Senate close to votes on gun-control measures but no bipartisan agreement in sight

[yallerdawg]

Monday! Email or call your senators!

Source: Washington Post, Karoun Demirjian

The Senate is expected to vote Monday on a series of competing gun-control measures that will highlight the continuing divide between Democrats and Republicans over how Congress should respond to mass shootings.

All are likely to fail as the two parties largely retreat to their respective corners on gun control after attempts to craft a compromise frayed almost as soon as they began.

Senators are expected to vote on four proposals, according to Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). Two of them, backed by Democrats, would seek to prevent suspected terrorists from acquiring guns and explosives and impose mandatory background checks for firearms sold at gun shows and through online dealers.

Republicans are expected to offer two competing proposals, including one that would keep guns away from suspected terrorists if authorities can prove they have probable cause to do so within 72 hours of the attempted sale, said Cornyn, the author of that legislation.

Read the rest at: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/senate-close-to-votes-on-gun-control-measures-but-no-bipartisan-agreement-in-sight/ar-AAh5oyo?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=HPDHP

[JonLeibowitz]

1. Thank you. I will be urging my senators to vote against this horrific compromise.

Some of us (but evidently, not certain Democratic senators) still believe in due process, even when applied to the purchase of firearms that might need tighter regulation.

Cheers.

[yallerdawg]

2. Sometimes I wonder if I'm on a Democratic website.

Actually, it's more like often I wonder.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. Do you believe that constitutional rights should be suspended in a manner not subject to due process

Keep in mind that now the Democratic senators are suggesting that even anyone on the terror watch list in the past 5 years are going to be similarly prohibited. Even if you could go to court to have your name removed (you cannot, realistically), you would still be banned.

All without any formal charges or finding of fact or guilt. Incredible!

[yallerdawg]

4. What the EFF are you talking about?

Now the NRA wants "bad guys" with guns - we don't want to infringe at all on the right to sell guns?

[JonLeibowitz]

5. The compromise is supposed to address the so-called "terror gap".

From your OP:

"Republicans are expected to offer two competing proposals, including one that would keep guns away from suspected terrorists if authorities can prove they have probable cause to do so within 72 hours of the attempted sale"

There is no due process of law for determining who lands on, and remains on, the terrorist watch list:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/16/gun-control-terror-watch-list-nra-congress

I am referring to my belief that we shouldn't trample over the Due Process clause while trying to pass more firearms regulation.

As I said, some of us still believe in the constitution (in this case, the 5th amendment, not the 2nd)

[yallerdawg]

6. You agree with the Republican position that...

an individual can be prohibited from boarding an airplane for whatever freakin' reason, but that same individual still has the right to leave the airport and go buy any kind of weapon he can get - no problem!

That is nuts!

Background checks OK?

[JonLeibowitz]

7. No, I find the Republican position detestable: I also find the no-fly list unconstitutional.

Same reasoning applies.

It's really quite simple reasoning.

That my thinking doesn't align with either the Republicans or Democrats is not my fault. Senators are free to advocate positions which are an affront to the unconstitutional.

Background checks are okay, yes.