Republican Due Process Bill

[MDFF2008]

It's my understanding one of the bills debated Monday was a Republican bill that addressed the terror watch list but included due process and Democrats voted it down.

If so, what was the name of that bill?

We need to be slamming that all over the internet.

 

[AssMan]

It's my understanding one of the bills debated Monday was a Republican bill that addressed the terror watch list but included due process and Democrats voted it down.

If so, what was the name of that bill?

We need to be slamming that all over the internet.

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=195044

It was an Amendment by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently. The National Rifle Association backs the legislation, which the Senate also rejected in December.

 

[AssMan]

Further, in my mind at least, the fact that the Dems opposed this proves, once and for all, that they are actually coming for our guns. The public safety bit is just lip-service.

 

[ComeGet]

Pretty sure he called it the Shield Act.

My searches for it turned up nothing except something from years ago about protecting cities from EMPs.

I heard him describe it and it sounded good to me.

I don't know about how it was voted down. Solid Dems would not surprise me, though.

Edit:

Oh, yeah. I just remembered. The Dems pretext for canning the amendment was because they thought it was an undue burden for the FBI/whoever to vet someone on the list in every case when they tired to buy a gun and for a judge to have to look over the records to determine if the person was actually prohibited.

Or something like that.

 

[AssMan]

It's my understanding one of the bills debated Monday was a Republican bill that addressed the terror watch list but included due process and Democrats voted it down.

If so, what was the name of that bill?

We need to be slamming that all over the internet.

Pretty sure he called it the Shield Act.

My searches for it turned up nothing except something from years ago about protecting cities from EMPs.

I heard him describe it and it sounded good to me.

I don't know about how it was voted down. Solid Dems would not surprise me, though.

Edit:

Oh, yeah. I just remembered. The Dems pretext for canning the amendment was because they thought it was an undue burden for the FBI/whoever to vet someone on the list in every case when they tired to buy a gun and for a judge to have to look over the records to determine if the person was actually prohibited.

Or something like that.

Yes, it was called the SHIELD act:

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To Secure our Homeland from radical Islamists by Enhancing
Law enforcement Detection (``SHIELD''))

At the end add the following:
Sec. 5__. Hereafter, the Attorney General shall establish
a process by which--
(1) the Attorney General and Federal, State, and local law
enforcement are immediately notified, as appropriate, of any
request to transfer a firearm or explosive to a person who
is, or within the previous 5 years was, investigated as a
known or suspected terrorist;
(2) the Attorney General may delay the transfer of the
firearm or explosive for a period not to exceed 3 business
days and file an emergency petition in a court of competent
jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of the firearm or
explosive, and such emergency petition and subsequent hearing
shall receive the highest possible priority on the docket of
the court of competent jurisdiction and be subject to the
Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);
(3) the transferee receives actual notice of the hearing
and is provided with an opportunity to participate with
counsel and the emergency petition shall be granted if the
court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the
transferee has committed, conspired to commit, attempted to
commit, or will commit an act of terrorism, and if the
petition is denied, the Government shall be responsible for
all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees;
(4) the Attorney General may arrest and detain the
transferee for whom an emergency petition has been filed
where probable cause exists to believe that the individual
has committed, conspired to commit, or attempted to commit an
act of terrorism; and
(5) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
annually reviews and certifies the identities of known or
suspected terrorists under this section and the
appropriateness of such designation.

source: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/4749/text

 

[AssMan]

FYI, just sent an email to Warner asking for an explanation as to why he opposed this. Will post a response if I receive one.

 

[fred333]

Further, in my mind at least, the fact that the Dems opposed this proves, once and for all, that they are actually coming for our guns. The public safety bit is just lip-service.

"I'm not going to take everyone's guns away." —President Affirmative Action (speaking to police chiefs in Chicago, 2015)

"I don't think people should be allowed to own guns." —President Affirmative Action (his comment to John Lott the day the two met at Harvard)

I report, you decide.

 

[mac1_131]

Further, in my mind at least, the fact that the Dems opposed this proves, once and for all, that they are actually coming for our guns. The public safety bit is just lip-service.

Yes indeed. This exposes their real agenda.

 

[jbrown50]

Further, in my mind at least, the fact that the Dems opposed this proves, once and for all, that they are actually coming for our guns. The public safety bit is just lip-service.

