1+1=2nd Amendment infringment

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Suspect have actually been 'suspected' of committing crimes. When they are arrested, they must be charged in short order (aside from the unconstitutional use of enemy combatents), which requires the DA to agree that there is an actual case. A wildly different standard than what is being discussed here.

They're not wildly different at all. They're actually very, very similar:

Criminal suspect is arrested. <-> Terrorism suspect is denied purchase of firearm.

Criminal suspect detained pending trial. <-> Terrorism suspect not allowed to purchase firearms pending appeal of status.

Criminal suspect receives trial. <-> Terrorism suspect's appeal heard by judge.

In criminal case, burden of proof lies with government. <-> In terrorism case, burden of proof lies with government.

Quote

As already alluded to, the no fly list is hardly a good example of due process.

That's one of two major reasons that I have not used it as an example of such, the other being a lack of relevance to the topic at hand (i.e. it's a red herring).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

… the new component is permitting arbitrary intervention by the AG without having to prove sufficient cause.

I didn't read it that way at all. I think the ability to appeal a denial of transfer and the requirement of the government to prove their case, without the ability to rely on withheld classified information in redacted documents, is intended to ensure that there is sufficient cause before a transfer is denied. Further favoring the petitioning transferee, "[o]n request of the petitioner or the court's own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents."

I read the proposed bill as an attempt to ensure due process for everyone, even suspected terrorists, without unnecessarily sacrificing public safety.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

As already alluded to, the no fly list is hardly a good example of due process.

That's one of two major reasons that I have not used it as an example of such, the other being a lack of relevance to the topic at hand (i.e. it's a red herring).

It's a red herring to you because it chops your legs off at the thigh. Higher really, since flying is not a constitutional right.

Constitutional rights lose their value if you have to spend $$ and years in order to enjoy them.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He has got to be just trolling.......

Me thinks you're right.

Disagree w/r/t substance of challenge.

Also disagree w/r/t argument style. Calling it trolling is also an ad hominem. If someone's challenge really is weak or invalid, pull apart the argument. Rather than going after the poster: play the ball not the player. If one asks questions in a climate change thread, one is "skeptical." Whereas, asking questions or challenging consensus in this thread is labelled trolling. As much as you all (general and non-specific) have the right to challenge in that topic, so does someone else here.

VR/Marg

Ok, it may have been a “bit” over the top but the inconsistencies/conflicts in his argument are staggering to me. His comparisons are so disjointed as to not even give a reply a place to start! It's damn scarry!

Not meant as an ad hominem in any event. And if taken as such, my apologies.


But notice, I did not call anybody a troll. And I think, at times, when frustrated, many of us post lines that may be considered the same. IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[redlegphi 0]

I don't think both sides of this thread are too far apart. I think the conservatives would mostly admit that it's a good idea to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to commit terrorist acts. And I think the liberals would mostly admit that you can't give the government the power to revoke people's rights willy-nilly.
I agree with jcd that the language of the bill seems to parallel his analogy of getting arrested by the police and then getting your due process afterwards. However, I think the language of the bill needs to get cleaned up so that it states more clearly how personnel affected by this bill will be notified why they were denied and what the specific process for challenging that denial is.
As for the terrorist list, I'm pretty sure that project was initiated by the Bush administration and was just recently completed and published by the Obama administration, so I don't think it's a case of the evil liberals trying to smear people on the right as terrorists. Also, if I recall correctly, military veterans were mentioned as being targeted for recruitment by these groups because of the skills they picked up in the military, not because they're any more or less likely to join such groups.
Finally, while ruchmc didn't specifically call anybody a troll, he did accuse somebody of trolling. Claiming that that's not calling somebody a troll is like saying "I didn't call him a child molester. I just said he molests children."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I don't think both sides of this thread are too far apart. I think the conservatives would mostly admit that it's a good idea to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to commit terrorist acts. And I think the liberals would mostly admit that you can't give the government the power to revoke people's rights willy-nilly.
I agree with jcd that the language of the bill seems to parallel his analogy of getting arrested by the police and then getting your due process afterwards. However, I think the language of the bill needs to get cleaned up so that it states more clearly how personnel affected by this bill will be notified why they were denied and what the specific process for challenging that denial is.
As for the terrorist list, I'm pretty sure that project was initiated by the Bush administration and was just recently completed and published by the Obama administration, so I don't think it's a case of the evil liberals trying to smear people on the right as terrorists. Also, if I recall correctly, military veterans were mentioned as being targeted for recruitment by these groups because of the skills they picked up in the military, not because they're any more or less likely to join such groups.
Finally, while ruchmc didn't specifically call anybody a troll, he did accuse somebody of trolling. Claiming that that's not calling somebody a troll is like saying "I didn't call him a child molester. I just said he molests children."

