jcd11235

You're right. Instead of arresting accused murderers, we should simply send them a postcard letting them know about their trial date and trust them to show up on their own so that we don't risk presuming guilt prior to a guilty verdict. I have trouble understanding how people interpret legislation that explicitly ensures due process as something that erodes freedoms. ??? We're not giving up anything. The bill provides for due process. Right. Because under Bush/Cheney, the suspected terrorist would just be classified as an enemy combatant, sent to Gitmo and denied a writ of habeas corpus. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Being able to easily appeal a denial of transfer makes it much more likely for the government to make a denial without sufficient evidence, just as in the criminal justice system. If you go to the gun shop to buy a gun, and the shop refuses to sell the gun to you, what more notification is needed to make you aware that the transfer was denied? (It seems rather difficult for the government to fulfill their obligation of providing the reasons for the transfer denial without informing the transferee of the denial.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

While we frequently hear the phrase innocent until proven guilty, the reality is that there is a substantial amount of presumed guilt prior to the trial. Likewise, the proposed bill places that burden of proof on the government. Innocent until proven guilty is a nice ideal, but in reality, defendants are often presumed guilty until acquitted. Public safety is often prioritized over a presumption of innocence prior to a guilty verdict. It's not a matter of supporting it or not supporting it. It's a matter of recognizing the reality of the situation being that guilt is often presumed until the jury returns an acquittal. The accused are often held in custody from arrest to verdict, or are required to post bail and/or surrender their passport. Such actions would not be necessary if all criminal suspects were really presumed innocent until proven guilty. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think [jshaver123] used the life support analogy because, generally, during the first trimester, the fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb, making the mother analogous to life support machinery for the fetus. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As an analysis (which I recognize you explicitly said it wasn't) it seems to be lacking in terms of rigor. I'd recommend taking its conclusions with a grain of salt. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No more so than is generally the case in the criminal justice system. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I said the full documents could be used to support the petitioner's case. I didn't say they could be used by the petitioner. The wording is quite clear on the point, and I don't feel like quoting it yet again. Right. I never claimed otherwise. That's not quite what it says. Read it again. The court can't consider the full documents to support the AG's claims. The court can consider the full documents to ensure that the summaries and redacted document offer a "fair and accurate representation" of the full documents on the petitioner's behalf. In other words, the full documents can be considered to overturn the denial of transfer, but not as evidence to support the denial. I read that as a way for Congress to forbid the AG from editing out information or distorting the facts, under the guise of national security, without giving individuals an avenue of legal recourse to challenge the AG's claims. I think the bill's authors are trying to avoid any scenario that might be considered analogous to suspending habeas corpus, without having to compromise national security in the event that the evidence is necessarily classified. While I agree with a previous suggestion that the bill could benefit from more precise language, I think the intent of the bill is to preserve due process for individuals, not to erode it. Likewise, sir. I think killing the bill would be an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Clarifying the wording, OTOH, might prevent unintended loopholes that might be abused by an overzealous or less than ethical Attorney General. The idealist in me is reminded of Benjamin Franklin's words, "They that would give up essential liberties in order to gain some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The realist in me understands that modern civilizations and cities inherently trade some liberty for safety. If we didn't make such tradeoffs, we would still be a bunch of individual nomads/hunters/gatherers. A compromise has to be found, and in this particular case, I think the bill does a pretty good job of reaching just such a compromise. It's not perfect, but I don't think it's bad. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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!

Would you kindly link to the actuarial analysis upon which you base your assertions? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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

Hardly. You clearly don't understand what I do and do not support. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Polyamory seems to be becoming more popular (or maybe polyamorous people simply tend to move to central Florida). That seems to range from a primary couple having an open relationship to several people who are connected by some combination of friendship and long-term, non-monogamous, committed relationships. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That reminds me of a sign I saw while watching a Kansas City Chiefs game several years ago: Go Chiefs, Go! (And take the Royals with you!) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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. 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!

I think that sounds very reasonable. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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!

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!

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. 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!

Yeah, it must be a BS claim when a gun owner claims to be pro-gun. In exactly the same manner that I have no problem with suspects going to jail before and during their trial, and after if convicted. If you bothered to read the proposed legislation, or the code it will potentially amend, you would know that the proposed bill is far from the most restrictive part of the law as it currently exists. Sorry. I forgot that no one can believe in (or serve their country defending) the Constitution unless they think exactly like you do. It's rather ironic that you would imply that someone who makes the effort to research the background in order to form an educated opinion on the topic doesn't support the 1st or 2nd Amendments. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Right. And with the proposed legislation, the person must be "known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'" Are you arguing that appropriate suspicion is fundamentally different from probable cause? The two phrases seem very similar to me. Likewise, according to H.R. 2159, the onus is on the government to provide evidence supporting the AG's decision to bar the transfer of firearms/explosives to an individual. `(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General's determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General's determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General's determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. 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. On 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. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General's determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.'. Clearly, it does offer a similar standard. Now it's a closer parallel. As do I, but I've yet to see any reasonable argument explaining why H.R 2159 infringes on the 2nd Amendment. For example, it would be wrong to prevent known terrorists from legally obtaining firearms without, say, preventing people from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or from inciting riots or … Bullshit, plain and simple. Unsubstantiated bullshit. At least the tin foil hatters claiming how the scary Democrats are trying to take away the guns will still want to play with you. Likewise, bullshit. Of course you do. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you see this bill as unConstitutional? If so, why? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nope. You're entitled to due process, just like you are entitled under the proposed legislation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The main differences: 1) No notification requirement: there is no requirement that you even be told that you are a "terrorist suspect." Obviously, if you were arrested, you'd know about it. Which is no different from being a suspect of any other crime. If the police suspect me of murder, they are not obligated to inform me that I'm a suspect. If any action is taken due to your your status as a suspect, then you do, indeed, have an opportunity to appeal the status, which you would already know if you would simply read the proposed legislation, which spells that fact out rather nicely. If you actually read the proposed legislation, you will see that there is no merit to your claim of no due process. If your rights are denied based on your status as a terrorist suspect, the bill provides individuals with the means to appeal, i.e. due process. I know reading dry proposed legislation isn't as fun as throwing out unwarranted claims of having your rights violated by those scary Democrats in the federal government, but it might help you to refrain from making such blatantly incorrect claims. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!