Senator Charles Schumer (courtesy newyork.cbslocal.com)

“What’s been lost in the debate is the fact that Republicans have an alternative to the Democratic proposal.” weeklystandard.com reveals. “Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s ‘probable cause’ — the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant — that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright.” Wait. What? That still means . . .

No due process! The prohibited buyer has no ability to confront his accuser. Make his case. Defend his rights. And what’s the bet that the “compromise” legislation contains the same secrecy clause as the original “terrorist loophole” bill. (The government is allowed to exclude “sensitive” information in its submission to the judge.)

And what happens if the prohibited person wants to appeal the decision? And if an aspiring gun buyer is plotting terrorism, why the hell is he on the streets? Unless the feds want him there . . .

The measure received 55 votes in the Senate. It it secured the backing of staunch conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio as well as moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. The only Republican to oppose it was Mark Kirk.

When gun rights advocates say “no compromise” this is exactly the kind of degradation of their rights they are guarding against. And rightly so. [h/t DrVino]

Recommended For You

108 Responses to Republican Compromise on ‘No Fly List’ Gun Ban Revealed

  1. Election year grandstanding…

    I am sorry to see Ted Cruz voted for this, but it is a non-starter anyway and will be immediately challenged in the courts on all of the previously mentioned violations of Constitutionally protected rights.

      • You’re shocked that a Republican is pro-big government and anti-freedom / anti-Constitution? Where have you been for the last 15 years?

      • I want to see the entire text of the law and understand the implications before starting to blame our friends for its support. By “going to court” and the “72 hour time limit”, may very well allow the person to actually appear at the hearing and receive notification of the hearing. There may actually be people on the “no fly” or “terrorist watch list” that we do not want to have weapons. Certainly, the government will not “bother” to actually go to a judge and have a public hearing in 99.9% of the cases.


        • You mean that the government is going to give you a chance to prove yourself innocent?
          That’s mighty ‘white’ of them.
          That’s not how due process works.
          The burden is on the government to prove you guilty before taking your rights away.

        • Looks like even Rand didn’t vote against….
          And Mike Lee backed the nonsense.

          Just write in Mullah Omar or Osama. Can’t possibly be any worse than these totalitarians, and at least they have the decency to be dead.

      • Trump isn’t a slave to the donors, but he is a dangerous megalomaniac, and anti-libertarian big government guy.

    • I’m sure it will be challenged- eventually- (standing is an issue with secret lists!) but that’s not much comfort given the way the supreme court has avoided taking any gun cases.

      • So you can lose your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms if you are convicted of a felony beyond a reasonable doubt, or if a bureaucrat decides there is probable cause to place your name on a “No Fly List.”

    • It is more and more obvious there are not two main parties anymore. They all belong to the same ruling class party that believes they know better than us and don’t have to answer to us either.

      • I have been telling people this for years. It is purely about control of the populus. Republicans cry “look at abortion, welfare, immigration”, Democrats scream ” minimum wage hikes, gun control, healthcare” making sure we act as blue state red state instead of as Americans. The elections have come down to which pile of shit stinks the least, not who is truly best for the country.

        • No politician nor political party will ever champion what is “best for the country”, since “best for the country” leaves no room for them and theirs.

  2. Permanently archived.

    Liberal Citizen+’s need to pack their sh_t and go home, they’ve abdicated the only job authorized by their positions.

  3. How exactly is that any different than how the system has worked ever since it’s inception? They’ve always had the ability to hold up a sale for 72 hours. I would presume that any further delays would be pending the execution of the search warrant. It would make no sense to wait to serve it since that would give you plenty of time to dispose of any incriminating evidence.

    I’d have to read the fine print here, but if the search warrant doesn’t reveal any wrongdoing then the purchase must be allowed to go forward.

    • This is not a delay so the government can conduct a warrant, it is a DENIAL based on probable cause (the same standard that happens to be used for warrants).

      And you won’t even know about it until you go buy a gun, I’d venture…

      • Ah… I thought that while you were going to pick up your new gat they’d be ransacking your apartment. Like I said, I’d have to read the details, but I don’t have a problem with them taking 72 hours to decide whether to piss or get off the pot. But if they’re just going to hog the kybo all day then fuckem.

