Rubio's Gun Bill

[manithree]

The blogosphere and interwebz have exploded with the news of Rubio's new gun bill:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/09/rubios-new-terror-gun-bill-toothless-sham-or-viable-solution/

According to LI the bill intends to:

• When an individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years tries to obtain a firearm, allow the U.S. Attorney General to delay the purchase or transfer for up to three business days and file an emergency petition in court to stop it. If the court finds probable cause that the individual is connected to terrorism, the Attorney General may arrest the individual.
• Protect the due process rights of law-abiding Americans by ensuring emergency petitions filed by the Attorney General are only granted if the transferee receives notice of the hearing and has the opportunity to participate with legal counsel. If the court denies the Attorney General’s petition, the federal government is responsible for all reasonable costs and attorney fees.
• Require the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) to conduct an audit of the federal government’s terrorism screening and watch list procedures, and identify any problems in the processes of adding or removing individuals from the system. Based on the audit, the IC IG must then submit a classified report to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees with recommendations for improving the system.

The Captain has an opinion (naturally), and points out a few others, including Ken Blanchard.

I haven't read the actual bill yet, but my first inclination is to oppose it. Anybody had time to form an opinion yet?

[DaKnife]

Haven't looked at the Bill yet, but actually like it. It satisfies the calls for greater protections against "terrorists", but additionally puts a severe burden on the government (time and money) and imposes the first real review of the processes behind the secret lists. The review could be better but an IG review of the processes is usually pretty strict on protecting rights.

But as it doesn't grant an instant and total ban on anyone on the lists (regardless of that annoying requirement for due process) it'll get blocked by the Dems.

[jktseug]

My concern is, how do you delay a sale for up to 3 days?
Some states already have longer requirements, but in Utah, there is no wait.
So having the AG able to delay for 3 days, how is that implemented, now is it an automatic 3 day waiting period for all states to allow this?

[gravedancer]

My concern is, how do you delay a sale for up to 3 days?
Some states already have longer requirements, but in Utah, there is no wait.
So having the AG able to delay for 3 days, how is that implemented, now is it an automatic 3 day waiting period for all states to allow this?

Well one possibility would be for an additional answer option on the background check. Currently in Utah its "yes" (you go home with the gun) or "no" (You arent taking the gun home, ever). Maybe a 3rd option that indicates the 3 day wait (basically means the background check indicated they were on the watch list) would satisfy the requirements of the proposed law without amounting to an automatic 3 day wait for everyone in the US. Im still not a huge fan of the proposed law though, mostly because of the watch list review of one government employee being done by another government employee. Id be less opposed if the reviews were more transparent or conducted by someone in a totally seperate arm of government or better yet, a private arbitrator.

[ObiRich]

My concern is, how do you delay a sale for up to 3 days?
Some states already have longer requirements, but in Utah, there is no wait.
So having the AG able to delay for 3 days, how is that implemented, now is it an automatic 3 day waiting period for all states to allow this?

That's already built into NICS. If they are flagged, then the 3 day default proceed goes into effect. Hence the 3 day requirement to get in front of a judge and get the ruling.

[JoeSparky]

My issue is the whole unconstitutional "list" anyway. If one is not arrested or incarcerated/parole/probation then why are their rights being abrogated and infringed?

You don't need to know what kind of device or tool was used to send this

[ingfam03]

I don't like it at all.
Do a search for number of gun laws in American and you will find 20,000,now a lot of these are duplicated though out the state's so it's believed that there is 300 unique laws. I don't believe this will do any thing to stop illegal actions by any criminal.
I'm to the point that the only gun laws discussion I want is to get rid of half the law's we have now. Anything else is completely unacceptable in my opinion. I believe law abiding citizens have given enough.

Just my two cents

Morgan Ingram

[manithree]

My issue is the whole unconstitutional "list" anyway. If one is not arrested or incarcerated/parole/probation then why are their rights being abrogated and infringed?

Again, I haven't had time to find, let alone read, the bill yet, but Mr. Rubio's web page on the bill doesn't say anything about the infamous lists. It only mentions FBI notification when an "individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years" attempts to buy a gun. If the bill actually gives any more recognition to any of the "watch" lists, I would almost automatically oppose it.

The web page doesn't even mention permanently denying the sale, only arresting the person if the court finds probably cause. If the options are 1) arrest them, or 2) let the sale go through, that sounds like a good direction to me.

From what I've read, I think Marco truly believes that this is a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists without infringing our rights, and preserving due process. So far, this doesn't appear to me to be a case of a RINO double-crossing us and supporting the Brady bill, AWB, Hughes amendment, etc.

My questions are, is he correct, and is his bill well written enough to do what it intends (and nothing else)?

[bagpiper]

So what do gun owners get in exchange for yet another limitation on our ability to buy guns without government imposed hassles?

Being less bad than some other bill is still bad.

Now, throw in nationwide recognition of all permits, rescinding the stupid ban on out of State purchases (with a nationwide computer check why can't I buy a gun in Boston as readily as I do in SLC?), federal preemption of all State and local bans on cosmetic features, or some not denying RKBA for non violent felonies, and we might have a bill worth supporting. Until then? Less bad is still really bad.

Charles

[ingfam03]

Right on Charles.

[manithree]

Being less bad than some other bill is still bad.

Hard to argue against that. I would settle for either national reciprocity OR silencers off the class III list, then this would be a real "compromise" bill.

[DaKnife]

I agree that it's not a bill worth supporting. I just noted that at least it does call for an IG review of what-ever is blocking the sale. But as I also noted this will be dead on arrival with the left because it isn't an automatic lifetime ban for finding your way onto a secret unconstitutional list.

And it's not likely to garner much support on the right for the reasons Given by others.

I agree as that it doesn't give us anything it's not a compromise and needs to die. But I feel it does instill a review process not presently found in regards to the watch lists. If only we could strip the rest of the bill and get this review and appeal process implemented and just forget any relation to gun control.

[bagpiper]

...I agree as that it doesn't give us anything it's not a compromise and needs to die. But I feel it does instill a review process not presently found in regards to the watch lists. If only we could strip the rest of the bill and get this review and appeal process implemented and just forget any relation to gun control.

The limitations imposed on those whose names end up on a watch list do need a judicial review process of some sort. In this modern age, being banned from commercial flight is a business/career killer for some folks, darned inconvenient to others, and shouldn't be able to be restricted by government without real due process. Freedom to travel and all that.

That said, like you, I wouldn't trade adding firearm purchase to the list of rights restricted by secret watch list in exchange for getting judicial review of the watch list.

If there are bad people doing bad things, let's convict them and imprison them. If they are not US Citizens, we don't even need to convict, we just need to exercise our discretion to deport. If we can't convict them of something, then watch them. Know when they buy airline or rail tickets or buy too much cold medicine or whatever it is. Get a warrant for monitoring activities that are not public. But citizens' rights must not be restricted without due process. Moving forward, we might be a bit more selective about who we invite to immigrate to the nation.

Charles

[manithree]

I was going to put this in the "Trump reveals his gun stance" thread. Even though search still finds the thread, any of the posts just show "The requested topic does not exist." I wonder if we're going to continue to be allowed to discuss politics by the new owners of this board.

Anyway, there's this:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/297968-trump-offers-support-for-banning-gun-sales-to-terror

GOP nominee Donald Trump bucked his party on Monday by offering strong support for gun restrictions aimed at blocking those on the government's terrorist watch lists from buying firearms.

The bipartisan legislation, dubbed "no fly, no buy," would prevent those suspected of terrorist ties from buying or owning guns — a concept promoted by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, during the presidential debate Monday in New York.

Trump agreed, lamenting that "a lot of people even within my own party" oppose the limitation.

Rubio's description of his bill does not mention any watch lists. Only people who have been investigated for terrorism. And compared to what The Don just endorsed, Rubio's bill looks great.

My resolve not to vote for Trump has just been strengthened significantly.

[gravedancer]

I cant see myself voting for either Trump or Clinton. Id rather "throw my vote away" by voting libertarian or independent, than be forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. Both of the mainstream candidates are Bad, they are just bad in different ways.