Looks like we will be getting universal background checks, no gun list etc.

[ScottDLS]

Hopefully this can die a deserved death in the House. I understand the tactics of Cornyn's proposed bill to address the need to "do something". I personally don't think we should have federal background checks for any non-NFA firearms purchases from dealers, but that ship sailed almost 20 years ago.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.

...If I understand the bill correctly...

So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?

Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?

How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.

Labeling someone something because of their views is far from having evidence to get an arrest warrant too, and I believe that's the point.

[jb2012]

Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.

...If I understand the bill correctly...

So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?

Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?

How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.

Labeling someone something because of their views is far from having evidence to get an arrest warrant too, and I believe that's the point.

I like your idea. If it absolutely has to go like this, the entity responsible for negligently/ignorantly/purposefully placing you on a no-buy list should be held responsible in civil and criminal court.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.

...If I understand the bill correctly...

So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?

Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?

How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.

Labeling someone something because of their views is far from having evidence to get an arrest warrant too, and I believe that's the point.

I like your idea. If it absolutely has to go like this, the entity responsible for negligently/ignorantly/purposefully placing you on a no-buy list should be held responsible in civil and criminal court.

If it was a government agency that put you on the list good luck trying collect judgement from the government Plus most don't have 100s of thousands upfront to cover the cost of a lawyer.

[jb2012]

Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.

...If I understand the bill correctly...

So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?

Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?

How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.

Labeling someone something because of their views is far from having evidence to get an arrest warrant too, and I believe that's the point.

I like your idea. If it absolutely has to go like this, the entity responsible for negligently/ignorantly/purposefully placing you on a no-buy list should be held responsible in civil and criminal court.

If it was a government agency that put you on the list good luck trying collect judgement from the government Plus most don't have 100s of thousands upfront to cover the cost of a lawyer.

good point.. just a thought!

[TXCO]

Yes, fax and numerous e-mails.

[tomtexan]

[NotRPB]

Betsy Klein ‏@betsy_klein 27s27 seconds ago

3rd of 4 bills fails->Senate votes down R proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on gov terror watch list, sponsored by Cornyn
View conversation
3 retweets 0 likes
You Retweeted
Betsy Klein ‏@betsy_klein 18m18 minutes ago

Two of four bills rejected so far on the Senate floor...
View conversation
4 retweets 3 likes
You Retweeted
Betsy Klein ‏@betsy_klein 58m58 minutes ago

The first of four votes to consider gun control proposals have begun in the Senate. None are expected to pass.
June 17 Gallup Poll tweeted to @SenateDems and @SenateGOP

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-m ... aign=tiles

================


Meanwhile

Supreme Court Upholds Assault Weapon Bans In CT, & strict NY gun law
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06 ... n-bans-ct/

[twomillenium]

No citizen of the USA should be denied any right that they have to be denied without DUE PROCESS.(due process is the protective order that gives the citizens their constitutional rights) That is to keep the Yahoos from restricting the rights of citizens they don't like.

Come to think about it I no longer have the right to choose to buy health insurance or not. OH YEAH, I forgot it is not about health insurance it is about people control. Just as it is not about gun control, it is about people control.

[NotRPB]

JUST IN -- Senate rejected all four gun control measures that were up for consideration on Monday.
Feinstein plan failed, 47-53.

47 to 53 .... that's too close for comfort.

[psijac]

[TexasJohnBoy]

Who were the R's that voted for it??

[crazy2medic]

Who were the R's that voted for it??

Flake from Arizona and the republican senator from Illinois

[Redneck_Buddha]

Who were the R's that voted for it??

Flake from Arizona and the republican senator from Illinois

Flake of dandruff.