Senator Diane Feinstein (courtesy breitbart.com)

As the NSSF had warned, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced two pieces of legislation yesterday (one amendment to an existing bill and another as a stand-alone bill) that would have stripped Americans of their Constitutional right to own firearms if they appear on a secret government list — a list that even the New York Times and the ACLU have called unconstitutional and dangerous. Once again, Senator Feinstein doesn’t actually seem to care about Constitutionally protected rights, whether they’re enumerated in the Second or Fifth Amendment. There is some good news, though, in that DiFi’s amendment died a quick death on the Senate floor, but the Democrats have continued to press their talking point that this so-called “terror gap” is somehow allowing terrorists to purchase guns . . .

From The Hill:

Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected an amendment to the ObamaCare repeal bill that would have tied it to a separate fight on blocking suspected or known terrorists from being able to buy guns.

Senators voted 45-54 on procedural hurdle for the measure from Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

The California Democrat’s proposal, which she has also introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would allow the attorney general to block the sale or transfer of a gun or explosive to a suspected or known terrorist if the individual is believed to use the weapons in an act of terrorism.

There’s an interesting wrinkle here: the notion that the Attorney General can block the sale if they believe the weapon will be used in an “act of terrorism.” It seems innocuous until you realize that the recent strategy of the Democrat party is to call every incident of “gun violence” an act of “domestic terrorism.” Since they are similarly convinced that the only purpose of buying a firearm is to murder innocent people, it stands to reason that the AG can use this logic to summarily stop all gun sales in the entire United States without any oversight. For those of us who are interested in seeing due process be followed before any restriction of Americans’ Constitutional rights that’s a fairly disturbing concept.

Texas Senator John Cornyn (he who represents the majority of TTAG’s staff these days) offered his own version that would have closed the “terror gap” in a slightly more Constitution-friendly way, but his bill was poisoned from the start.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), however, suggested that Feinstein’s amendment would strip Americans of due process.

“This is not the way we’re supposed to do things in this country,” he said ahead of the vote.

Senators rejected an amendment from Cornyn by a 55-44 vote. The Texan’s proposal would have allowed the attorney general to delay suspected terrorists from getting a gun for up to 72 hours as they try to get a court to approve blocking the sale of the firearm.

The transfer of the gun would be blocked if a court determines that the person wanting to buy the gun has committed or will commit an act of terrorism.

“If you believe the federal government is omniscient and all competent vote for the Feinstein amendment,” Cornyn added ahead of the votes, noting that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was on a terror watch list.

Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) voted to move forward with Cornyn’s proposal. Kirk voted against the amendment on the procedural hurdle.

The fly in the ointment with Cornyn’s bill was that he’d added language stripping federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that don’t enforce federal immigration laws — places like like just about every city in California. It was a clear middle finger toward Senator Feinstein for even introducing her legislation. Since the Democrats are big supporters of local control when it suits their particular goals they naturally opposed the idea.

What’s interesting is how this allows the weekend’s worth of talk shows to proceed. Allow me to paraphrase.

Democrats: We need to close the Terror Gap! Terrorists can buy assault weapons through the internet and murder people at will in the United States! The Republicans and the NRA blocked us from moving forward with this life-saving common sense law! Why do they want to make it so easy for terrorists to get guns?

Republicans: We agree something must be done. We even proposed a law that would have done exactly what you asked, but you voted against it! Why would you vote against a bill that would keep guns out of terrorists’ hands?

From there it will devolve into the usual histrionics and name calling. The point is that by introducing a bill that the Democrats were forced to vote against it gives the Republicans a bit of political cover to fight back. “See? Not every proposal with a catchy title is a good idea!” Needless to say, the Democrats will ignore that and keep demanding that something — anything — be done to implement “common sense” gun control laws.

As is usually the case, the most galling moment yesterday was a comment from Nevada’s Harry Reid in support of secret government data bases:

“If you’re on terrorists watch lists you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.”

Give Harry a break, though. He’s very old and probably doesn’t remember his former Senate colleague, Ted Kennedy, somehow found his way onto the federal no-fly list, too.

56 Responses to Senate Votes Down Dems’ Proposal to Strip Americans of 2nd Amendment Rights Without Due Process

  1. Thanks for the synopsis. It’s good to know the machine that keeps the universe moving is well lubricated.
    I’ll skip the weekend politics and browse my lgs.

    • Many lawmakers and most journalists only ever look at the title of the bill and take it purely at face value.

      The devil is always in the details.

      Remember the NY SAFE Act? “We had to pass it to know what was in it!”

