Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:00 AM Jun 2016

A look at the 4 gun bills up for vote in Senate

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

The proposals scheduled for a vote Monday — all as amendments to a Justice Department spending bill — include:

► An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list.

► An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale.

► An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.

► An amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, and to expand the background check database.


The vast majority of Americans support "No fly, no buy" and background checks at gun shows and online. I've contacted my senators repeatedly! This is another "Make me!" moment in politics!

Let your senators know it is time to start fixing this!

60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A look at the 4 gun bills up for vote in Senate (Original Post) yallerdawg Jun 2016 OP
On the "no fly, no buy" will people be notified of being on the list and being able to appeal? aikoaiko Jun 2016 #1
Will "people" be notified? yallerdawg Jun 2016 #4
There have been people on the no fly list with no ties to terrorism at all. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #6
You know Senator Kennedy ended up on the list right? Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #13
Senator Kennedy was never on a terrorist list. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #26
He was on the no-fly list and hassled every time he flew for several weeks Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #29
We have to get it right 100% of the time. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #32
No we need checks and balances because we don't get it right 100% Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #37
People need lancer78 Jun 2016 #16
The Orlando shooter (I refuse to add to his notoriety by using his name) had a weapon permit Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #27
Regarding the Orlando shooter. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #33
Or hold sensitive jobs? Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #36
Not every name on the list is investigated like he is Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #39
Hey, that's what John Cornyn is saying in the Senate right now! yallerdawg Jun 2016 #40
Due process is always important. Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #34
'Due process' is to protect us from arbitrary application of government authority. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #38
Like putting your name on a secret list? NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #45
You mean like the Bush secret lists Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #54
The terrorist watchlist is a "rightwing conservative Republican" creation! Dr. Strange Jun 2016 #56
Letting them know, defeats the purpose! scscholar Jun 2016 #52
Wow the one from John Cornyn makes sense! Initech Jun 2016 #2
Democrats don't like Cornyn's proposal... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #5
Oh so it's really doing nothing then. Initech Jun 2016 #8
There are usually amendments and 'poison pill' proposals... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #11
Not true Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #14
I explained one reason why Democrats oppose this proposal. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #21
Not really. Look at the standard for a restraining or vs arrest Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #22
You are supporting the NRA/Republican argument. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #28
I'm supporting protecting due process Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #31
A warrant for a search can be gotten in as little as an hour. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #25
You can't do a comprehensive investigation in 3 days. n/t Chan790 Jun 2016 #42
It's just a decision to block the sale. It isn't a criminal trial. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #44
That's a bit hyperbolic. Chan790 Jun 2016 #46
If you want to change the background check laws, shreadding our 5th Amendment isn't the way to do it NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #47
I'd much rather extend the term-of-time to conduct the check to 30 days. Chan790 Jun 2016 #49
Changing the max time to 30 days is reasonable in non-clear cut cases. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #50
They shou don't have to investigate they have all the evidence they used to put them on the list Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #53
That's what I was going to say... Chan790 Jun 2016 #41
that's the point of it Skittles Jun 2016 #60
At least they're talking about it for a change Johonny Jun 2016 #3
If we can't ban military type weapons/equipment kacekwl Jun 2016 #7
By all means, let's take Bush's sarisataka Jun 2016 #9
Can we make common sense proposals... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #10
I am completely in favor sarisataka Jun 2016 #12
'Due process' ls what added them to the watch list! yallerdawg Jun 2016 #15
That's simply not true Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #17
How did "due process" lancer78 Jun 2016 #18
There is no due process sarisataka Jun 2016 #23
"Due Process" couldn't determine WHICH Edward Kennedy. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #30
Again, Edward Kennedy was never on a watch list yallerdawg Jun 2016 #35
Did I mention "watch list?" Those making lists aren't very good at it... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #43
He was on the no fly list Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #55
Considering 99% lancer78 Jun 2016 #19
I credit that to the insufficiently-short window to perform the check. Chan790 Jun 2016 #48
It's illegal to do a subjective background check for a purchase. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #51
I can get a 10 second credit report n/t lancer78 Jun 2016 #57
How I'd vote if I were a Senator davidn3600 Jun 2016 #20
Just a reminder! yallerdawg Jun 2016 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author Matt_R Jun 2016 #58
Welp there goes the rest of the bill of rights. Matt_R Jun 2016 #59

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
1. On the "no fly, no buy" will people be notified of being on the list and being able to appeal?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:17 AM
Jun 2016


I'm not sure why we need to make it more difficult for the mentally ill to be added to NICS when it already requires adjudication?

As a gun owner, I'd like to receive something in return like removing all import bans of semi-auto rifles and handguns.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
4. Will "people" be notified?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:44 AM
Jun 2016

These are suspected terrorist watch lists! Is it important to let them know? Or maybe just let them find out when they try to board a commercial flight or when they try to purchase guns!

The "mentally ill" question comes from including veterans with PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). We don't want to stop them from purchasing guns, do we? They're veterans, for God's sake!

And then YOU want more guns!

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
6. There have been people on the no fly list with no ties to terrorism at all.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jun 2016

When you are declined from a NCIS check, they don't tell you why. You are just declined. There has to be some transparency and accountability.

I really don't know if you're being sarcastic or not regarding vets.

I thought you might be interested in a discussion.
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
13. You know Senator Kennedy ended up on the list right?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:29 PM
Jun 2016

It's a broken system that makes lots of mistakes.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
26. Senator Kennedy was never on a terrorist list.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:16 PM
Jun 2016

A similar name on the list flagged a confirmation of identity.

We never hear of what is stopped.

We only hear of what is not.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
29. He was on the no-fly list and hassled every time he flew for several weeks
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:27 PM
Jun 2016

Sure, it was a screwup based on similar names- but the fact that it happened even to someone like him and even took him weeks of being hassled before its fixed shows how flawed the process is.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
32. We have to get it right 100% of the time.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:32 PM
Jun 2016

That is our standard now.

So we can sell more guns? Amazing.

Basically, we just need to keep dying...there is nothing we can do about it.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
37. No we need checks and balances because we don't get it right 100%
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:47 PM
Jun 2016

Making a system you know is flawed absolute with no checks or appeals or balances to protect the rights of those wrongfully put on the list is totalitarian and totally not progressive. Even when it's with guns.

Your admission that it's a flawed system that isn't 100% is EXACTLY why there needs to be safeguards and due process.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
27. The Orlando shooter (I refuse to add to his notoriety by using his name) had a weapon permit
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:23 PM
Jun 2016

for his job. It is effectively the same licensure obtained by police officers. In fact, he even attended the police academy.

If someone is placed on a no fly-no buy list should they then have any and all professional credentials that would allow them to possess weapons suspended?

What if they already own weapons?

What if the FBI - as is the case with Orlando - investigates but finds nothing concrete?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
33. Regarding the Orlando shooter.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:41 PM
Jun 2016

That was 'due process' and he was cleared of a 'reasonable suspicion.'

If the FBI or other agency determines an individual is a 'suspected terrorist' does he get to retain gun licensure and weapons?

Common sense would make you think that individual would be in a world of shit!

And maybe, after 'due process,' they are cleared.

Or maybe they never get to fly or have guns!

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
39. Not every name on the list is investigated like he is
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:48 PM
Jun 2016

Many are just put on the list and left there until something with their name pops up.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
40. Hey, that's what John Cornyn is saying in the Senate right now!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:52 PM
Jun 2016

"Obama's secret lists!"

You must have missed what Senator Feinstein said before him.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
34. Due process is always important.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:43 PM
Jun 2016

What happened until innocent until proven guilty?

If fine denying them the purchase, but they should be notifed why, and have a chance to appeal.

Or fuck it, send the feds to their door, and lock them up it gitmo.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
38. 'Due process' is to protect us from arbitrary application of government authority.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:48 PM
Jun 2016

Why is every NRA rightwing conservative Republican position promoted here?

It is ridiculous!

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
45. Like putting your name on a secret list?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:01 PM
Jun 2016

The only person spouting a rightwing conservative viewpoint is you. Liberalism by definition defends and promotes civil liberties. And yet you appear to be completely satisfied with GEORGE W. BUSH's secret watch lists. Hello!? How more arbitrary can you get?

Dr. Strange

(25,898 posts)
56. The terrorist watchlist is a "rightwing conservative Republican" creation!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:19 PM
Jun 2016

Why are you supporting it?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
5. Democrats don't like Cornyn's proposal...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:50 AM
Jun 2016

because virtually nothing can be done in 72 hours!

It would in effect just be a 3-day wait for a suspected terrorist to buy the guns!

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
11. There are usually amendments and 'poison pill' proposals...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:04 PM
Jun 2016

to obfuscate and negate the effectiveness of gun control measures.

Games within games, but NO GUN CONTROL is the bottom line.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
14. Not true
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:38 PM
Jun 2016

They can easily gather what data they have and put it in front of a Federal Magistrate in 24 with ease.