Points taken. However, your classifications of what liberals and conservatives think is off. At least for me. I am a conservative and this law stinks IMO. From all aspects.

As for the post I responded to,well, cant have a cake and eat it too comes to mind.

In many cases people want to cloud the line between government control and freedoms (ie, the government staying the hell out of it)

THIS is one of those times......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ion01 2]

The second amendment was really intended to give the power to the people by making the people a threat to the government should it become oppresive. If the people are armed then they can fight back. Unarm the people and they can't fight back. Its that simple.
We must also realize that we actually have very few real freedoms.
We have the freedom of speech right......well, as long as its not "hate speech" (which covers just about anything if you want it to).
We have to freedom to assembly.....as long as you get a permit from the government.
You have the right to bare arms.....as long as you have a permit from the government.
thats not freedom. Its like putting an animal in a cage and proclaiming, "Your free! Your free! You can go where ever you want!" Yet the animal is in a cage!
The government is there to protect us against others....not ourselves. I should have the right to make mistakes and screw myself up if I want (as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others).
When are we going to stand up for our freedoms and rights and quit relying on the goverment to fix all our problems! Big government doesn't work. It never has and this country was established to get away from big government. Take responsibility for yourselves...your mistakes and your successes and quit worrying about everyone else and how its not fair that someone should make more than you.....WHEN THEY WORK HARD FOR IT! We are free and that means we are free to be rich or poor!

[lawrocket 3]

If this person is known, then why is this person not under arrest? Airline passengers with crying babies are detained under the Patriot Act. But known terrorists are not. Instead, known terrorists are free to do what they want but they cannot purchase a firearm.

This makes no sense unless some other purpose for the legislation exists. Hence, the reason for the fear.

I am not [I]arguing that "appropriate suspicion" is different from "probable cause." I am telling you that this is the case. Here is how I know it is different - if "probable cause" was the standard then they'd say "probable cause" is the standard. Instead, it is based upon a "suspicion" standard.

Let's see. We were at war with Japan. FDR was suspicious that Japanese may become agents. Therefore, ob that suspicion they were all interred. Sure, they didn't have the benevolent standard that the government had to prove by rumor and innuendo (which, under this bill would constitute evidence).

Suspicion rocks. It is particularly useful in the realm of the court of pub lic opinion. "The government would let Joe have a gun. He's a terrorist." (Imagine the government publishing a list of those who were denied a permit to purchase a gun).

The onus is on the government to provide evidence, indeed. And the government has protection from established rules of evidence designed with the primary goal of ensuring trustworthiness.

Sure, the onus is on the government. And the onus is on the citizen to ask for reconsideration. Then the onus is on the citizen to ask that the court review the evidence.

Here's a law hint for you - let's say the citizens challenges the summaries and the judge says that the summaries are not a fair depiction and strikes them. Okay, so the citizen now asks, "what made these summaries unfair?" Nope. You ain't getting it. So the AG just puts forth whatever evidence it has without the summaries - of course with the policy that the government's evidence need not be governed by rules of evidence. See, the summaries are reviewed for their accuracy. It doesn't mean they won't come in if modified.

Now you must offer evidence (under the stricter standard normally used) and hope that your evidence outweighs the governments. You've got a truckload of evidence that can't come in under the rules of evidence. They've got a truckload of evidence that does come in because they have a lesser standard.

Note that "the court shall not consider the full undisclosed documents" in making its determination. You underlined it. To me, it's pretty scary because it is a prohibition on the court giving ANY weight to the undisclosed mitigating facts in the raw documents!

Here's how it works. The summaries are unfair because the summaries do not reflect that Joe was an undercover operative who supplied information on the Aryan nation. Now the judge knows the whole story. So the summary is NOT used and instead, the documents showing that convicted racist killer Clem named Joe as an up and comer in the Aryan Nation, which is corroorated by 30 other people.

