The Gun Control Debate Thread

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/gun-control-terror-suspects-house-spending-committee-224669

House committee rejects 'No fly, no buy' gun amendment

 

House Republicans on a powerful spending committee rejected an amendment to limit the sale of firearms to terrorist suspects Wednesday, just days after Senate Republicans blocked an identical amendment on the chamber floor.

 

“This policy could have made areal difference in Orlando,” said Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), who introduced the amendment during a House Appropriations Committee mark up. The measure would block firearms purchases by those who the Attorney General has a “reasonable suspicion” are engaged in terrorism.
Story Continued Below

 

Republicans said the provision would violate due process rights for those seeking to buy firearms. Democrats fired back by reciting the names and stories of some of the 49 victims of the June 12 massacre in Orlando, arguing that new gun controls are the best way to stop future bloodshed.

 

After pointed back-and-forth, the measure was defeated, 16-31.

Edited June 22, 2016 by visionary

[TheGreatBuzz]

Republicans said the provision would violate due process rights for those seeking to buy firearms. Democrats fired back by reciting the names and stories of some of the 49 victims of the June 12 massacre in Orlando, arguing that new gun controls are the best way to stop future bloodshed.

So after the R's made a valid point regarding due process, the D's decided to just pull at heart strings instead?  Shocking.

[LadySkinsFan]

The R's trample over due process when it suits them, (cough) Patriot Act.

[Larry]

So after the R's made a valid point regarding due process, the D's decided to just pull at heart strings instead?  Shocking.

You keep using those words.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

No, "due process" does not mean "all people can buy all the weapons they want, unless they've been convicted of a crime".

[PeterMP]

Copy. So the fact that that wasn't the bill that was voted on makes the argument moot. And the fact that the rights Bill would have at least moved us a millimeter closers to where we need to is a bad thing. The left missed an opportunity to move at least one voter closer to their side.

Larry here is the meat of the rights Bill pulled from CNN. Sorry I'm on my phone or it would be prettier. Please tell me what part of this was BAD, not just what wasn't as much as the left wanted.

The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun.

 

Passing bills that are inconsequential is harmful because it allows the right to later go back and say, 'well, we passed this law and it hasn't done any good so why pass other laws.'

 

Realistically, we still see this today.  The assualt weapon ban had no to little impact on gun deaths.  This is then essentially used as an argument to not pass any gun laws.

 

(And it goes the other way.  Neither side really ever agrees to a law that isn't likely to do much good.  You just anger your side, while giving the other side future ammunition to suggest that your general policies are ineffective.  That sort of becomes the starting place to get votes- is this law likely to have a measurable effect.)

Edited June 22, 2016 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

The R's trample over due process when it suits them, (cough) Patriot Act.

Good thing the democrat president never used it then.  *cough*

 

You keep using those words.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

No, "due process" does not mean "all people can buy all the weapons they want, unless they've been convicted of a crime".

Does this help?

 

due proc·ess

noun

noun: due process; noun: due process of law

1. fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

    

    

    

    

    

So the GOP says "due process" (see definition above) in an attempt to point out that denying someone a right based on being on a list that requires no notification or trial is not "fair treatment through the normal judicial system".  See how that works?

 

Though I admit that while the GOP may SAY that is their reason, I suspect it is really because the NRA is protecting purse strings of gun makers.  Which is why the Left should have come up with a legit rebuttal instead of just reading off names in an attempt to tug at heart strings.  Maybe a rebuttal that included how their bill was NOT against due process.  Crazy concept, I know.

Passing bills that are inconsequential is harmful because it allows the right to later go back and say, 'well, we passed this law and it hasn't done any good so why pass other laws.'

 

Realistically, we still see this today.  The assualt weapon ban had no to little impact on gun deaths.  This is then essentially used as an argument to not pass any gun laws.

 

(And it goes the other way.  Neither side really ever agrees to a law that isn't likely to do much good.  You just anger your side, while giving the other side future ammunition to suggest that your general policies are ineffective.  That sort of becomes the starting place to get votes- is this law likely to have a measurable effect.)

But it wasn't inconsequential.  It may have been less then the Left wanted but it was still something meaningful.  I won't get into the assault weapon ban example because I suspect we have different opinions on why it was pointless.

[Larry]

Does this help?

 

due proc·ess

noun

noun: due process; noun: due process of law

• fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

   

So the GOP says "due process" (see definition above) in an attempt to point out that denying someone a right based on being on a list that requires no notification or trial is not "fair treatment through the normal judicial system".  See how that works?

 

So, you're saying that, say, if Congress were to pass a law making it illegal for a person to possess marijuana, then the government is depriving people of their property without due process?

Or does passing a law that says it's illegal for people to have something, and then taking it away from them, if they possess it anyway, actually constitute said due process?

[tshile]

i will definitely sign off on background checks if that means drugs use/possession are protected by the constitution.

 

**** the drug war, consider me compromised

 

er, wait...

[TheGreatBuzz]

Larry if I thought you weren't being intentially obtuse, I'd give a better written response but since I'm sure that is what you are doing, this is all you get.

 

If the government wants to say only SOME people can have guns and those that can't have them are determined without DUE PROCESS, that's wrong.  Or if they want to say SOME people can have pot but others can't, same thing.  You shouldn't deny people's ability to exercise a right because you SUSPECT they MIGHT do something bad but don't have enough evidence to do anything about it.  That's just un-American.

[Larry]

Larry if I thought you weren't being intentially obtuse, I'd give a better written response but since I'm sure that is what you are doing, this is all you get.

 

If the government wants to say only SOME people can have guns and those that can't have them are determined without DUE PROCESS, that's wrong.  Or if they want to say SOME people can have pot but others can't, same thing.  You shouldn't deny people's ability to exercise a right because you SUSPECT they MIGHT do something bad but don't have enough evidence to do anything about it.  That's just un-American.

Uh, I've got news for you.

There are numerous laws that say some people can have something, and others can't.

Ask any 16 year old who wants to buy beer.

(And that decision was made under due process of law. When the legislature made that decision to pass that law.).

You shouldn't deny people's ability to exercise a right because you SUSPECT they MIGHT do something bad but don't have enough evidence to do anything about it.  That's just un-American.

Now there I do tend to agree with you. I certainly do think that restricting people because you think they MIGHT do something is absolutely something to be examined with the utmost caution.

But, that's not an absolute, either. It's a balancing act between the potential harm, the best guess probability of harm, and the interest of maximum liberty.

Quite a few of our laws are written specifically because of what MIGHT happen.

And, sorry. There is no law, of man or nature, that declares that society must apply the exact same burden of proof to the question of "should this person be thrown into prison?" And "should this person be allowed to walk around with an AR-15?"

Any more than I'm required to allow someone to perform surgery, unless I can convict him of a crime.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Apples and oranges larry. But since you like to argue using those I'm guessing you are fine banning ANY group of people from something as long as Congress passes it? You should love Trump then. Banning Muslims from the country even though they haven't actually done anything wrong.

Yes I'm aware that is a bad argument but no worse than yours.

[DogofWar1]

Here's the thing, what exactly is a violation of due process with regards to firearm limitations is kind of up in the air.

 

There's presently a circuit split, actually, on the standard of review, Intermediate vs. Strict.  All of the Circuits save the 4th that have taken up the question of "which standard are gun control laws held to" have said intermediate, the 4th meanwhile said Strict.

 

Under intermediate scrutiny, I imagine many gun control laws would pass Constitutional muster and not be considered a violation of due process.

 

Heller left the door open on the question of whether gun ownership was a fundamental right or not.  It did say that outright gun bans don't pass any level of scrutiny, but there's a lot of grey area between "everything related to firearms is a fundamental right" and "gun ban."

 

Presumably, most circuits would probably hold the view that outright bans are subject to strict scrutiny and will consistently fail to meet that standard (as per Heller), but lesser restrictions (probably things like wait times, certain hardware limitations, possibly even limited bans of certain classes of weapons) probably would survive under intermediate scrutiny.

 

The 4th Circuit differs from this in that anything interfering with ownership of a firearm would fall under strict scrutiny, as firearm ownership is a fundamental right under the 4th Circuit's reasoning.  I'm unsure if, from a practical standpoint, something like a waiting period would fall under this, but it might.

 

 

Anyways, whether using a "reasonable suspicion of terrorist activity" standard for denying ownership of a firearm can survive Constitutional muster and not be violative of due process probably ends up in front of a Circuit Court pretty quickly, and eventually, I would think, in front of the Supreme Court.  And what happens there probably depends on 1) who wins in 2016 and 2) what the law actually does.

 

 

 

And I might have gotten a wire crossed somewhere in my legal reasoning, if one of the other con law peeps we have around here can come in and correct me on this if something is wrong, that'd be much appreciated.

[Larry]

Apples and oranges larry.

Empty slogan without any clue what you're talking about, Buzz.

 

But since you like to argue using those I'm guessing you are fine banning ANY group of people from something as long as Congress passes it?

But since you're making up things and pretending I said them, instead of trying to disagree with what I actually have written, I guess that means you agree with me.

[TheGreatBuzz]

You used the example of beer and a 16byear old to justify banNing people who haven't been convicted of a crime and would otherwise legally be allowed to buy a gun. Now explain how I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Larry]

You used the example of beer and a 16byear old to justify banning people who haven't been convicted of a crime and would otherwise legally be allowed to buy a gun.

Yes, I did.

They are both cases of a law telling some people that they can't do something which other people can do.

(I also used the example of someone wanting to perform surgery, too.)

You know, the thing which you claimed was a violation of due process.

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/terror-loophole-gun-stores-hurt-security-000147

Why blocking the "terror loophole" at gun stores could actually hurt security

 

The Democrats' bill sounds like common sense. But it has a dangerous side effect.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article85328782.html

As Dems stage House floor sit-in, Clyburn prays

 

Twice after the Orlando shooting, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina tried to bring up pending gun legislation and was ruled out of order or ignored by House Speaker Paul Ryan.

 

By Wednesday, Clyburn and his Democratic colleagues said they’d had enough. Led by Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., they launched a sit-in. Halting regular proceedings, several Democrats sat down on the floor around 11:30 a.m., vowing to hold it until Ryan allows a vote on gun safety legislation.

 

“We can no longer wait. We can no longer be patient. So today we come to the well of the House to dramatize the need for action. Not next month. Not next year. But now. Today,” Lewis said.

 

Clyburn led a prayer, remembering the victims of gun violence who lost their lives “because of our refusal to speak up, stand up, and support just laws that could ensure the safety and security for our fellow humans.”

 

The protesting lawmakers stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Some lawmakers read the names of shooting victims in their districts.

 

As the day wore on, they were increasingly loudly cheered and applauded by their colleagues. Even passing visitors to the U.S. Capitol applauded the protesters sitting on the House floor. Supporters blew up Twitter with #HoldTheFloor and #NoBillNoBreak hashtags.

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/745763948419391489 Paul Ryan

Retweet if you agree → The sit-in by House Democrats is nothing more than a publicity stunt. #StopTheStunt

7:42 PM

Edited June 23, 2016 by visionary

[visionary]

ON CNN now:
 
 
https://twitter.com/AP/status/745800621761105920

BREAKING: House Democrats demand gun control vote, shout as Speaker Ryan tries to gavel House to order.
10:08 PM

 
https://twitter.com/herszenhorn/status/745800591771787264

House Democrats now chanting "Shame! Shame!"
10:08 PM

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/herszenhorn/

R's shouting in outrage, House Dems begin singing "We Shall Overcome"
10:18 PM

 

"We shall pass a bill," House Democrats sing. "Some daaay.  Oh peace, in my heart .."
10:19 PM

Edited June 23, 2016 by visionary

[tshile]

I think the approach of using a watch list is legally flawed.

 

Take the emotional component out of it, the part of the conversation that makes you think of mass shootings (since that's all we discuss with gun control these days.) Do that by replacing the right to own a gun with some other right.

 

Say - the right to vote.

 

Would you be ok with the government putting you on a watch list and that meaning you can't vote in November?

 

Conspiracies about different political groups wanting to harm other 'groups' of people by putting them on a list to take away whatever right aside, the sheer incompetence of the federal government makes this a risky proposition.

 

What about the protection against search and seizure? If you're on a government list you give that up? Do they notify you when you go on the list? Isn't stop and frisk (essentially waving the protection in areas with the justification that there is high crime) something the liberals absolutely hate? Seems sort of similar, no?

 

The fifth? The sixth? Will we lock you up indefinitely if you are on a terrorist watchlist and you refuse to answer certain questions under oath? Drag your trial out forever? (insert NDAA joke here LOL)

 

Trial by Jury? What about cruel and unusual punishment? (LOL TORTURE DEBATE TIME)

 

Can we declare certain states terrorists and take away their right to self govern?

Edited June 23, 2016 by tshile

[Popeman38]

Look, I bought 2 guns. One I had to wait 2 weeks, the other same day but I had to come back because the computers were backed up the day before Thanksgiving.

I don't have anything to hide, I don't mind a waiting period. Neither should anyone who has nothing to hide. The end result is that if nothing comes up, the purchase will go through, so 2nd Amendment right isn't hindered, right?

I assume you feel the same way about the NSA spying on you, right? Got nothing to hide, so nothing will get picked up. Amazing how opinions change when it is a right you don't feel as strongly about.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm on my phone so not going to write a long winded response Larry. Read what tshile said. He is doing a good enough job saying what I want to say.

[Larry]

Take the emotional component out of it, the part of the conversation that makes you think of mass shootings (since that's all we discuss with gun control these days.) Do that by replacing the right to own a gun with some other right.

 

Say - the right to vote.

 

Would you be ok with the government putting you on a watch list and that meaning you can't vote in November?

 

1). How many people got killed with a ballot, last year?

2). Apparently, we're pretty cool with that identical list being used to take away people's right to travel. A right which, I'll point out, seems to pose a whole lot less risk to the nation than people with guns do. "Well, yeah, this guy here, it's too dangerous to allow him to go through a search, and sit on an airplane. But it's ok if he wants an AR-15."

- - -

Now, do I have problems with that list? I've had problems with it, for years.

But I'm admiring the notion that telling people on that list that they can't get on an airplane, (after being searched for weapons), but we can't tell them that they can't buy guns. Cause that's going too far.

Me? If it's too dangerous to let him on a plane, then it's too dangerous to let him have a gun.

[tshile]

1). How many people got killed with a ballot, last year?

 

 

I see the "legally flawed" and "take the emotional part out of it" really resonated well with you

 

But I really despise the insinuation that voting doesn't have an affect on lives. It absolutely does. The right to vote is an incredible responsibility and if the current state of our government doesn't show you how little we treat it with the respect it deserves, I don't know what to tell you.

But our voting and the people put in office has cost a lot of lives. A lot. I imagine most of them aren't US lives though.

 

 

But I'm admiring the notion that telling people on that list that they can't get on an airplane, (after being searched for weapons), but we can't tell them that they can't buy guns. Cause that's going too far.

 

 

You keep going back to this, but using an airplane isn't a right. You can be removed from an airplane by anyone on the airliner staff. They'll redirect the flight if they're already in the air. It's not a right to use a specific mode of transportation. Just like it's not a right to own a drivers license. It's not a right to use a vehicle on public roadways.

 

None of which has to do with this right to travel you keep harping on. You're free to travel within the states, though you need a passport to leave and if you really want to leave you better follow that protocol too.

 

It's just a garbage analogy and for the life of me I cannot figure out why you think it's clever and/or worth hanging on to so much. I mean no offense, I just honestly don't understand it.

Edited June 23, 2016 by tshile

[Popeman38]

1). How many people got killed with a ballot, last year?

2). Apparently, we're pretty cool with that identical list being used to take away people's right to travel. A right which, I'll point out, seems to pose a whole lot less risk to the nation than people with guns do. "Well, yeah, this guy here, it's too dangerous to allow him to go through a search, and sit on an airplane. But it's ok if he wants an AR-15."

- - -

Now, do I have problems with that list? I've had problems with it, for years.

But I'm admiring the notion that telling people on that list that they can't get on an airplane, (after being searched for weapons), but we can't tell them that they can't buy guns. Cause that's going too far.

Me? If it's too dangerous to let him on a plane, then it's too dangerous to let him have a gun.

Ownng a gun has been affirmed as an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to fly has NEVER been guaranteed as an individual right. In fact, your ticket states the carrier can deny you service at any time for any reason, even after you pay for your ticket. Why do we continue to hear this stupid analogy. How may people are on the no fly list because they have the same name as the original person? How many people are denied travel wrongly? How do you avoid the same issue with guns? Let me guess, you don't care if a few Americans can't buy guns if it keeps the one bad guy from buying guns?

[Larry]

I see the "legally flawed" and "take the emotional part out of it" really resonated well with you

I'm sorry. I didn't realize those were code phrases for "ignore all these corpses around here".

 

It's just a garbage analogy and for the life of me I cannot figure out why you think it's clever and/or worth hanging on to so much. I mean no offense, I just honestly don't understand it.

Every time you insist that there are people who are too dangerous to allow on a plane, but dammit they have a right to guns.

Silly me, when I contemplate a law, I look at how much freedom it takes away from people, (and all laws take freedom away from people. It's what laws do.), and I look at how much need the public has, for that law.

What's the harm that Person X can do, sitting on an airplane? And what's the harm he can do, with a gun?

Ownng a gun has been affirmed as an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to fly has NEVER been guaranteed as an individual right. In fact, your ticket states the carrier can deny you service at any time for any reason, even after you pay for your ticket. Why do we continue to hear this stupid analogy. How may people are on the no fly list because they have the same name as the original person? How many people are denied travel wrongly? How do you avoid the same issue with guns? Let me guess, you don't care if a few Americans can't buy guns if it keeps the one bad guy from buying guns?

Got it. The constitution mentions guns, but doesn't mention airplanes.

And the risk to the public posed by the two is irrelevant.

And therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to tell a person "I'm sorry, but the government will not allow you on this airplane. But you can go across the street and buy a gun".

[twa]

What's the harm that Person X can do, sitting on an airplane? And what's the harm he can do, with a gun?

 

 

 

obviously quite a bit on a plane....though better security and a better door helped

 

with a gun purchase you are not restricting others ability to defend themselves....but then they are in places ain't they.

 

 

maybe better security and doors might help where they do 

 

add

 

perhaps the biggest change was in perception of threats and response....harder targets and more armed air marshals and pilots?....nah,, never work

Edited June 23, 2016 by twa