The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.FloridaViaMissouri wrote:So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?TexasJohnBoy wrote:Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.
...If I understand the bill correctly...
Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?
I like your idea. If it absolutely has to go like this, the entity responsible for negligently/ignorantly/purposefully placing you on a no-buy list should be held responsible in civil and criminal court.TexasJohnBoy wrote:How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.FloridaViaMissouri wrote:So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?TexasJohnBoy wrote:Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.
...If I understand the bill correctly...
Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?
Labeling someone something because of their views is far from having evidence to get an arrest warrant too, and I believe that's the point.
If it was a government agency that put you on the list good luck trying collect judgement from the governmentjb2012 wrote:I like your idea. If it absolutely has to go like this, the entity responsible for negligently/ignorantly/purposefully placing you on a no-buy list should be held responsible in civil and criminal court.TexasJohnBoy wrote:How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.FloridaViaMissouri wrote:So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?TexasJohnBoy wrote:Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.
...If I understand the bill correctly...
Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?
Labeling someone something because of their views is far from having evidence to get an arrest warrant too, and I believe that's the point.
Plus most don't have 100s of thousands upfront to cover the cost of a lawyer.good point.. just a thought!FloridaViaMissouri wrote:If it was a government agency that put you on the list good luck trying collect judgement from the governmentjb2012 wrote:I like your idea. If it absolutely has to go like this, the entity responsible for negligently/ignorantly/purposefully placing you on a no-buy list should be held responsible in civil and criminal court.TexasJohnBoy wrote:How about adding an amendment that if you're cleared in the end, a civil judgment is levied against whatever jurisdiction blocked the sale in the first place to cover your costs? Not perfect, but nothing is.FloridaViaMissouri wrote:So other words if the court decides to block the sale then YOU will have to pay big lawyer fees and spend years tied up in court in order to purchase a firearm?TexasJohnBoy wrote:Yes - if you're blocked, then the govt has 72 hours to prove its case in front of a court, with the same level of proof as they would show for a warrant.
72 hours is the delay that's already in place for NICS checks that are kicked back. I think this is reasonable, and puts the burden of proof on the govt to get a warrant, not on the citizen wrongly added to the list to prove their innocence.
...If I understand the bill correctly...
Then what happens of the Dept on INjustice under Hillary or Bernie decide to label you a terrorist because of your "views"? Remember what the IRS did to "right wingers" with the audits?
Labeling someone something because of their views is far from having evidence to get an arrest warrant too, and I believe that's the point.
Flake from Arizona and the republican senator from IllinoisTexasJohnBoy wrote:Who were the R's that voted for it??
Flake of dandruff.crazy2medic wrote:Flake from Arizona and the republican senator from IllinoisTexasJohnBoy wrote:Who were the R's that voted for it??