Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

[tytlyf]

To "probably" khave a good reason to put someone on an unchallengable secret list with secret
criteria enforced by secret government aparatchiks doesn't rise to the level of what I call "due process".

Correct, the FBI and our intelligence agencies have plenty of secret lists that the public doesn't need to know about.

So it's a legal loss of a right without any useful effect, eh.
Must've been proposed by a Democrat.

As it currently stands, people on the watch list can buy guns. Obviously. We're trying to change that.

Yes, spend time & money to possibly secure one's constitutional rights.
Great plan, but I see potential for mischief.

Yes, follow the typical due process process.

Those are just published guidelines which aren't enforceable by law.
They can put people on the list for any reason they want.
And you have no right to know why.

Good, a very small % end up on the list by accident. We're trying to use our resources to prevent terror attacks.

Dang....Obama is starting to sound like Hitler!

Obama is much much better than the previous admin.

 

[4consideration]

Possibly to allow the FBI more flexibility when sharing information with police and gun dealers. The bill is more about known people on the watch list. Gotta start somewhere.

The Orlando shooter, Mateen, was employed by a security firm that provides security to many entities, including the U.S. government. He was licensed in the state, and required to carry a gun in his work.

"About 15 percent of G4S’s U.S.-based workers are re-screened each year according to standard practice, the company said. As an “armed security official” Mateen was also required to carry a weapon and received a license from the state of Florida, which makes its own evaluation of an applicant’s personal history, and underwent several hours of firearms training, it said.

G4S, whose clients in more than 100 countries include the U.S. government, said it’s cooperating with the FBI investigation of the Florida massacre."

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/1...y-after-employing-orlando-shooter-since-2007/

If he would have been on an FBI list, it would have been an "ok to carry a gun" list.

 

[tytlyf]

The Orlando shooter, Mateen, was employed by a security firm that provides security to many entities, including the U.S. government. He was licensed in the state, and required to carry a gun in his work.

"About 15 percent of G4S’s U.S.-based workers are re-screened each year according to standard practice, the company said. As an “armed security official” Mateen was also required to carry a weapon and received a license from the state of Florida, which makes its own evaluation of an applicant’s personal history, and underwent several hours of firearms training, it said.

G4S, whose clients in more than 100 countries include the U.S. government, said it’s cooperating with the FBI investigation of the Florida massacre."

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/1...y-after-employing-orlando-shooter-since-2007/

If he would have been on an FBI list, it would have been an "ok to carry a gun" list.

FBI still conducted their investigation on him regardless of that list.

 

[4consideration]

FBI still conducted their investigation on him regardless of that list.

Yes, the FBI investigated him. The security company that provides security services around the globe -- to large and small entities, also screened him.

 

[tytlyf]

Yes, the FBI investigated him. The security company that provides security services around the globe -- to large and small entities, also screened him.

I'd assume the FBI is a little more careful these days with who they're watching and pulling from the list. This event will be a good example of that change as the FBI has the spotlight on them now. Given the ISIL threat the past couple years. Back in 2013-14 it wasn't much on the radar.

 

[4consideration]

I'd assume the FBI is a little more careful these days with who they're watching and pulling from the list. This event will be a good example of that change as the FBI has the spotlight on them now. Given the ISIL threat the past couple years. Back in 2013-14 it wasn't much on the radar.

I don't think there's enough scrutiny and justification for taking away someone's rights for simply being on a no-fly list. I don't think we can justify treating people that have not shown themselves to be criminals as criminals just because somebody feels suspicious and puts them on a list.

I also would like for us to be as prudent and realistic as possible. Since you said you think we need to start somewhere, short of just refusing to allow people put on a no-fly list to purchase guns, and make them prove they're not terrorists (which can't really be done) if we're talking about ideas to make things better, what else ya got?

 

[tytlyf]

I don't think there's enough scrutiny and justification for taking away someone's rights for simply being on a no-fly list. I don't think we can justify treating people that have not shown themselves to be criminals as criminals just because somebody feels suspicious and puts them on a list.

I also would like for us to be as prudent and realistic as possible. Since you said you think we need to start somewhere, short of just refusing to allow people put on a no-fly list to purchase guns, and make them prove they're not terrorists (which can't really be done) if we're talking about ideas to make things better, what else ya got?

The first step is to make sure people on the terror watch list cannot walk into a store and buy a gun. There needs to be more scrutiny if that's the case. Rights only go so far, until you relinquish that right. Some still think felons should get guns citing the 2A.
So, as much as the 2A gives Americans the right to bear arms, there are restrictions to that. It's not a free for all. Laws are introduced to protect Americans.

 

[esmith]

Ending up on the list isn't a criminal act. It's a suspicion thing.

So you are advocating for denial of ones Constitutional Rights on "suspicion" Back to the suspicion on Hillary...

 

[Nous]

Actually, we are talking about law abiding citizens losing a constitutional right

A person need not have been convicted of a crime in order to be legally denied purchase of a gun. It isn't a "constitutional right" for all non-convicts to be able to purchase guns.

 

[Nous]

So you are advocating for denial of ones Constitutional Rights

See #209.

 

[Underhill]

And you know what opinions are like?


Who has advocated that firearms are only necessary for defending ourselves from the government?
What "war"?

