrecy arguably helps the security service. It helps intimidate 'enemies' into choosing inaction and isolation while enabling clandestine operations against them.

I suspect if pressed to give one, an argument could be made that details of an investigation leading to placement on a no-fly list must remain secret as releasing them would reveal what the state knows and at least some of the how it knows it. Making such known to potential enemies is counterproductive.

For the security services being on a black list -is- the limited available public evidence someone is a person of interest. Persons of interest need not ask for what they should not know.

[Lee-Lee]

15. 72 hours is plenty of time

They already have all the evidence used to put the person on the list. All they need to do is that that, plop it in a generic form like used for a search warrant or restraining order, and show it to a Magistate.

It's not like they are starting a fresh investigation with no idea about the person. And if they really don't have any information then it's clear using the list based on no evidence to restrict rights is bad.

[Exilednight]

16. 72 hours is not enough time. Republicans have a habit of

Gutting funding for such programs. DoJ does not have an unlimited budget, nor do they have the manpower for such a timeframe. It might sit on a lawyer's desk for three days before they even see it.

Let's say that the person was investigated in Wyoming, and then tries to buy a gun in Virginia; now the two offices have to coordinate in order to prevent the sale.

Some investigations take years, and not all the evidence is ready to go.

Two weeks would have been a more realistic time frame.

[Lee-Lee]

17. Maybe you don't grasp what's going on here

There is already evidence of some sort in the system and documented that was used to justify adding them to the last.

The Democratic proposal, sadly, was to accept that level of evidence as absolute good enough proof to deny a sale without further investigation or review or appeal.

The GOP proposal that it kills me to admit they got right says take the same exact existing evidence that the Democratic bill accepted as Gospel truth enough to deny a sale and just adds a review by a judge to protect the system from abuse and allow due process.

Democratic bill and GOP version use the EXACT SAME evidence that existed already in whatever was used as justification to add them to the list.

But now you demand weeks more of investigations as an excuse to oppose adding more civil rights protections? But the same level of proof is good enough to deny the exercise of a person rights when it's done without protections the way Democrats proposed?


Can you see the disconnect?

If it's not enough evidence to compile and convince a judge with what you already have- then you are admitting that the Democrating version dents a persons rights without enough evidence. By saying they don't have enough proof to convince a judge with what is in hand you are essentially admitting that a blanket "no fly/no buy" rule denied people exercise of rights wo tour adequate cause.

And the excuse that it might sit on a lawyers desk 3 days is bullshit. First I've seen the fed system at play they will draft a warrant or arrest record in hours when they want to. Second icom owner civil servents or a broken system are not justification for infringing on right or citizens. That's like saying "well you might not get to vote this year your registration was in on time but it just sat on the desk and didn't get processed, sorry". Expect and demand better, don't accept mediocrity and then use it to justify a bad system.

[Exilednight]

19. you might not like the facts, bit that's reality. The reason the CBC

No longer collects data on gun crimes is because Republicans refunded it. The reason we don't get better environmental protection is because Republicans cut EPA funding. The reason we don't get better worker protections is because Republicans cut funding to OSHA.

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea. I agree with right to due process, but a slightly longer timeframe would have been a bill that would show real world change. 72 hours changes nothing.

[Kang Colby]

24. False. The CDC does collect and publish gun statistics.

The CDC is simply barred from advocating for gun control.

[Exilednight]

25. Either way, the CDC is toothless when it comes to guns.

[Kang Colby]

33. If toothless means can't advocate for gun control....

That's what I'd prefer.

[Eleanors38]

37. Pretty toothless when it WAS advocating for gun control...

The main CDC dynamic was to grind out data showing public health concerns which must be addressed by gun control measures, then funneling the stuff to MSM for its anti-gun campaign.

[Uponthegears]

57. I would find that interesting

Please post a link to the most recent CDC gun possession statistics.

Thank you in advance.

[Kang Colby]

61. Simple gun possession isn't a disease.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

See page ii - this study was funded by the CDC at President Obama's request. Gun control advocates have chosen to ignore it.

