Should no-fly mean no buy?: Our view

[Rob L 3,811]

he was on the no fly list?

did not get an answer to my question...and we may never know

[Merle 458]

did not get an answer to my question...and we may never know

Would it really matter? He would've gotten the guns anyways. As a matter of fact, the AR15 rifles he had were bought by someone else so there is the first law he broke. They keep saying in the news that the guns he had were bought legally. Thats a bit misleading. Everyone in California is required to do a background check and he didn't do one since he was given the rifles by his friend. The rifles also looked like they were not configured to be legal according to California law either from the pictures they showed on the news. There's broken law number two. So tell me now why it would have mattered if he had been on any kind of no fly list. He wasnt worried about laws in the least bit. Edited December 14, 2015 by Merle

[Rob L 3,811]

Would it really matter? He would've gotten the guns anyways. As a matter of fact, the AR15 rifles he had were bought by someone else so there is the first law he broke. They keep saying in the news that the guns he had were bought legally. Thats a bit misleading. Everyone in California is required to do a background check and he didn't do one since he was given the rifles by his friend. The rifles also looked like they were not configured to be legal according to California law either from the pictures they showed on the news. There's broken law number two. So tell me now why it would have mattered if he had been on any kind of no fly list. He wasnt worried about laws in the least bit.

So he found a loophole and got them another way. Thats not the question

But as a citizen, you agree that Syed Farook was fully entitled to purchase those guns, even if he was under investigation. Are you standing by that?

[Merle 458]

So he found a loophole and got them another way. Thats not the question

But as a citizen, you agree that Syed Farook was fully entitled to purchase those guns, even if he was under investigation. Are you standing by that?

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, he should have been able to buy a gun. But then again, he wasn't on a list and it wouldn't have mattered if he was.

[Sousuke 1,214]

You would want this man to be able to buy a gun , even if the FBI was investigating him..?

Yes. If he was planning something, I suspect that would speed up their investigation. It might prioritize him.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[Rob L 3,811]

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, he should have been able to buy a gun. But then again, he wasn't on a list and it wouldn't have mattered if he was.

. But then again, he wasn't on a list and it wouldn't have mattered if he was.

We don't have the secret list and we don't have visibility into the process that creates the list so we cannot say that this is true.

[Rob L 3,811]

Yes. If he was planning something, I suspect that would speed up their investigation. It might prioritize him.

Let me as the question from the perspective of the investigators. If you had someone on your radar, and you got an additional information that person had recently tried to or did purchase items of interest ( could be hand guns, could be nitrogen fertilizer) would that violate their second amendment rights?

[Ban Hammer 13,714]

Let me as the question from the perspective of the investigators. If you had someone on your radar, and you got an additional information that person had recently tried to or did purchase items of interest ( could be hand guns, could be nitrogen fertilizer) would that violate their second amendment rights?

not sure fertilizer is covered under the 2nd amendment.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Let me as the question from the perspective of the investigators. If you had someone on your radar, and you got an additional information that person had recently tried to or did purchase items of interest ( could be hand guns, could be nitrogen fertilizer) would that violate their second amendment rights?

The FBI getting that information violates the 2nd amendment? Is that what you are asking?

The answer would be no.

[Rob L 3,811]

The FBI getting that information violates the 2nd amendment? Is that what you are asking?

The answer would be no.

So can we agree that having a system that bumps the no fly or other person of interest list against a list of gun purchases should be done, preferably in real time to the purchase?

not sure fertilizer is covered under the 2nd amendment.

Okay cool

, citizens buying items that could be converted to explosives are not covered by the second amendment?

[Sousuke 1,214]

So can we agree that having a system that bumps the no fly or other person of interest list against a list of gun purchases should be done, preferably in real time to the purchase?

As long as it doesn't stop a person from actually buying it, no its fine IMO.

[Rob L 3,811]

As long as it doesn't stop a person from actually buying it, no its fine IMO.

What if the person was not stopped but simply delayed 48 hours until someone at the Fed level could do a review. Would that violate the 2nd amendment?

[Sousuke 1,214]

What if the person was not stopped but simply delayed 48 hours until someone at the Fed level could do a review. Would that violate the 2nd amendment?

Not in my opinion. Some states have instituted waiting periods to allow the ATF time to go after say a straw purchaser.

I live in a state with a 10 day wait. Thats too long.

[Rob L 3,811]

Not in my opinion. Some states have instituted waiting periods to allow the ATF time to go after say a straw purchaser.

I live in a state with a 10 day wait. Thats too long.

So it sounds like that if folks on both sides can get off the rhetoric and get on a practical plan , we can check Citizens who want to purchase guns against the no fly list.