        • The 72 hour delay option is already in place without any “requirement” on the part of the FBI. So, this law may actually be placing more restrictions on the existing NICS system.

    • Yeah, the more I read, this law doesn’t actually “allow” a 72 hour hold since they could always do that, it basically stops them from being able to use an EO to use the list to take away a right without due process from a a judge.

  4. Wait a minute–are we sure there is no “due process”? The gov’t has to show “probable cause” to a judge–that implies some kind of hearing. Is it ex parte, or is the guy entitled to notice? At any rate, 72 hours isn’t a whole lot of time to gather up evidence if you don’t already have it to hand.

    • Certainly, there is “process.” In any due process case, the question is “how much process is due?” In this case, there may be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution.

      • Without knowing the details, I would certainly not jump to conclude that there is not any “due process” in the R’s proposal, at any rate.

        • Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments sets forth fundamental, constitutional guarantees that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Taking away a fundamental right based on mere suspicion is not Constitutional, it is tyranny.

      • How in the Hell is that “due process” when the “accused” is not present to defend themselves and there is no jury of his/her peers?

        Judges rubber-stamp stuff all the time. A judge’s rubber-stamp approval of a bureaucrat’s claims is not “due process” in my book, and should NOT be due process in anyone’s book. Is that enough for a search warrant? Maybe. Is that enough to deny someone their rights? Absolutely not.

        • There are all kinds of legal processes that involve notice and a hearing that do not involve juries. They have been going on since the republic was founded. And my point is that we don’t know from what we are provided here what kind of notice to the person may or may not be involved.

        • I agree with uncommon. However this is nothing new by any means. Warrants are issued over the phone for house tossings, confiscation of “supposed” evidence, and other violations that the accused is not afforded to defend themselves against until after the fact. Government legislators, with opionions, want to add the purchase of some specific items (firearms) to this list – not surprising.

          I can see having warrants issued to collect evidence for a crime with the accused being innocent until proven guilty – however the terrorist watch list is different. They are being denied a right without even a chance to defend themselves. There is no court date, there is no judgement by their peers. Nothing. They are denied an enumerated right on the basis of “probable cause” – not even evidence or a conviction.

          The constitution (fifth amendment) states:

          …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

          The term “Due process” was derived from the Magna Carta which says (clause 39):

          No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

          As you can see – due process appears to mean “judgement of his equals or by the law of the land” – NOT probable cause. A fed calling up a judge and merely saying he has probable cause so the judge can deny an individual the purchase of a firearm is what the republican legislation calls for. I believe this to be a great mistake to assign the term “due process” to merely “probable cause.” If this is done, you might as well not even bother to put the due process clause in there.

        • Probable cause is the burden of proof required to obtain a search warrant. But it still requires you to name with particularity what it is you’re searching for and the basis for your good faith belief that what you’re searching for will be found on the premises. The warrant must also specifically state the time, place, and manner of the search,

  5. Keep in mind “probable cause” is supposed to be the same standard of proof required for arrest. Then again, if you have probable cause to believe a person is plotting terrorist acts, why wouldn’t you arrest them? Especially if you’re about to tip them off they’re being watched?

    • Holy frack yes. Either there is evidence of a crime or there is not. We are flirting with the end of the Constitution here.

      So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous cowardice.

      • If we’re flirting with the end of the constitution, they must be pulling a train on the end of the constitution in the alley out back.

        Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    • Yes but once you have been arrested you can get bail/bond and then are afforded a trial where you can present your side to a supposedly neutral party. If such a provision exists in this proposal, I don’t see it…

  6. No thanks. I don’t think the GOP plan is palatable either. I don’t even want judges to have that much power over my rights. The right to bear arms doesn’t come from government, it’s a natural right. It’s the right to defend your own life. Government has no authority to take away that right.

    So it’s going to be illegal for these terrorists to get and kill us with guns, but they’re free to kill us with bombs? That’s where the logic of judicial intervention runs dry.

  7. So the Republican Wing of the Democrat Party is right on track: never refusing to give up an opportunity to give the Dems what they want, just like always.

    Isn’t there some old saying about what happens if you make peaceful revolution impossible?

  8. And some of you think the fed govt will run this properly?

    I worked for the fed govt. employee agenda, multiple supervisor agendas, contractor agendas, Senior Executive Service members agendas, political appointee agendas, elected politician agendas, presidential agendas, and all the other bs!

    If this sails, it will look like Beetle Bailey after Sarge got done with him.. . . .10 times.

    If only presidents, politicians, et al would look at MANAGEMENT of the federal govt.

    So there were these 5 afghan sheep herders who decided to take their sheep and goats into the hills for forage and good water. It got late so they decided to kill a goat, start a fire and have dinner. But course they had AK’s, doesn’t everyone in Afghanistan?

    At the same time some colonel in the military told the contractors running drones and predators that there was pressure from Washington to take out some high level Taliban and the contractors were told by their company that they weren’t using enough bombs, billings were down. . .not enough bombs being purchased. So they were going to give it a week and if things didn’t pick up, someone was going to be laid off.

    Abdul says, just before he dies eating his goat, “do you guys hear that funny noise?”
    Next day the NY TIMES has a story about 5 Taliban top men killed, GREAT SUCCESS!

    Next story in NY TIMES is about radicalized Muslims in Afghanistan coming to Amerika to kill Americans because we killed a goat herder, brother, cousin, father. I kid you not!

    If someone kills someone in my family, I will kill them.

    Kill the bad guys, not their families.

  9. Dude, where’s my compromise?

    I don’t see any offer of value to our side of the table. So what and where is the compromise? Are we getting national reciprocity from this?

    • Even it it was not ruled out of order, after the 72 hour wait if the person is still denied, they can still go to court over it. I think its kind of dumb in and of itself. Its a dumb move by the antis because they will provide opportunities to attack the constitutionality of placing people of secret lists to deny their fundamental rights. We have been there before and it was a dumb idea then and its a dumber idea now as it makes a mockery of due process.

  10. “During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s ‘probable cause’ — the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant — that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright.”

    So they go to a judge get a search warrant, raid my house, kill my dog, confiscate guns, proving I should be on the list, and then deny me the opportunity to get them back. This is a total dump by the Senate to get something they want that we don’t know about. I am disgusted with my Kentucky Senators at this point.

  11. This reminds me… Trump was getting shit from 2A groups, including me somewhat, for saying he would “look into” blocking gun sales to people on the no-fly list. Cruz actually voted for it. Still like him. Just saying.

  12. People that are complaining about the lack of “due process” have no idea what the phrase actually means. At its core, “due process” means notice and an opportunity to be heard in a manner described by law — and that’s it. It does not necessarily mean a trial before a judge and jury with all the niceties that might apply.

    Does this proposal violate the right of due process? I can’t say unequivocally yes or no, but I can say that since any firearms purchase can be held up for 72 hours (to give NICS a chance to clear the sale), this proposal, as far as the 72 hour hold is concerned, probably meets the due process standard.

    Which does not mean that I like it. I don’t.

    • Due process also means that the process involves has to be proportionate to the action. So for example, an arrest with “reasonable cause” does not require a warrant. But searching someone’s apartment generally does (but with “plain view” exceptions etc). And convicting someone requires judicial proceedings, with lawyers etc. There’s no single metric here, it’s a spectrum.

      So the question then becomes, what is due process for the denial of one of the fundamental, explicitly constitutionally protected rights? I dare say the bar should be really high here. The 72-hour delay under the described conditions may be within acceptable limits, but an outright denial? I don’t think so.

  13. How about this, instead of voting to prohibit people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns, instead we vote that lists with no due process or notices to those on the list can not be used for any administrative task in the United States?

  14. Wow-I’m still voting for Ted Cruz. I live in Illinois-Mark Kirk is a brain-damaged RINO. Check your hero’s voting record. Marginally better than Dick “I’m the worst senator” Durbin.And send him some money-he’ll need it when he’s unemployed next year and ultra left “war hero” Tammy Duckworth is elected. DUH… Never seen such a clueless bunch…RALPH gets it. Cruz is the only candidate worth a damn…and how is this violating due process? 3 days? THAT’S the normal delay in the great state of Illinois. Nothing perfect this side of Jesus…and it ain’t Mark Kirk.

  15. Politics is a dirty game. If you are totally true to your principles, you don’t get elected and you do no one any good. If you have no principles, you get elected, but you do no one any good.

    I’m voting for whoever I think can defeat Hillary, period. She is the absolute worst of all possible outcomes. If someone has to compromise to take her down, I won’t like it, but I won’t abandon them for it.

