BREAKING: Democrats Filibustering to Pass “Terrorist Watchlist” Gun Ban

 

download

Senate Democrats led by Senator Chris Murphy (D) are mounting a filibuster right now to have a bill banning those on the “Terrorist Watchlist” from purchasing firearms debated. We have covered this concept in the past, but the basic argument is simple to understand: Democrats (led by Hillary Clinton) believe that people “suspected by the FBI of terrorist connections” should be prohibited from having firearms. Republicans are understandably wary of any proposal that would restrict the Constitutionally protected rights of American citizens (the right to own a firearm) based on the mere suspicion of a crime, a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

From Politico:

The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”
Story Continued Below

“I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful, bipartisan way,” Murphy continued on the Senate floor on Wednesday, after he first started his filibuster at about 11:20 a.m.

At the same time, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are exploring whether there is common ground on a deal to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Currently, the two parties are backing very different approaches to resolving instances where someone feels they’ve been wrongly put on a watch list, and therefore cannot purchase a gun.

At this time there’s no specific proposal on the floor — Democrats are simply filibustering to “fill space” while they come up with a bill. The latest version proposed by the Democrats would permit the Attorney General to name anyone to the “Terrorist Watchlist” at any time for any reason with no means of redress to have one’s self removed.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Well, sounds like it’s time to use the nuclear option to close debate and tell the Demokkkrats to suck it.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      How about you stop terrorists from coming into the nation to be with?

      Oh that is right, leftist import these people as they create problems that they are just dying to “fix”.

      These morons are playing a losing game.

      1. avatar John Eden says:

        We are so screwed, Henry. So screwed.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      Sen. John Cornyn should tell Feinstein to suck it.

    3. avatar Tod Fassl says:

      According to the Boston Globe, there is a high standard for probable cause for getting on the terrorist watch list. (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/06/19/terror-cases-high-standard-for-probable-cause/wFn3RT5NlqEtRkKXZp6wSM/story.html) The Orlando shooter had been placed on the watch list and then removed for lack of probable cause. I guess you could still argue that even terrorists should be allowed to have guns but not too many people would agree with that.

      1. If the people on that list were terrorists, why were they not prosecuted?

  2. avatar PeterW says:

    H/T George Orwell

    1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

      Nice!

  3. avatar Chris Morton says:

    What’s next, “protective custody”?

    Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Obama…

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      The third Reich may not have run its 1000 years course, but these progressives are certainly willing to try, try again.

    2. Start small, Chris.

      Mandatory yellow star badges.

  4. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

    Conceal it! Carry it! Carry on!

    1. avatar RocketScientist says:

      Hey guys, look. The Nazi-sympathizer is posting again! Lets all listen to political commentary from a guy who supports fascism and genocide of minority groups!

  5. avatar jwm says:

    Wow. Democrats aren’t even pretending that they’re not nazis now. Restrict civil rights with no due process and no appeal.

    I had hoped not to live to see this but we may be close to having only the cartridge box option left. If the hag gets elected in november it may well be our only chance at freedom.

    1. avatar Drizzle says:

      Go get fucked.

  6. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

    Ah, taking away several Constitutional Rights at once, all without due process; a Statists wet dream.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      It is a LOT more than just taking away rights without due process! It is taking away rights permanently with no way to regain them!

      Can you imagine if someone could lose their right to practice their religion forever without due process and no way to regain their right to practice their religion ever?

      1. avatar No Soup 4 You says:

        Senators on the floor right now saying — BAN the AR – 47 ……. huh ..? ” There are no checks if buying guns from internet or gun show …… huh …? ( LIES , all lies ) — CALL your Senators and Reps . NOW . TODAY — DO NOT depend on the NRA to do it for you !! ………..Never let a crisis go to waste……………

        1. avatar X Water Walker in CT says:

          I would, but those two assholes in the picture are my elected senators.

  7. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    I am OK with a no buy list for terrorists only and ONLY if….