Joe responds - "but I was undercover!" Joe is not prepared for this. He does not have his supervisors lined up to testify for him. He retired from the force and no longer has a badge.

All the court has is evidence of 31 guys saying he was hardcore and his testimony that he was a cop. The judge knows what the real story is but cannot rely upon it bwcause the evidence is 31/1 in the government's favor and thus the judge "shall" find in favor of the AG.

This bill would allow just such a situation. "The government would do that, right?". Yeah. Tell that to the dudes eating Fruit Loops at Gitmo.
Here's how it violates the Second Amendment: the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't have a section stating, "unless the citizen is suspected of being a terrorist." Congress passing a law that allows the government to have discretion to deny a permit infringes on the right to bear arms.

Calling fire in a crowded theater? Yes, it is a bad thing unless, of course, there is a fire.

I don't think that you would approve of a prior restraint on speech. I don't think the word "fire" should be banned because of the danger of its misuse. Why are prior restraints on firearms not met with the same scrutiny as a prior restraint on speech?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think both sides of this thread are too far apart. I think the conservatives would mostly admit that it's a good idea to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to commit terrorist acts. And I think the liberals would mostly admit that you can't give the government the power to revoke people's rights willy-nilly.

Simply put - if one's actions are so bad that they cannot be permitted to buy a gun, they need to be charged with the offense they committed.

But if their crime is membership in an anti abortion group, or a religious cult, or the Black Panthers, or the NRA, I'm pretty sure that is permitted under the freedom of assembly. If that person individually starts inciting violence or planning acts of terrorism, go get em.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's a red herring to you because it chops your legs off at the thigh. Higher really, since flying is not a constitutional right.

It's a red herring because it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Let me know if you'd like to actually discuss the topic of the thread.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think the language of the bill needs to get cleaned up so that it states more clearly how personnel affected by this bill will be notified why they were denied and what the specific process for challenging that denial is.

I think that sounds very reasonable.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Note that "the court shall not consider the full undisclosed documents" in making its determination. You underlined it. To me, it's pretty scary because it is a prohibition on the court giving ANY weight to the undisclosed mitigating facts in the raw documents!

Right, the full undisclosed documents can't be used to support the government's case. However, they can be used to support the petitioner's case.

Quote

Here's how it works. The summaries are unfair because the summaries do not reflect that Joe was an undercover operative who supplied information on the Aryan nation. Now the judge knows the whole story. So the summary is NOT used and instead, the documents showing that convicted racist killer Clem named Joe as an up and comer in the Aryan Nation, which is corroorated by 30 other people.

As currently written, that isn't how it will work. If the summary does not fairly and accurately reflect the reality of the situation, then the government fails to make their case, and the appeal should be successful.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...it's a good idea to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to commit terrorist acts....

I strongly disagree. "Likely to" is a subjective judgment, often with a political motivation, based on no actual crime being committed. "Likely to" is insufficient to warrant abrogation of fundamental rights.

I disagreed with these tactics when used by George Obushma, and I disagree with them now under Barack Obushma.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

As currently written, that isn't how it will work. If the summary does not fairly and accurately reflect the reality of the situation, then the government fails to make their case, and the appeal should be successful.

Only AFTER you appeal and fight to get your rights back. Bull shit. IF the governements wishes to submit you to that then they should be required to go to court and PROVE it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Only AFTER you appeal and fight to get your rights back.

Should we also wait until after trials to arrest other criminals?

Quote

IF the governements wishes to submit you to that then they should be required to go to court and PROVE it.

Fortunately, they have to do exactly that (using prove in the legal, not the logical sense of the word).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Only AFTER you appeal and fight to get your rights back.

Should we also wait until after trials to arrest other criminals?

Quote

IF the governements wishes to submit you to that then they should be required to go to court and PROVE it.

Fortunately, they have to do exactly that (using prove in the legal, not the logical sense of the word).

No, we should arrest them BEFORE they commint any crime. You know, if we think they MIGHT do something illegal.

My example is closer to what you support than the one you give.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

As currently written, that isn't how it will work. If the summary does not fairly and accurately reflect the reality of the situation, then the government fails to make their case, and the appeal should be successful.

Only AFTER you appeal and fight to get your rights back. Bull shit. IF the governements wishes to submit you to that then they should be required to go to court and PROVE it.

