TexasCHLforum.com

Solaris wrote: ....Also publicly name them, so we can ban them from neighborhoods like we do child molesters.

This is a great example of what might have been a legitimate idea to protect the public that got widened to something else. We have a "registered offender" list that has some cases of much lesser crimes. We produce one list, name everyone on it, make it pretty hard to figure out what exactly they were convicted of, and make it impossible to get off that list. I don't feel bad for a single child molester on that list, but there are quite a few examples of people who are ruined for life that never posed a threat to you, me, or any children...

Be careful with stuff like this.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:On the "no fly" list, why are we not talking about taking away people's right to access the internet or use mobile communication devices if they are on the list? Those activities are much more dangerous than the ability to buy a gun.

Just to be clear, you're proposing that once you're added to this "list" (without judicial process, mind you) that we restrict their ability to communicate? Even if that was technical feasible, let alone practical, do you trust your government - or any government that much? Sounds like a horrible idea to me and very anti-American.

SewTexas wrote: So, there's no debate that the Orlanda shooter had been investigated by the FBI twice. But was he actually ever put on any watch list? No fly list? of any sort? I saw that he'd gone to Saudi Arabia, if that's true then #2 wouldn't have worked. So if he wasn't on a list, of these three suggestions #3 is the only one that "might" have worked and if the guy were really determined, he would have just gone behind his local McD's and bought one illegally.

I wouldn't say that either rule would have the Florida issue. It wouldn't have solved Columbine. It wouldn't have stopped Timothy McVay. I don't debate any of that. However, it just "makes sense" to me that if we think someone is so dangerous that they can't fly on a commercial aircraft after substantial security screening that they shouldn't be able to buy firearms. The only part I'm conflicted about is the whole non-judicial nature of the list, lack of transparency, and lack of an appeal process.

I think the "assault" weapon ban is less pragmatic than either of the first options. I think Obama should take it off the table and address the first two issues, which are likely less contentious and much more likely to (eventually) have some sort of impact.

cbunt1 wrote: The "No Fly List" has no, zero, nada, nothing in the way of due process associated with it. Once you're on it, it's up to you to figure out how to get off of it, there's no way to force your removal, and there's no need for a conviction or proof of activity or wrongdoing to be placed on the list.

I think that's a legit "legal" concern. You can be granted rights by the constitution to only have then taken away by a secret un-adjudicated process. Still, it strikes many people as funny (including myself) that we're willing to ban them from commercial airlines, but they can still buy weapons.

There has to be a better way...

So I listened to the video. He suggested 3 things:
1) Provide resources to law enforcement to actually enforce existing gun laws.
2) Don't allow people on the "no fly" list to buy firearms
3) Reinstate the assault weapons ban.

It strikes me as odd that that we rail against #3, which I believe that most people on the forum agree with and would support #1-#2. It might take a lot of heat off the whole thing if #1-#2 actually got done. The first two make sense to me. Even if I don't like the messenger, I agree with 2/3 of the message.

I personally don't have any use for a TEC-9, but I do own an AR and I see it simply as a modern rifle. I don't distinguish it from any other rifle of similar caliber that is semi automatic and takes a magazine. I'm not sure that the "assault weapon" ban would do much, other than make our collections a lot more valuable... It'd take decades for the ban to decrease the availability of these weapons in the US.