TexasCHLforum.com

Why Did Senate Democrats Block Background Check, Terror Watch List Bills?

If you get your information only from left-leaning politimedia, you might get the impression that last night’s four votes on proposed firearms bills were sponsored by Democrats and blocked by Republicans.

The first vote was held around 6:00 PM. Republican Senator Charles Grassley’s bill to increase funding to the FBI’s NICS background check system so that the system had more accurate criminal and mental health data was blocked by Senate Democrats. It had 53 votes for it and 47 votes against it, falling short of the 60 vote majority needed because liberal Senators voted against it.

Shortly afterward, liberty-hating Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy’s attempt to force so-called “universal” background checks down the throats of American citizens was defeated on a 44-56 vote.

...Collins-Ayotte allows a highly politicized official to take away constitutional rights by fiat without any real due process -- and presumes it can compensate for this by a process to “get your rights back” which is virtually impossible to invoke.
And while Collins-Ayotte purports to allow due process, it does so only for those who can afford to put up a substantial amount of money ahead of time, with the hope that they will get attorneys’ fees refunded to them after the fact.
...this amendment will NOT contain some of the protections for gun owners’ rights that were present in the Cornyn amendment.
... I wanted to emphasize that this “review and appeals” process will NOT benefit the average gun owner.
...The [appeals] process will be made even more lengthy and expensive by the fact that it must be filed in the docket-jammed courts of appeals -- which have recently, in all but two cases, been “packed” with anti-gun Obama appointees, largely by use of the “nuclear option.” The non-specific “expedited consideration” provisions may help a little, but not much.
The “right to review” is triggered by an official notice of denial issued by the Attorney General. But section _____(a)(2) specifically gives the Attorney General the written statutory right to refuse to assign a unique identification number, apparently indefinitely. And most large retailers refuse to sell a firearm until this unique identification number is received, even if they are legally entitled to do so.
...The Justice Department has refused to comply with the statutory requirement that they tell prohibited persons why they have been denied the right to purchase a firearm.
They do so, ever callously, while issuing the bureaucratic equivalent of “So sue us!” And, if you can’t figure out the reason for your denial, you can’t comply with the 60-day appeal filling process.
...If persons subject to denials have suffered these consequences, persons subject to inaction have had an even worse time getting a response. Last fall, the Justice Department announced that it has decided, illegally, to simply defund the processing of appeals.
...under section ____(d)(3), the AG is specifically authorized to classify and withhold any information she chooses. A really expensive attorney with a high security clearance might be able to get around this, but still wouldn’t be able to circumvent assertions of “privilege.”
Under section ____(d)(4), discovery is prohibited, except under extraordinary circumstances. Part of the proceedings will be “ex parte” (section ____(d)(6)), which means that the most important parts of the adjudication will consist of meetings, in chambers, between the judge and the government -– with the petitioner and his attorneys excluded.

...Collins may not understand that “legal fees” provisions have been in place for people fighting the government since the Buckley amendment in 1976. But these provisions have had little impact for non-wealthy litigants forced to pay the costs of litigation up-front and faced with, at best, a slight chance of reimbursement at the end of the process.
In short, this sham procedure represents no remedy at all in the real world, and it certainly does not offset the fact that the individual’s constitutional rights were stripped preemptively by fiat by a politicized official with virtually unfettered discretion and a demonstrable animus toward guns.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/ ... index.html

TexasJohnBoy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/ ... index.html

rentz wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/ ... index.html

oh geez, this is partisan politics at its worst. The republicans submitted very reasonable compromise solutions that essentially gave the democratic party what they claimed they wanted but limited the lists they could use and since it was from republicans it gets denied and spread that the republicans halted all measures to protect americans.

Pawpaw wrote:

rentz wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/ ... index.html

oh geez, this is partisan politics at its worst. The republicans submitted very reasonable compromise solutions that essentially gave the democratic party what they claimed they wanted but limited the lists they could use and since it was from republicans it gets denied and spread that the republicans halted all measures to protect americans.

Fixed it for ya.

Pawpaw wrote:

rentz wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/ ... index.html

oh geez, this is partisan politics at its worst. The republicans submitted very reasonable compromise solutions that essentially gave the democratic party what they claimed they wanted but limited the lists they could use and since it was from republicans it gets denied and spread that the republicans halted all measures to protect americans.

Fixed it for ya.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

rentz wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/ ... index.html

oh geez, this is partisan politics at its worst. The republicans submitted very reasonable compromise solutions that essentially gave the democratic party what they claimed they wanted but limited the lists they could use and since it was from republicans it gets denied and spread that the republicans halted all measures to protect americans.

Fixed it for ya.

with both of you. I think the Cornyn bill was the essence of a compromise between the two positions. So who's causing the gridlock now?

rentz wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/ ... index.html

oh geez, this is partisan politics at its worst. The republicans submitted very reasonable compromise solutions that essentially gave the democratic party what they wanted but limited the lists they could use and since it was from republicans it gets denied and spread that the republicans halted all measures to protect americans.