That's a good idea, and I think everyone should petition their congressmen and senators to support such legislation. (It's not a novel thing for certain legislation to have specific "burden of proof" provisions.) Having said that, I can predict the reason why that kind of legislation, if proposed, will have a hard time getting passed: because the government will argue that the sheer volume of such cases would over-burden the federal judicial system (since instead of only some cases being appealed, every case would have to be litigated).

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

My example is closer to what you support than the one you give.

Hardly. You clearly don't understand what I do and do not support.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

My example is closer to what you support than the one you give.

Hardly. You clearly don't understand what I do and do not support.

ah, we finally get to it. You (speaking to me) dont agree with me so you are stupid and dont understand

So, by definition, you admit you have lost the debate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My example is closer to what you support than the one you give.

Hardly. You clearly don't understand what I do and do not support.

ah, we finally get to it. You (speaking to me) dont agree with me so you are stupid and dont understand

So, by definition, you admit you have lost the debate

With logical disconnects like that in your post, it's no wonder you don't understand what I support. Hint: I made no admissions in my post.

Thanks for calling me stupid, though. When people start throwing the PA's out there, it's often a pretty good sign that their arguments lack merit.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

My example is closer to what you support than the one you give.

Hardly. You clearly don't understand what I do and do not support.

ah, we finally get to it. You (speaking to me) dont agree with me so you are stupid and dont understand

So, by definition, you admit you have lost the debate

With logical disconnects like that in your post, it's no wonder you don't understand what I support. Hint: I made no admissions in my post.

Thanks for calling me stupid, though. When people start throwing the PA's out there, it's often a pretty good sign that their arguments lack merit.

No, my comment was to you calling ME stupid because I do not understand (your words)

You told me I do not understand. Get it?

If it came across as a PA to you I am sorry. NOT what I posted.

But, my point was and is valid. You would think it is ok to arrest someone because of what they may do, not what they have done. I say this because YOU support removing a right because someone thinks you might be a terrorist.

so, if you continue to think that is ok, WHO is to decide? YOU? then I have to take you to court because YOU decided I should not own a gun?

I am curious......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Right, the full undisclosed documents can't be used to support the government's case. However, they can be used to support the petitioner's case.

How on earth can redacted and undisclosed documents be used by the Petitioner? They can't. The petitioner has no way of getting them or knowing what is in them. Undisclosed documents have as much of a chance of revealing a defense, as anything.

And read the lnaguage - "The court shall not consider." That means that if the petitioner does manage to get ahold of the documents, the court shall not consider them.

Quote

If the summary does not fairly and accurately reflect the reality of the situation, then the government fails to make their case, and the appeal should be successful.

Wrong. The lnaguage states, "To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security."

"May" is an extremely important word in statutory construction. It is different from "shall," which is seen in other portions of the text. "May" allows the AG the option of providing summaries (which is not a common thing, thus the reason why it is specifically provided). Or, the AG can go forward with other evidence.

I read it differently, sir. However, I can see your point.

This is yet another reason to kill the law. If we can reasonably disagree as to the meaning of the words, then the law is vague - and that's bad.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[fallfast69 3]

I'm not a lawyer, probably not all that smart either, but I'm not as stupid as the government would like to believe I am

You don't need to be smart, or be a lawyer, to fully understand spirit of the 2nd in the language it was written - or the reason it is included in our Bill of Rights.

This bill is clearly designed to circumvent the 2nd and I don't understand how there can be anyone out there that don't get it

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You would think it is ok to arrest someone because of what they may do, not what they have done. I say this because YOU support removing a right because someone thinks you might be a terrorist.

Nope. I haven't shown support for any such thing in this thread, nor does the bill being discussed lack a burden of proof for the government. The best thing about the bill is that it doesn't allow the government to prevent firearms transfers to individuals without giving those individuals the means to challenge the denial in court.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You would think it is ok to arrest someone because of what they may do, not what they have done. I say this because YOU support removing a right because someone thinks you might be a terrorist.

Nope. I haven't shown support for any such thing in this thread, nor does the bill being discussed lack a burden of proof for the government. The best thing about the bill is that it doesn't allow the government to prevent firearms transfers to individuals without giving those individuals the means to challenge the denial in court.

So, again, they are guilty until they force the government to admit they are inocent.

Nice.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln