General Discussion

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)

32. I advocate that the 3 day limit means checks will never happen. This isn't about due process.

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:18 PM

Jun 2016

Where is the dedicated staff that can lay their hands on information classified out the wazzoo who will put it together, give to people to see what is classified, redact information, check again with a lawyer, apply to a court (I suspect that would be the FISA court, especially if any information is classified) and get a judge to sign off on it. Lawyers, dedicated agents, staff, and courts cost money, which means that the House of Representatives must initiate the bill (see link below) and that takes more than 3 days.

The Republican Bill would have meant that nothing would be done, assuming it passed the House. A Bill is not a law until it passes both the Senate and the Hosue and is signed by the President. That would require this bill to be passed by the house, or the House pass their own version which they have not done. (See my link below.)
Because there is no bill in the House this was never meant to pass. It will be used by Senators in Campaign ads to show that Democrats want to take away their rights.

Due Process is a red herring.

House Democrats Shout "Where's the Bill" to Demand Gun Control Laws

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:

If Senate Democrats had accepted due process, we would have gun control [View all] friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 OP

Huh? jamese777 Jun 2016 #1

An amendment to include a due process requirement for 'no fly, no buy' lists... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #2

Compromise is better than nothing metroins Jun 2016 #3

What? A compromise by 2A folks was rejected? Too much due process? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #35

Too much due process? n/t meaculpa2011 Jun 2016 #66

Yep, the perfect the Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #4

its in the details. drray23 Jun 2016 #5

And now DoJ won't have any say whatsoever, beyond the already existing regulations friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #6

It was "nothing" either way... Chan790 Jun 2016 #7

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

So you admit it is all just politics. former9thward Jun 2016 #42

In this case, yes...on both sides. Chan790 Jun 2016 #44

The GOP can continue to vote against reform lancer78 Jun 2016 #52

Their problem is the "squishy" middle. Chan790 Jun 2016 #58

you might be right lancer78 Jun 2016 #70

And that would have been better than the nothing we got (nt) Recursion Jun 2016 #9

I don't agree - Justice Jun 2016 #46

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

Excuses former9thward Jun 2016 #40

"This would all be computerized like the current federal background check for buying firearms is." Chan790 Jun 2016 #45

Black lists create fear, awe, and doubt. All likely desired features HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #22

72 hours is plenty of time Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #15

72 hours is not enough time. Republicans have a habit of Exilednight Jun 2016 #16

Maybe you don't grasp what's going on here Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #17

you might not like the facts, bit that's reality. The reason the CBC Exilednight Jun 2016 #19

False. The CDC does collect and publish gun statistics. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #24

Either way, the CDC is toothless when it comes to guns. Exilednight Jun 2016 #25

If toothless means can't advocate for gun control.... Kang Colby Jun 2016 #33

Pretty toothless when it WAS advocating for gun control... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #37

I would find that interesting Uponthegears Jun 2016 #57

Simple gun possession isn't a disease. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #61

Turn to page 23 of your link Uponthegears Jun 2016 #63

It doesn't say that. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #64

72 hours starts the second the person on the NF list attempts to purchase a firearm.... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #20

It's really 3 business days and they can easily have it done Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #23

Ah, ok... well... shit, I hate it when they make footballs out of these issues uponit7771 Jun 2016 #29

Restraining orders are issued on presumption of threat... Chan790 Jun 2016 #60

Is 72 hours enough time to show probable cause should not have gun? I don't think so. Justice Jun 2016 #47

Sure it is Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #55

I don't think either the Democrats or Republicans got it right. Chan790 Jun 2016 #59

This is what RKBA activists seem to miss. Chan790 Jun 2016 #56

So what is acceptable? lancer78 Jun 2016 #50

I believe this is the amendment in question RAFisher Jun 2016 #11

Basically, ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #13

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

They have three days to file an emergency petition. Straw Man Jun 2016 #34

Probable cause - not any evidence at all. Would they have met the burden with the Orlando shooter? Justice Jun 2016 #48

If they don't have probable cause ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #62

The idea that they have proof on file is demonstrably wrong. The bill was a fig leaf. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #26

So you advocate denial of a Constitutional right without cause or proof? Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #31

I advocate that the 3 day limit means checks will never happen. This isn't about due process. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #32

How about you get your information before you put the guy on a terror list Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #53

Three days is not enough. That is the point. it requires funding and this bill has none. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #65

How many days would be acceptable? Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #69

The FBI needs 25 days on average to determine if a gun purchaser is illegal Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #71

I despise the idea of taking away protected rights without bighart Jun 2016 #27

I already own several Semi-auto firearms. oneshooter Jun 2016 #28

It would do no good for guns already owned bighart Jun 2016 #30

Of course due process - but not a fig leaf that is meaningless. Which 72 hrs to show probable cause Justice Jun 2016 #49

The proposal is still uncomfortably close to a 5A violation, but not the... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #38

If Senate Dems accepted due process, it still would have been voted down. JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #39

So if nothing works then why bother with it at all? former9thward Jun 2016 #41

Because it feels good, like the temporary assault weapon ban. JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #43

Senator Manchin said this very thing would happen. Alluded to it as a set up by the GOP. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #51

SpinING it for the republicans liberal N proud Jun 2016 #54

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