Rand is supporting gun control, I'm done supporting him

[Rudeman]

If you have a problem with it contact Rand instead of making a big show of it on the forum, especially if you claim such high prestige.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't have a problem with the Cornyn Amendment.

...I don't think it's necessary, since the threat of terrorism is vastly overblown, but it's not going to hurt anything either.

The 2nd amendment does not guarantee that everyone has a right to own firearms.

...nor should everyone have the right to own firearms.

People in prison, for instance, can quite justly be denied the right to own firearms.

The issue is due process (as opposed to some bureaucrat at the DHS secretly adding someone to the badboy list).

The Cornyn Amendment provides for due process, and pretty rigorously.

Got the text of the amendment?

 

[dannno]

If you have a problem with it contact Rand instead of making a big show of it on the forum, especially if you claim such high prestige.

Today the merry-go-round around here is all about Trump - the media says Trump said this, Trump clarifies his comments into something else, what does he really mean, on and on and on..

A few years ago the merry-go-round around here was all about Rand - Rand said this or that, Ron wouldn't say this or that - why is Rand doing it? Does he just want political power? Is he doing what he thinks will be best in the long-term for our liberty? Is he making a huge mistake by supporting this or that?

Then eventually Rand comes out and says or does something that shows us he still really cares about liberty and most of us realize he was doing whatever he was doing for strategic reasons.

Then a couple weeks later it would happen all over again.. Everybody freaks out at first and then when the details come in later and the dust settles, most people get back onboard with Rand.

Turns out he has done a lot for the liberty movement.

The key is patience - I have no problem with these threads, I would like to know what his explanation for this vote is, what is his strategy - but ultimately I trust Rand. You don't have to, but you should.

 

[Matt Collins]

If someone is on an FBI watchlist and then the FBI makes a case to a judge that their is probable cause that the person could use the weapon in terrorist activity and the judge agrees, that is due process. I am surprised this isn't allowed already.

If they are that dangerous, then they should be arrested.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Got the text of the amendment?

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/4749/text

Hereafter, the Attorney General shall establish a process by which--

(1) the Attorney General and Federal, State, and local law
enforcement are immediately notified, as appropriate, of any
request to transfer a firearm or explosive to a person who
is, or within the previous 5 years was, investigated as a
known or suspected terrorist;

(2) the Attorney General may delay the transfer of the
firearm or explosive for a period not to exceed 3 business
days and file an emergency petition in a court of competent
jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of the firearm or
explosive, and such emergency petition and subsequent hearing
shall receive the highest possible priority on the docket of
the court of competent jurisdiction and be subject to the
Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);

(3) the transferee receives actual notice of the hearing
and is provided with an opportunity to participate with
counsel and the emergency petition shall be granted if the
court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the
transferee has committed, conspired to commit, attempted to
commit, or will commit an act of terrorism, and if the
petition is denied, the Government shall be responsible for
all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees;

(4) the Attorney General may arrest and detain the
transferee for whom an emergency petition has been filed
where probable cause exists to believe that the individual
has committed, conspired to commit, or attempted to commit an
act of terrorism; and

(5) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
annually reviews and certifies the identities of known or
suspected terrorists under this section and the
appropriateness of such designation.

 

[erowe1]

If someone is on an FBI watchlist and then the FBI makes a case to a judge that their is probable cause that the person could use the weapon in terrorist activity and the judge agrees, that is due process. I am surprised this isn't allowed already.

Yes. And then after they are proven to have committed crimes, they can be punished. Not before.

 

[erowe1]

The 2nd amendment does not guarantee that everyone has a right to own firearms.

That's true. The right to own firearms exists regardless of there ever being such a thing as the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the language of the 2nd Amendment itself speaks of the right to keep and bear arms as a right that was already there all along.

 

[jmdrake]

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/4749/text

Thanks for posting this. Yeah that's about as reasonable of an amendment that could be put forward under the circumstances. There is a catch 22 on the 3 day waiting period for the hearing. On the one had you wouldn't want to delay a law abiding citizen any longer than necessary. On the other had, 3 days is a short time to prepare a defense for such a hearing. Maybe if 3 days was the minimum waiting period but if a defendant wanted more time to prepare for the hearing he could request it. And it's good that the list would be reviewed on a yearly basis, but their needs to be a definite way to petition to get off the freaking list.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That's true. The right to own firearms exists regardless of there ever being such a thing as the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the language of the 2nd Amendment itself speaks of the right to keep and bear arms as a right that was already there all along.

Yes, I agree, hence the distinction I made:

The 2nd amendment does not guarantee that everyone has a right to own firearms.

...nor should everyone have the right to own firearms.

From a pure libertarian standpoint, Constitution aside, restricting firearm ownership for certain persons in certain circumstances can be justifiable.

...such as a person who has been found, through a fair legal process, to be an imminent threat.

(whether the threat is terrorism related or a function of mental health, for instance)

A conviction is not necessary to restrict someone's rights, otherwise search and seizure and pre-trial custody, for instance, would be unjust.

It's a matter of degree; the more serious the restriction, the more compelling the evidence against them must be.

 

[phill4paul]

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/4749/text

Curious wording.....

in a court of competent
jurisdiction

Attorney General shall establish a process

Honestly, shouldn't the process be worked out prior to the passage of the bill? So that it is laid out within it. So that once passed the bureaucrats don't pervert it?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Thanks for posting this. Yeah that's about as reasonable of an amendment that could be put forward under the circumstances. There is a catch 22 on the 3 day waiting period for the hearing. On the one had you wouldn't want to delay a law abiding citizen any longer than necessary. On the other had, 3 days is a short time to prepare a defense for such a hearing.

That's true, but 3 days is also not much time to prepare a prosecution.

Maybe if 3 days was the minimum waiting period but if a defendant wanted more time to prepare for the hearing he could request it.

That's a good solution; make the prosecution submit their complaint within 3 days but give the defendant the option of more time to prepare.

And it's good that the list would be reviewed on a yearly basis, but their needs to be a definite way to petition to get off the freaking list.

Agreed, and I'm sure Rand would too.

In fact, I seem to remember him talking about this in the past, might have even introduced legislation at some point.

 

[Krugminator2]

Yes. And then after they are proven to have committed crimes, they can be punished. Not before.

You don't have to wait until someone commits a crime. That is insane. There are certain people that should be watched closely. And if you watching them closely because they are communicating with ISIS or a terrorist group, that would be a reasonable to restrict gun ownership if the FBI makes the case.

 

[jmdrake]

That's true, but 3 days is also not much time to prepare a prosecution.

Well the prosecutor will have an unlimited amount to time to begin preparing the case before bringing it to the judge in the first place.

That's a good solution; make the prosecution submit their complaint within 3 days but give the defendant the option of more time to prepare.

This forum is at it's best when we actually hash out new ideas.

Agreed, and I'm sure Rand would too.

In fact, I seem to remember him talking about this in the past, might have even introduced legislation at some point.

If the end result of all of this is that the no fly list is no longer a black hole that you get stuck on with no due process and no obvious way to get off then that would be a plus. Maybe this could be applied to the flying portion of it as well.

 

[erowe1]

You don't have to wait until someone commits a crime. That is insane. There are certain people that should be watched closely. And if you watching them closely because they are communicating with ISIS or a terrorist group, that would be a reasonable to restrict gun ownership if the FBI makes the case.

So, just because I communicate with someone that the government calls a member of ISIS (how do they go about determining who is a member of ISIS anyway?), I lose my right to keep and bear arms? It doesn't even matter what the content of that communication is?

 

[nikcers]

This isn't even half as bad as collins was concerning me about. Rand is getting attacked by his opponent for letting terrorists have guns. He has to get re elected, otherwise the democrats will definitely take our guns. Now he will be on record saying he voted to stop terrorists from getting guns, and still fight to stop the democrats (the real terrorists) from taking our guns. If you want to campaign for him and combat that narrative go ahead, but he is going to do everything he can to combat that narrative -

within the previous 5 years was, investigated as a
known or suspected terrorist;

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If the end result of all of this is that the no fly list is no longer a black hole that you get stuck on with no due process and no obvious way to get off then that would be a plus. Maybe this could be applied to the flying portion of it as well.

Yea, I think this amendment (which just failed, 53-47, BTW) could have potentially compelled the feds to reform the watch list.

 

[Rudeman]

Today the merry-go-round around here is all about Trump - the media says Trump said this, Trump clarifies his comments into something else, what does he really mean, on and on and on..

A few years ago the merry-go-round around here was all about Rand - Rand said this or that, Ron wouldn't say this or that - why is Rand doing it? Does he just want political power? Is he doing what he thinks will be best in the long-term for our liberty? Is he making a huge mistake by supporting this or that?

Then eventually Rand comes out and says or does something that shows us he still really cares about liberty and most of us realize he was doing whatever he was doing for strategic reasons.

Then a couple weeks later it would happen all over again.. Everybody freaks out at first and then when the details come in later and the dust settles, most people get back onboard with Rand.

Turns out he has done a lot for the liberty movement.

The key is patience - I have no problem with these threads, I would like to know what his explanation for this vote is, what is his strategy - but ultimately I trust Rand. You don't have to, but you should.

I love discussion posts about what Rand is doing, I wish there was more activity in that regard (unfortunately only the negative threads get many replies nowadays). I'm not a fan of the look at me I'm no longer supporting Rand type threads. Make the topic about the issue, not about yourself. That's the only complaint I have about this thread.

 

[phill4paul]

So, just because I communicate with someone that the government calls a member of ISIS (how do they go about determining who is a member of ISIS anyway?), I lose my right to keep and bear arms? It doesn't even matter what the content of that communication is?

Depends on where the government goes. At one time having a Ron Paul bumper sticker might have achieved that goal. It all comes down to who the Fed is targeting at that particular time.

 

[erowe1]

This isn't even half as bad as collins was concerning me about. Rand is getting attacked by his opponent for letting terrorists have guns. He has to get re elected, otherwise the democrats will definitely take our guns. Now he will be on record saying he voted to stop terrorists from getting guns, and still fight to stop the democrats (the real terrorists) from taking our guns. If you want to campaign for him and combat that narrative go ahead, but he is going to do everything he can to combat that narrative -

Does holding the right position and supporting the right to keep and bear arms by keeping the law as it is now and not adding any more regulations on buying guns than there are already really make someone unelectable in Kentucky of all places? I mean the no-fly list itself has only been around a few years, and it's not exactly the most popular and successful law itself.

I think Rand could make a big splash, and a very positive one with his constituents, by setting himself apart from the rest of his colleagues and taking a courageous stand on the side of what's right here.

 

[dannno]

I love discussion posts about what Rand is doing, I wish there was more activity in that regard (unfortunately only the negative threads get many replies nowadays). I'm not a fan of the look at me I'm no longer supporting Rand type threads. Make the topic about the issue, not about yourself. That's the only complaint I have about this thread.

Fair point - I would urge the OPs of these threads to reserve judgement - "I don't think I like that Rand voted this way, why did he do it?" and like you said, stick to the issues.

Also in case there is any confusion the last sentence in my last post wasn't intended to be directed at you but at others here who tend to go off the rails every time Rand does something a little different than his father would.