Google CDC gun statistics and prepare to be amazed.

[Uponthegears]

63. Turn to page 23 of your link

This is not a statistical study. It explains why it isn't. The data hasn't and can't be collected due to NRA-esque lobbying.

Oh, it was primarily financed by private donors.

[Kang Colby]

64. It doesn't say that.

Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.
In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”

Page 23 - http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#23

Registration should be illegal, and we should not spend taxpayer money on advocating gun control.

[uponit7771]

20. 72 hours starts the second the person on the NF list attempts to purchase a firearm....

... which could be any time during a 24 hour period.

The courts do NOT move that fast relative to what the burden is, this isn't like a bench warrant...

If it was dems would be silly to vote against this

[Lee-Lee]

23. It's really 3 business days and they can easily have it done

I just checked and it's 3 business days, not just 72 straight hours.

Federal Magistrates are easily accessible for items like this at a moments notice.

The burden would be comparable to what's required for a restraining order, and those are issued in a matter of hours every day at all levels of courts.

[uponit7771]

29. Ah, ok... well... shit, I hate it when they make footballs out of these issues

[Chan790]

60. Restraining orders are issued on presumption of threat...

that is, you're presumed to be a threat based on a low-preponderance of evidence, until you're verified to not be a threat.

I know because I've had to get two TROs (one of which became a Permanent Restraining Order) in my life...one to protect me from a biological father that had tried to kill me in my sleep, long enough to pursue an appeal of a court order after a half-wit family court judge had granted him visitation because he had completed alcohol rehabilitation as a condition of a plea agreement. The second to keep away a college classmate that was stalking me and who I believed to be dangerous.

If firearm purchases were treated the same way...anybody that could not be cleared within 72 hours would be denied RKBA either temporarily or permanently. Nobody is arguing for that...it's the opposite of the outcome that RKBA activists and lawmakers want.

[Justice]

47. Is 72 hours enough time to show probable cause should not have gun? I don't think so.

If they had probable cause, they would be arresting the person.

Consider the Orlando shooter - if they had 72 hours to look at him, would they have found probably cause - no.

[Lee-Lee]

55. Sure it is

First, it's really 3 business days.

If they have adequate reason it's easy to document and put in front of a magistrate.

If they don't have enough evidence that a judge would agree then there wasn't adequate reason for them to be put on a list used to deny civil rights.

The Orlando shooter wasn't on the list anyway so there wouldn't have been any investigation.

The logic of "we just need to deny a right to you with impunity and no hearing because we don't have enough proof to do it in court and make a judge agree" is insane.

[Chan790]

59. I don't think either the Democrats or Republicans got it right.

I've argued for more time for some time because I'm skeptical of the evidence and think that there needs to minimally be enough time to verify that the evidence isn't itself wrongful or the artifice of bureaucracy. That requires investigations and verification by actual human beings and all of that takes time, more than 72 hours in all but the most-obvious cases.

It also takes resources and people that do not currently exist...to be done right would require more federal agents and more budget that nobody is actually proposing be added.

Comprehensive reform requires comprehensive approaches designed to get it right, not get it done fast and with minimal effort.

[Chan790]

56. This is what RKBA activists seem to miss.

Which is frankly strange to me because I'd think they'd know it better than most people...the government is a bureaucracy that tends to make mistakes and bury them in miles of inscrutable paper until they're no longer decipherable from the truth without great scrutiny, the sort that requires actual human investigations, the involvement of a human arbiter (to wit, a judge) and several hours or days.

So yes, that evidence exists, to be plugged into a form...and in the case of people wrongfully on no-fly, it wrongfully exists. it is either evidence of nothing or worse "legit" evidence generated by bureaucracy based on previous bureaucratic output generated by bureaucracy built on a foundation of fundamental error. Under investigation, it reveals itself...but simply slapped into a form, it's indiscernible from legitimate evidence.