Yes. It's a façade just like the ridiculous sit it. The Orlando shooter wasn't even on the terror watch list so a law automatically banning firearms purchases from persons on it wouldn't have made a difference. The FBI, even without the law in place, could have still red flagged him in NICS as a national security risk.

It's amazing how many dems I've talked to don't know all of this and are just buying the leftist koolaid by the gallons.

 

[BeoBill]

Yes. It's a façade just like the ridiculous sit it. The Orlando shooter wasn't even on the terror watch list so a law automatically banning firearms purchases from persons on it wouldn't have made a difference. The FBI, even without the law in place, could have still red flagged him in NICS as a national security risk.

It's amazing how many dems I've talked to don't know all of this and are just buying the leftist koolaid by the gallons.

You're confusing them with complicated facts. They may fall down if you aren't careful.

 

[tkd4life]

My question is, why aren't' the Republicans shouting this at the top of their lungs. Both Ryan and McConnell should be having press conferences daily saying that they agree with the Democrats. Terrorists should not be able to buy guns. The problem is that if we want to strip a persons constitutional rights away from them, we have to afford them due process. That is also one of the those American values that Obama says we must embrace in hard times. The problem is that is easier said than done. People need to understand that due process will undermine government investigations into terrorism. This has been confirmed by the FBI. Problem is that people on the no-fly list have been denied due process for the last decade. That is not right. Our government has essentially said that they have arbitrarily determined that someone can not participate in public transportation if you end up on a list that they have never disclosed the entrance criteria for said list. We should end that now.

I agree with No-Fly, No-Buy. However, I completely disagree with how the current list is managed and formulated. If we want no-fly no-buy, than we do away with the ******** process of the current no-fly list and completely overhaul the system. It's your move democrats.

 

[Patent Guy]

Thoughts in the Dem House "sit in"

I wonder how many Americans know that the House Dems now engaged in their “sit-in” tacitly opposed the "Shield" amended bill which would both expand our existing background checks to include terror watch listees AND preserve Due Process for the people on that (secret) watch list. The House “sit-in” narrative, as reported, clearly omits a big part of the story. Does anyone believe 90% of Americans are opposed to the Due Process clauses in the Constitution? The reality of the last few days in Congress (Senate and House) is actually pretty nuanced. So what did the Senators accomplish by killing Cornyn’s bill? We already have a range of state and federal background checks, and the National Instant Check System ("NICS check") we use now works and has stopped many thousands of purchases already, so why can't we get the same thing done for the unidentified folks on this secret terror watch list in 3 days? Cornyn’s background check bill at least gives our citizens "Due Process", as required by the 5th and 14th amendments. I’ll bet that if we checked, we’d find that most or all of those who are now protesting publicly opposed Cornyn’s background check bill (because the Dem’s leadership in the House and Ms. Feinstein said to oppose it). In the Senate, Cornyn and Feinstein (D-Cali) apparently attempted to find common ground on legislation to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms. But they ended up with very different proposals. Feinstein’s measure, the Democrats’ alternative version, failed by a 47-53 vote, probably because it would have violated the Second, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights of citizens by denying Due Process to prospective gun buyers on the watch list. It appears Feinstein opposed and questioned the feasibility of Cornyn’s bill, saying that it's “nearly impossible” to mandate the Department of Justice provide evidence within 72 hours. She also said the FBI’s database is “clearly vetted.” I’m confused by Feinstein’s statements here, because if the FBI watch list database is “clearly vetted” doesn’t that mean we have a reliable, vetted (presumably detailed) database which can be accessed during the 3 day waiting period? As you know, the NICS check system database is accessed in way less than 3 days, all over the country, every day of the year, thousands of times per day. IF we can use the NICS check "instantly" why can't we use the extra 3 days to review the "vetted" info on each terror watch list entry?

Maybe the list is not "vetted" so well. Even traditionally left-leaning groups (including the American Civil Liberties Union) have complained about the credibility of the FBI "watch list" database and argued that individuals such as former Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, were inadvertently added to it. The ACLU also said the database is “unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error.” Either way, the Shield method rejected by the Dems would give notice to the US that a watch list member wants to buy a gun and would give 3 days to determine whether they should have one, before releasing that gun, and if there is a false positive, or a wrong approval, we would at least know who applied and what gun they bought, even after the 3 days, all while preserving Due Process.

