Cornyn / Feinstein in talks over compromise of Terror List

[Rob L 3,811]

The list alleges a person may commit a crime.

The list makes no allegation

[Sousuke 1,214]

The list makes no allegation

So you wouldn't say that list contains alleged terrorists?

[Rob L 3,811]

Allegations in the sense that the government is making allegations? If they have allegations of a crime then they should be bringing an arraignment on formal charges.

What do you do if you don't think the person is safe but you cannot make an allegation? What do you do if you think that name is being used as an alias or fraudulently? You have no constitutional guarantee to board a plane.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Allegations in the sense that the government is making allegations? If they have allegations of a crime then they should be bringing an arraignment on formal charges.

What do you do if you don't think the person is safe but you cannot make an allegation? What do you do if you think that name is being used as an alias or fraudulently? You have no constitutional guarantee to board a plane.

So you are OK with profiling. Cool

[Sousuke 1,214]

Allegations in the sense that the government is making allegations? If they have allegations of a crime then they should be bringing an arraignment on formal charges.

What do you do if you don't think the person is safe but you cannot make an allegation? What do you do if you think that name is being used as an alias or fraudulently? You have no constitutional guarantee to board a plane.

Personally I do not think an allegation is synonymous with a formal charge, but as Jacque says, I guess thats me being pedantic.

So what do you do if you think a person is unsafe? You investigate them. You find probable cause.

You are right, a plane trip is not a protected right.

However this issue we are discussing in this thread is.

So, let me phrase it this way. Do you support warrantless searches of people and their property on the terror list? How about indefinite detainment?

Edited June 16, 2016 by Sousuke

[Dashinka 24,150]

Since I didn't read the bill, I am not entirely sue this is accurate, but if it is, the slippery slope's friction factor is going down. The allegation is that not only will you be stripped of your second amendment rights if you are on the watch list(s), but even if you were removed recently and are no longer on the list(s) you won't get to enjoy your constitutional rights.

Feel free to vett or correct this if it is inaccurate.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/16/hot-new-democratic-gun-grab-idea-a-new-watch-list-of-people-who-used-to-be-on-watch-lists/

[Dashinka 24,150]

Since I didn't read the bill, I am not entirely sue this is accurate, but if it is, the slippery slope's friction factor is going down. The allegation is that not only will you be stripped of your second amendment rights if you are on the watch list(s), but even if you were removed recently and are no longer on the list(s) you won't get to enjoy your constitutional rights.

Feel free to vett or correct this if it is inaccurate.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/16/hot-new-democratic-gun-grab-idea-a-new-watch-list-of-people-who-used-to-be-on-watch-lists/

When I say "the bill" I am referring to Feinstein's Bill.

[Rob L 3,811]

Personally I do not think an allegation is synonymous with a formal charge, but as Jacque says, I guess thats me being pedantic.

So what do you do if you think a person is unsafe? You investigate them. You find probable cause.

You are right, a plane trip is not a protected right.

However this issue we are discussing in this thread is.

So, let me phrase it this way. Do you support warrantless searches of people and their property on the terror list? How about indefinite detainment?

1. No i do not support search or seizure without a legal warrant, Even the supposedly sanctioned FISA court is simply a rubber stamp and not a genuine determination of probably cause.
2. "but as Jacque says, I guess thats me being pedantic". = Jacques like to show off with fancy words , its an artworld thing
3. " So what do you do if you think a person is unsafe? You investigate them. You find probable cause. " - for what ever reason, the Orlando shooter was investigated , twice, without derailing this course of action, plenty to learn here, but even after doing better maybe no allegations except "dude you are a nut case"
4. "However this issue we are discussing in this thread is.:" All I am saying is you have a list, when you have a match on a gun purchase have system that lets the feds know that they need to investigate. I am not even pushing to delay the purchase..just be prudent in protecting folks with tools at hand.

It seems like an easy win and common sense

[Jacque67 7,328]

Personally I do not think an allegation is synonymous with a formal charge, but as Jacque says, I guess thats me being pedantic.

So what do you do if you think a person is unsafe? You investigate them. You find probable cause.

You are right, a plane trip is not a protected right.

However this issue we are discussing in this thread is.

So, let me phrase it this way. Do you support warrantless searches of people and their property on the terror list? How about indefinite detainment?

Hey, bud, don't throw my name around!

[Sousuke 1,214]

1. "However this issue we are discussing in this thread is.:" All I am saying is you have a list, when you have a match on a gun purchase have system that lets the feds know that they need to investigate. I am not even pushing to delay the purchase..just be prudent in protecting folks with tools at hand.

Thats actually already in place...no need for a new law.

Lawrence Keane, Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary & General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), says: “He is uninformed. Today when a background check is conducted the name is bounced against the watch list. If there is a match the federal agency (typically FBI) that put the person on the list is contacted. The check is put into delayed status to give them time to find a legal basis to deny, to investigate/arrest or to take whatever law-enforcement action they deem appropriate. That could include calling the dealer and asking them not to transfer [sell] the firearm.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/06/16/the-sensible-position-on-gun-background-checks-the-media-isnt-reporting/#12ee57bc524a

Hey, bud, don't throw my name around!

I like your name though.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Thats actually already in place...no need for a new law.

Lawrence Keane, Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary & General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), says: He is uninformed. Today when a background check is conducted the name is bounced against the watch list. If there is a match the federal agency (typically FBI) that put the person on the list is contacted. The check is put into delayed status to give them time to find a legal basis to deny, to investigate/arrest or to take whatever law-enforcement action they deem appropriate. That could include calling the dealer and asking them not to transfer [sell] the firearm.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/06/16/the-sensible-position-on-gun-background-checks-the-media-isnt-reporting/#12ee57bc524a

I like your name though.

Here is not the platform for pillow talk. Edited June 16, 2016 by Jacque67

[John Miller 761]

Since I didn't read the bill, I am not entirely sue this is accurate, but if it is, the slippery slope's friction factor is going down. The allegation is that not only will you be stripped of your second amendment rights if you are on the watch list(s), but even if you were removed recently and are no longer on the list(s) you won't get to enjoy your constitutional rights.

Feel free to vett or correct this if it is inaccurate.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/16/hot-new-democratic-gun-grab-idea-a-new-watch-list-of-people-who-used-to-be-on-watch-lists/

You mean someone like Omar Mateen would no longer enjoy his constitutional rights? That would be a pity, wouldn't it? It is surely more important for an individual like Mateen to enjoy his constitutional rights than it is for the 49 people he slaughtered as a result of those very rights to enjoy theirs. Brilliant. Believe me.

[Sousuke 1,214]

You mean someone like Omar Mateen would no longer enjoy his constitutional rights? That would be a pity, wouldn't it? It is surely more important for an individual like Mateen to enjoy his constitutional rights than it is for the 49 people he slaughtered as a result of those very rights to enjoy theirs. Brilliant. Believe me.

You really are Trump's spokesman lol.

He is all about taking away the rights of Muslims.

[Jacque67 7,328]

You really are Trump's spokesman lol.

He is all about taking away the rights of Muslims.

Former spokesperson.

The new deep throat on the block.

[Rob L 3,811]

Hey, bud, don't throw my name around!

I love to intersperse the matronymic of others, I can help it.