I've worked cases with Federal agents who worked up a full search warrant document and had it approved and signed by a Federal Magistrate in less than 2 hours. It would be a very similar process to get the judicial order barring a gun sale- take the generic request form, plot in relevant data, add more data that bolsters your case as needed in the attachment and take it to the Magistrate.

It 100% could be done in 72 hours. In most case it should be done in 24.

At a rural NC Sheriff's Department I got restraining orders done in 2-3 hours, any time of the day or night and day of the week. It would be pretty much the same kind of process just done in the Federal system where they have a lot more resources and you don't have to go wake the Magistrate up at 3:00am as he sleeps in a cot in the back room and make him grumpy to get a signature.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
21. I explained one reason why Democrats oppose this proposal.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:02 PM
Jun 2016

This NRA-sponsored proposal.

Senators right now are explaining how difficult it would be for the FBI to pull all that together and meet a 'probable cause' mandate which Cornyn also stresses in his amendment.

In effect, the only 'suspected terrorists' on these lists would have sufficient evidence to be charged with a crime, rather than questionable behaviors and contacts which create a suspicion, the basis of the 'suspected terrorist' designation.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
22. Not really. Look at the standard for a restraining or vs arrest
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:05 PM
Jun 2016

A restraining order, that includes a ban on firearms purchases or possession, is a far lower standard to get than an arrest warrant.

Same would apply here. It should take far less to bar a purchase and get an arrest warrant.

Lay it out, let the magistrate decide, if the person wants to appeal they can argue whatever evidence used isn't want it appears or whatever else in court.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
28. You are supporting the NRA/Republican argument.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:27 PM
Jun 2016

These individuals on the list have already been 'processed' and are either terrorists or suspected terrorist.

What is the point of another set of hoops to jump through - as difficult as they are - if not to impede gun control legislation if it is backed by the NRA?

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
31. I'm supporting protecting due process
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:30 PM
Jun 2016

And no, the people on the list haven't recieved due process as part of getting on the list.

You claim they have- please show me the process that is followed when someone is placed on the list and where the steps are that protect an individual's rights and allow proper due process.

Links to documents showing it are helpful.

Oops. You can't. Because it's all secret and by definition a secret process a person isn't even aware of can't be due process.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
25. A warrant for a search can be gotten in as little as an hour.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:15 PM
Jun 2016

I'm sure a judge could make time for a national security concern.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
44. It's just a decision to block the sale. It isn't a criminal trial.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:48 PM
Jun 2016

It's similar to the burden to issue a temporary restraining order.

If we are going to dispense with the fifth amendment, lets just skip the whole watch list and move on to a kill list. If your name goes on it, you disappear. Given the epic cowardice this country has displayed with respect to preserving civil liberties while under terrorism threat, we probably don't deserve them anymore anyhow.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
46. That's a bit hyperbolic.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:08 PM
Jun 2016

It doesn't change the fact that you can't investigate someone sufficiently in 3 days...at that term-of-time, we shouldn't even bother. It's insufficiently short...it takes longer than that to do an employment background check or run a credit report...I hope you see that making a decision on permitting a gun purchase is something that requires more scrutiny than a background check.

If we're going to stick with 3 days...then the default should be towards "rejection, unless cleared" and not the other way around.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
47. If you want to change the background check laws, shreadding our 5th Amendment isn't the way to do it
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:10 PM
Jun 2016
 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
49. I'd much rather extend the term-of-time to conduct the check to 30 days.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:19 PM
Jun 2016

Does that mean it's always going to take 30 days? No. I suspect it would take less than 5 days to properly investigate and clear 95% of people.

But a 30-day max is enough time to make sure it's done right without making the term-of-time functionally-indefinite...and some rarely will take that long, which is fine with me. Most of those long ones are going to end up being rejections, I suspect.

I'd also be in favor of allowing people to file for preclearance, reviewed yearly, that dramatically reduces the time-frame to obtain approval. (but not to shorten the 30-day limit, meaning the government still has the 30-days if it needs it.)

At the same time, there needs to be a due-process to challenge one's inclusion on the no-fly, no-buy list.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
50. Changing the max time to 30 days is reasonable in non-clear cut cases.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:23 PM
Jun 2016

And would allow a terrorism check to take place as well as checks for other issues.

Most people don't have any arrest history and get cleared within a minute or two anyhow. The background check isn't like a security clearance or job, it can only disqualify people based on distinct events that were given due process.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
53. They shou don't have to investigate they have all the evidence they used to put them on the list
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:51 PM
Jun 2016

Compile that, put it in front of a magistrate.

It's a pre made form in the computer that you cut and paste, and then attach the relevant info to for the judge to review.