So what are House Dems actually doing? Is this really just Theater? If so, they should be called out for it, and publicly, because the Senate Dems killed the Shield amendment, and now ought to have to explain that choice.

All of this happens as we are still grieving. The Orlando murderer took a giant Karmic sh*t in our lives and invited us into his world of hate. We can decline that invitation and decline the invitation to be divided in this way.
PG

 

[ComeGet]

I wonder how many Americans know that the House Dems now engaged in their “sit-in” tacitly opposed the "Shield" amended bill which would both expand our existing background checks to include terror watch listees AND preserve Due Process for the people on that (secret) watch list. The House “sit-in” narrative, as reported, clearly omits a big part of the story. Does anyone believe 90% of Americans are opposed to the Due Process clauses in the Constitution? The reality of the last few days in Congress (Senate and House) is actually pretty nuanced. So what did the Senators accomplish by killing Cornyn’s bill? We already have a range of state and federal background checks, and the National Instant Check System ("NICS check") we use now works and has stopped many thousands of purchases already, so why can't we get the same thing done for the unidentified folks on this secret terror watch list in 3 days? Cornyn’s background check bill at least gives our citizens "Due Process", as required by the 5th and 14th amendments. I’ll bet that if we checked, we’d find that most or all of those who are now protesting publicly opposed Cornyn’s background check bill (because the Dem’s leadership in the House and Ms. Feinstein said to oppose it). In the Senate, Cornyn and Feinstein (D-Cali) apparently attempted to find common ground on legislation to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms. But they ended up with very different proposals. Feinstein’s measure, the Democrats’ alternative version, failed by a 47-53 vote, probably because it would have violated the Second, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights of citizens by denying Due Process to prospective gun buyers on the watch list. It appears Feinstein opposed and questioned the feasibility of Cornyn’s bill, saying that it's “nearly impossible” to mandate the Department of Justice provide evidence within 72 hours. She also said the FBI’s database is “clearly vetted.” I’m confused by Feinstein’s statements here, because if the FBI watch list database is “clearly vetted” doesn’t that mean we have a reliable, vetted (presumably detailed) database which can be accessed during the 3 day waiting period? As you know, the NICS check system database is accessed in way less than 3 days, all over the country, every day of the year, thousands of times per day. IF we can use the NICS check "instantly" why can't we use the extra 3 days to review the "vetted" info on each terror watch list entry?

Maybe the list is not "vetted" so well. Even traditionally left-leaning groups (including the American Civil Liberties Union) have complained about the credibility of the FBI "watch list" database and argued that individuals such as former Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, were inadvertently added to it. The ACLU also said the database is “unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error.” Either way, the Shield method rejected by the Dems would give notice to the US that a watch list member wants to buy a gun and would give 3 days to determine whether they should have one, before releasing that gun, and if there is a false positive, or a wrong approval, we would at least know who applied and what gun they bought, even after the 3 days, all while preserving Due Process.

So what are House Dems actually doing? Is this really just Theater? If so, they should be called out for it, and publicly, because the Senate Dems killed the Shield amendment, and now ought to have to explain that choice.

All of this happens as we are still grieving. The Orlando murderer took a giant Karmic sh*t in our lives and invited us into his world of hate. We can decline that invitation and decline the invitation to be divided in this way.
PG

Dude, learn paragraphs. I'll read it then.

 

[RoadDawg]

Dude, learn paragraphs. I'll read it then.

Even War and Peace had paragraphs.

 

[GUNSnROTORS]

Yes indeed. This exposes their real agenda.

No doubt.

Yes. It's a façade just like the ridiculous sit it. The Orlando shooter wasn't even on the terror watch list so a law automatically banning firearms purchases from persons on it wouldn't have made a difference. The FBI, even without the law in place, could have still red flagged him in NICS as a national security risk.

It's amazing how many dems I've talked to don't know all of this and are just buying the leftist koolaid by the gallons.

Yep. The dems love the "watch list".

To all you feds out there: "Watch List"? What the phuck for? You watching them so you can be the first to provide their names to reporters after they shoot or blow up a bunch of Americans?

Secret Watch List ... we all know it doesn't serve its purported purpose. It's intended to allow bypassing the rigors of probable cause for the sake of brevity and saving lives of Americans on airplanes (and impromptu LZs filled with still more Americans). Our current administration is trying to use it as gun control legislation to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans. Fix it or kill it.

End rant, back to mowing.

 

[pcfixer]

Yes, it was called the SHIELD act:



source: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/4749/text

I sent the same question on WHY NOT?
John Delaney, Frederick

 

[rockstarr]

I wonder how many Americans know that the House Dems now engaged in their “sit-in” tacitly opposed the "Shield" amended bill which would both expand our existing background checks to include terror watch listees AND preserve Due Process for the people on that (secret) watch list. The House “sit-in” narrative, as reported, clearly omits a big part of the story.

Does anyone believe 90% of Americans are opposed to the Due Process clauses in the Constitution? The reality of the last few days in Congress (Senate and House) is actually pretty nuanced. So what did the

Senators accomplish by killing Cornyn’s bill? We already have a range of state and federal background checks, and the National Instant Check System ("NICS check") we use now works and has stopped many thousands of purchases already, so why can't we get the same thing done for the unidentified folks on this secret terror watch list in 3 days?


Cornyn’s background check bill at least gives our citizens "Due Process", as required by the 5th and 14th amendments. I’ll bet that if we checked, we’d find that most or all of those who are now protesting publicly opposed Cornyn’s background check bill (because the Dem’s leadership in the House and Ms. Feinstein said to oppose it). In the Senate, Cornyn and Feinstein (D-Cali) apparently attempted to find common ground on legislation to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

But they ended up with very different proposals. Feinstein’s measure, the Democrats’ alternative version, failed by a 47-53 vote, probably because it would have violated the Second, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights of citizens by denying Due Process to prospective gun buyers on the watch list. It appears Feinstein opposed and questioned the feasibility of Cornyn’s bill, saying that it's “nearly impossible” to mandate the Department of Justice provide evidence within 72 hours.

She also said the FBI’s database is “clearly vetted.” I’m confused by Feinstein’s statements here, because if the FBI watch list database is “clearly vetted” doesn’t that mean we have a reliable, vetted (presumably detailed) database which can be accessed during the 3 day waiting period? As you know, the NICS check system database is accessed in way less than 3 days, all over the country, every day of the year, thousands of times per day. IF we can use the NICS check "instantly" why can't we use the extra 3 days to review the "vetted" info on each terror watch list entry?

Maybe the list is not "vetted" so well. Even traditionally left-leaning groups (including the American Civil Liberties Union) have complained about the credibility of the FBI "watch list" database and argued that individuals such as former Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, were inadvertently added to it. The ACLU also said the database is “unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error.”

Either way, the Shield method rejected by the Dems would give notice to the US that a watch list member wants to buy a gun and would give 3 days to determine whether they should have one, before releasing that gun, and if there is a false positive, or a wrong approval, we would at least know who applied and what gun they bought, even after the 3 days, all while preserving Due Process.

So what are House Dems actually doing? Is this really just Theater? If so, they should be called out for it, and publicly, because the Senate Dems killed the Shield amendment, and now ought to have to explain that choice.

All of this happens as we are still grieving. The Orlando murderer took a giant Karmic sh*t in our lives and invited us into his world of hate. We can decline that invitation and decline the invitation to be divided in this way.
PG

for everyone to read and enjoy

 

[ComeGet]

for everyone to read and enjoy

Thanks for this rockstarr.

Patent Guy's thoughts are valid and similar ones have been expressed elsewhere on the forums.

Thinking logically about the Democrats stomping on Cornyn's bill will lead to confusion. It was a good bill and would do pretty much what Democrats say they want.

However, what they say they want and what they really want are different things.

They want the camel's nose under the tent and Cornyn's amendment would not give them that.

They want partisan bragging rights that they are "doing something" about gun violence.

During Murphy's filibuster, the House sit-in and beyond, the grabbers repeatedly use language that implies that Republicans don't want to do anything to keep terrorists from buying guns.

Despite being a huge lie, that's their narrative for this election season.

If they supported an amendment that truly was common sense and would help prevent future violence and it originated from the Republican side, they'd lose that narrative.

It's not about lives, it's about votes.