If we went by the procedure you've supposed in your post...we end up with many many wrongful rejections and just as many wrongful approvals; benefiting nobody and harming lawful gun owners as much as it harms the public welfare.

Rapidity should not be a legitimate excuse to excuse thoroughness and accuracy. Why limit us to 72 hours when the correct result can be achieved in less than 120 hours most of the time, especially when the stakes of error are so high?

[lancer78]

50. So what is acceptable?

A 6 month time frame? Any mass shooter bent on destruction or any terrorist will wait that six months.

[RAFisher]

11. I believe this is the amendment in question

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=2&vote=00105

(Purpose: To Secure our Homeland from radical Islamists by Enhancing
Law enforcement Detection (``SHIELD''))

At the end add the following:
Sec. 5__. Hereafter, the Attorney General shall establish
a process by which--
(1) the Attorney General and Federal, State, and local law
enforcement are immediately notified, as appropriate, of any
request to transfer a firearm or explosive to a person who
is, or within the previous 5 years was, investigated as a
known or suspected terrorist;
(2) the Attorney General may delay the transfer of the
firearm or explosive for a period not to exceed 3 business
days and file an emergency petition in a court of competent
jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of the firearm or
explosive, and such emergency petition and subsequent hearing
shall receive the highest possible priority on the docket of
the court of competent jurisdiction and be subject to the
Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);
(3) the transferee receives actual notice of the hearing
and is provided with an opportunity to participate with
counsel and the emergency petition shall be granted if the
court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the
transferee has committed, conspired to commit, attempted to
commit, or will commit an act of terrorism, and if the
petition is denied, the Government shall be responsible for
all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees;
(4) the Attorney General may arrest and detain the
transferee for whom an emergency petition has been filed
where probable cause exists to believe that the individual
has committed, conspired to commit, or attempted to commit an
act of terrorism; and
(5) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
annually reviews and certifies the identities of known or
suspected terrorists under this section and the
appropriateness of such designation.

[Straw Man]

13. Basically, ...

... it's a "put up or shut up" clause for the Justice Department. If they want to deny the sale, they have to show what they've got on this person, who can then challenge it.

Cops get warrants in a matter of hours. In this case it's simply a matter of filing the petition. I know they're saying "But we might compromise our investigations," but that's wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Once upon a time law enforcement had to let a suspect run around free until they were ready to bring their case. Now they want to hamstring people indefinitely in a kind of "walking arrest" situation, with no recourse and no end in sight. It's not right and it's not progressive.

I'm shocked that so many people here are ready to throw due process out the window for partisan purposes.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Too many people read Kafka's The Trial and thought, wow, what a great legal system!

Now we are all Josef K.

[uponit7771]

21. The burden is NOT like a bench warrant, more to prove than a LEOs word on the case

[Straw Man]

34. They have three days to file an emergency petition.

That will put the sale on hold. If they've got any evidence at all, it should be easy enough to produce it for a judge. If not, why is this person on the list to begin with?

[Justice]

48. Probable cause - not any evidence at all. Would they have met the burden with the Orlando shooter?

[Straw Man]

62. If they don't have probable cause ...

... why is the person on the list?

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. The idea that they have proof on file is demonstrably wrong. The bill was a fig leaf.

Ted Kennedy and the No-Fly List Myth

Fact checks article shows that 3 different public figures were at times on the no-fly list, "Ted Kennedy and Stephen Hayes the journalist and Cat Stevens."

Ted Kennedy found himself on the list at least 4 separate times. Cat Stevens, who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam was on the list because the FBI felt he committed suspicious acts. The FBI refuse to say whether Hays was on their watch list.

It is clear that there isn't a file that's easy to get to and hand over to a lawyer and a judge.

At minimum, there would need to be a dedicated, well-funded staff with a high-security clearance to work with Homeland Security, FBI, TSA, NSA, CIA and every other government organization that can put people on that list.

Of course, that would take funding, and according to the Constitution, Funding bills must begin in the House of Representatives.

