• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tonight, the Senate votes on four gun control bills [update: everything failed]

Status
Not open for further replies.
UPDATE (7:00PM EST): everything failed.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/20/48278...roposals-the-senate-is-voting-on-monday-again

The Democratic proposals:

Brought by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., it would give the Justice Department the power to stop anyone from purchasing a gun if that person has been on the federal terrorist watch lists sometime in the past five years. This measure would also make it easier for the government to halt a gun purchase, based on "reasonable belief" as opposed to "probable cause" that the individual will use the firearm to commit terrorism. The White House backs this measure.
An amendment by Chris Murphy, D-Conn., would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check and to expand the background check database. It would also extend background checks to Internet sales.
The GOP proposals:

This one from John Cornyn, R-Texas, would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terrorist watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. The government would have to show probable cause that the person is a known or suspected terrorist.
An amendment by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would clarify what it means to be found mentally deficient, and giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.
 

Maxim726X

Member
'This one from John Cornyn, R-Texas, would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terrorist watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. The government would have to show probable cause that the person is a known or suspected terrorist.'

Wow... Sanity from a Texas Republican?

The world very well may stop spinning.
 

commedieu

Banned
I hope these continue, but I can't help but feel only the GOP's will pass. And that we will issue another band aid and call it a day.

But anything is better than nothing.. I suppose.

Word on the street is none of them will get the 60 votes needed though?
 

Robiin

Member
Jesus America. How are these even proposals in 2016 and not written into law books since they started keeping records on suspected terrorists?
 

Wilsongt

Member
None are going to pass. The Republicans are all too willing to be on their knees with mouths open for that sweet, sweet NRA money.
 
'This one from John Cornyn, R-Texas, would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terrorist watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. The government would have to show probable cause that the person is a known or suspected terrorist.'

Wow... Sanity from a Texas Republican?

The world very well may stop spinning.
All it does is more or less shorten the wait from 2 weeks if you were wrongly put on the list to 3 days
 

collige

Banned
Surprisingly, the only idea here that's a bad one is the first (though not too surprisingly since Dianne Feinstein has well-documented authoritarian bullshit views).
 
None are going to pass. The Republicans are all too willing to be on their knees with mouths open for that sweet, sweet NRA money.

The NRA is fine with Cornyn's proposal.

Jesus America. How are these even proposals in 2016 and not written into law books since they started keeping records on suspected terrorists?

Because as Kristoffer said, taking away someone's rights because some shlub in an FBI outpost in Kansas decided to put a brown kid on a list without due process isn't exactly constitutional.
 
I just want to add that I don't think gun ownership should be a constitutional right. But it is, and until that changes, you can't take rights away from normal people who have committed no crime.

Well, actually.

You could theoretically read the 2nd amendment in such a way that it is intended for militia purposes, and various interpretations over the years from courts have also included self defense in that definition. And you could further read an implicit connotation that the right to harm other people outside of defense is not protected. Further, it is already constitutional to take rights away from people who are potentially harmful to others. So using that as a basis, you could say that people who could very potentially harm other people lose their right to self defense because they are not of a right mind. But that's tricky.

And further, you would have to bring people to court and provide evidence of all of this because there is a 5th amendment. So, this is... Uh... Hard.

Something that might work is a ban on weapon purchases by anyone convicted of violent crimes. That's not unreasonable and has precedent. And it would have stopped Omar, because he beat the living shit out of his ex-wife.
 

TS-08

Member
If the government can provide probable cause that someone is a terrorist, why don't they get a warrant and arrest that person?
 

Wiz

Member
I think the NRA supports the GOP proposals, so if anything is going to pass its those two.
 
'This one from John Cornyn, R-Texas, would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terrorist watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. The government would have to show probable cause that the person is a known or suspected terrorist.'

Wow... Sanity from a Texas Republican?

The world very well may stop spinning.

Don't worry, they will set up the court specifically so it always takes more than 3 days to process a case.
 
The Dem's A and B sound like a good start. Add to the pile the Rep's B, and there's something at least.

To the both of them I ask, only 5 years? Should be permanent. I would never trust a "reformed" suspected terrorist unless evidence cleared their name without a doubt. Even former criminals that have committed certain crimes.
 
First one is bullshit. These three seem fine though.

An amendment by Chris Murphy, D-Conn., would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check and to expand the background check database. It would also extend background checks to Internet sales.
This one from John Cornyn, R-Texas, would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terrorist watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. The government would have to show probable cause that the person is a known or suspected terrorist.
An amendment by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would clarify what it means to be found mentally deficient, and giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
I posted this in PoliGAF earlier:

There's no doubt they're going to fail. The reason for the filibuster was to force a vote so Republicans would once again have to vote against common sense regulations that an overwhelming majority of the country supports. This is about having ammo against them in November. (No pun intended.)
 

antonz

Member
3 of the 4 are pretty solid recommendations. Mental Health one is a great step in the right direction that should be applied to a lot of different lists the government has including the Terrorist watch list. You need to have the right to challenge your name on any sort of watch list and in a reasonable fashion. Years of fighting etc. trying to clear your name is not an acceptable process.
 

Adaren

Member
I feel like we've been trying to close the gunshow loophole for forever.

Like, people refer to it as "loophole"! How can it be so hard to close it!
 

TheTurboFD

Member
I'm an avid gun owner and I'm down with all of these except the feinstein's. The other 3 are completely reasonable. I've always wanted background checks for all purchases but what strikes me weird is the fact they through in "internet gun sales". That doesn't make sense considering you already need a background check for any gun you purchase online due to it having to be shipped to an FFL dealer who will provide the check before giving it to you.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
They would really be dumb enough to walk into that trap?


....



...yeah, I know.
It's not
only
about being dumb, it's about being controlled/paid/threatened by the NRA. The second they vote for any type of gun control, the NRA will put maximum effort into getting them voted out of office and replaced with another one of their puppets.
 
Will he even be there? Or is he still trying to flip supers?
You know what? He's been saying he wants to "make a case to the superdelegates" for a long time now, but I don't think he's ever spent the time actually making a case to fucking anyone because he hates the goddamn establishment so much!

But anyway. He's missed almost every vote this year so we'll see.
 
[European perspective here] The way the summary in the OP is phrased the GOP proposals are somewhat ignorant and should not pass. One, that mental health amendment is just goddamn ignorant (see Last Week Tonight for why). Two, you can't regulate people's desire to try to buy a gun. How would that 'alert to trying' even work? One alert for every time a black person (Allah forbid you're a muslim or vaguely 'Arab' looking) comes into a gun shop?
It's nice of them to try, but these would create more problems than solve.

The Democratic proposals are extensions of existing regulations (though based on the Patriot Act stuff by former Republican-dominated administrations) and can be easily put into practise while keeping the extra workload for law enforcement to a minimum. It may not sound tough, but in this case it's just avoiding an already suspected individual from escalating further.

Again, based on the very short summary in the OP. It's sad to think none of them could pass though. I mean, how much more dead people versus money does it take?
 

Maxim726X

Member
Just to be sure- There's no pork in these bills?

I would like to know so that when I bring this up in conversation to my conservative friends, that they don't tell me 'Well, it would have passed if the sneaky Dems didn't try to fit all of this other bullshit in!'
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
I'm pro-gun and I support the last three. The first one is way too Orwellian. I could put you on a terror watch list tomorrow if I knew your address.
 
Don't worry, they will set up the court specifically so it always takes more than 3 days to process a case.

Nail on the head right here.

People need to keep in mind this process is coming from the same people who say we should enforce the laws we already have and then do everything to undermine the people trying to enforce them through less funding and other tomfoolery.
 
I'm pro-gun and I support the last three. The first one is way too Orwellian. I could put you on a terror watch list tomorrow if I knew your address.
Good. We already live in an Orwellian world and this will just force a crisis that opens up the process of the no-fly list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom