Utah Guns Forum banner

Rubio's Gun Bill

7K views 19 replies 9 participants last post by  bagpiper 
#1 ·
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?
 
#2 ·
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.
 
#3 ·
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?
 
#4 ·
jktseug said:
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.
 
#5 ·
jktseug said:
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.
 
#6 ·
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
 
#7 ·
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
 
#8 ·
JoeSparky said:
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)?
 
#9 ·
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
 
#12 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
DaKnife said:
...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
 
#14 ·
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...ffers-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.
 
#16 ·
I look at it this way. YOU KNOW WHAT HILLERY IS GOING TO DO. With Trump you don't know but things could still go our way. I don't really like Trump much but I'm not convinced that voting 3rd party will not just elect Hillery. I think Hillary's supporters are more true and Trumps are more divided. I am still a bit undecided on the 3rd Party issue. I'm not sure I like Johnson much and really don't like his running mate. I know almost nothing about the green party candidate.

If I saw a huge movement to DUMP both Trump and Hillary in the election and vote only 3rd party I would seriously consider that. I'd Love it if the country could all just stand up and vote 3rd party and say screw you to the current GOP and DNC folks.
 
#17 ·
D-FIN hit the nail on the head. Hillary will take the court hard left giving us a 7-3 Liberal court that would very likely reverse Heller in a heartbeat. Trump? He could do the same, but he's repeatedly promised to pick his nominees from the list of conservative justices he's provided. His views on guns are consistent with his background. he's a New Yorker and thus likely to see such restrictions as reasonable when much of the rest of the nation's Republicans do not. But while he might agree with such proposals, he's still not likely to try to force such through with an EO as that would exceed the authority for such and order, and congress is very unlikely to pass such a bill.

As it stands, regardless of who wins the Whitehouse, new gun control legislation is not likely to get to the president to sign, so new law wise neither will be able to change much. It will take a law to impose the No-fly no buy restriction, an executive order will not be able to implement such. Thus legislatively the candidates don't matter much. Even if the GOP loses the Senate,, the House is unlikely to swing far enough to give it to the Dems so gun control is dead on arrival. The one real threat is in the courts.

Hillary will take the Supreme Court hard left, Trump is an unknown but has made promises and repeated them that are very promising. I could see him sticking to the list to replace Scalia, and then looking elsewhere when Ginsberg and Kennedy step down. I could even see him trying to return us to the mostly balanced court we've had the last few years with solid 4-4 blocks and a key swing vote (Kennedy). Even that would be far preferable to a 7-3 left wing court.

In my Opinion, the future of the Court is the primary issue for this election. Presidents are very limited otherwise, but let one stack the court in a way that will likely take decades to reverse and those limits go away. We can look back and see what FDR was able to get away with after his threats to stack the court resulted in a Supreme Court that basically rubber stamped whatever he did, (Japanese Internment). He didn't actually stack the court, he just threatened to do so by promising to keep appointing more justices until he achieved a majority that would support him. Hillary could actually stack the court without having to change the number of Justices.

Vote Libertarian and you are splitting Trump's vote and helping Hillary. So ask yourself, is your distaste for him worth putting her in charge? She wins and the 2nd becomes a big target. Exactly what he'll do is uncertain, but what she'll do is certain.
 
#18 ·
DaKnife said:
Vote Libertarian and you are splitting Trump's vote and helping Hillary.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s-vote-for-johnson-or-stein-is-vote-for-trump
Barack Obama said:
If you vote for a third-party candidate who's got no chance to win, that's a vote for Trump.
So if I vote for Gary Johnson, I'm voting for Trump and Hillary.

Trump hasn't been elected, and he's already back-pedaling on 2A and his SCOTUS list. The fact is, nobody (including Donald Trump) has any idea what Donald Trump is going to do if he's elected.

And I know this is a strange and convoluted concept, but maybe, just maybe, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for .... Gary Johnson.

I know he isn't likely to win. But voting for a candidate just based on their likelihood of winning is not a strategy that makes any sense to me. I was pretty sure Obama was going to win in 2008. That didn't make me want to vote for him.
 
#19 ·
for some of us at least, there are issues beyond the 2A ramifications that go into picking a political candidate. Yes, Clinton is far more likely do do long term damage via supreme court nominations, but Trump as president could have long lasting repercussions elsewhere (international relations for one). The bottom line is I think both mainstream candidates are terrible, and unlike most years, this year it seems like a significant number of people feel the same way. There are a lot of Dems who dont particularly care for Hillary, just as they are a lot of Republicans who dont care for Trump, so I dont think its safe to say that voting 3rd party is giving a vote to one or the other. Its entirely possible that the losses from one camp or the other will nullify each other, and that the result of a vote for a 3rd party is just that... a vote for a 3rd party. I dont think any 3rd party candidate is going to get enough votes to win, but maybe if both the Dems and republicans lose a significant number of votes to 3rd party candidates, it will be something of a wake up call for them that what they are doing is not working and is alienating a lot of people.
 
#20 ·
gravedancer said:
for some of us at least, there are issues beyond the 2A ramifications that go into picking a political candidate.
It is some of those other issues that absolutely prevent me from considering Gary Johnson. He seems to be LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) who is really just a leftist. He is clearly hostile to the free exercise of religion. The first thing that comes to his mind when asked about freedom of religion is Mountain Meadows. That is apparently the first thing that comes to his mind about LDS as well. That he seems to be wholly ignorant of the international players (ie foreign government heads) is also a major turn off to me. I may not agree fully with Rand Paul's Jimmy Carter-like assessment of various foreign affairs that leads him to always proclaim there is nothing we can do, but I give Rand Paul full credit for being very knowledgeable and intelligent.

At 18 I naively cast my first presidential vote for HW Bush thinking I was getting 4 more years of Reagan. I was a little young to remember it was Bush who coined the term "voodoo economics" to oppose Reagan's economic plans back in 1980. In the years since then, I've cast painfully few votes for the GOP POTUS nominee. With Utah being safely GOP I figured I could vote my conscience without worrying about it actually helping to elect the worse of the two evils.

Ironically, one of the worst GOP nominees may get my vote this year simply because I'm worried (just a bit) about Utah actually throwing our electoral votes the wrong way. Hillary would be the end of what little remains of our constitution with her judicial appointments.

Trump has put forward a list of those he will choose from for SCOTUS appointments that is quite acceptable. But there is certainly a whole lot about Trump that causes real concern.

Charles
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top