Simple- a NICS check throws a flag to the folks who maintain the list as database. They check and see if it's really the same person, then take all the information that was used to justify putting them on the list and push that forward. If it's an active case they contact the local field office to make sure they don't have anything relevant to add, if so they add it.

If they don't have that already- why are they on a list? Just for a Muslim sounding name?

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
41. That's what I was going to say...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:57 PM
Jun 2016

as a voter interested in gun-control...I vote on the basis of that issue heavily...I would accept Cornyn's proposal as a compromise if it was...say, 30 days...instead of 3.

What the hell are we going to be able to do in 3 days?

Skittles

(152,964 posts)
60. that's the point of it
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:20 AM
Jun 2016

so the GOP can say they "did something" while not offending their NRA puppet masters or gun humping base

kacekwl

(6,993 posts)
7. If we can't ban military type weapons/equipment
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:03 PM
Jun 2016

then how bout we enforce the well regulated part and if you want to purchase said type of gun-ammo-body armor the a visit from homeland security or the FBI should be in order. It may take awhile but what's the hurry .

sarisataka

(18,216 posts)
9. By all means, let's take Bush's
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:15 PM
Jun 2016

Secret lists and expand their use. We can rely on SCOTUS to make sure police follow the rule and protect our rights.

Oh http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141495020

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
10. Can we make common sense proposals...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:58 PM
Jun 2016

and restrict gun access by people who shouldn't be able to buy guns?

l am sure you do not support legal access to guns by criminals, suspected terrorists, and the mentally ill.

Isn't it going overboard to say the Constitution is not to protect the rights of the innocent but to protect the rights of the guilty and those we believe would do us harm?

sarisataka

(18,216 posts)
12. I am completely in favor
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:25 PM
Jun 2016

Of restricting gun access to people who have proven dangerous for ownership.

What I do not support is using bureaucratic run secret list that do not use due process to deprive people of any right.

I would simply phrase it as the constitution is to protect everyone's rights

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
15. 'Due process' ls what added them to the watch list!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:40 PM
Jun 2016

Nice 'end run' try.

Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
17. That's simply not true
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:43 PM
Jun 2016

If you claim getting added to a secret list without your knowledge and without any right to appeal or face your accuser is due process you need to go back and smack your jr high civics teacher because they failed you badly.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
18. How did "due process"
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:45 PM
Jun 2016

add them to the watch list? Someone has a foreign sounding name and gets put on? They make a lot of calls to the middle east?

sarisataka

(18,216 posts)
23. There is no due process
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:08 PM
Jun 2016

To get on the lists. Faceless bureaucrats put people on the list without any notification. That is not due process; that is arbitrary.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
35. Again, Edward Kennedy was never on a watch list
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:44 PM
Jun 2016

A similar name.

Can we please remember why we want to keep terrorists off our planes?

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
43. Did I mention "watch list?" Those making lists aren't very good at it...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:39 PM
Jun 2016

...but there is always a constituency which wants to expand them.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
19. Considering 99%
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:47 PM
Jun 2016

of mass shooters passed their background checks, this is just more "feel good" pandering to the voter BS. Only way to stop Islamic terrorists is to do what Trump wants, ban all Muslims.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
48. I credit that to the insufficiently-short window to perform the check.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:11 PM
Jun 2016

Like I said above, I can't get an employment background check or a credit report with a 3-day turnaround from when I request it until I receive it.

I think it's a given that the decision to permit or deny a gun purchase should have at-least the same amount of scrutiny as an employment background check.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
51. It's illegal to do a subjective background check for a purchase.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:25 PM
Jun 2016

A credit history or employment check isn't allowed. The check is criminal/civil records only.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
57. I can get a 10 second credit report n/t
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:14 PM
Jun 2016

And waiting lists don't stop mass shooters. And the Newtown shooters mom would have passed a background check no matter how long it took.

In order to stop mass shootings, you have to ban and confiscate guns. Anything less is just playing with ourselves. Feels good but doesn't accomplish anything.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
20. How I'd vote if I were a Senator
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:54 PM
Jun 2016

No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

But important to point out....none of these proposals would have stopped Mateen, nor would it have prevented Sandy Hook. Most mass shooters don't have any established criminal record.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
24. Just a reminder!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:12 PM
Jun 2016
Our Democratic Party platform position!

This is who we are!


Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#protecting-rights

Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Matt_R

(456 posts)
59. Welp there goes the rest of the bill of rights.
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:41 AM
Jun 2016

It was a good run folks while it lasted. Don't forget to tip your wait-staff.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A look at the 4 gun bills...