    1. There is probable cause to get on the list presented to a judge.

    2. There is a way to find out if you are on the list.

    3. There is an easy way to get due process and contest your name on the list and present evidence.

    I am not for unelected and unknown bureaucrats maintaining a list of secret names with no way to get off.

    1. avatar TravisP says:

      If you can’t be trusted with a gun you shouldn’t be walking the streets

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      You can bring charges at that point, so just do that

      1. avatar cenonce says:

        The problem with this idea is that you can’t bring charges. It’s probable cause of being a suspected terrorist. You haven’t done anything yet to be charged with. And that’s why the whole thing the Democrats are suggesting is just insane.

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          “Probable cause for suspicion” doesn’t sound very much like the probable cause that I know.

    3. avatar DetroitMan says:

      Good ideas, but I don’t think you went far enough with 2. The government should be required to notify you when you are put on the list.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      FortWorthColtGuy,

      No. Government bureaucrats screw good people all the time due to political agendas, bias, corruption, coercion, incompetence, honest mistakes, and limited resources. We must never ever allow government bureaucrats to strip us of our rights. The only time that we should ever support government stripping someone of their rights is after that person received a fair trial and a jury of their peers found them guilty. Even that process can lead to false imprisonments. Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to happen very often.

    5. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      “list for terrorists”

      They are not talking about a list of terrorists. They are talking a list of maybe terrorists.

      So far, that isn’t illegal, and shouldn’t be.

      Remember, they want this list so that next month they can add all NRA members to the list. The all Tea Partiers. The all Republicans. Then all citizens.

      1. avatar MikeP says:

        It’s worse than that. It’s not a list of suspected terrorists. It’s a list of names and aliases (not identities) that are suspected of matching a suspected terrorist or used by a suspected terrorist. All people with the same name, even partial name, are “on the list”. It’s how Ted Kennedy was “on the list” when the list had “T. Kennedy”.

        1. avatar B says:

          I like to use Ted as an example of the absurdity of the list to Dems, but he was actually on there for supporting and having ties to the IRA.

    6. avatar James in AZ says:

      1: probable cause

      That means an arrest warrant, not gun control shenanigans

    7. avatar Mike J says:

      How exactly does one present evidence to prove he’s not about to become a terrorist? Will it be a battle of the fortune tellers? Tea leaves versus tarot cards? I think anyone put on the list will lose that battle every time.

    8. avatar Friedrich says:

      The thing is, say that omar guy found out he was in that list, he couldbhave gotten off of it, since he had not commited a crime when he bought the guns.

      There is no way to make a law that would be effective.

      Terrorist would check to see if they are on the list or not.

      I think the failure came on the f.b.i’s part, they should have kept tabs on this guy.

  8. avatar CK says:

    Citizen: I disagree with the way the government is moving
    AG: You are a subversive! You can’t disagree with the Government! All your rights are now gone and you are considered a threat to the government…

    Welcome to the United States of North Korea…

    1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

      I start to get real up tight about things like this, and then I remember:

      1- There’s 360,000,000 guns in civilian hands in the U.S., about 20,000,000 of which would be effective in modern combat.
      2- These guns are dispersed among 100,000,000 civilian gun-owners of which roughly 3,000,000 (3%) would be willing to actively take up arms against the U.S. government if left no other option.

      Then I stop worrying quite so much. Still remain vigilant, still vote, still write my elected officials, but I saves me a lot of unnecessary fear. There WILL be a path for redress of grievances, or we will make one.

      1. avatar James in AZ says:

        And then you realise of those 3mil people, almost none knows:

        who are the top targets for direct action, where they live, their PSD strength, and how to assasinate;

        where are the key infrastructures that support all governmental and military functions, their defence capability against small team infiltration, and how to destruct them;

        how to communicate with each other under intense surveillance;

        how many boys in Green and Blue are going to be with us;

        and if and when we finish installing anarchy, who’s gonna be the new govt again and are they any better?

        When i think of these, my tinfoil hat comes back on faster than Columbia’s reentry

        1. avatar Vv ind says:

          Im no expert. Im just speculating. Id say at that point you cede the union (using force? Or through legal channels?) with a conglomerate of states that are interested. You adopt the old government minus the infringing laws with the original constitution as the blueprint.

