Earlier today, Jared Loughner, a troubled young man who is accused of shooting 20 innocent people, including my colleague, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was found unfit to stand trial for his actions.
Mr. Loughner's mental and emotional troubles have been well documented and were well known among classmates, professors and acquaintances well before Mr. Loughner opened fire on that fateful January day. Yet, despite the belief that Mr. Loughner could be a danger to himself and others, our federal laws, and our mental health system, were unable to live up to the commonsense belief that those who are mentally ill should not be able to purchase and own a gun.
Unfortunately, our nation's gun lobby and their allies in Congress refuse to have an open and honest conversation about how to protect the rights of responsible gun owners, while being equally vigilant in protecting the rights of all Americans to assemble in peace.
Congress could start by considering proposed legislation that would prohibit those on the "no fly" list from buying a gun -- something they are currently allowed to do. I've cosponsored this bipartisan legislation along with 24 colleagues (both Republicans and Democrats), yet we are still waiting for a vote on this bill.
Ultimately, our nation requires a mix of improved mental health services, improved information sharing among authorities, and a stricter control of the sale and possession of guns. Yet if we can't even debate gun control legislation in our halls of Congress, then we will never be able to ensure that our children can go to school, to church or to the local grocery store and return safely home.
Today's finding is the starkest sign yet that our nation's gun laws are broken and need to be fixed. When our nation's laws allow a troubled individual to purchase a gun, but can't hold that same person responsible for their actions, then it is clearer than ever that we need to act.
Follow Rep. Louise Slaughter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/louiseslaughter
Look up the story about Boy Scout Mikey Hicks.
Obviously, the list is far from perfect, implicating innocent people of being potential terrorists and all without due process of law to make such implication valid.
And, of course, "potential terrorist" is a loaded statement.
For one thing, technically anyone is a "potential" anything.
For a law to suggest a course of action against an individual who may potentially be dangerous without due process to prove if the danger is real is quite reckless. It also goes against a very core principle of American jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence.
More politicians should be as forthcoming and truthful as Rep Slaughter. It would make voting a heck of a lot easier.
I can't wait until you get tossed out onto the curb,
Due process is not involved unless you have standing, ie were denied the right to fly or buy. Were you or somebody else?
So what exactly is your beef?
I suspect that rights are not equivalent, that guns are not in fact cars, and if you didn't complain about the no-fly list, you can't complain about a no-flier not being allowed to buy. Both are regarded as dangerous.
Yes, i would like to know what the hell the Obamites think they are doing with a secret list. But Bushites are estopped to complain for 7 years, because that is the time they didn't complain about their boy. I'm sure the answer is "investigation", but enough is enough. Bush's GOP could plead incompetence, incontinence, insanity etc - Obama is none of these things.
I'm just still waiting for the Hope and Change.
Passing more laws will not fix everything, and infringing our civil rights will help nothing. As for the usual Left vs Right partisan political finger-pointing, I got thoroughly fed up with that a long time ago. I want to see my representatives in congress working together on things that might actually help. Example:
[The NRA has thrown its weight behind HR 297 along with Senator Caroline McCarthy of NY. The bill title is H.R.297 To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.] If those two can agree on something, I believe there is hope for improvements to the system.
Here is yet another article blaming "the gun lobby" for problems with the background check system. The truth about how Loughner was able to buy his gun came out shortly after the Arizona shootings. Why is this not mentioned here? The crack that Loughner slipped through was the direct result of a policy put in place during the Clinton administration. If you want to fix that, maybe it would be helpful to talk to the Justice Department and the FBI-- they are responsible for the policy and it's implementation. The NRA actually supports our current background check system, as well as fixing this particular fault. I keep hearing: "the NRA blocks ALL gun control laws!" from some people. Not true. Also this: "we need gun control now!"-- as if we do not already have thousands of good gun control laws. In my state of Oregon, we already have gun show law that requires all sales to use the background check system. This has no effect on what goes on in the parking lot outside, or anywhere else that private individuals make unrecorded, unchecked illegal sales. That will go on regardless of what the law says, as usual. And by the way, nobody has a monopoly on: "sensible, reasonable and common sense"-- I can use those terms, too.
Failures to ID him as should have been a prohibited buyer are more interesting.
The next interesting question is about how one gets on this nofly list. I believe it is done administratively by the different federal departments. The question remains about how legitimate it is to deny basic civil liberties based on such a list. As has been said regarding denying people on the TWL--shall we deny those people 4th and 5th Amendment rights as well as their 2nd Amendment rights?
One of the reasons society failed to deny Loughner the right to purchase firearms was because the parents, school, and local sheriff ignored all the warning signs and had Loughner committed for earlier threats and erratic behavior. Maybe the sheriff's department should be strongly sanctioned before we start denying rights to US citizens based upon secret additions to a secret list.
You folks on the Democrat side who are pro-gun had better be talking with your Reps. on this issue. Rep. Slaughter, unfortunately, has some heavy hitters on her team.
Semper fi
The reason for the failure of prohibitionist policies can be easily seen in human nature and basic economics. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean that people won’t do it. If it did, we wouldn’t need police, would we? And where there is demand, suppliers will emerge. Prohibition turns otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, creates “justifications†for violations of our rights and leaves government bearing all the costs of such activity while reaping none of the benefits. What’s worse is that while drugs or alcohol don’t directly involve a right, the 2nd Amendment protects our right to self-defense, without which there is no such thing as a right. The types of policies Representative Slaughter endorses don’t work and her inability to see that should be very telling.
Good job rendering defenseless millions of people, who for whatever reason can only use handguns.
Besides, there are tens of millions of handguns already in service.
Ask Patrick Purdy.
This is not a 2nd Amendment issue. This is a fundamental due process issue. You can not deprive any person of their Constitutional Rights merely because some bureaucrat has seen fit to place their name upon a secret government list.
Fundamental due process, at a minimum must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result. A Constitutional right is clearly and unmistakenly, a "liberty interest" to which the requirement of due process adheres.
So what is considered a "fair opportunity" to affect the result? It entails, at a minimum an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the matter be decided by an impartial magistrate. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970).
When you are willing to incorporate all of those elements into a law, then we can discuss it further, but until you do, it is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of fundamental rights which the US Government can not and must not circumvent.
The question here is the limits of the 2nd amendment, and specifically, can you prohibit a person from owning a weapon if for example there is an ex parte domestic restraining order against them, or if they are on a no-fly list?
There are a lot of circumstances where due process only requires the opportunity for corrective action, such as in towing cars. No due process was offered to FL voters removed from the rolls before the 2000 election, and that probably changed the result.
Neither due process nor the 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to own or possess a weapon.
In like fashion, the 2nd Amendment protects my right to defend myself. Had it been written in ancient Rome, it would protect my right to own a sword. If it is still in force when Star Trek becomes reality, it will protect my right to a phaser. The reason is simple, the right to defend myself and my rights NEVER goes away. In fact, without the right to self-defense, all other rights are meaningless. And without the idea that rights come from a power beyond government, rights cease to exist, being reduced to nothing but suggestions taken away by government just as they were granted.
http://conlaw-bloganon.blogspot.com/
Let's assume you can live with a NFL, maybe because the person is a fugitive member of al-aqaeda, also in the USA and a US citizen. Do you think this person has a right to buy a weapon? Do you want him to have a weapon? Do you suspect he might be a public danger? Why not incorporate the NFL by reference to prohibit weapons to the same people we don't trust on aircraft?
As for her side trip to the watch lists - he11 yes we are opposed. How can any of you who call yourselves liberal or progressive seriously suggest that a person be deprived of a fundamental right because they (or someone with a name similar to theirs) is listed on one of 13 or so secret lists? Lists with no way to find out if you are listed or any way to get off if you think you are. Lists that an FBI study said were unreliable, lists where air marshals admit they added people for virtually no reason (e.g. taking a photo out an airplane window) because they were required to meet a quota.
There's no prejudice until a person shows up and asks to get on a plane or buy a weapon. Then he finds out he's barred. He can appeal that finding.
So far, I don't think that's happened. There have been a lot of instances of people shooting politicians, and other politicians advocating people show up at rallies armed.
I would come along,
http://www.easypedia.gr/el/images/shared/archive/5/53/20050418223202!US_Army_M1A1_Abrams_main_battle_tank.jpg
but gas is too damn expensive.
Regarding TWLs: Like the NFL, there is no due process involved in being placed on any of these 13 lists. Some of these lists are classified and even for those which are not, there is no simple way to find out if you are on such a list. If a person does find out they are on such a list, for several of them there is no means of redress. For the others, it is very time consuming and even costly to get removed from the list, providing you can find out which one(s) you are one. The GAO and ACLU both have stated that of the people who were incorrectly on such lists and undertook the process to get removed from the list(s), many were still on at least one list more than six months after submitting to be removed.
TWLs were designed specifically for information gathering and sharing, nothing else.
Alot? Really? Where are you trying to take this?
Bizarre.