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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If Senate Democrats had accepted due process, we would have gun control [View all]Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)26. The idea that they have proof on file is demonstrably wrong. The bill was a fig leaf.
Ted Kennedy and the No-Fly List Myth
Fact checks article shows that 3 different public figures were at times on the no-fly list, "Ted Kennedy and Stephen Hayes the journalist and Cat Stevens."
Ted Kennedy found himself on the list at least 4 separate times. Cat Stevens, who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam was on the list because the FBI felt he committed suspicious acts. The FBI refuse to say whether Hays was on their watch list.
It is clear that there isn't a file that's easy to get to and hand over to a lawyer and a judge.
At minimum, there would need to be a dedicated, well-funded staff with a high-security clearance to work with Homeland Security, FBI, TSA, NSA, CIA and every other government organization that can put people on that list.
Of course, that would take funding, and according to the Constitution, Funding bills must begin in the House of Representatives.
And another thing. Who voted on the house version of the bill. If they did not initiate a bill that would provide funding for that process, then no funding would be possible.
They could, of course, vote on the Senate Bill, but it would contain no funding and that bill would have never gone through the House. A bill must go through both the House and the Senate before it is passed.
This bill was meant as a fig leave to pretend that Senators who were up for election had somehow done something. It was a meaningless exercise using a bill that would never have passed in the House so Senators could use it in their reelection campaigns.
Fact checks article shows that 3 different public figures were at times on the no-fly list, "Ted Kennedy and Stephen Hayes the journalist and Cat Stevens."
Ted Kennedy found himself on the list at least 4 separate times. Cat Stevens, who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam was on the list because the FBI felt he committed suspicious acts. The FBI refuse to say whether Hays was on their watch list.
It is clear that there isn't a file that's easy to get to and hand over to a lawyer and a judge.
At minimum, there would need to be a dedicated, well-funded staff with a high-security clearance to work with Homeland Security, FBI, TSA, NSA, CIA and every other government organization that can put people on that list.
Of course, that would take funding, and according to the Constitution, Funding bills must begin in the House of Representatives.
And another thing. Who voted on the house version of the bill. If they did not initiate a bill that would provide funding for that process, then no funding would be possible.
They could, of course, vote on the Senate Bill, but it would contain no funding and that bill would have never gone through the House. A bill must go through both the House and the Senate before it is passed.
This bill was meant as a fig leave to pretend that Senators who were up for election had somehow done something. It was a meaningless exercise using a bill that would never have passed in the House so Senators could use it in their reelection campaigns.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If Senate Democrats had accepted due process, we would have gun control [View all]
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
OP
An amendment to include a due process requirement for 'no fly, no buy' lists...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#2
And now DoJ won't have any say whatsoever, beyond the already existing regulations
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#6
For one thing, they wouldn't have looked like a bunch of hypocritical sheep...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#8
Thank you. I agree. The Republican bill was actually counterproductive and just an
skylucy
Jun 2016
#10
So, the proposal was less effective than the old controller "24-hour cooling off period?"
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#36
If someone is on the no fly, no buy list, the file should be readily available
aikoaiko
Jun 2016
#12
No time, 3 days is like 3 minutes for the feds to gather docs and present it to a judge the
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#18
"This would all be computerized like the current federal background check for buying firearms is."
Chan790
Jun 2016
#45
72 hours starts the second the person on the NF list attempts to purchase a firearm....
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#20
Ah, ok... well... shit, I hate it when they make footballs out of these issues
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#29
Is 72 hours enough time to show probable cause should not have gun? I don't think so.
Justice
Jun 2016
#47
Too many people read Kafka's The Trial and thought, wow, what a great legal system!
NutmegYankee
Jun 2016
#14
The burden is NOT like a bench warrant, more to prove than a LEOs word on the case
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#21
Probable cause - not any evidence at all. Would they have met the burden with the Orlando shooter?
Justice
Jun 2016
#48
The idea that they have proof on file is demonstrably wrong. The bill was a fig leaf.
Agnosticsherbet
Jun 2016
#26
I advocate that the 3 day limit means checks will never happen. This isn't about due process.
Agnosticsherbet
Jun 2016
#32
Three days is not enough. That is the point. it requires funding and this bill has none.
Agnosticsherbet
Jun 2016
#65
The FBI needs 25 days on average to determine if a gun purchaser is illegal
Agnosticsherbet
Jun 2016
#71
Of course due process - but not a fig leaf that is meaningless. Which 72 hrs to show probable cause
Justice
Jun 2016
#49
If Senate Dems accepted due process, it still would have been voted down.
JustABozoOnThisBus
Jun 2016
#39
Senator Manchin said this very thing would happen. Alluded to it as a set up by the GOP.
tonyt53
Jun 2016
#51
it simply AMAZES me how these repub enablers continue to deny that the obvious
Gabi Hayes
Jun 2016
#68
The FBI needs 25 days on average to determine if a gun purchaser is illegal
Agnosticsherbet
Jun 2016
#67