  9. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Need more info.

    What criteria lands you on a terrorist watch list?

    Who manages the list? What are their credentials?

    Who determines who is actually a credible threat on the list?

    What due process and evidence must be available and analyzed before a ban happens?

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      There are no correct answers to those questions that justify infringing a fundamental right.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Now those are some real posers, and to top it off, the answers are secret. As best as memory serves, the AG or any of the multiple intelligence and security agencies can propose anyone to add to a list. This includes the FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, NCS, the State Department, and the NSA. Moreover, there is not just one list, there are many lists, from a very broad one to very narrow and focused ones.

  10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    People on the terrorist watch list shouldn’t be allowed to vote. And since most of the Democrats are terrorists they should all be on the watch list and be denied the right to vote. I believe they call it a slippery slope.

  11. avatar potato says:

    Can they not see that secret lists, even no fly lists, is the essence of a tyrannical government. If there’s no due process, then it’s unconstitutional. PERIOD!

    I say let them pass this crap. Then they’ll get a dose of the other side effect… the MOB! And I’m not talking about the Tony Soprano kind of mob. I’m talking about an unruly populous with pitch forks and… nuff said.

    I’d rather have the terrorists, than to fear some secret list.

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    And they’re the ACLU’s party of choice.
    Nothing screams liberty like revoking rights without due process.

    1. avatar Alphapod says:

      Well, according to the ACLU you don’t have an RKBA, so they’re probably alright with it.

      https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/heller-decision-and-second-amendment

  13. avatar MadMedic says:

    Provide transparency and an appeals process to such a list, with an honest avenue to contest it. Make a judge review the evidence before placement on said list.

    Then trade the list to the democrats for removing suppressors from the NFA.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Or we can remove the NFA/GCA/Hughes and all state/local bans and we just remove Democrats from office?!

    2. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

      No trades, you don’t make deals with the devil and come out a winner. There is absolutely no reason to keep a secret list of people who may or may not have done anything wrong, and take their rights away from them without a jury hearing evidence of the alleged crimes they committed and coming to a verdict.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Bingo.

    3. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      It should be very straightforward to make it on the list. A combination of criteria needs to be fulfilled beyond a reasonable doubt for starters. There has to be clear:

      Intent
      Opportunity
      Capability

      Without all three, it’s moot. The Orlando extremist fulfilled all three criteria long before he acquired the rifle.

      He should have remained under active observation* as soon as they linked him with ISIS (especially if he has repeat or prolonged contact with them). Any prolonged association with a terrorist or hate group should warrant closer scrutiny. That is common sense. However, observation is all that should happen until a law is broken or if there is ample undisputed evidence of a future violent act.

      *Active observation = an under cover police unit should have been observing the guy.

      1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        Note that intent is the most important (and likely abused) component on this list that requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are planning to commit a crime before any sort of legal or police action can be taken.

        It’s another matter entirely if the act of associating or sympathizing with a terrorist or hate group warrants a separate govt or police intervention.

    4. avatar Red in CO says:

      You wanna give that power to a judge? Yeah, no thanks. Remember, it was a judge who sentenced the convicted perp to six months in the Stanford Rape Case. Even judicial oversight is by no means foolproof.

      1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        How is the concept of this list any different than the police observing a person of interest that they suspect may be tied to a criminal group?

        I’m just curious if this list circumvents due process or if it is just a label for a terrorism specific list similar to the FBI’s most wanted (or subcategory lists).

        Of course there has to be compelling evidence, due process, etc.

  14. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Just remember Leftist, if you want to throw out due process anything that happens next will be solely on you…

  15. avatar David P. says:

    I say give it to them, if they agree to making the FBI take the case to court within 3 days and if any other laws are passed that restrict guns, accessories, ammunition or the people allowed to posses either would invalidate all other gun control laws and anyone passing such law would be prohibited from the office in which the law was passed under.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Lovely. The Star Chamber comes to America, courtesy of the Democrat party.