      • Southern Cross, that was another communist that got into public office and unfortunately reached the governorship of one of ours states. It is ridiculous to even name that law “the safe act” it is a joke because it will not make anything safer. Everybody in the country admits that our country is going downhill, and it is because of the politicians that we elect. Look at our leaders, especially the Democrat politicians they are anti-American buffoons. All they talk about is banning things and undermining our freedoms, that is their answer to many of these problems. They don’t have intelligent answers to what America faces so their answer is “ban it” or eliminate that freedom. You have a president right now that is blaming the second amendment, and the NRA, and the American gun owners, for a flat out terrorist act in California. He has allowed ISIS to grow and get stronger and infiltrate our country and now he is trying to downplay the fact that he can’t keep us safe. We need to think about how we can eliminate these Liberal Democrats and we need to end their reign in American politics before all of our freedoms are gone. They are the only thing that needs to be banned in our country.

  2. Was the female terrorist on a visa or what? How did she have permission to enter the US?

    They say the rifles were “legally purchased” But by whom? I never read who purchased the rifles, I think it’s a safe bet that 99.99% of firearms are legally purchased from a FFL. Except those that are lost by federal LEO’s in San Francisco.

    • Main point here is that he apparently owned all 4 guns for the past 3 years, also is not a prohibited person, could have bought as many as he could afford (how did he afford all this?), no proposed law would have stopped him unless they thought of a way to outlaw murder.

      • Last I heard, he bough the two handguns legally. Someone else bought the rifles. It is unclear whether the rifles were legally xferred to him. Anyway, your point stands. The broke dozens of laws here.

  3. The usual hogwash from both parties. Cornyn’s amendment was just marginally better. If known “terrorists” are buying firearms, why don’t we arrest them? Oh yeah, innocent until proven guilty. Such a minor detail. All courts are 100% infallible anyway, so what’s the problem?

  4. The fact that they are even considering this legislation is just utterly unacceptable.

    These a55holes think they are kings and queens, absolute rulers of us.

    This is not the case, and someone needs to bring these people to Jesus on this fact.

    Meaning remove them from office and charge them with something, sedition perhaps?

    Unbelievable.

  5. Good old DiFi rears her ugly (literally) head again only to get sent home to her commi block of Kalifornia empty handed.

      • Of course not! She’s got political clout to cover her! Remember, if you’re a politician, or good friends with the local judge, you don’t have worry about laws that ban you from bringing illegal magazines into a state/city – even when you’ve been warned by the local police not to!

  6. Prediction 1: The press will ignore the GOP bill, crow about how the GOP blocked the Dem bill.

    Prediction 2: The admin will do the same.

    Prediction 3: The president will enact it anyway by executive order within the next month.

    Prediction 4: There will be much grumbling and shaking of fists regarding number 3, but not a damn thing will be done about it (except the House passing a bill which will die in the Senate, and some lawsuits that start going very slowly through the courts).

    Prediction 5: While cases work their way very slowly through the courts, the AG will dump thousands, perhaps millions of names into the prohibited persons list, including pretty much all recent veterans, all known militia, III%ers, and oath keepers.

    Yeah, I know you don’t need a crystal ball to see any of that coming.

      • Heh!

        Prediction 7. The ACLU, which has opposed the terror watch list in the past, will be utterly silent on this. The NYT will praise this as a great and courageous act on the part of Obama.

  7. This Bill would not have stopped the attackers from getting guns anyway. Neither of them were on the no fly list or any terrorist watchlist. The FBI didn’t know anything about them until after the shooting started.

      • At best. The most hardcore among them, like Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, would’ve been taken out by drone strikes by now.

        • Yes, they probably would. People who scoff at the idea that an armed populace keeps government honest often bring up drones. Of course, if enough people rise up, there wouldn’t be enough drones to go around. But, at the very least, if we see modern equivalents of Adams, Henry, et al. rise up in the near future as leaders in any kind of revolution, they better keep hidden or keep their heads down.

  8. “Suspected or known terrorists”

    Suspects are innocent until and proven guilty and why aren’t “known” terrorists behind bars?
    Reminds of those cities that invite active gang members to ridiculous summits with local cops to ask them to stop killing each other then let them leave to continue killing each other.

    • At least she’s a consistent evil witch. In 2009 she was attacking George W. for being to restrictive about who could be put on the watchlist and asking Obama to be more “liberal” (read: tyrannical) so more people could be put on the list for having done less.
      http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/30/terrorism.security/

      Amazing the popular view of Democrats is tolerance, openness and understanding when in many ways they rival Pol Pot in statist control and destruction of liberty.

  9. I am seriously incensed over this.

    Anyone who voted to strip constitutional rights via a secretly maintained list lacking entirely in due process or judicial oversight needs to suffer consequences. It is intolerable that they could seriously consider such a flagrant breach of rights.

    I’d start with marching them onto the senate lawn to be stripped, tarred and feathered.

  10. The real terrorists in the US are the Democrat tyrannists. We could defeat the Islamic Terrorists if we could just get rid of the Democrat Tyannists like Feinstein and Reid.

