Posted on 06/16/2016 9:40:05 AM PDT by Starman417
Accidentally, of course. A "glitch", if you will.
When discussing any issue for which Barack Obama is proposing action there is an axiom which has to be remembered- Obama lies about everything- the Iran deal, Fast and Furious, health care, rewriting history, Libya, you name it. Gun control is no different.
What he wants, accompanied by our resident idiot Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, is nothing less than the ability to suspend your Constitutional rights. Here he is in a town hall whining about his inability to stop those on a no-fly list from purchasing guns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFvSua3Kg
What he's really saying is that he is troubled by his inability to suspend the Constitutional rights of Americans at will, because that is what is at stake here. Nothing less. There is no Constitutional right to fly on an airplane, but there sure is one to own a gun. This spectacle has become mind-boggling. It is quite something see elected representatives demanding that the rights of US citizens be suspended at someone's will or suspicion.
Watch obama in the above video at about 4:25. He says
"this is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer..."Really? Mateen had been interviewed several times by the FBI and cleared. He was on a terror watch list and then was removed from it by the Obama administration. Additionally, the obama administration already has scrubbed at least 1,000 Muslims from the terrorist watch list. Thus this proposal would not have stopped Mateen as it would not have stopped San Bernardino or Sandy Hook.
And then he says
"but because of the National Rifle Association I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun..."What he's saying is that the NRA stopping obama from the freedom to deprive you of your rights under the US Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.No US citizen can be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Eugene Volokh
But can a person be denied constitutional rights, not based on a past criminal conviction or even a restraining order issued in court under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, but based just on the government’s suspicion? The Feinstein proposal would have provided that the government could bar gun sales to a person if two conditions were met:Obama and the left whine about the GOP blocking such legislation, but what's always left out of the coverage is the expansive nature of their proposals.That’s a very low bar — denial of a constitutional right based on suspicion (albeit “appropriate[]”) about a person’s connections, and belief (albeit “reasonable” belief) about a person’s possible future actions. Indeed, most of the time this would come into play only as to people for whom the government doesn’t have proof of terrorist activity. If the government had proof, presumably the people would be prosecuted. (If the government has proof but isn’t prosecuting because it hopes that quietly watching them would help catch more or bigger fish, then barring gun purchases would be a bad idea, since that would alert the person to the government’s plans.)
- “the Attorney General” “determines that the [buyer] is known (or appropriately suspected)” to have been involved in terrorism-related conduct “or providing material support or resources for terrorism,” and
- if the Attorney General “has a reasonable belief that the [buyer] may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”
I can’t see how that’s constitutional. And though the bill would have let the buyer go to court to challenge the attorney general’s decision, the attorney general would simply have had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the two elements were satisfied — that the attorney general appropriately suspected the buyer and that she had a reasonable belief about what the buyer may do. Plus the evidence supporting the attorney general’s position might never be shared with the buyer, which may make it impossible for the buyer to fairly challenge it, or aired in open court.
The Senate amendment in question, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, would have applied to a much larger group than the no-fly list. As we reported in December, Feinstein’s office told us the measure, which would have allowed the attorney general to block gun sales to individuals on these lists, would have included a few terrorist databases, and the no-fly list is a subset of one of them.The deceit from the left ought to surprise no one.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Exactly
Terrorism will be defined as membership in anything other then the Democrat party
Yeah, Zero is the source for terror for straw men everywhere. They blanch in fear at the mention of his name.
Line up every bureaucrat in DC, flip a coin between the first two and fire every other guy with no unemployment benefits.
...Terrorism will be defined as membership in anything other then the Democrat party...
It already is.
...Terrorism will be defined as membership in anything other then the Democrat party...
It already is.
I steadfastly believe that the Government has been doing just this since 1994.
The records are somewhere, and they are doing something.
Omar worked for a security company subcontracted to Homeland Security. Pass all the laws you want to, Omar would still have his gun.
Don’t get me wrong. I am very much in favor of a “Can’t Come Back” list. I would be happy to compile that one myself.
Terrorists will be removed from no fly lists, and Americans will be placed on no fly lists.
This ruse of the NO FLY list serves as just the first shoe to drop for closing out the 2nd Amendment.
The NRA needs to use caution and so does Mr. TRUMP.
This may be more of a carrot being offered to the stinking UniParty Republicans, in an attempt to either shut up against TRUMP or get on board the TRUMP TRAIN.
The 2nd Amendment may not be used as a carrot, people.
Why spare half of them? DC needs to be reverted to the swamp it once was. A nice swamp would be better for the country than the steaming mound of corruption it now is.
Here we go again, letting the leftists define the rules, while the right and conservatives collectively wring their hands and cry that it isn’t fair.
The only way to win is to throw it right back in their leftist faces.
Stop whining and letting the leftists define the narrative.
They will never like you, they hate your very existence, and if they had their way, they would erase your very existence concentration camp style if they could manage to get away with it.
The only way to beat them is through words, deeds, actions, and as a last resort armed rebellion.
So...every NCIS check for a firearm purchase ends up on the no fly list?
Illegal as h*** if it’s true. If we had some spiny-backed Republicans in Congress this would be investigated and beaten to death in committee hearings with the BATFE head sweating bullets under the klieg lights.
Too much to ask for.....
I’ve read some folks want to criminalize what they call “climate denial”.
If you’re a “climate denier” will that get you put on one of these lists?
It’s a classic Catch-22:
If you want to purchase a gun, you are clearly a deranged threat and therefore can’t have one. On the list you go!
If you DON’T want a gun, you are sane and rational, stay off the list, and can buy as many guns as you (don’t) want.
(Apologies to J. Heller)
“Line up every bureaucrat in DC, flip a coin between the first two and fire every other guy with no unemployment benefits.”
Fire every first line manager on up and replace them with veterans.
If you like your gun, you can keep your gun. Sound familiar?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.