    And because we object to it, we will be the first people on the list.

    What a country.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And that, Ralph, is precisely why we have the Second Amendment.

      Of course you already know that and I am simply preaching to the choir.

  17. avatar Swilson says:

    I don’t know that common ground will ever be found with these people- it will always be a continuing cycle, I’m afraid. What it boils down to are 2 fundamentally different interpretations of government. And I don’t just mean between the politicians, I mean between the rest of us. You have left-leaning progressives who see the government (an authority in general) as beneficent and omnipotent: the answer to all of society’s problems. When it comes to society, we must depend on the gov’t for everything- it must be ever present in the lives of citizens in many, if not all facets of life. So if that gov’t has a secret list, then the inhabitants of that list are unquestionably bad guys who should not be able to arm themselves. On the other side you have those of us who believe gov’t is a necessary evil that should interact and be interacted with as little as possible. It can pretty much be broken down into individual theories on personal responsibility, both to yourself and your fellow citizens. I don’t believe we can ever give up enough ground to make satisfy them (and why would we) and I don’t think they can ever back off enough to satisfy us.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Yep. Folks love to bemoan the lack of common ground, but the truth is that it stems from two irreconcilable views on government. THAT is why there is no political coming ground these days; the two viewpoints are totally incompatible.

  18. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Take action:
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/your-action-is-needed-now

    Does anyone know how we could go about putting the Democrats in the Senate and House on the no fly list. I think they should be made to suffer so they can get a bit more experience with what it means to be on the receiving end of no due process.

    1. avatar Dev says:

      I just heard on the news radio that the NRA is willing to support a delay when someone on this secret list tries to buy a gun so that local prosecutors can get a court order or warrant to stop the sale. If this is true, and I haven’t had a chance to verify, the NRA will be receiving my membership card in the mail, shredded.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        There is currently nothing in the law that prevents the FBI from cross-referencing NICS checks with whatever list they happen to have: terrorism watch lists, the Jelly of the Month Club, knock yourselves out.

        Current law also allows them up to 3 days to complete any NICS check.

        So they can do this without any new laws. Got a concern about some numpty buying a gun? Bring an indictment within 3 days or STFU.

      2. avatar MikeB in WI says:

        Here is Chris Cox’s statement:

        Wednesday, June 15, 2016

        Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

        We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.

          So, is there a time limit on this “investigation” or does the FBI just create a file number and you lose your rights forever?

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          They are not terrorists until charged with acts of terrorism–which acts may include the purchasing of firearms. I am appalled that the NRA is taking this position. A suspension of a constitutionally guaranteed right based on a mere suspicion is blatantly unconstitutional. There must be evidence sufficient to support a finding of probable cause before even a temporary suspension of the right may be permissible.

          Moreover, there have been four Islamic terrorist attacks outside of 9/11, and NOT ONE of the perpetrators were on a terrorist watch list. The government claims it has successfully prevented a (secret number) of attacks–so what is the need for this legislation? Does the FBI back it?

        3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          Hate to have to say it, but the FBI is almost always going to support the President in any political question.

  19. avatar Michigunner says:

    If additional measures are taken to involve due process for the terrorist watch list, then yes. I agree. Nobody wants terrorists to be able to be able to buy guns in the U.S. But without a way to have your case heard regarding being included on the list, no way in hell would I support this.

    1. Just limit the watch list to those convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

  20. avatar Oxygenthief says:

    I’m OK with TEMPORARILY restricting gun sales to someone suspected of terrorist activities. Make the procedure the same as obtaining a search warrant or wire tap order. Wire taps and search warrants are time sensitive, they can only be acted upon for a “short” duration (quotes used because in some cases its not so short for wire taps). In all cases though, the investigators must request such an action and a judge is accountable for allowing said action.

    Right now, there is no process for putting someone on a list or removing them, no agency has been given authority to request said restriction and no one is accountable when someone does get added.