  16. If there’s enough probably cause for them to get a search warrant for possible terrorist plans, why are they circle jerking around until they buy a gun?

  17. Bad news here for sure

    another point to think about is police are being trained/taught that the founding fathers were in fact terrorists. so definitions are important. how will terrorists be defined?

    something else to think about is the phrase that shows up on the side of a lot of police cars “to serve and to protect”, but the sentence doesn’t says who most all people take that to mean to serve and protect me or us or “the people” and that NOT what it means. Words matter. the courts have been clear that the police have no duty to protect an individual

    another backdoor way to erode rights all in the name of safety. Shame shame I know your name

  18. So Cruz supporters are shocked that a politician is acting like a politician? Every single one of these bastards would nuke an orphanage if it was the only thing standing between them and more power. You’re in the USSA now.

  19. So if the feds don’t “prove” their allegations within 72hr the sale goes thru. The feds should also have to remove you from their BS list.

    How about if a citizen finds/suspects that are on the Obama watch list can challenge it and the feds have to prove their allegations within 72hr.

  20. This seems like a recipe for a de facto national 3-day waiting period. Just put every name you can find on the list.

  21. And what are the Dems giving us for this? Are we getting SBR’s taken off the NFA? No… Well are we at least getting the Ruski import ban lifted? What about 7n6 back? NO again…

    Translation don’t make compromises with Democrats. It’s just like making a deal with the devil.

  22. The actual excerpt:
    (B) Upon being notified of a prospective transfer under
    subparagraph (A), the Attorney General or the United States
    attorney for the district in which the licensee is located
    may–
    “(i) delay the transfer of the firearm for a period not to
    exceed 72 hours; and
    “(ii) file an emergency petition in a court of competent
    jurisdiction to prohibit the transfer of the firearm.
    “(C)(i) An emergency petition filed under subparagraph
    (B)(ii) shall be granted upon a showing of probable cause to
    believe that the transferee has committed or will commit an
    act of terrorism.
    “(ii) In the case of an emergency petition filed under
    subparagraph (B)(ii) to prohibit the transfer of a firearm,
    the petition may only be granted after a hearing–
    “(I) of which the transferee receives actual notice; and
    “(II) at which the transferee has an opportunity to
    participate with counsel.
    “(D) The Attorney General may arrest and detain any
    transferee with respect to whom an emergency petition is
    granted under subparagraph (C).
    “(E) For purposes of this paragraph–
    “(i) the term `known or suspected terrorist’ means a
    person determined by the Attorney General to be known (or
    appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in
    conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or
    related to terrorism, or providing material support or
    resources for terrorism;
    “(ii) the term `material support or resources’ has the
    meaning given the term in section 2339A; and
    “(iii) the term `terrorism’ includes international
    terrorism and domestic terrorism, as defined in section
    2331.”.
    So, the person is:
    notified(B)(I)
    Allowed counsel (B)(II)
    (D) indicates such “probable cause” should lead to an arrest. Which is the legal standard.
    Note:Not all cases require jury, many misdemeanor’s require no jury and such cases still can lead to right revocation.
    As such, I conclude the goal of the amendment was to get “suspected terrorists” indited. With the advantage here being the government knows where the individual is. Knowing full well “probable cause” is still a hurdle the government will have trouble clearing, as it is supposed to be.

    • As for the compromise, the amendment, better incentives adjudicated individual reporting, restores veterans gun rights, funds gun right restoration program, clarifies law allow federally mentally adjudicated individuals being put in the system.

    • This sounds suspiciously like due-process to me. IF you are on a special list, you will not be able to buy a firearm on the spot. You either get the transfer delayed 3 day or get arrested. If the petition is not brought before the court within 72 hours the sale goes ahead. But seeing as the person needs to be notified and given council and a court date within 72 hours, AND the petition successful in order to block the transfer. Seem fine by me, the only kicker is the de-facto 3-day delay that will probably happen.

  23. Funny how the only “compromise” is when they’re giving up our rights… As a Texan I’m ashamed that my senators gave into the demands of the pinkos running this country. I just wish we could recall these two worthless rinos…

  24. Obama will veto it because it does not go far enough. The Republicans will use that veto as an excuse not to allow Obama’s bill out of committee. Although I do not trust Republicans or any political party for that matter, this sounds more like the usual moves and counter moves of politics.

  25. I’m with you, justice delayed is justice denied. I’m against mandatory waiting periods. However, I wouldn’t mind too much if the terrorist-watchers in the government get a heads-up during the NICS check when someone suspected of being a terrorist threat buys a gun so that they can check them out again if they haven’t in a while. But what the hell does “probable cause that the individual is plotting terrorism” even mean? Is that suspicion? If they’re guilty of conspiracy, they can be taken into custody. If they’re not criminals, they have rights to liberty that must be respected. We need to write laws with the expectation that they will be twisted and abused in every way possible by a corrupt government. Civilian disarmament advocates would interpret desire to purchase a firearm designed for self-defense as prima facie evidence that an individual is plotting terrorism. Democrats could enforce that into law, disarming us. “Only dangerous, unhinged people want guns. Everyone knows they’re dangerous to their owners. Ergo, if you want a gun, especially an ‘assault weapon’, that’s evidence to suspect that you’re plotting to murder people.”

  26. Reading the headline I hoped the Republicans had done something clever (Like including “poison pill” language requiring the deportation of any foreign nationals on the no-fly list). Then I woke up and remembered no one has used the words “clever” and “Republican” in the same sentence for a century or so.

  27. These things need to happen before a person is put on the list:
    1: Person to be put on the list needs to be informed that they are being put on the list.
    2:Person needs to be informed why they are being put on the list.
    3:Person is to be provided with legal representation at the expense of the accuser,the government.
    4:Person is to be guaranteed a trial within a week and if found innocent,the government must agree to a cash settlement.
    5:The list must be published on the internet and broken down statistically by race,religion,sex,ect.,ect. If it is found that the government is singling out groups like gun owners,little White grandmas,republicans,ect.,ect.then the government must allow them to sue for civil rights violations and made to pay for the person or groups legal representation.

  28. I thought this was the wrong bill when I first saw it last night, but I was wrong, and since then I’ve read every relevant part of the amendment and the bill’s action I can.
    As a couple of people commented on above, this amendment is total and complete political grandstanding and gamesmanship. It has now, and had then, no chance of becoming law, and even the sponsors themselves knew that and counted on that. They created it solely so that they could say there was an alternative and that the democrats voted against it.
    I don’t like that kind of politics, but that’s all that it is. There was no attempt at compromise, there was only the attempt to make the Democrats look like they were not supporting a compromise. They are intentionally backing the dems into an all or nothing debate, knowing they will get nothing if that is the case.
    I still think it’s shitty.

  29. The entirety of the presidential field is catastrophic. It starting to seem to me that populating presidential races from the senate is possibly worse than doing it from reality TV.

  30. If I had a dollar for every time I have said, “you can trust Sen. Coryn….”

    And seriously, if you can get a warrant together that can convince a judge somebody is plotting terrorism, that you can arrest them for it, not put them on a list! Incidentally, how do you write out a convincing warrant regarding terrorist plotting without revealing “sensitive information”?

    This falls squarely into the NOT ONE DAMN INCH category.

  31. During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s ‘probable cause’ — the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant — that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright.”

    If the feds are sitting on “probable cause” evidence that someone is plotting terrorism: why are they not arresting and prosecuting that person?

    • That’s my query Chip. I guess it doesn’t make sense(unless you’re a kenyan/islamic socialist) to target Muslim terrorists,Cartel criminals,Chinese cyber goons or Russian hackers. It’s easier to roust 3 or 80 year old white females in wheelchairs at the airport(probable cause?). Merry Christmas to you and yours BTW.

  32. You folks have heard of “doctor shopping” well this will just give the feds an excuse to go judge shopping.

    Yeah, I know the whole thing stinks of failure to follow due process, since you can’t challenge being on the list and for all any of us know we are already on the list. This is nothing more than a list of enemies of whoever is in power. Any Republican who votes for this is an idiot who needs to have their ass kicked for trying to be Democrat Lite and going along with statist oppression!

  33. Then are the American people going to wake up and start voting some of these clowns out of office, John corn hole lost my vote a long time ago.
    Try going to numbers USA and see where he stands on immigration, for that matter go to numbers USA and see where your senators and congressmen stand on matters like immigration.

Leave a Reply

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