NRA and GOP block bill to prevent terrorists from buying guns and explosives

[hog88]

so why not codify that into law?

It's already law. I cannot ship you a gun without it going to an FFL. I even think TN has banned non FFL dealers from gun shows.

One interesting piece of legislation that was killed by Dems was to allow gun shows to do a background check upon entry. That would clear a person to purchase once they got into the door.

 

[volinbham]

It's already law. I cannot ship you a gun without it going to an FFL. I even think TN has banned non FFL dealers from gun shows.

One interesting piece of legislation that was killed by Dems was to allow gun shows to do a background check upon entry. That would clear a person to purchase once they got into the door.

great idea - wonder why it was blocked...

 

[Grand Vol]

I might get killed for this, but it's a serious question:



is this a bad thing? if so, why?

Manchin-Toomey was actually one of the least anti-gun, gun control legislation pieces to come out in a while. The problem was the amendments were attached to Senate Bill 649:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/649

As well as this:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2013/04/11/senate-section/article/S2598-3

Which was never going to pass. If they had introduced the legislation on its own, it might have stood a fighting chance. But when you attach it to the overall bill, it wouldn't have passed.

 

[hog88]

What I mean by solution is exception or a web-based system that I as a seller could require a buyer submit to.

You can do that now. I doubt any FFL dealer would refuse to do a background check for you.

The biggest reason it's a useless piece of legislation is without know who has what gun, how could it ever be enforced? Only the law abiding will abide.

 

[hog88]

great idea - wonder why it was blocked...

Don't remember, I'll have to dig it up.

 

[McDad]

Care to address the Dems blocking the Cornyn bill or retract your claim the GOP doesn't want to make it harder for suspected terrorists to buy guns?

Patience, Bham. It takes a while for him to copy your question and paste it to his CNN profile and post it in the comments section at the end of the article. Then, he has to wait for someone to give an answer.

 

[Grand Vol]

Patience, Bham. It takes a while for him to copy your question and paste it to his CNN profile and post it in the comments section at the end of the article. Then, he has to wait for someone to give an answer.

 

[lawgator1]

Do I understand correctly that you oppose a bill that precludes sales of guns to people on a terrorist watch list, but you are okay selling them a gun after a 72 hour delay?

That's pretty f'd up logic.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do I understand correctly that you oppose a bill that precludes sales of guns to people on a terrorist watch list, but you are okay selling them a gun after a 72 hour delay?

That's pretty f'd up logic.

Pretty much seems like what you are doing.

 

[volinbham]

Do I understand correctly that you oppose a bill that precludes sales of guns to people on a terrorist watch list, but you are okay selling them a gun after a 72 hour delay?

That's pretty f'd up logic.

That's the best you can come up with? Good lord, you had nearly an hour.

Read the bill and my posts then get back to me. I'd tell you how you are misrepresenting it but I suspect you already know. If not, it's a good "teaching moment"

 

[UTCVol]

Do I understand correctly that you oppose a bill that precludes sales of guns to people on a terrorist watch list, but you are okay selling them a gun after a 72 hour delay?

That's pretty f'd up logic.

Do I understand correctly that a lawyer supports a bill that blatantly violates the right of an American citizen to due process?

That's pretty f'd up logic.

 

[lawgator1]

That's the best you can come up with? Good lord, you had nearly an hour.

Read the bill and my posts then get back to me. I'd tell you how you are misrepresenting it but I suspect you already know. If not, it's a good "teaching moment"

Which one? The bill supported by the Bush administration and introduced as well by a Republican n the House, or the bill written by the NRA?

 

[volinbham]

Which one? The bill supported by the Bush administration and introduced as well by a Republican n the House, or the bill written by the NRA?

nice dodge - the one that Dems voted against that would have prevented terrorists from buying guns.

 

[hog88]

Which one? The bill supported by the Bush administration and introduced as well by a Republican n the House, or the bill written by the NRA?

Come on, you're not even putting a decent effort into your trolling. Pick it up, put your heart into it!

 

[DC_Vol]

nice dodge - the one that Dems voted against that would have prevented terrorists from buying guns.

oh, that was different!

 

[lawgator1]

No, it didn't do anything. That's why the NRA wrote it. To preempt the actual, real, effective legislation and give the Republicans cover in voting against the real legislation.

If you can't see that, you are incredibly naive. I suspect you can, and are following the intended script.

 

[volinbham]

No, it didn't do anything. That's why the NRA wrote it. To preempt the actual, real, effective legislation and give the Republicans cover in voting against the real legislation.

If you can't see that, you are incredibly naive. I suspect you can, and are following the intended script.

C'mon man - man up and admit you just wanted a hit piece on the GOP and missed some details.

It's okay

 

[volinbham]

The GOP one actually protects due process. The 72 window allows law enforcement to prevent the ones they need to prevent without a blanket ban on anyone. Makes all kinds of sense and stands up in court.

 

[volinbham]

Dems didn't want to support a GOP led restriction since it kills one of their narratives and messes with their fund raising...

See? I can play that silly game too.

 

[hog88]

The GOP one actually protects due process. The 72 window allows law enforcement to prevent the ones they need to prevent without a blanket ban on anyone. Makes all kinds of sense and stands up in court.

LG isn't interested in due process.

 

[hog88]

No, it didn't do anything. That's why the NRA wrote it. To preempt the actual, real, effective legislation and give the Republicans cover in voting against the real legislation.

If you can't see that, you are incredibly naive. I suspect you can, and are following the intended script.

The real legislation that would allow the Federal Government to deny a constitutional right without allowing due process? That legislation?

 

[lawgator1]

The GOP one actually protects due process. The 72 window allows law enforcement to prevent the ones they need to prevent without a blanket ban on anyone. Makes all kinds of sense and stands up in court.

If it were 60 days that makes sense. It was kept to three because they know there's no way to assemble a case and present it to a judge in three days.

Might as well have no mechanism there at all.

But that's the point, isn't it?

 

[hog88]

If it were 60 days that makes sense. It was kept to three because they know there's no way to assemble a case and present it to a judge in three days.

Might as well have no mechanism there at all.

But that's the point, isn't it?

:thud:

Kids never been removed from a house with a judges order in less than 24 hours have they?

 

[Biopsyman]

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC

And they did it the day after the San Bernardino massacre.

Every single one of them should immediately be impeached. There is absolutely no rational line of thought that can justify this vote.

This is laughable.. You really think Terrorist are going to go through a background check? You guy Obama needs a mental evaluation if he is not sure this was a terrorist attack

 

[hog88]

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 would:

• Allow the attorney general to deny the purchase or transfer of a firearm or explosive to a known or suspected terrorist if the prospective recipient may use the firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.
• Maintain protections in current law that allow a person who believes he has been mistakenly prevented from buying a firearm to learn of the reason for the denial, and then to challenge the denial, first administratively with the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit against the Justice Department.
  [*]Allow the Justice Department, in any administrative or court proceeding challenging the accuracy of a denied firearm or explosive transfer under the bill, to protect information that, if disclosed, would compromise national security.

Senators Introduce Bill to Stop Terrorists from Buying Firearms, Explosives - Press Releases - News Room - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

LG does the bold bother you at all? If that wasn't included the bill might have stood a chance. You just can't allow "national security reasons" to be a catch all for denying a citizen their rights without recourse.