HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why didn't we pass the GO...

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:25 AM

Why didn't we pass the GOP no-fly-no-buy bill?

That was idiotic. It was a bigger concession than Republicans have ever offered, and we're left with zilch now.

46 replies, 2695 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why didn't we pass the GOP no-fly-no-buy bill? (Original post)
Recursion Jun 2016 OP
Scootaloo Jun 2016 #1
EL34x4 Jun 2016 #17
lancer78 Jun 2016 #38
BlackLivesMatter Jun 2016 #2
840high Jun 2016 #3
Straw Man Jun 2016 #4
lancer78 Jun 2016 #39
Straw Man Jun 2016 #45
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #6
Recursion Jun 2016 #9
Amishman Jun 2016 #15
lancer78 Jun 2016 #40
jtuck004 Jun 2016 #5
Exilednight Jun 2016 #7
Recursion Jun 2016 #8
Exilednight Jun 2016 #10
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #31
Exilednight Jun 2016 #33
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #44
lancer78 Jun 2016 #42
Exilednight Jun 2016 #46
Vinca Jun 2016 #11
Recursion Jun 2016 #12
Vinca Jun 2016 #13
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #19
Vinca Jun 2016 #22
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #27
Vinca Jun 2016 #30
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #34
Vinca Jun 2016 #35
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #36
Vinca Jun 2016 #37
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #41
lancer78 Jun 2016 #43
Justice Jun 2016 #21
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #28
Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #32
underthematrix Jun 2016 #14
SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #16
underthematrix Jun 2016 #24
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #18
underthematrix Jun 2016 #25
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #26
Justice Jun 2016 #20
BootinUp Jun 2016 #23
One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #29

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:31 AM

1. Well...

 

The "No Fly List" is garbage. It's irreparably ethnically biased, there's no appeal system for it, and you don't have to commit any sort of crime to get on it. All you need is a name that some yokel with a clipboard thinks sounds similar to some other guy some other yokel with a clipboard thought was "suspicious," and poof, you can't fly.

Using that as a basis to deny a constitutional right - a dumb right, maytbe, but still a right - is a stupid proposition. It's bad just in genral, butr would also be easily weaponized against Democrats (No, it really doesn't matter that it was a Republican bill, Democrats always get hte blame.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:43 PM

17. The "no fly, no buy" bill had an appeals process.

 

This might've been part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EL34x4 (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:32 PM

38. Only 3 business days though n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:37 AM

2. Call me cynical, but I think some elected Democrats just want an issue

 

As opposed to a workable, constitutional solution being passed.

I didn't agree with the Cornyn amendment (namely because 72 hours is too narrow of a window) but on the principle it makes sense to have some due process mechanism to challenge an entry on the terror list (even if it is based on probable cause for denial/reasonable suspicion for delay only)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:39 AM

3. .+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:47 AM

4. I won't call you cynical ...

... or if I do, I'll call myself cynical too. But I don't agree that 72 hours is too narrow. All we're talking about is a sign-off by a judge. Law enforcement can get a judge to sign a warrant in a matter of a few hours, usually.

Due process is absolutely essential. Otherwise we're moving even further down the road to a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:32 PM

39. It is not 72 hours

 

It is 3 business days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:49 PM

45. Even better.

Not necessary to get judges up in the middle of the night, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:45 AM

6. "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"

 

Said by Chuck Schumer, sad but I bet he voted against it too.

I agree completely, they want the issue more than change even if that change is not perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:28 AM

9. Oh, I know that; I've worked on K St

Just like the last thing the NRA wants is for gun rights to be actually secure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:54 PM

15. I agree the Cornyn bill did not seem bad, though I think a week would be a better time period.

I am a bit upset that we let partisanship and pride get in the way of making us a little safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:34 PM

40. Their constituents are

 

crying for "something to be done" and the Congressperson and Senators are pandering to those constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:29 AM

5. "Donít let the perfect be the enemy of the good" Voltaire.

 

Except when it is convenient.


...
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas pushed a measure that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorrist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently. The National Rifle Associated backed the legislation, but it failed in a final vote of 53 to 47.

The fourth and final vote involved a measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to keep people on a government terrorism watch list or other suspected terrorists from buying guns. The Justice Department endorsed her legislation, but it also failed with a final vote count of 47 to 53.
...


This is like hearing your favorite team lost on Tuesday, 6 to 4. Then they lost on Friday 4 to 6.

You start to sense a pattern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:20 AM

7. the issue was a 72 hour timeline to present evidence. it's not realistic

To expect the DoJ to file charges.

More applicable would have been a 2 week timeline. If you need a gun faster than 2 weeks and are on the terrorists watch list, then that should automatically raise a red flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:27 AM

8. So, nothing is better than 72 hours?



And here I thought people cared about gun control... silly me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:34 AM

10. it's not realistic. Republicans have a habit of passing such bills

And then hitting their funding. The DoJ is stretched pretty thin as it is, and they do not have unlimited funding or resources to concentrate on such things.

Such a request may sit on a lawyer's desk for 72 hours before they even see it.

Other than a political "win", what deal world impact would it have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:59 AM

31. And, not to, as they say...

...batter a deceased equestrian, but "nothing is better than something?"

I've read elsewhere that if guns were illegal and one had to commit a crime to obtain one, it is possible that between obtaining the gun and committing a murder such a person could be arrested. This would catch some in an imperfect net but at least.


IMHO the list needs to go. It's never a good idea to have secret government lists of "enemies of the state", especially if they're US citizens. What's next... prison with out trial? Oh wait, Gitmo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:02 AM

33. I agree that there has to be some form of due process. It just

Needs a larger timeline and to close the gunshow loophole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:02 PM

44. It is my position that a solution...

...other than a secret or semi-secret list needs to be found. I don't like the idea of a no-buy list for guns nor do I like the idea of a no-fly list. Liberty is a delicate thing that is terribly important. I understand background checks beyond the NICS level. Clearances from the DOE, position of trust status through to TS/SSBI are there to protect government secrets. The very essence of 'fair and just' is opposite to any list of suspected enemies when they're citizens.

For the past 13 years I have traveled by commercial flights at between 1 and as many as 4 times a month. I object to that list for any citizen or person with permanent residence here. If they want to stop a foreign person from entering, fine but I will take my chances flying with another American. Please purge the list of US citizens.

Terrorists are just another kind of tyrant. And freemen will always outnumber a tyrant's minions. As they say, "Freedom isn't free."

The gunshow loophole is really the private sale "loophole". This could be solved with universal background checks. Why do you think there are no bills in congress to just allow citizens to have access to an NICS confirmation even by a visit to a local law enforcement office? Even a voluntary program would be a start. I heard an overwhelming majority are in favor, so why not?

"...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..."
I take that one rather seriously.

Have a nice evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:35 PM

42. Not 72 hours

 

but 3 business days. I have heard of federal warrants being issued within 2 hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:52 PM

46. Those warrants being issued are after months of

Investigation, and are pretty rare.

How do we pay for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:42 AM

11. One reason, as explained by Corey Booker, is that the FBI would have to go to court

and be prepared to produce "probable cause" why the individual shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. Booker said if the FBI had "probable cause," they would have already arrested the person for plotting terror or some other charge. The GOP bill was only to give themselves cover in an election year. Their overlords - the NRA - won't allow any substantive legislation that would actually do anything. I heard someone on one of the political talk shows wonder if the GOP would be okay with people anonymously buying airline tickets on the Internet which allowed them to bypass security. That's pretty much the same as the gun show/Internet purchase loophole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:18 AM

12. And you're against that?

Should law enforcement not take action when someone on this list attempts to buy a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:35 AM

13. The point is, if they don't have probable cause to arrest the person outright,

they don't have probable cause to keep them from buying a gun. It's a waste of time and just amounts to a cat chasing its tail. It was designed that way by the GOP. Sounds good, does nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:23 PM

19. If they can't show why the person is a probable terrorist, how can we deny the gun purchase at all?

This smacks of a police state just from the description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:58 PM

22. I think they should also be able to purchase airline tickets over the Internet and then be able

to walk past security and straight on the plane. By the way, no one has ever mentioned how grateful someone should be if they go to a gun shop and find out they're on the no-fly list. If there is no reason for them to be on the list, they will have an opportunity to get off it before they book an expensive trip and end up stranded at the gate. I'm sorry, but the inconvenience of a few shouldn't be the reason we end up with more firearms possessed by the bad guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:23 AM

27. "Inconvenience of the few" - sounds like an excuse for apartheid or segregation...

All we have to do is put your name on a list and your rights and privileges of citizenship are revoked. Imagine the exciting future uses of such a concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:45 AM

30. All I can say is I will err on the favor of preserving life.

My first choice would be an Australia-style approach, but that will never happen given some people love their guns more than they love their children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:16 PM

34. It's not about guns at all.

The erosion of the rights of the citizenry by a cowardly few has been accelerating in the era of the GWOT. It's already proven that any infringement granted for anti-terror efforts is almost immediately used against people for other bullshit efforts, like the war on drugs. Look at John McCain's bill on allowing the FBI to gather your internet viewing habits without a warrant. The erosion of rights is all around because a few cowards are scared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:23 PM

35. Yes, it is about guns and a number of other things.

We ought to get the Heller decision repealed and go back to the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Every Tom, Dick and Nutball does not personally need to own a gun. Imagine all the little kids who might still be alive if dad wasn't a pistol humper. A large chunk of the population is stupid. Really, really stupid (thus the rise of Trump). They would be safest in padded rooms, but since that's way too much infrastructure to build we should settle for not arming them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:28 PM

36. And that somehow justifies allowing a secret list to be used to deprive a citizen of any right.

I mean, lets cut the shit - Once the 5th due process process is taken out, it's full on crossed the River Rubicon time. I could add anyone I want to a list with no real justification nor limits and deprive them of whatever we want by precedent. Police could declare Black Lives Matters people as terrorists and search them at will without warrants under this concept. It could be used by anyone to harass political opponents or minorities.

But it makes you happy for one single thing, so hey, fuck everyone else right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:31 PM

37. If 1 person's right is violated in that they can't immediately buy a gun and it saves 50 lives, it's

justified. This is obviously a discussion that is going nowhere. You love your guns, I love people not getting shot. The end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:35 PM

41. NO - I love my CIVIL LIBERTIES. I oppose a Police State!

It's a reason I carry an ACLU card and have been a member all of my adult life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:40 PM

43. No,

 

you and the pro-life movement are just 2 different sides of the same coin. You want to save lives, but I bet you are pro-choice.

Do you like alcohol? That stuff has killed 80 times the people that have been murdered by guns so far this year.

Thos who would give up Liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:48 PM

21. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:30 AM

28. There are plenty of times when a prosecutor can meet probably cause for arrest, but not


Arrest because tyre is little chance of securing a guilty plea or verdict.

But I think you're on to something which is the evidence for being a risk may not meet the probable cause standard for being placed on the list

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:03 AM

32. That's a BS excuse. You can often get an court order like a restraining order with evidence that

 

would not be enough for an arrest or prosecution.

In fact it happens every hour of every day across the USA.

A court order barring the sale would be right along the same lines as a court issued restraining order. In fact a restraining order or any kind automatically bars buying a gun plus has other behavioral restrictions so what they are asking for is actually less involved and restrictive than a typical restraining order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:48 PM

14. I watched the gun sense debates tofay on C-span and

Diane Feinstein did a great job of explaining this. The NO FLY list is a subset of the Terror watch list. The bill would not have captured ALL folks on the terror watch list

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:37 PM

16. And I guess nothing

is better than something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:59 PM

24. i think the Collins which addresses the concerns of both GOPs and DEMS and is

supported by both GOPs and DEMS is very likely to pass

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:01 PM

18. It looks like the upcoming Collins amendment might be a compromise



This could work. It has an appeals process like Cronyn's amendment, but more time for authorities to make their case.


https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/compromise-guns-legislation-released-tuesday

After the Senate's failure to adopt gun control legislation , Sen. Susan Collins and a bipartisan coalition Tuesday announced a compromise proposal to bar some terror suspects from buying guns.

But the White House and Justice Department are holding off on backing the measure until they study its provisions. And one leading Democrat, New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, said there are several key flaws that would need to be fixed before the proposal moves forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:00 PM

25. Yes. It's a start and a good start

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:39 PM

26. And what's the end?

 

That is why it is pointless to try to come together on this with an attitude like that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:47 PM

20. No, GOP bill was idiotic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:00 PM

23. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:32 AM

29. Letting "Them Win" doesn't elect more Democrats

The game is not to pass legislation but to ensure more democrats are elected. Handing them a win would not be as good as tarring them with anti-gun control stigma, when it comes to establishing more dems in congress and the WHite House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread