Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I'm good with everything here except your aversion to restricting no-fly listees from buying guns.  It stands to reason if we don't let them on a plane, we shouldn't let them buy guns.

Because the list violates due process.  

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Until you can ensure the list doesn't violate due process, maybe you hold the person on trial to put them on the list. Until then, I don't want innocent people having their rights violated because their name happens to sound or be the same as a terrorist. 

Yea, this type of law trying to be passed is a gut reaction with out real logic or wisdom behind it. 

[drmevo]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Because the list violates due process.  

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Until you can ensure the list doesn't violate due process, maybe you hold the person on trial to put them on the list. Until then, I don't want innocent people having their rights violated because their name happens to sound or be the same as a terrorist. 

Yea, this type of law trying to be passed is a gut reaction with out real logic or wisdom behind it. 

How is the no-fly list legal then? Or do you disagree with that as well?  It seems to me in either case a person is not being held to answer for a crime.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, drmevo said:

How is the no-fly list legal then? Or do you disagree with that as well?  It seems to me in either case a person is not being held to answer for a crime.

It depends on how you define "deprived of life, liberty or property". 

Is denying a known terrorist or affiliate of terrorist access to the US or out of the US unconstitutional. Some people say yes it is. I tend to agree with it. Unless they are given their right to defend themselves against the accusations brought against them, I don't see why they should be deprived the liberty of being able to travel. 

If the government wants to set up a system where they are brought before a judge and the evidence is shown against them. If they want to fight it then so be it. If not then the judge can declare them on this list. It's the judge that can require a typical criminal that they need to stay with in a local jurisdiction or state jurisdiction if they are a flight risk. I see this as the same mechanism. 

 

 

[drmevo]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It depends on how you define "deprived of life, liberty or property". 

Is denying a known terrorist or affiliate of terrorist access to the US or out of the US unconstitutional. Some people say yes it is. I tend to agree with it. Unless they are given their right to defend themselves against the accusations brought against them, I don't see why they should be deprived the liberty of being able to travel. 

If the government wants to set up a system where they are brought before a judge and the evidence is shown against them. If they want to fight it then so be it. If not then the judge can declare them on this list. It's the judge that can require a typical criminal that they need to stay with in a local jurisdiction or state jurisdiction if they are a flight risk. I see this as the same mechanism. 

 

 

Could you explain the bold? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Could you explain the bold? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

This Orlando shooter was a citizen of the USA. He was born in New York. Even then, you don't have to be a citizen of the US to get due process.That is why some people want us to declare war on ISIS because we can then use Military trials instead of civilian trials. They have entirely different rule structures. 

If this person, that was investigated by the FBI, was found to have connection to a terrorist cell, but did not yet break any laws yet. Maybe the evidence is enough to warrant just being put on the no-fly list. Being put on the no-fly list deprives him of his liberty to fly out of the country or into the country. What if he was overseas at the time. His wife is here. Baring him from flying would bar him from seeing his family. 

A correlating act would be if a judge deems a defendant, who has not been found guilty yet, a flight risk and must not leave the local jurisdiction.

[drmevo]

I've been under the impression that the Patriot Act throws a lot of that out the window when it comes to terrorism or suspected terrorism (for better or worse).

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, drmevo said:

I've been under the impression that the Patriot Act throws a lot of that out the window when it comes to terrorism or suspected terrorism (for better or worse).

A lot of people thought the Patriot Act was unconstitutional as well. Just because something is passed by congress doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional. It just takes the will of the people to stand up and bring it before the Supreme Court. 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

A lot of people thought the Patriot Act was unconstitutional as well. Just because something is passed by congress doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional. It just takes the will of the people to stand up and bring it before the Supreme Court. 

Exactly, Lynch argued that notifying people on the no-fly list might compromise investigations into those people because they may alter their activities knowing they are now being watched, but that's not justification for denying citizens their Constitutional rights.  

[newtogolf]

Seems all the new gun legislature both sides proposed was voted down along party lines.  Democrats felt the Republicans bills were not tough enough and Republicans felt the Democrats were too far reaching, so once again nothing got done.  

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/

A 5th option my be introduced on Tuesday by a Republican but it's expected the Democrats will not support it.  

At this point the Democrats should compromise and at least support the bill that delays gun purchases by people on the Terror Watch list (smaller subset of the no-fly list).  

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

At this point the Democrats should compromise and at least support the bill that delays gun purchases by people on the Terror Watch list (smaller subset of the no-fly list).  

The issue with that is, then the GOP will just hunker down for the next 20 years saying they passed a law the Democrats wanted, which would not be true. 

Let this process be slow and work its self out. The GOP can't stand behind their wild west gun mentality for long. The majority of the nation wants more gun regulation though majority of them think we have a right to own guns as well. So Congress needs to find that middle ground. 

 

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The issue with that is, then the GOP will just hunker down for the next 20 years saying they passed a law the Democrats wanted, which would not be true. 

Let this process be slow and work its self out. The GOP can't stand behind their wild west gun mentality for long. The majority of the nation wants more gun regulation though majority of them think we have a right to own guns as well. So Congress needs to find that middle ground. 

 

I disagree, delaying purchase of guns by those on Terror List combined with states having the ability to regulate guns is a strong combination.  Most of the offensive features that Democrats want banned are already banned in some states.  In NY you cannot purchase an AR-15 with a more than 1 "deadly feature", which means an AR-15 can only have one of these features, pistol grip, folding stock, muzzle suppressor, detached magazine (10 rounds max) or bayonet holder.  

The SCOTUS refusal to address the state restrictions is indication that it's not ready to rule on states rights and constitutional infringement on "assault weapons", but it also means they are not supporting a federal ban either.  

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I disagree, delaying purchase of guns by those on Terror List combined with states having the ability to regulate guns is a strong combination.  

Only if the process is brought before a judge and the person is given due process. 

The Constitution demands such. 

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Only if the process is brought before a judge and the person is given due process. 

The Constitution demands such. 

I agree 100% with due process, though I'm not sure it extends to those in the country illegally or on travel VISA.  

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I agree 100% with due process, though I'm not sure it extends to those in the country illegally or on travel VISA.  

I believe the Constitution has always been law of the land. As such it governs all people. Also it took the Aliens and Sedition act to retract certain Constitution rights for immigrants. So I suspect in that regard you can argue that in reverse that if they can isolated out people from Constitution rights then they have them to begin 

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I believe the Constitution has always been law of the land. As such it governs all people. Also it took the Aliens and Sedition act to retract certain Constitution rights for immigrants. So I suspect in that regard you can argue that in reverse that if they can isolated out people from Constitution rights then they have them to begin 

Exactly which is what I think they use to justify the lack of due process for the No-Fly  and Terror Watch list.  

[Dave2512]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Seems all the new gun legislature both sides proposed was voted down along party lines.  Democrats felt the Republicans bills were not tough enough and Republicans felt the Democrats were too far reaching, so once again nothing got done.  

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/

A 5th option my be introduced on Tuesday by a Republican but it's expected the Democrats will not support it.  

At this point the Democrats should compromise and at least support the bill that delays gun purchases by people on the Terror Watch list (smaller subset of the no-fly list).  

We create these roadblocks with our votes. Politicians aren't concerned about compromise only retaining their seats and to do that they have to keep their voters happy.

 

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I disagree, delaying purchase of guns by those on Terror List combined with states having the ability to regulate guns is a strong combination.  

Yep and IMO there should be a consequence to fraternizing with known terrorists or whatever gets someone on the list. Akin to how a poor credit history reduces your credit score. The list should be the deterrent to make people think twice about their activities.

[newtogolf]

6 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

We create these roadblocks with our votes. Politicians aren't concerned about compromise only retaining their seats and to do that they have to keep their voters happy.

 

Yep and IMO there should be a consequence to fraternizing with known terrorists or whatever gets someone on the list. Akin to how a poor credit history reduces your credit score. The list should be the deterrent to make people think twice about their activities.

We agree 

[phan52]

17 hours ago, newtogolf said:

  

I don't know of any conservative that wants to ban Islam or ban Muslims, what most want is better certainty that we're not allowing radicals or terrorists into the country that are posing as refugees or other types of immigrants and that we're doing a better job of stopping radicals within the country from doing what the Orlando shooter did.   

 

Nobody on the planet would be more scrutinized than the refugees coming here from the Middle East. The refugee situation is tragic and the US needs to be more involved since it is pretty obvious that the whole thing was caused by our ignorant intervention in the region. We need to focus more on homegrown terrorists and people coming here with legal immigration status. 100% of them fit in those categories.