Need to see the details, before my mind's made up..

the FBI field agents handling that case is instantly notified when someone on the list buys a gun. Not that it matters in the Orlando case, because he wasn't on the list. He also was a security guard that worked for a contractor. He had a type G CCW, which has to be renewed each year vs a type S CCW, because of his security job. Private investigators and security types get a G. With a G, they can legally go armed where and S can't. Places like bars, schools, polling places etc.

I agree with the FBI director that letting the person being investigated a heads up could compromise the investigation.
Remember, the list is simply an investigation, and nothing more. Most of the time it is "oh I saw this guy read the wrong book." It could be based on reading the Koran, or going to some militia website, even out of curiosity.
I agree with the ACLU, the list simply shouldn't exist. Whenever some politician says "common sense" count on it being a bad or stupid idea.

...actual due process (right to trial by a jury of peers) and ALL evidence is presented then the jury decides if you do or do not remain on the list, IDK... maybe.

The best plan is to get rid of the list. Secret lists of "enemies of the state" have no place in a nation founded on liberty. Hoover had several lists. I think all of them were bad. Nixon had a list. I think Franz Ziereis had a list. Most of the government lists aren't a good thing.

Here's an example of someone with useful list:


Oskar Schindler


But his government didn't really approve.

and to everyone who replied. I do think Jolly's bill makes an effort to allow the individual an appeal process, but I agree lists are not the way to go. On principle, I oppose our list and related legislation (Canada).

I can understand gun enthusiasts have guns for hunting, practicing, competitions?, collections, but the reason that disturbs me is the need for self-defence. I hope that's not as widespread as it sounds. Here, we have inter-gang violence, but most people don't have an awareness of personal safety.

I think the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, but people who shouldn't have guns will unfortunately still get them by some means. I do wonder what is the purpose of the rifle used by the Orlando killer? that is, in the hands of a responsible owner, what's it used for?

Let me start by saying that I agree in principle with Jolly's proposal, but I also agree with those that say that ALL evidence must be available to the accused. Giving the government free rein to simply put evidence out of bounds by classifying it would make a sham of the whole process.

There is a long history of civilians adopting firearms technology that was originally developed for the military. For example, the ubiquitous bolt-action rifle that most associate with deer hunting is based on military weapons of the first half of the 20th century. The relationship changed when armies around the world adopted full-auto rifles as their standard-issue weapon. Since most countries, the US included, ban or strictly regulate full-auto ownership by civilians, a firewall went up between military long arms and civilian ones.

But consumers are always interested in the latest technology, and those who served in the US military in the '60s and beyond carried the news of that technology to the public at large. Who wouldn't want a lightweight, modular, ergonomic, weatherproof, low-recoiling rifle? So the semi-auto variants were created for the civilian market.

Traditional hunters (sometimes called "Fudds" by the younger shooters) tend not to like them, but ARs and their cousins are adaptable to hunting, especially varmint and predator hunting: coyotes, etc. And they are very popular with competition shooters, in both traditional target disciplines and the newer "practical" events, which are more action-oriented, with rapid movement, reactive targets, etc.

What most of the non-shooting world doesn't realize is that these are far and away the best-selling rifles in the US today, and are also widely used in other countries, albeit sometimes with additional legal requirements, like extra licensing. In one form or another, AR-pattern rifles are legal in Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and South Africa. They are legal to own in the UK, but only in the low-powered .22 rimfire version. (Bizarrely, I cannot legally own the .22 rimfire AR that Brits can own because my state, NY, bans them with all the rest.)

The Orlando shooter used a SIG Sauer MCX, which is actually not an AR15 variant, but a completely original design created by the Swiss-German company to compete with AR-pattern rifles. However, the essential configuration is the same: semi-auto rifle, detachable magazine, adjustable synthetic stock, modular construction, pistol grip for the firing hand, chambered in 5.56, etc. There is a full-auto version for military use, and the semi-auto version for civilian markets.

Below is a Google search for images from the National Match meeting for service rifle competition, held every year at Camp Perry, Ohio.

https://www.google.com/search?q=camp+perry+national+matches&source=lnms&tbm=isch

you provided. My knowledge of guns is mostly from movies - handguns, rifles with a bolt (grandpa had one), tommy-guns, then Rambo-variety weapons. Your details on hunting and competition gave me the first real understanding I've had of the sporting use of guns.

My idea was that an AR style fired multiple times in rapid succession, so I thought it wouldn't be used for hunting, that is if you want to eat the game? (I still don't know if you're able to make single shots with it, googling is just bringing up the high end numbers). I guess this is part of the distinction between the traditional hunters and those preferring the AR style. I do see its application in the newer competitive events you mentioned, quick-moving and reactive target, that's a great addition to test skill.

In the photo it looks smaller - sleeker - than I thought, though still seems hard to conceal if someone was trying to. I did know they were available in Canada, in the restricted category. I've heard some examples of the variation in regulations between the states, I find that incredibly confusing.

last I checked, they are still available in Canada now as restricted after being unrestricted for decades. There is a movement to move it back to unrestricted because mechanically, that is where the advocates say it belongs. I'm not that very knowledgeable on what the criteria is, so I don't have an opinion.

The AR is semi automatic, not automatic. Automatics are machine guns, which has been prohibited in Canada since 1977 and tightly regulated under one of our federal gun laws.
In my state, the round most commonly used in the AR can't be used for large game hunting because the round isn't powerful enough to humanly kill a deer with one shot. If you have one in the appropriate caliber and a five round magazine, you can legally hunt with it in Wyoming. You will also likely be ridiculed as as being a city slicker or mall ninja.
That is one reason why the bolt actions used by the Canadian Rangers uses a much more powerful round. If you happen to visit a part rural Norway where being armed is required, something like an AR would be very poor choice, unless you want to be the polar bear's last meal.
If the weapon used in Orlando is available in Canada, it would probably be restricted.

and sorry for my delay. I appreciate your explanation about what's suitable for hunting and why, makes a lot of sense. The bolt action-type gun that my grandpa used so many years ago (or a newer variation) would still be what's needed for adequate (and humane) stopping power for a large bear or moose, then. Another reply I got referred to "traditional" hunters.

It's surprising how many things seem to vary state by state, from what's available for purchase to what you can legally hunt with (and maybe a lot else as well).

Yes, you can make single shots. Each time you pull the trigger, one round is fired. That's what a semi-auto firearm does. The military full-auto versions, on the other hand, will continue firing round after round for as long as you keep the trigger depressed. (Some military weapons now use "burst fire" instead of full auto, which means the rifle fires three rounds each time the trigger is pressed: sort of "semi-semi-auto.&quot But even military full-auto (or burst fire) versions have a switch that puts them into semi-auto mode. That's why they're often referred to as "select fire" weapons.


Actually, most states have game laws that restrict the number of rounds your magazine can hold when you are hunting. That's why manufacturers offer five-round magazines for people who want to use their AR rifles to hunt. It's not really a question of "hunting style" -- hunters using AR rifles still have the goal of killing their prey with one shot to avoid having to track a wounded animal, for reasons of both aggravation and ethics. The objection of traditional hunters is generally that AR rifles look "too military." They favor the appearance of wood-stocked rifles without pistol grips, the good old "walnut and blue steel" aesthetic.

spelling that out, about how the semi-auto and full-auto fire. This is not that easy to find out on the internet, or I didn't search well enough. I got confused by "bursts". You explained really really well!

Also you clarified the hunting question for me, not as much difference as I thought there, traditional hunters mostly valuing the more "vintage" aspect of the look, maybe the feel and weight of the older-style rifle. I appreciate the information, and you make it very understandable for an onlooker like me.

It isn't so much the need, as it is the preparedness for. A fire extinguisher is a good analogy. Like your country, almost all of our murders are intergang violence in small pockets of some cities. Of course, that doesn't have anything to with other violent crimes like rape, armed robbery etc. The police exist to enforce the law and maintain general safety, not protect you or me, unless you happen to be in their custody. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, ruled that. Even if it were their job, it would be an impossible task. They know that.

the Supreme Court ruling. Seems to be cited to protect police from liability in the individual cases I saw, but I was unaware of that, and surprised to read it. I'm glad to hear your focus is on preparedness, and the potential for need, rather than living in a heightened state of fear or expectation of a threat to personal safety. I've heard "self-defence," "the right to defend myself," so often as a reason for having guns, my impression was, well, it's a more dangerous country. Thanks for your explanation.

I always try to make an effort to answer and keep the discussion alive.

Welcome to DU and the group.

While an appeal process is a good thing, the list is not. The more we become reliant on laws with a bad foundation, the further we are from the idea of good government.

As for the need for self-defense and to lay a proper foundation, self-defense is more than a need, it is a right. IMHO governments everywhere need to take rights more seriously. I decided not to carry (after a deliberate and careful assessment.) I don't feel that my assessment is universal nor do I feel that government review and approval of the assessments of others is reasonable.

The purpose of the Sig Sauer MCX used criminally in Orlando is the same as every other semi-auto rifle. The US has a very long, involved, intrusive and expensive process for the acquisition of full-auto weapons. In addition private citizens are not eligible to own any full-autos manufactured after 1986. I don't agree with that restriction but it's not material to this discussion. In the US small arms rifles are available to the average person if they are either single shot/non-automatic or if they are semi-automatic provided they are .50 caliber or under. The presence of pistol grips, folding stocks, being black in color, having a bayonet lug or a hook to hang your lunch bag not withstanding does not and should not change that. AR-15 style rifles are adaptable to various configurations and accessories. Whether you fold the stock or paint it black, brown or green, the functionality of the gun remains the same.

The idea that "assault weapons" are different (deadlier) than other semi-automatics serves, IMHO, as a distraction. Some politicians and gun-control proponents have latched on to that, in some cases, simply to drive another wedge between their ideologies and those of RKBA proponents. It is a tactic used since history began. That tactic is counter to making any progress relating to gun-control. Many of the leaders on both sides of that controversy are fine with that. Clearly the RKBA leaders are happy with the impasse since new laws are not forthcoming and contributions to their cause are continuing. Pro-control leaders are seeing media attention and contributions. A side thought of mine: it is no accident that the pro-control leaders have settled on AR-15 style platforms to target for restrictions as "assault weapons" since they are currently the most popular selling civilian rifle in the country.



Assault weapons = diversionary circus.

It seems thoughts of using lists in any bill are not acceptable for a few different reasons, and an appeal process doesn't seem likely to work without tipping off a person being investigated, as well as withholding classified information.

Terminology is interesting, "assault weapon" I assume is a military term. It sounds a lot more harmful than "hunting rifle". While I can see why it might seem that the pro-control leaders criticizing this style of gun are thinking to sweep a very big seller off the market - that may be so - my assumption was that it was in direct response to what happened in Orlando. The timing, that type of gun, its qualities, and the fact it's been used in a few mass shootings. That's the perception up here, though our news reflects the way it's reported in the U.S. It's understood that politicians, everyone, wants to make changes to prevent future tragedies. Hopefully something will be agreed on by both sides, but doesn't seem likely to happen soon. And there are obviously other things to be addressed, that lead a person to do that.

Assault weapon is a made up term sometimes attributed to advertising, sometimes to pro-control folks. IIRC the intent was to sound similar to the actual military term 'assault rifle'. Over the years the terms have been overused and misused by the media. The media is after the sensational and will add any term to a sentence just to make it a bit scarier.

I contend that some leaders in the pro-control group, media personalities and politicians publicize certain incorrect opinions and accusations simply for attention and to keep 'the cause' alive.

I maintain that gun laws like background checks aren't bad ideas but won't have much affect on crime and suicides. They do serve a purpose in highlighting to everyone that it's best to keep guns away from those who've demonstrated problematic issues. Given the ability and any sense of duty or proper conduct, most people will work to do the right thing. IMHO, empowering the average person to optionally visit a police or sheriff's office for a background approval on someone to whom they plan to sell or give a gun is a positive step.

This country's poor and middle class have been victimized by the wealthy 1% usually with government approval if not help since the beginning. It is not the Trumps, Blooombergs and Kochs that find themselves needing to sell an old revolver for $50 or $100 to pay a bill or buy gas to get to work. There are plenty of know nothings that want to make everything artificially expensive for gun owners like ammo taxes and insurance. These measures serve mostly to annoy and alienate the folks from whom cooperation is needed.

Sorry to rant. There are lots of good folks that are being lied to and misinformed. Many leaders either go along with these "exaggerations" or outright lies to further their agenda or just to get some press.

Thanks for listening. Have a great day.

I try to keep that in mind (sensation as a ratings boost) and read between the lines, so to speak, for more fact, less spin. I find the pro-control side gets a lot more air time, not surprised at the moment, as it tends to follow tragic events like this. I see brief response statements from the NRA, and saw a short piece of film of an ex-soldier speaking in defense of the AR. That's pretty much the reporting I've heard for years. I have never seen a gun enthusiast interviewed.

You make some good points. It would have been good to hear more reporting about factors leading a person to commit a crime - mental health issues, and economic status, as you say. The need for good parenting, education, opportunities for youth, good societal support. Keeping guns out of the hands of those "who've demonstrated problematic issues" as you say, is key, but what if those issues are not visible, or no one speaks of them?

I think that's a great idea, to make it possible for people to check with sheriff/police prior to a sale or transfer, but it seems privacy might be an issue there. I don't know enough about background checks (only checked to see what the process entailed in Canada), consensus from the networks was that it was easier than getting a driver's license. I haven't yet looked it up for myself, though.

Thanks for a really interesting post!

I consider myself a mostly positive person. I believe in my neighbors and that they're good folks. If good people are empowered with a means to work for good, they will do just that. When people are discounted, ignored, disrespected and devalued they don't respond very well. Give the regular guy a way to help and people everywhere will surprise you. Government needs to work more on finding ways to empower the average person rather than eyeing them with suspicion and looking for reasons to add them to a list of enemies. When I look at how dwi has been reduced, imo due a lot to designated drivers, I know honest folks would take advantage of BGCs available through law enforcement.

have a good day

The Attorney General's lists, the No Fly lists, Terror-Watch Lists have one thing in common: Preemptive denial of rights. This, to say nothing of harassment via employment, or social disruption (changing meeting times and sites, false press releases, etc.). And while some proposals are better than others in not totally bludgeoning the Fifth Amendment, the sad irony was that the Orlando killer wasn't on a list at the time of his atrocity.

Jolly's proposal won't "fly" with me.

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:18 AM - Edit history (2)

before any linkage between the Terrah Watch Lists and the NICS background check system, it will first be necessary to tear up the TWLs and in their place mandate the creation of a new list which:

1) ONLY allows the placement of a name on the list following a presentation before a federal judge/magistrate to ensure proper due process is accorded the accused,
2) requires notification of the person placed on that list,
3) there must be a due process method of legally appealing/contesting that placement,
4) this list must be open and transparent to the public,
5) all placements on that list must be subject to review and renewal by presentation before a federal judge/magistrate not less than every 5 years.

Until these reforms are passed into law and implemented should these lists be linked to the NICS background check system and be used to deny the civil liberties and 2nd Amendment rights of a US citizen.

Your list is just about perfect. I applaud your thoughts.

Too many are willing to toss Due Process out the windows because it makes them feel good, and it's a tragedy.

my delay replying! The lists have been criticized as they stand, and the steps you laid out seem to answer some of the criticisms. I guess it remains that notification of the person placed on the list could compromise an ongoing investigation. Regarding your 4th point, "open and transparent" is the way to go, but if I were on a list like that I'm not sure I'd want it in public view? - if I understood that correctly.

It doesn't sound likely that any bill like that is headed for agreement anytime soon, no movement yet on a couple of versions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html