Just wondering your thoughts on Jolly's proposal?
Hello - I've been learning here about point of view of gun enthusiasts, reading views on balancing measures to decrease the chance of people on a terrorist watch list buying guns vs. affording due process. I hadn't seen Rep. Jolly's proposal mentioned here, wondering if you think it's reasonable?
“It is common sense that if you are on a national terror list and can’t fly on a plane, you should not be allowed to buy a gun,” Jolly said in a statement. “But the fact is the existing proposal repeatedly pushed by some in Congress to ban firearm purchases by those on the no-fly list is fatally flawed because it provides no due process or recourse protections for innocent law-abiding individuals wrongfully or mistakenly included on the list,” Jolly added. “But equally flawed is a posture of inaction. So let’s do something now, together.”
Under Jolly’s bill, which he says he is circulating to members, a person on the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm in the United States. If the person attempts to purchase a firearm and is denied because they are on a watch list, they must be notified of their status on the list by the government within 10 days from the time of attempted purchase. The individual is then entitled to a due process hearing within 30 days before a federal judge at which the government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual should be on the watch list and prohibit from purchasing a firearm. The individual is entitled to see all unclassified evidence against them, and the proceeding remains private to protect the privacy of the individual and the interest of the government.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/213718-david-jolly-proposes-bill-prevent-potential-terrorists-purchasing-guns
= new reply since forum marked as read
...actual due process (right to trial by a jury of peers) and ALL evidence is presented then the jury decides if you do or do not remain on the list, IDK... maybe.
The best plan is to get rid of the list. Secret lists of "enemies of the state" have no place in a nation founded on liberty. Hoover had several lists. I think all of them were bad. Nixon had a list. I think Franz Ziereis had a list. Most of the government lists aren't a good thing.
Here's an example of someone with useful list:
Oskar Schindler
But his government didn't really approve.
Let me start by saying that I agree in principle with Jolly's proposal, but I also agree with those that say that ALL evidence must be available to the accused. Giving the government free rein to simply put evidence out of bounds by classifying it would make a sham of the whole process.
There is a long history of civilians adopting firearms technology that was originally developed for the military. For example, the ubiquitous bolt-action rifle that most associate with deer hunting is based on military weapons of the first half of the 20th century. The relationship changed when armies around the world adopted full-auto rifles as their standard-issue weapon. Since most countries, the US included, ban or strictly regulate full-auto ownership by civilians, a firewall went up between military long arms and civilian ones.
But consumers are always interested in the latest technology, and those who served in the US military in the '60s and beyond carried the news of that technology to the public at large. Who wouldn't want a lightweight, modular, ergonomic, weatherproof, low-recoiling rifle? So the semi-auto variants were created for the civilian market.
Traditional hunters (sometimes called "Fudds" by the younger shooters) tend not to like them, but ARs and their cousins are adaptable to hunting, especially varmint and predator hunting: coyotes, etc. And they are very popular with competition shooters, in both traditional target disciplines and the newer "practical" events, which are more action-oriented, with rapid movement, reactive targets, etc.
What most of the non-shooting world doesn't realize is that these are far and away the best-selling rifles in the US today, and are also widely used in other countries, albeit sometimes with additional legal requirements, like extra licensing. In one form or another, AR-pattern rifles are legal in Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and South Africa. They are legal to own in the UK, but only in the low-powered .22 rimfire version. (Bizarrely, I cannot legally own the .22 rimfire AR that Brits can own because my state, NY, bans them with all the rest.)
The Orlando shooter used a SIG Sauer MCX, which is actually not an AR15 variant, but a completely original design created by the Swiss-German company to compete with AR-pattern rifles. However, the essential configuration is the same: semi-auto rifle, detachable magazine, adjustable synthetic stock, modular construction, pistol grip for the firing hand, chambered in 5.56, etc. There is a full-auto version for military use, and the semi-auto version for civilian markets.
Below is a Google search for images from the National Match meeting for service rifle competition, held every year at Camp Perry, Ohio.
https://www.google.com/search?q=camp+perry+national+matches&source=lnms&tbm=isch
Yes, you can make single shots. Each time you pull the trigger, one round is fired. That's what a semi-auto firearm does. The military full-auto versions, on the other hand, will continue firing round after round for as long as you keep the trigger depressed. (Some military weapons now use "burst fire" instead of full auto, which means the rifle fires three rounds each time the trigger is pressed: sort of "semi-semi-auto."
But even military full-auto (or burst fire) versions have a switch that puts them into semi-auto mode. That's why they're often referred to as "select fire" weapons.
Actually, most states have game laws that restrict the number of rounds your magazine can hold when you are hunting. That's why manufacturers offer five-round magazines for people who want to use their AR rifles to hunt. It's not really a question of "hunting style" -- hunters using AR rifles still have the goal of killing their prey with one shot to avoid having to track a wounded animal, for reasons of both aggravation and ethics. The objection of traditional hunters is generally that AR rifles look "too military." They favor the appearance of wood-stocked rifles without pistol grips, the good old "walnut and blue steel" aesthetic.
I always try to make an effort to answer and keep the discussion alive.
Welcome to DU and the group. 
While an appeal process is a good thing, the list is not. The more we become reliant on laws with a bad foundation, the further we are from the idea of good government.
As for the need for self-defense and to lay a proper foundation, self-defense is more than a need, it is a right. IMHO governments everywhere need to take rights more seriously. I decided not to carry (after a deliberate and careful assessment.) I don't feel that my assessment is universal nor do I feel that government review and approval of the assessments of others is reasonable.
The purpose of the Sig Sauer MCX used criminally in Orlando is the same as every other semi-auto rifle. The US has a very long, involved, intrusive and expensive process for the acquisition of full-auto weapons. In addition private citizens are not eligible to own any full-autos manufactured after 1986. I don't agree with that restriction but it's not material to this discussion. In the US small arms rifles are available to the average person if they are either single shot/non-automatic or if they are semi-automatic provided they are .50 caliber or under. The presence of pistol grips, folding stocks, being black in color, having a bayonet lug or a hook to hang your lunch bag not withstanding does not and should not change that. AR-15 style rifles are adaptable to various configurations and accessories. Whether you fold the stock or paint it black, brown or green, the functionality of the gun remains the same.
The idea that "assault weapons" are different (deadlier) than other semi-automatics serves, IMHO, as a distraction. Some politicians and gun-control proponents have latched on to that, in some cases, simply to drive another wedge between their ideologies and those of RKBA proponents. It is a tactic used since history began. That tactic is counter to making any progress relating to gun-control. Many of the leaders on both sides of that controversy are fine with that. Clearly the RKBA leaders are happy with the impasse since new laws are not forthcoming and contributions to their cause are continuing. Pro-control leaders are seeing media attention and contributions. A side thought of mine: it is no accident that the pro-control leaders have settled on AR-15 style platforms to target for restrictions as "assault weapons" since they are currently the most popular selling civilian rifle in the country.
Assault weapons = diversionary circus.
Assault weapon is a made up term sometimes attributed to advertising, sometimes to pro-control folks. IIRC the intent was to sound similar to the actual military term 'assault rifle'. Over the years the terms have been overused and misused by the media. The media is after the sensational and will add any term to a sentence just to make it a bit scarier.
I contend that some leaders in the pro-control group, media personalities and politicians publicize certain incorrect opinions and accusations simply for attention and to keep 'the cause' alive.
I maintain that gun laws like background checks aren't bad ideas but won't have much affect on crime and suicides. They do serve a purpose in highlighting to everyone that it's best to keep guns away from those who've demonstrated problematic issues. Given the ability and any sense of duty or proper conduct, most people will work to do the right thing. IMHO, empowering the average person to optionally visit a police or sheriff's office for a background approval on someone to whom they plan to sell or give a gun is a positive step.
This country's poor and middle class have been victimized by the wealthy 1% usually with government approval if not help since the beginning. It is not the Trumps, Blooombergs and Kochs that find themselves needing to sell an old revolver for $50 or $100 to pay a bill or buy gas to get to work. There are plenty of know nothings that want to make everything artificially expensive for gun owners like ammo taxes and insurance. These measures serve mostly to annoy and alienate the folks from whom cooperation is needed.
Sorry to rant. There are lots of good folks that are being lied to and misinformed. Many leaders either go along with these "exaggerations" or outright lies to further their agenda or just to get some press.
Thanks for listening. Have a great day.
I consider myself a mostly positive person. I believe in my neighbors and that they're good folks. If good people are empowered with a means to work for good, they will do just that. When people are discounted, ignored, disrespected and devalued they don't respond very well. Give the regular guy a way to help and people everywhere will surprise you. Government needs to work more on finding ways to empower the average person rather than eyeing them with suspicion and looking for reasons to add them to a list of enemies. When I look at how dwi has been reduced, imo due a lot to designated drivers, I know honest folks would take advantage of BGCs available through law enforcement.
have a good day 