I'm not claiming they have no other purpose, only that the without that premise, the 2nd amendment goes up in smoke. The founders were concerned that government of the people could morph into just another king they have to overthrow. Of course after 200+ years of mostly stable democracy that concern is largely moot.

I am not against gun ownership but this notion that the second is some sacred cow, off limits to any sort of change or amendment, is just stupid.

Do you have problems with rounder bugs?

...

 

[esmith]

A person need not have been convicted of a crime in order to be legally denied purchase of a gun. It isn't a "constitutional right" for all non-convicts to be able to purchase guns.

Correct
Federal Laws
persons under the age of 18 for handguns
persons adjudicated mentally ill
Unlawful users of certain drugs
Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies)
Fugitives from justice

any problem with those?
Works for me.

 

[esmith]

The founders were concerned that government of the people could morph into just another king they have to overthrow. Of course after 200+ years of mostly stable democracy that concern is largely moot.
I am not against gun ownership but this notion that the second is some sacred cow, off limits to any sort of change or amendment, is just stupid. ...

That is your and other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Others disagree with you.
No one knows exactly what the founders really were thinking when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. So that is an invalid point.
I have no problem with amending the Constitution. What I have a problem with is a federal government writing laws (or executive orders for that matter) based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
You want to change the Constitution. Have at it, but you have to go through the Constitutional amendment procedures not change it by writing a law or executive order. You have a problem with that?

 

[metis]

I didn't advocate that, you made an assumption based on obscure questions.

My question was in no way "obscure", especially since I clarified what I was asking for in my post #188. No, you just either do not know what "statutes" are or you just haven't thought this through very well, and I tend to gravitate towards the latter.

 

[Underhill]

That is your and other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Others disagree with you.
No one knows exactly what the founders really were thinking when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. So that is an invalid point.
I have no problem with amending the Constitution. What I have a problem with is a federal government writing laws (or executive orders for that matter) based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
You want to change the Constitution. Have at it, but you have to go through the Constitutional amendment procedures not change it by writing a law or executive order. You have a problem with that?

Aside from the fact that it won't happen? No, not really.

Where I am sure we disagree is in the details. In many other avenues, we (the courts) recognize that all freedoms have their limits when it interferes with public health. Yelling fire in a packed building for example is not protected by free speech rules. The courts agree that the second has it's limits when it comes to things such as tanks and machine guns.

So the current question is where do we draw the line? And as public opinion is shifting away from the NRA in much of the country, I suspect that line is likely to shift, with or without an amendment.

 

[metis]

I'm not claiming they have no other purpose, only that the without that premise, the 2nd amendment goes up in smoke. The founders were concerned that government of the people could morph into just another king they have to overthrow.

Exactly, and we do know what the FF were thinking in terms of the 2nd because they wrote about why they supported and interpreted it.

 

[esmith]

My question was in no way "obscure", especially since I clarified what I was asking for in my post #188. No, you just either do not know what "statutes" are or you just haven't thought this through very well, and I tend to gravitate towards the latter.

No I'm just getting tired of a issue that neither side will admit they are either right or wrong. In plain English.....I support the current "FEDERAL" laws. If your state of residence want's to go way beyond that, as in the case of CA, then so be it. Just don't attempt to impose those ideas on states that do not agree.

 

[metis]

No I'm just getting tired of a issue that neither side will admit they are either right or wrong. In plain English.....I support the current "FEDERAL" laws. If your state of residence want's to go way beyond that, as in the case of CA, then so be it. Just don't attempt to impose those ideas on states that do not agree.

Well, all you have done is to go against your initial responses, but at least this latest post is somewhat an improvement over the others. However, I'll stay tuned for future changes and denials by you.

BTW, guns tend not to observe state lines.

 

[Underhill]

No I'm just getting tired of a issue that neither side will admit they are either right or wrong. In plain English.....I support the current "FEDERAL" laws. If your state of residence want's to go way beyond that, as in the case of CA, then so be it. Just don't attempt to impose those ideas on states that do not agree.

Good luck with that. The reality is that guns are easily transported across state lines. So a ban in Illinois is almost meaningless when you can drive 10 minutes outside Chicago and buy based upon Indiana's laws. California can ban whatever it likes, but if Nevada leaves their laws the way they are, the effectiveness is limited.

 

[esmith]

Well, all you have done is to go against your initial responses, but at least this latest post is somewhat an improvement over the others. However, I'll stay tuned for future changes and denials by you.

My previous response was made out of pure frustration and being a little ticked off.

BTW, guns tend not to observe state lines.

Then it is up to the state to enforce their laws no matter how draconian. This is of course is only my opinion on various state anti-gun laws.
Law abiding citizens are just that, law-abiding. They may not agree with the law but if they live or visit that state then they normally adhere to the laws of that state.

Good luck with that. The reality is that guns are easily transported across state lines. So a ban in Illinois is almost meaningless when you can drive 10 minutes outside Chicago and buy based upon Indiana's laws. California can ban whatever it likes, but if Nevada leaves their laws the way they are, the effectiveness is limited.

As I replied to metis in the above it is the responsibility of that state to enforce their own laws. Take for instance the state of CA. If a non-resident moves into that state then they must abide by CA laws...they can not bring contraband into that state.. If a resident goes into, in your example NV, and purchases a firearm that is illegal in CA then they have violated CA law. Note, a licensed dealer in NV will not ship a illegal firearm into CA.
Why don't you read U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 before you post something. regarding firearm laws.