    I don’t believe in tying the hands of our investigators, but our 5th amendment rights aren’t up for negotiation. Adhere to the standard and this could be something beneficial. Make an overt attempt at nullifying the bill of rights and we will soon have a very big problem on our hands.

  21. avatar Joe R. says:

    I’m for a gun ban if we can just [AS ALREADY AGREED BETWEEN US] chuck the Constitution, then you can all watch your a_ _, because we’re going to do my version of anything goes, and I can promise you that it’s likely you won’t like it.

  22. avatar Robert April says:

    Absolutely stunning that these representatives believe the best thing to do here is use a list created without due process and then have that be the criteria that decides your access to a firearm. Absolutely ridiculous and underscores how critical appointments to the supreme court are. If this gets traction, it must be fought at every level.

  23. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Wait, is this the same terrorist watch list that the Democrats were calling an Orwellian, Kafka-esque, unconstitutional overreach by an out-of-control government when George W. Bush was in charge of it?

    I wonder if they’re familiar with the word “hypocrisy”…

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Yeah, they’ve very familiar with it, it’s an activity commonly engaged in by Republicans, but the left is simply incapable of it, in the same way that triangles cannot have four sides.

  24. avatar 33AD says:

    I’m sure we’ll just have to pass this bill in order to see what’s in it – we know how that works out for everyone.

    The speed in which they can operate when the liberal fervor hits Brings to light how slow they work otherwise.

    Work faster, liberals, before the sheep wake up and start asking questions!

  25. avatar manny says:

    You mean that, because a Federal agency (FBI) entrusted with the protection of American citizens failed to identify a threat that ended killing us, I have to surrender my AR-15?
    How does that, exactly, works out?
    I feel that I should be able to buy bigger guns, since our government is incompetent in it’s fiduciary duties.

  26. avatar Madcap_Magician says:

    I would support this IF…

    … someone poison pills it with a little clause that says that people under FBI investigation also are ineligible to run for public office.

    That would totally be worth it.

  27. avatar PeterK says:

    Ah good ol’ political grandstanding. The only travesty will be if they get anything passed. Let them weep and wail and gnash their teeth on the floor for a while. Give the people a show. Just don’t let anyone get the idea that there is any substance to this.

  28. avatar BDub says:

    Who watches the watch-list? Ask yourselves that, proggies, before you dive down that rabbit hole.

  29. avatar Sian says:

    You know what? And this is probably wild and controversial…

    I’d maybe be okay with this on two conditions.

    1: Those put on the watchlist have a clear and simple method to contest it, and get the entry reviewed by an unbiased panel, under public record, without requiring their own direct participation, which is optional.

    2: If one was found to have been wrongly watchlisted, they are owed significant compensation for the breach of their rights, to be paid within 30 days of the judgement.

  30. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Eh-wait and see. And buy buy buy guns and ammo. My NRA membership lapsed-should I re-up and get on a “list”???

  31. avatar Libertarian says:

    If Government want all are criminals see rainwater collecting on your propertie if only called one example

  32. avatar Kyle (in Upstate New York) says:

    So if the NRA is okay with this, how do we stop it? Can it be stopped now, or will all the Republicans now just cave and go along with it?

  33. avatar CarlosT says:

    Talk til you die, Chris. The Senate doing nothing is a good thing.

  34. avatar bob in IN says:

    Don’t you already know Hillary thinks all NRA members are terrorists.

  35. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

    It’s half past 8 in the morning now. I wonder who sold my God-given rights and dignity down the road last night while I was sleeping?

    These traitors and tyrants are not of the country I grew up in and loved.

    Tom

  36. avatar Matt says:

    Are people here actually defending potential terrorists’ right to purchase assault rifles? Like… is this actually a thing that is happening?
    You people are saying we should be banning Muslims entirely, but not their right to purchase assault rifles.
    I hope you realize how little sense you all make.

    1. The argument is banning Muslim immigration. Under the plenary powers doctrine, Congress has the constitutional authority to enact policies regarding immigration which, if applied to citizens, would be unconstitutional.

      In any event, the key word is “potential”. there were no convictions.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email