Would you support the No Fly No Buy List if they added Due Process?

This all needs to be reset and started from scratch. If there are people here who want to do harm then they should be imprisoned or deported and not allowed to return but instead we get these lists where people are placed as in purgatory or something.
With that said there are many ways in which our 2a rights have been stripped away and they've gone with little more than a peep.
Bottom line, prove those on these lists are guilty and deal with them but until then they live like the rest of us.

Guess what, FBI is ALREADY notified...

I just read on bearingarms that
"FBI is currently notified every time someone on a watch list attempts to purchase a firearm, and they already have the option to allow the individual to either allow the sale to proceed, deny the sale outright, or put it on a three-day delay. Let me make that perfectly clear again: it is up to the FBI’s discretion to decide how to proceed, and if they have an active investigation, they often don’t want to tip off a real terrorism suspect that he’s on a watch list by triggering a stopped sale."

link: http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/15/nra-mansplain-due-process-trump-clinton-Democrats/

So, should we be okay with "guilty until proven innocent"...

^^ @ old lady new shooter: I know that if I buy two identical guns of the same type in one visit or even within the same month, I will be flagged and my purchases will be monitored to see if I fit a pattern of purchase-for-resale (dealing without a license) -- not just me, but practically anyone, especially here near the TN/VA border.

I have no doubt that persons on watchlists can, at FBI discretion, be given special treatment when pinged by an NICS check. But I suspect that FBI would be likely to know that Ted Kennedy (Senator, Mass,) is not "T. Kennedy" pseudonym of an IRA terrorist.

Dumping the raw watchlist into the NICS database would be a form of pollution. That is not the same as ATF or FBI flagging a person for extra scrutiny in the NICS system.

The raw watchlist is crappy data and would result in unjustified refusals -- which I think is the goal of the proposal.

I can see both sides. The problem with innocent until proven guilty (or "guilty until proven innocent" stated above) is our current laws allow you to do what you want up until the point you actually commit an atrocity. By then it's too late. So the liberals are right in that case. How can we prevent mass shootings if our laws are written in a way where preventative measures are forbidden?

Mateen was previously on the FBI watch list. If he remained on it, and no action was done, what would be the point of that list? If he was taken into custody BEFORE he did anything illegal, and his rights taken away, these murders could have been prevented. However, that is also against our rights.

So if not a no-fly list, then what?

(I'm a conservative and lifetime NRA member, but something has to give.)

Absolutely not. If we let a secret list preempt our 2A rights, what's to stop that same list from encroaching next on our 4A rights? How much freedom will you trade for the illusion of security?

JellyJar said:

Yes, IF!

If they were to have REAL due process in which the accused, before a Federal Judge at government expense, had the right to contest their inclusion BEFORE being added to the list. Even then the government would have to confirm their inclusion before a Federal judge every six months or more often.

Click to expand...

Sounds good until you stop and think about all the Federal Judges appointed by Obama and Clinton who'd be deciding your fate with essentially a public defender to represent you!

The devil is in the details, the anti's never let a crisis pass, and they are great at simple minded "solutions" full of problems that turn the ratchet against us if passed without much more considerations than even "landmark" legislation gets -- "we have to pass it to know what is in it" With this attitude from our elected officials I'm afraid we are doomed to become the next Venezuela.


I've not heard this definitively, was this guy actually on the nofly list? I thought the list was secret? Teddy Kennedy managed to get put on it (some Patriot bureaucrat remembering Chappaquiddick?) , so I see nothing but problems for us from this.
He certainly passed the "mandatory background check".

Not only NO, but HELL NO!!!!!!!

It is a fools question, and only an uninformed or impaired individual would support it. We ALREADY have such a system - it is called NICS - and that is even being abused by the FBI and our Communist president, even with the guaranteed due process enforced (HA!) by specific LAWS already passed with a specific intent to PREVENT its abuse.

Although I am certain Trump is nothing but a buffoon, I cannot fault him so far on this subject - he is CLEARLY an "uninformed" person, and wanting to actually discuss it with the NRA is the first step to becoming informed. the real issue is where he goes from here.

In theory it looks great. In reality I'm seeing Lois Lerner's version of due process in the IRS.

Another issue is the no fly list, and the terrorist watch list are two different things being spoken of as one. The no fly list is an around the world compilation, and impossible to convert to domestic purpose. The percentage of people who obviously don't belong on the no fly list is staggering.
The terrorist watch list, appears to be an American FBI/DHS compilation, though nobody really says who created it, or maintains it. Just like no fly, nobody knows how to get off of it. The issue I have is that if FBI/DHS has a list of people that they are supposedly watching, why is it now up to gun store clerks to do the watching? How does a guy on this watch list buy a gun, but yet the watchers don't know anything about it?

I'm not in the camp that says it requires a criminal conviction to deny somebody's right to arm, but it still needs to be adjudicated in a court of law as a threat to have somebody put on a firearms disability status. We've had this discussion in the past about the "mentally ill" and what that term means. I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm thinking along the lines of sufficient evidence for a restraining order, which is essentially what firearms disability means.

he is CLEARLY an "uniformed" person

Click to expand...

He is not uniformed but he might be uninformed.

It doesn’t matter how far we stick our heads in the sand, we ARE still seeing an ever increasing number of mass shootings. Despite constitutional rights and the arguments used, are we naive enough to think that the country is going to let this continue, we have as many deaths from firearms as many smaller countries have being in a war zone.

Click to expand...

Let's clear one thing up that really irks me. These are not "mass shootings", they are not a "crime problem", or "homophobia based attacks". The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has declared war and perpetrated several acts of war on the United States of America, and is using operatives living within our borders. This is precisely why we have a citizen's militia. This is not a law enforcement matter. This is a military matter, and any means to discourage the citizen militia from taking up the appropriate arms in defense of their families, communities, neighbors, and nation should be viewed as foolishness at best, treasonous at worst. I'll give the ISIS attackers credit for being smart about one thing. When you kill people with planes and bombs, Americans pull together against the enemy. When you shoot people with guns we fight each other over disarming the victims, and blame those who would defend themselves.

Roosevelt interned those of Japanese ancestry after Pearl Harbor. After an Islamic Jihad attack, we get a lecture on being tolerant, and calls to intern the people getting shot if they would like to defend themselves.

barnbwt said:

The T-man had risen slightly in my estimation after his very strongly pro-freedom speech on the subject yesterday, but clearly only did so as a cover to convince people to go along with a short-sighted scheme to trade constitutional freedom for security, yet again. I finally gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he pulls this within 24hrs --no more. Nothing that man says will convince me to support him. #NeverTrump

Click to expand...

I normally agree with you on most things but I hate to see people supporting the anti-gun HRC like you are. And make no mistake, failing to vote for ANYONE who holds the best chance of defeating HRC IS helping her to get elected. Slice it and dice it any way you want but that's the bottom line effect. Jeb Bush and all the other self-annointed "true conservatives" need to stuff their "principles" up their keester and go to the polls and vote AGAINST HRC, even if they don't want to vote FOR T-man. Sometimes we have to live with reality, not cry for want of a fantasy world that doesn't exist. Go vote!!!

Nope. It's been stated here several times but if you're "too dangerous" to fly, you shouldn't be walking around. I haven't heard that the Orlando shooter was even on it anyway. Again, another "solve" that wouldn't have changed a thing.

How about instead of gun control, we look at situation control? Draconian mandatory sentencing for commission of a crime with a firearm. How about eradication of the "gun free zone" or the requirement that the owner provide adequate security and/or screening as well as being held liable if a shooting incident occurs in said establishment. How about we take a serious look at our immigration policy? How about Federal reciprocity and recognition for CHL holders?

Attacking the problem can be done effectively without meddling with the 2nd Ammendment. Makes me wonder what the real goal is, but I am pretty sure I know the answer to that one.

Here's the problem. Right now the no-fly list has no appeal process. there's no RIGHT to fly.

Add the no buy part and suddenly there's a right to appeal.

That's going to be a mess.

AFS

Nope!

If we can restrict their 2nd amendment rights due to their inclusion on an arbitrary list, can we also restrict their 1st, 9th, and 14th amendment rights as well?

Restricting constitutional rights based on arbitrary lists is going to end democracy.

First they came for the "terrorists", and I did nothing for I was not a terrorist...

sequins said:

If we can restrict their 2nd amendment rights due to their inclusion on an arbitrary list, can we also restrict their 1st, 9th, and 14th amendment rights as well?

Restricting constitutional rights based on arbitrary lists is going to end democracy.

First they came for the "terrorists", and I did nothing for I was not a terrorist...

Click to expand...

Its already happening!

According to Democratic Senator Joe Manchin “Due process is what’s killing us right now.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/democratic-senator-we-need-gun-control-because-due-process-is-whats-killing-us-right-now-video/

beeb173 said:

According to CBS news,(6:30 est today) some in the FBI worry that if someone is denied their gun purchase that it would tip them off that they're being watched. So if it makes law enforcement's job harder then no I wouldn't support it.
It does however make me think that if there's a waiting period for everyone it would allow law enforcement to show up and detain people on a terror watch list if they felt it necessary w/o tipping anyone off.

Click to expand...

This make absolutely no sense whatsoever! Why have a list if you aren't going to attempt to restrict them....

So, it is quite probably true.

No. Why do you need lists to catch criminals? When have the lists ever worked? Why are we being lumped with terrorists? The Orlando killer was interviewed twice and was on the terrorist list. Nothing became of the interviews and they eventually removed him from the list, which resulted in him killing 49 people and wounding roughly half that. IE, the list method didn't work.

I don't trust the government in implementing this in a way that is useful. And there's the due process thing.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

G.E. Lee said:

If a person is so dangerous that he just cannot be allowed to board a plane, then he is too dangerous to be allowed to board a bus or to ride Amtrack or to rent a U-Haul and on and on...

Click to expand...

Yes.

If a person has proven through prior action that s/he is too dangerous to be allowed a firearm, and due process of law has made that decision, that person needs to be incarcerated.

It is asinine to say people are too dangerous to be allowed a gun, yet they are 'free in society' to do what they will.


ETA: My yes is in agreement to Lee.

The answer to the poll question is no

No.
You should not be subject to government intrusion into your life unless you have committed a crime.

Red Wind said:

Tom will serve as well.

Click to expand...

Indeed. All of them were very, very wise men. Although I do believe having come off a fight that threw off an oppressive ruler they were fortunate enough to have such an experience help to shape their thoughts. Thankfully for us they put them in writing.

Keeping and bearing an arm is a right. Those convicted of crimes can have their rights lawfully suppressed (not "taken away" as they are unalienable).

I even think that a convict should be allowed to own and carry a gun after release from prison. It is a right.

If the person in prison is so dangerous that they should not own a gun then don't let them out. The prison sentence should be longer if the crime is so serious.

Doing this would force us to re-think who should be in prison, however.

Double HELL NO

Quote:
No. I don't let fear of the statistically insignificant control my actions and clamor for the removal of rights from my countrymen. I don't accept it when it comes to assault weapon bans and universal background checks, and I'm not going to arbitrarily start accpeting it now because the shooter has ~scary~ attributes.

If you think that the "due process" requirement would protect the political dissidents and the otherwise innocent, you have a lot more faith in the federal government than I do.


I agree, NO.

NO! There would be no due process where any bureaucrat with a grudge against someone ( a gun owner perhaps?) could pencil in their name on a no fly list and strip them of their 2A rights.