  11. Glad it failed.

    IIRC, the Newlydead Couple from San Bernardino for their EBRs through a straw purchase.

    Check the reports. It’s in there somewhere. …

    • It’s been acknowledged that “another party purchased them legally” but I haven’t seen the media draw the link to straw-buying (something the ATF doesn’t seem interested in prosecuting).

  12. THIS is not confusing to me but the average low info/marginal IQ and dumbocrat leaning doofus will NOT get it. And VOTES should have consequences-serious ones…Rinos gotta’ go.

  13. Hate flying, have not been on a commercial fight since before 911. Do love to drive – happiness is a go cup of coffee, my Ruger LCR 9 in a Sneaky Pete holster driver side door bin and my Golden Retriever, Chili Hot Tamale, secured in the back seat.

  14. Our political system is a farce. Little more than posturing and phallus measuring, with nothing really getting done.

    Cornyn’s suggestion seemed reasonable, though if you are a genuine known terrorist, you should be rotting in a hole, not on a list. My guess is that list has few terrorists and a lot of suspected/maybe/might be/could be’s on it.

    One does wonder it you cross checked the suspected terrorist list against the NICS prohibited person list how much current similarities there are

  15. Even though I have over 9 years of time working for the federal government, today, I can declare that I have never been so embarrassed and afraid of my own government. Even though the federal government is going out of their way to avoid calling this think in California terrorism, every person of reasonable intelligence knows it is terrorism. Even though the biggest threat to the US is terrorism, the federal government claims it is global warming and the “gun show loophole” that is the biggest threat. The feds claim that new gun laws would have stopped these terrorists from getting guns, when the guns they used are illegal in California, and the terrorist in the Paris attack had automatic weapons in a country with some of the strictest gun laws in the world. The Progressives keep trying to sneak these laws, rules, and presidential orders in the dark of night using parliamentary tricks and unconstitutional procedures, and there is only one possible reason for it — tyranny. I am angry at my government. I am embarrassed for my government. I am afraid of my government.

  16. You know the Democrats would have more credibility on this if they came out against importing thousands of potential terrorists into the country.

  17. The only thing that really scares me is that nearly 1/2 of the Senate is willing to vote for laws contrary to the constitution. This is alarming.

  18. Innocent until proven guilty. If people are suspected of being terrorists, I’m sure they can find a law to charge them on. The fact that they don’t want to charge these suspects with violation of any laws says something about their willingness to enforce the law. They don’t want to enforce laws, they just want to pass laws I guess – useless, pointless, waste of time and money.

    • Passing, or even just proposing, these types of laws gets you votes from the low-information voters in your district.

      Enforcing those laws, since they are most commonly broken by the low-information voters in your district, loses votes from them and their families.

      Good guys with guns who defend themselves against the low-information voters in your district, even if they manage to kill one or two, gets you the votes of all the surviving relatives of that “victim”.

      Do the math.

    • For a couple decades now, that has been my analysis, pass a really stupid law, then do not even TRY to enforce it, when it is ineffective (as you have assured), propose even stupider laws, rinse and repeat. To be fair, there is no possibility of real progress without changing the focus of laws to encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own safety/protection.

  19. I met a guy working at an lgs who claimed to have n extensive background in law enforcement. It was over 10 years ago and I forget most of the story, but the crux of it was that this guy was on one of the teams of first responders or investigators or whatever that responded to an incident at Fienstein’s house in California, a robbery I think, and according to this guy she keeps a pretty good stash of ‘assault’ weapons on her private property. Whether they are personally owned or for her security team idk. Again, just a random story from a stranger, no way to verify, but I’m pretty sure she has armed personal guarding her almost 24-7.

    • We have heard here, today, that something like 0.156% of CA’s citizens have license to carry, and Feinstein has had that license for 20+ years. How do you suppose she qualified for it? Laws are for thee, not for me.

  20. No wonder they believe random people will be hit! Her stance is atrocious! Muzzle discipline is awful! I don’t trust her.

  21. Is a nobody else concerned that this only dies by a measure of 9 and 1q votes, respectively? Thats not like straight razor close, but holy sh*t, a little better lobbying and we’d *all* be on that list. This is getting very concerning, we’re not just in jeopardy of losing our 2A rights, it’s almost inevitable at this point.

  22. The transfer of the gun would be blocked if a court determines that the person wanting to buy the gun has committed or will commit an act of terrorism.

    Here’s a crazy idea: if there’s enough evidence for a court to determine that someone has committed or will commit a terrorist act: why not just arrest the suspect, and prosecute him for the alleged act?

    • Why not? Because we are ignoring constitutional safeguards here, we are so beyond that. Forget arrest and prosecute, just shoot him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *