GOP senator [Toomey-PA] to offer bill to block terrorists from buying guns

[Timber Rattler]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/283675-gop-senator-to-offer-bill-to-block-terrorists-from-buying-guns

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) will offer legislation Thursday to block suspected terrorists from buying guns, attempting to spark a compromise on the issue between Democrats and Republicans.
Toomey's legislation would require the attorney general to create a list of "likely terrorists." It would then be submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which would review the list annually and remove any Americans inadvertently included, according to a summary of the forthcoming bill from his office.

The Pennsylvania Republican — who faces a tough reelection bid — noted that he's offering his proposal because he's hopeful he can break the Senate's current logjam.
 
"I have drafted legislation that takes the best features from both of the previous proposals, effectively preventing terrorists from being able to purchase guns, while also safeguarding the rights of innocent Americans who are mistakenly put on the list," he added in a statement.
 
Democrats took control of the Senate floor Wednesday, demanding a deal to block suspected terrorists from buying guns.
 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has filed an amendment to the Senate's Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill that would give the attorney general broad authority to block the sale of a gun if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that an individual has or will participate in a terrorist attack.
 
But Republicans argue the proposal would negatively impact Americans not tied to terrorism.
 
Instead, they've backed a measure from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would have allowed the attorney general to delay suspected terrorists from getting a gun for up to 72 hours as they try to get a court to approve blocking the sale of the firearm.
 
Toomey — who previously backed Cornyn's proposal — said "neither of the proposals the Senate considered last year got that balance quite right. What's more, neither of them has sufficient support to gain passage today."
 
Toomey's proposal would also allow individuals who believe they have been wrongly placed on the list to challenge their inclusion in court.
 
Toomey took to the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon to urge his colleagues to find a compromise.
 
Democratic Senate candidate Katie McGinty, who wants to unseat Toomey, publicly pressured him during a press conference Tuesday to back Feinstein's measure. Democratic senators have latched onto the gun fight as they try to win back the majority in the upper chamber.
 
But Toomey's campaign defended his Senate record Tuesday, arguing that he has led the Senate on "gun safety."
 
Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) spearheaded a 2013 proposal to strengthen gun background checks.

Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats in November, including a handful in states previously won by President Obama.

Democrats need to net four seats to win back the upper chamber if they also retain the White House, and five to win it back outright.

[GrouchoTex]

Okay, just who gets to determine who is and who is not a terrorist?

By all accounts, our Federal government doesn't have a stellar record in doing so.

This is bad news, folks.

[Timber Rattler]

Watch Toomey...he's had this up his sleeve for a long time, waiting for an opportunity to push it.  This bill was not written in only a couple of days.  Mike Lee just posted that he and his staff are reading it, and three other bills like it, line by line, right now.

[Jazzhead]

Kudos to Senator Toomey for offering a viable compromise that will allow gun purchases to be denied to suspected terrorists while providing a mechanism to address mistakes, errors, and arbitrary action.   I'm not sure whether I prefer Toomey's proposal or the one put forward last year by Senator Cornyn,  but I have no issues with a "no-buy" list that conforms to due process rights.   

[Jazzhead]

Okay, just who gets to determine who is and who is not a terrorist?

By all accounts, our Federal government doesn't have a stellar record in doing so.

This is bad news, folks.

No it's not.   We can't ignore what went down in Orlando.   The Dems don't give a damn about law-abiding gun owners; Toomey does.   His compromise is a hell of a lot better than the unchecked arbitrary authority the Dems demand.     

[Timber Rattler]

Any compromise on the 2nd Amendment is a surrender to the Rats.  Previous compromises, built upon each other, are how we got into this mess in the first place.

Anyhow, what's to stop the other Lois Lerners of the liberal world from arbitrarily putting political enemies on this "no buy" list, just like the IRS did with the TEA Party groups?

Compromise or not, this is just a really, REALLY bad idea.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Kudos to Senator Toomey for offering a viable compromise that will allow gun purchases to be denied to suspected terrorists while providing a mechanism to address mistakes, errors, and arbitrary action.   I'm not sure whether I prefer Toomey's proposal or the one put forward last year by Senator Cornyn,  but I have no issues with a "no-buy" list that conforms to due process rights.

Due process = A warrant, a jury trial by 12 peers, and nothing less in denying God given unalienable rights. Innocent until proven guilty. Not innocent until proven suspicious.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Okay, just who gets to determine who is and who is not a terrorist?

By all accounts, our Federal government doesn't have a stellar record in doing so.

This is bad news, folks.

Understood, but then your argument is more against the terror list rather than a gun ban on people on the terror list.

If there is some fair process that you'd be ok with in which we designate a person a "suspected terrorist" then a gun ban on said list isn't a bad idea.

The alternative might be to ban assault rifles, which would truly be a futile effort and would punish law abiding owners of said weapons.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Watch Toomey...he's had this up his sleeve for a long time, waiting for an opportunity to push it.  This bill was not written in only a couple of days.  Mike Lee just posted that he and his staff are reading it, and three other bills like it, line by line, right now.

He probally put the Tommey-Mansion crap from the last crisis in the microwave and reheated it.

[kidd]

Kudos to Senator Toomey for offering a viable compromise that will allow gun purchases to be denied to suspected terrorists while providing a mechanism to address mistakes, errors, and arbitrary action.   I'm not sure whether I prefer Toomey's proposal or the one put forward last year by Senator Cornyn,  but I have no issues with a "no-buy" list that conforms to due process rights.

There is no due process in Toomey's bill.
Essentially, in Toomey's bill, one's Second Amendment rights are removed by a tribunal, not by trial
And if one disagrees with the tribunal, then one has to petition the government to reinstate one's rights

Why are Second Amendment rights any less important than the others?

Will we have a tribunal to determine who can go to church?
Will we have to petition the government to write an editorial?

Of course not.
So who exactly is determining that the Second Amendment rights are flexible?
Answer: Someone in government (Toomey), who is exceeding the authority granted to him by the Constitution.

It is really not a "right" anymore if we have to ask the government for the permission to do something that the Constitution already protects.

[kidd]

Understood, but then your argument is more against the terror list rather than a gun ban on people on the terror list.

If there is some fair process that you'd be ok with in which we designate a person a "suspected terrorist" then a gun ban on said list isn't a bad idea.

The alternative might be to ban assault rifles, which would truly be a futile effort and would punish law abiding owners of said weapons.

"Due Process" would require that each US citizen be given a trial before they are put on the list of suspected terrorist.
I cannot even imagine how a trial would proceed to prove someone is a "suspected" criminal.
People who have committed crimes with a gun can be banned from buying a gun...they have received Due Process through a trial.

The whole idea of restricting rights based on a list created by some corruptible set of bureaucrats is absurd.
Under Toomey's bill, an Obama-appointed panel of judges could simply assert that all registered republicans are suspected terrorists and cannot own guns. Now wait your turn in line to explain why you shouldn't be on the list. "Your case will be heard in 28 months once we receive your completed and notarized paperwork."

All of this effort to curtail the rights of innocent Americans is of little use anyway. The Boston marathon terrorists didn't need guns.
But no one has lifted a finger to ban pressure cookers.

[geronl]

New Headline:

AG names 350 million as "likely terrorists", national gun ban instituted!!

[Idaho_Cowboy]

 Well said @kidd. The point being overlooked here: If we know someone is a terrorist and have evidence to back it up, why are we letting them walk the streets? If you have enought to indict them go round them up, dont' put them on a stupid list. If you don't have enough to even indict only suspicion you should not be considering taking away Unalieanble rights.

[geronl]

Imagine a Constitutional Right becoming a tolerated privilege.

[geronl]

If there is some fair process that you'd be ok with in which we designate a person a "suspected terrorist" then a gun ban on said list isn't a bad idea.

No, you arrest them and put them on trial for whatever you suspect they did.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

New Headline:

AG names 350 million as "likely terrorists", national gun ban instituted!!

This administration's DHS keep insisting right wingers are as dangerous as radical Islamic muslim ISIS extremist from other countries. I suspect the next administrations will hold similar views.

Shall not be infringed is very simply it means shall not be infringed.

[geronl]

   The Dems don't give a damn about law-abiding gun owners; Toomey does.

Apparently not. We have had at least one AG who wanted all veterans to be denied the right to own a gun, who would have declared them future terrorists if she had the chance. Tyrants are chomping at the bit to get this done.

Secret courts, secret lists, a political official making those decisions... wow... it is their wet dream coming true!

The abuses by Lois Lerner at the IRS should have taught people something.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Apparently not. We have had at least one AG who wanted all veterans to be denied the right to own a gun, who would have declared them future terrorists if she had the chance. Tyrants are chomping at the bit to get this done.

Secret courts, secret lists, a political official making those decisions... wow... it is their wet dream coming true!

The abuses by Lois Lerner at the IRS should have taught people something.

'
I'm pretty sure I heard: If you like your guns you can keep your guns.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@geronl I'm sensing a lot of hostily here.
Maybe we'd better put you on a list... just in case... for the children... because it makes us safer... because we have do something... ...because we are at war...    /sarc

[240B]

The whole idea of restricting rights based on a list created by some corruptible set of bureaucrats is absurd.
Under Toomey's bill, an Obama-appointed panel of judges could simply assert that all registered republicans are suspected terrorists and cannot own guns. Now wait your turn in line to explain why you shouldn't be on the list. "Your case will be heard in 28 months once we receive your completed and notarized paperwork."

Obama has already indicated that he would restrict White Christians, Republicans (i.e., what he calls his enemies), Tea Party members, and veterans, from purchasing weapons because they are either currently on 'his' terror watch list or they soon would be after this bill passed.

Obama is untrustworthy in the extreme, and he cares nothing at all about any kind of 'rule of law'. Also, he shows characteristics of paranoid delusional thinking.

Like O.J. was always looking for the mythical "real killers", in the same way, Obama is constantly searching for his mythical "real terrorists". The real terrorists are White Christian Patriots, Tea Party members, Republicans, and veterans.

These are the people Obama would seek to restrict, all the while angrily yelling in defense of some Muslim radical, who is covered in blood spatter, yelling 'Allah Akbar!', and holding a smoking AK-47. Obama would argue that Muslims need guns now more than ever to protect themselves from the angry Americans who refuse to accept the right of Muslims to keep massacring them. That is Obama logic.

That is just who Obama Hussein is. And that is how he thinks. Obama and his cohorts cannot be trusted with any legislation to ban any weapon from anybody. Regardless of any good intentions, before the ink is dry on it Obama and his crew will already be using it for mass nationwide gun control and confiscation.

[geronl]

@geronl I'm sensing a lot of hostily here.
Maybe we'd better put you on a list... just in case... for the children... because it makes us safer... because we have do something... ...because we are at war...    /sarc

or "just because"

[INVAR]

For those applauding this list idea - I have to ask: you people would really go and trust the Federal Beast to go and create LISTS of suspected terrorists when THIS SAME GOVERNMENT'S DHS HIRED AND EMPLOYED THE ORLANDO JIHADIST TO TRANSPORT AND RELEASE ILLEGAL ALIENS???????

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/orlando-terrorist-worked-security-co-hired-dhs-transport-release-illegal-aliens/

You folks are out of your loving minds to grant this government that has repeatedly NAMED YOU AND ME as domestic terrorists in official DHS documents, the power to create arbitrary *lists* of "suspected terrorists" based on criteria that this same government says is OFF LIMITS.

What we need is a list of all the gun restrictions and regulations and all the gun-free zones and strike them all down and advocate the American citizen arm-up because it has been made perfectly clear: we citizens are on our own when it comes to self defense.

[mountaineer]

This administration's DHS keep insisting right wingers are as dangerous as radical Islamic muslim ISIS extremist from other countries. I suspect the next administrations will hold similar views.

Who wouldn't want the next Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch decreeing who should be denied guns? Sure, especially when these are what the current administration considers potential terrorists:

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union'”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

From "Truth Wins;" additional links at site

[Idaho_Cowboy]

For those applauding this list idea - I have to ask: you people would really go and trust the Federal Beast to go and create LISTS of suspected terrorists when THIS SAME GOVERNMENT'S DHS HIRED AND EMPLOYED THE ORLANDO JIHADIST TO TRANSPORT AND RELEASE ILLEGAL ALIENS???????

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/orlando-terrorist-worked-security-co-hired-dhs-transport-release-illegal-aliens/

You folks are out of your loving minds to grant this government that has repeatedly NAMED YOU AND ME as domestic terrorists in official DHS documents, the power to create arbitrary *lists* of "suspected terrorists" based on criteria that this same government says is OFF LIMITS.

What we need is a list of all the gun restrictions and regulations and all the gun-free zones and strike them all down and advocate the American citizen arm-up because it has been made perfectly clear: we citizens are on our own when it comes to self defense.

Better yet. Is anyone willing to trust the same administration responsible for Fast and Furious and arming mexican druglords with keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Who wouldn't want the next Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch decreeing who should be denied guns? Sure, especially when these are what the current administration considers potential terrorists:From "Truth Wins;" additional links at site

I hit at least 1/4 of those.