And another thing. Who voted on the house version of the bill. If they did not initiate a bill that would provide funding for that process, then no funding would be possible.

They could, of course, vote on the Senate Bill, but it would contain no funding and that bill would have never gone through the House. A bill must go through both the House and the Senate before it is passed.

This bill was meant as a fig leave to pretend that Senators who were up for election had somehow done something. It was a meaningless exercise using a bill that would never have passed in the House so Senators could use it in their reelection campaigns.

[Lee-Lee]

31. So you advocate denial of a Constitutional right without cause or proof?

If there is no actual evidence at hand then how can you justify denial of a right?

What's next, deny the right to vote because they think you may commit fraud but can't show why and don't have to?

The very fact the wrong people get listed without reason or proof is exactly why judicial review is needed! Your own post shows how flawed the process is and why we shouldn't accept the list as enough proof.

May as well rename it the "Un-American Activities List". McArthty would be proud.

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. I advocate that the 3 day limit means checks will never happen. This isn't about due process.

Where is the dedicated staff that can lay their hands on information classified out the wazzoo who will put it together, give to people to see what is classified, redact information, check again with a lawyer, apply to a court (I suspect that would be the FISA court, especially if any information is classified) and get a judge to sign off on it. Lawyers, dedicated agents, staff, and courts cost money, which means that the House of Representatives must initiate the bill (see link below) and that takes more than 3 days.

The Republican Bill would have meant that nothing would be done, assuming it passed the House. A Bill is not a law until it passes both the Senate and the Hosue and is signed by the President. That would require this bill to be passed by the house, or the House pass their own version which they have not done. (See my link below.)
Because there is no bill in the House this was never meant to pass. It will be used by Senators in Campaign ads to show that Democrats want to take away their rights.

Due Process is a red herring.

House Democrats Shout "Where's the Bill" to Demand Gun Control Laws

[Travis_0004]

53. How about you get your information before you put the guy on a terror list

People don't (usually) end up on a terror list without reason. If somebody is on the list, and should be on the list, you should have a file on that guy. If he goes to buy a gun, you can file a motion in court in less than 1 day easily.

That gets the process started. If you want to build up a case you can, it will take time to notify the accused, and schedule the hearing. Its not like you have to present your entire case within the 3 business days.

I'll admit the government is incompetent at times. That is not an excuse to take away rights.

[Agnosticsherbet]

65. Three days is not enough. That is the point. it requires funding and this bill has none.

There are many agencies that can put someone on the terror watchlist or nofly list. That information is going to be classified. A court can not make a decision with redacted documents. So it would need to go to something like the FISA court.

It would require funding, dedicated offices and resources to manage the information. People who can make sure classified information is protected. Lawyers who can take this to court.

The courts are backlogged because Republicans have dragged their feet about approving judges.

This bill isn't about due process.

It is an attempt by Republicans to pass a bill that will do nothing. Not only will the Senate bill do nothing, the House is not going to pass this boondoggle, so it will never be signed into law.

[Travis_0004]

69. How many days would be acceptable?

If it makes a difference I would be fine with 2 weeks. But people should have a right to due process, and the government should not be allowed endless delays.

[Agnosticsherbet]

71. The FBI needs 25 days on average to determine if a gun purchaser is illegal

Waiting Periods Policy Summary

There is no federal waiting period. As described below, federal law allows a dealer to deliver a firearm to a purchaser as soon as a background check is completed, or after three business days even if a background check has not been completed. Each year, over 3,000 ineligible persons receive firearms through this default provision. The FBI has determined that in 2012, the number was as high as 3,722.1 The average time it takes for the FBI to determine that illegal purchasers are ineligible to receive firearms is 25 days.2 As a result, the FBI has recommended extending the research time to complete background checks to reduce the number of prohibited people who are able to purchase firearms by default.3 For more information on this issue, see our summary on Background Check Procedures.

The use of background is a good measure. Actually, to go to court, the would probably need longer, but 25 days is a useful tool.

This Republican bill is not designed to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. It is a calculated attempt to do absolutely nothing and get covered for it with the 85% of Americans who want something done.

To do it right, Congress would need to fund the operation with agents, lawyers, a dedicated staff. The FISA court could be used, but would possibly need a few more judges to handle the increased workload.

Republicans are not going to do that because they don't care if terrorists get guns and blow people away. What they care about is the money the NRA provides and they will dance to their tune.

[bighart]

27. I despise the idea of taking away protected rights without

the benefit of due process and believe passing the version that allowed it would set a very dangerous precedent.

Maybe the 3 business days was a bit unrealistic and the time line should be extended to 10 business days but I absolutely believe due process in this situation is a must and any bill that does not included it should be a non-starter without further consideration.

We have to stand up for our constitutionally protected rights regardless of who is in power.

Amended to add I think there should be a built in 3 day delay for gun purchases for semi auto firearms.

[oneshooter]

28. I already own several Semi-auto firearms.

So what good would a three day delay do?

[bighart]

30. It would do no good for guns already owned

just as none of the proposed bill would do nothing to impact guns already out there.
My thinking is around new purchases not placing limits on firearms currently owned by law abiding citizens.

I am a realist and there are not going to be significant restrictions placed on weapons already "in the field", that is just a fact.
It is also a fact that the vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns not rifles so any legislation that only deals with rifles in whatever form will be minimally effective and if it focuses on "assault rifles" specifically will be statistically irrelevant.

If the goal is to just pass a bill to look like something is being done both sides are on the right path, if the goal is to actually reduce gun crime neither side is doing anything meaningful.

[Justice]

49. Of course due process - but not a fig leaf that is meaningless. Which 72 hrs to show probable cause

is.

[Eleanors38]

38. The proposal is still uncomfortably close to a 5A violation, but not the...

locked-door proposals bandied around here by some. Disturbing, but seems to be the end game for many controllers. Notable, the bill would have applied to the Orlando killer by the retro-active 5 yr history of any terror watch-list. That history is not a criminal record or conviction, either.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

39. If Senate Dems accepted due process, it still would have been voted down.

And if the amendment passed, we would still not have gun control. It was a very minor tweak, and a competent terrorist would find a way around it, like by having a wife, sister, brother-in-law, cousin buy the gun for him.

Hardly "gun control".

[former9thward]

41. So if nothing works then why bother with it at all?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

43. Because it feels good, like the temporary assault weapon ban.

Or, maybe, pass something that actually means something. Like a ban against any clip/magazine that holds more than five or six or eight bullets.

[tonyt53]

51. Senator Manchin said this very thing would happen. Alluded to it as a set up by the GOP.

[liberal N proud]

54. SpinING it for the republicans

The blame goes to the GOP and their NRA ratings.

[Gabi Hayes]

68. it simply AMAZES me how these repub enablers continue to deny that the obvious

conclusion to be drawn is that GOP is playing yet another con on the low information consumers, and are supported here, for whatever reason, by several posters who are toeing the republican line, once again, when it couldn't be clearer what the NRA suckasses' game is

how simple does it have to be?

nauseating

[Agnosticsherbet]

67. The FBI needs 25 days on average to determine if a gun purchaser is illegal

Waiting Periods Policy Summary
here is no federal waiting period. As described below, federal law allows a dealer to deliver a firearm to a purchaser as soon as a background check is completed, or after three business days even if a background check has not been completed. Each year, over 3,000 ineligible persons receive firearms through this default provision. The FBI has determined that in 2012, the number was as high as 3,722.1 The average time it takes for the FBI to determine that illegal purchasers are ineligible to receive firearms is 25 days.2 As a result, the FBI has recommended extending the research time to complete background checks to reduce the number of prohibited people who are able to purchase firearms by default.3 For more information on this issue, see our summary on Background Check Procedures.

Three days is a monumental Republican Joke.
Their bill is a joke bill meant to do nothing.