TexasCHLforum.com

I feel the GOA does a better job. My friend in the northeast who is a NRA member said they've all but abandoned them. I think the GOA and the SAF do a better job.

Let me rephrase my comment is there a statement by the NRA that has a persons name with authority to spesk on behalf of the NRA connected to it. Ya know something along the line of

"It is the offical position of the NRA to oppose any legislation that does not provide due process BEFORE a person is added to a list"

remington79 wrote:I feel the GOA does a better job. My friend in the northeast who is a NRA member said they've all but abandoned them. I think the GOA and the SAF do a better job.

Oh, ok. Now I see the agenda. I was wondering when it will come out.

LSUTiger wrote:

remington79 wrote:The NRA is coming out in support of secret no buy lists. This is why I won't join them they are too willing to "compromise" our rights away. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/ ... list-kind/

I did not see the NRA support such nonsense in the article referenced. Despite what many like to misinterpret or spin what ever the NRA says, what you/the referenced article are asserting is simply not the case.

The NRA if anything has at least attempted to interject due process to protect 2A rights into the already existing secret government lists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H6e8ZOHRw4

The only thing I see is a reporter trying to corner the NRA into saying some bubba sounding guns and alcohol go together type stuff and them not taking the bait. What I would have liked too see is mention of something like this....

http://concealednation.org/2016/06/sout ... staurants/

I always have supported the NRA and will continue to do so. You shouldn't misinterpret every little omission, misstatement or errant reply given under the time constraints of TV and the attack and scrutiny of the left wing media talking heads as absolute gospel fact. You should also beware of blatant media propaganda and the propagation of erroneous information or opinion on the internet.

Attempting to discredit the NRA is what the other side always tries to do. Don't fall for it. When the left falls for it it's expected, when we fall far it it's called divide and conquer.

For further reference:

https://www.youtube.com/user/NRAVideos

https://www.nranews.com/

https://www.nraila.org/

https://home.nra.org/

Edit: https://www.nraila.org/issues/terrorist ... -fly-list/

This ^^. To date, the NRA has been the most effective and positive supporter and affirmer of your RKBA since its founding. Period.

Personally, I do not have a problem with the idea of a no-fly list, and only a fool would want terrorists to have access to firearms. The problem is in how to effectively keep terrorists from obtaining them through legal channels (you'll never be able to stop them from obtaining them through illegal channels), while still respecting the rights of others. What I would like to see are two things:

(1) The addition of a respect for due process and the rights of the innocent into the mechanism by which someone is added to the lists. Frankly, WAY TOO MANY people are added to these lists in error. They have even added well-known journalists and administration employees in error. I want people to be notified AT THE TIME THEY ARE ADDED, so that those who have no business being on the list don't have to wait to find out until they try to buy a firearm, or fly to Disneyland with their kids, only to find out at the most inconvenient (and costly) time that they cannot do so. I also want the process for having oneself removed from the list to be streamlined and made easier so that innocent people don't have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees getting themselves removed, when they are innocent of any wrongdoing, or even of plotting wrong doing.

(2) I want to see gov't employees held accountable for whom they add, how, and why - so that an agent who establishes a track record of adding innocent people to the list under false pretenses can lose their job. Do it once or twice in error, well that could be a genuine accident. But do it repeatedly, and that is just shoddy work, indicating that you're not doing the work for which you've been paid. You should be punished for that. And the agency that repeatedly abuses the civil rights of citizens who have done no wrong should have to face the SAME kind of scrutiny as other law enforcement agencies that abuse citizens' rights.......like the LAPD for instance.....

You add those two forms of accountability into the law, and I'm OK with no-fly lists, and their being integrated into the NICS database.........as long as we have to have background checks at all........

And my understand is that this is exactly what the NRA is trying to get passed - accountability. The bottom line is this, for the moment, the gun-banners have momentum; and Congress being what it is, we are GOING to have a law passed. The democrats do not want any of this due process "nonsense" added into the law, and are openly advocating against due process. The NRA sits on the other side of that fence.

Everyone falling into the divide and conquer trap that was deliberately laid out for you...go ahead and roll on down the road.

NRA has been at the forefront of countless legal battles without which you'd be disarmed already. They started the fight to protect 2A decades before some of us were even born, so please, get your eyeballs on the true enemies of 2A, because calling NRA unsupportive of your 2A makes you look like a fool. Don't do it.

I tried to warn you not to fall into the trap.

The groups who signed the letter to ammoland is a rather motley bunch, many of which have a history of opposing the NRA state affiliates in their states. You can look at each group and see a lack of activity, massive "Donate money to us" campaigns, or they are like (often associates of) the NAGR which often takes the position "We agree with Bloomberg: The NRA is the enemy."

I see a claim in a letter used to justify an article in a Blog that is used to attack the NRA online in forums and in social media. What I do not see is proof of the claims raised by these groups who are often asking for money when they reference this letter/article/attack.

The Annoyed Man wrote: You add those two forms of accountability into the law, and I'm OK with no-fly lists, and their being integrated into the NICS database.........as long as we have to have background checks at all........

Rarely do I disagree with you TAM...but I gotta call it on this one...

A judicial way to remove yourself from a list that some paper pusher put you on that resulted in the loss of your rights in any way, shape or form is unacceptable. that is not due process. Due process is such that the judicial system has to prove you guilty before rights are forfeited. The above mentioned process amounts to you having to prove your innocence to the judicial system...

So everyone that is saying they are against this would like for every criminal and terrorist to be about to buy guns and anything else they see fit ? I for one thing this is a good thing but only with some tweaks to the way you get on the no fly list now with that said i dont like the thought of any laws that will regulate gun ownership.

RogueUSMC wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: You add those two forms of accountability into the law, and I'm OK with no-fly lists, and their being integrated into the NICS database.........as long as we have to have background checks at all........

Rarely do I disagree with you TAM...but I gotta call it on this one...

A judicial way to remove yourself from a list that some paper pusher put you on that resulted in the loss of your rights in any way, shape or form is unacceptable. that is not due process. Due process is such that the judicial system has to prove you guilty before rights are forfeited. The above mentioned process amounts to you having to prove your innocence to the judicial system...

IIRC the reason the dems didn't go for the Cornyn bill is because it put the burden of proof on the FEDs and raised the bar from suspicion to probable cause within a 3 day window or allow the sale. The same standard for arrest and detention.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86114058/

I'm 100% against the No-Fly List and gun ban, period. Judicial or otherwise. The left has moved the conversation further left again and we are too busy squabbling about how far we will move with them, instead of arguing against the immoral and unjust objective in the first place. The 'Shall not be infringed' was pretty clear in my mind.

The government has always attempted to nibble away at our rights. The process is slow but almost always irreversible. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." How much infringement should we compromise away? The list is made without judicial action. What constitutes a terroristic threat? Is it a Muslim with family ties to Syria? A Muslim who has lived in this country for generations? Is it a person who speaks of succession from the union? A person who is angry with the legislature. Maybe a person who doesn't like our president. How about a preacher who speaks against gay marriage or a Tea Party Supporter. Who is going to make these judgments? Where does the list stop?

Today there are people who are denied gun ownership because they seeked help from the VA, and they assigned power of attorney to a family member.

How many acts of terrorism would these measures stop? Perhaps the real answer to terrorism is to persuade people to arm themselves against these people.

Liberty wrote:The government has always attempted to nibble away at our rights. The process is slow but almost always irreversible. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." How much infringement should we compromise away? The list is made without judicial action. What constitutes a terroristic threat? Is it a Muslim with family ties to Syria? A Muslim who has lived in this country for generations? Is it a person who speaks of succession from the union? A person who is angry with the legislature. Maybe a person who doesn't like our president. How about a preacher who speaks against gay marriage or a Tea Party Supporter. Who is going to make these judgments? Where does the list stop?

Today there are people who are denied gun ownership because they seeked help from the VA, and they assigned power of attorney to a family member.

How many acts of terrorism would these measures stop? Perhaps the real answer to terrorism is to persuade people to arm themselves against these people.

Another problem with lists such as the no fly is that the people on the lists aren't informed of the fact that they are on it.

LSUTiger wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: You add those two forms of accountability into the law, and I'm OK with no-fly lists, and their being integrated into the NICS database.........as long as we have to have background checks at all........

Rarely do I disagree with you TAM...but I gotta call it on this one...

A judicial way to remove yourself from a list that some paper pusher put you on that resulted in the loss of your rights in any way, shape or form is unacceptable. that is not due process. Due process is such that the judicial system has to prove you guilty before rights are forfeited. The above mentioned process amounts to you having to prove your innocence to the judicial system...

IIRC the reason the dems didn't go for the Cornyn bill is because it put the burden of proof on the FEDs and raised the bar from suspicion to probable cause within a 3 day window or allow the sale. The same standard for arrest and detention.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86114058/

And my argument - perhaps badly stated - is that getting added to a no-fly list should be subject to the same standards of scrutiny. As far as RogueUSMC's objection to my statements, I absolutely agree that one should not have to sue to get oneself removed from a list. My (personal, and perhaps incorrect) definition of "due process" is that a mechanism exists to protect someone from being erroneously added, and that:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I want people to be notified AT THE TIME THEY ARE ADDED, so that those who have no business being on the list don't have to wait to find out until they try to buy a firearm, or fly to Disneyland with their kids, only to find out at the most inconvenient (and costly) time that they cannot do so. I also want the process for having oneself removed from the list to be streamlined and made easier so that innocent people don't have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees getting themselves removed, when they are innocent of any wrongdoing, or even of plotting wrong doing.

I thought that the highlighted sentences above made my position pretty clear. I was not aware that the term "due process" refers exclusively to litigation. You live and learn.

As to whether or not (A) there ought to be a no-fly list at all, and (B) if the list records should be part of the NICS database, I said:

The Annoyed Man wrote:You add those two forms of accountability into the law, and I'm OK with no-fly lists, and their being integrated into the NICS database.........as long as we have to have background checks at all........

To me, that communicates that I don't think we should have to go through background checks at all. BUT.......the law exists, and it isn't going to go away any time soon, no matter how much we might want it to. Therefore, with regards to these lists and the reality of NICS, I prefer to deal with what IS, not with my perfect world. The lists aren't going to go away. Why? Because when did post-civil war gov't ever give up a power it took for itself? Correlating the lists with NICS is going to happen in some form or other. Why? Because republican statist elites agree with democrat statist elites and socialist elites that The People have entirely too much freedom to make a big gov't happy. When I say "I'm OK with no-fly lists", it means that I accept that they are the reality we have been dealt; denial of that fact accomplishes nothing; and so we should hope that authorities stop treating all citizens as "un-indicted co-conspirators". The proof that they have stopped treating us all as un-indicted co-conspirators is that they build mechanisms into their current policy, making it easy for a citizen who has been added in error to get themselves removed. There's not enough political capital in the entire country to abolish the lists entirely, so they are a fact of life we have to deal with. So are mosquitos and biting flies. Since we can't get rid of all mosquitos and biting flies, we can at least give ourselves tools to mitigate the problem. Ditto the no fly lists.

And that is basically what the NRA is saying too.

ok. we are on the same page...lol. You made it sound like it was ok as long as the guy that did is was going to be held accountable. That wasn't good enough for me...lol.