Dem Senator "Due Process is Killing Us Right Now"

[Vyxn]

Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin complained on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Thursday morning that he wasn’t able to pass the gun control he wanted because of constitutional protections against depriving citizens of their rights without due process of the law.

“The firewall we have right now is due process,” he complained. “It’s all due process. We can all say we want the same thing, but how do we get there?”

Manchin noted that the FBI interviewed the Orlando shooter twice, but couldn’t keep him on any government lists due to a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. “They did everything they could, FBI did everything they were supposed to do, but there was no way to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list. There was no way to do that.”

“So can’t we say if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five year period of time that we have to see if [there’s] good behavior, to see if this person continues the same traits?” he asked. “Maybe we can come to that kind of an agreement. But due process is what’s killing us now.”
http://w

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-senat...ent-2734077738

So there You Have it the Constitution is the Problem

ok now that I have gotten that out of the way let me express. I'm just as willing as any other sensible person wanting to keep guns out of Terrorist or possible Terrorist hands but we have these pesky thing called Due Process that needs to be followed anytime you suggest taking away ones rights and here in the US we have the right to own a gun

here is my suggestion the agency that wants to put suspected or possible terrorist on a list that denies them the ability to fly or buy a gun. what evidence you have that makes you want that individual on the list needs to be presented to a judge or jury and they need to follow the same standard as you would to issue a search warrant or wiretap which is the standard of Probable Cause
If Probable Cause is enough to warrant the violation of right of privacy that is good enough for me to then be allowed to violate the 2nd amendment

agreed?

[Dezerte]

Constitutions aren't infallible, and can be interpreted in different ways.

[GennGreymane]

Due process is an issue when you want to do stuff, thats why we have Guantanamo bay.

[Vyxn]

Constitutions aren't infallible, and can be interpreted in different ways.

how do you interpret it one why to take away ones right to privacy but another way to take away the right to own a gun?
you need to be consistent in its interpretation

[GennGreymane]

how do you interpret it one why to take away ones right to privacy but another way to take away the right to own a gun?
you need to be consistent in its interpretation

He gave neither of those examples. How can he be consistent? Or inconsistent?

[Allerius]

Makes sense. I was confused when I heard about this bill as it doesn't seem to be constitutional. How did the member introducing it not know that?

[Vyxn]

Makes sense. I was confused when I heard about this bill as it doesn't seem to be constitutional. How did the member introducing it not know that?

republican senators tried to add an amendment that due process needed to be involved when the bill was introduced by democrats but the democrats rejected the amendment but of coarse they didn't tell you that in the liberal media they just proclaimed republicans wanted people on the terrorist watch list to be able to buy guns

[Theinquisition]

Due process is an issue when you want to do stuff, thats why we have Guantanamo bay.

To be honest, the guys in Gitmo aren't granted rights under the constitution anyway.

I don't know how I feel about this issue. On one hand, I don't want guys who are on FBI terrorism watch lists to have weapons, but at the same time I don't want to curtail someone's constitutional rights without due process.

I guess I may be okay with having to have the U.S. AG sign off on limiting someones ability to purchase weapons if they personally sign off on it, and immediately give the person notification and a way to appeal it within 90 days.

[Dezerte]

how do you interpret it one why to take away ones right to privacy but another way to take away the right to own a gun?
you need to be consistent in its interpretation

Maybe I should have added an 'or' for clarification.

But I imagine one could interpret something like that by rationalizing that one is indirectly protecting privacy while the other is unintentionally harming privacy - I don't know, but I'm sure it can be done. Constitutions are old documents, written by men and in a sometimes very different context from what we face today.

[Revi]

Well, good. It's a good thing that the government couldn't infringe on his freedom without any evidence. Yeah, this time it had absolutely horribly consequences, but terror shouldn't scare people into giving away more freedoms and rights.

[Spiffums]

If someone has enough credible evidence to be on a terrorist no whatever list........why aren't these people arrested for terrorism? Given the number of people on the watch list who have done nothing....like the 8 year old boy and a few congressmen it doesn't seem like a very good way to go.

[Damajin]

Acting unilaterally is what both parties want to actually do, make no mistake about it. Due process and the checks and balances system are obstacles to that which is why they need to be maintained and kept strong and consistent.

[Spectral]

Constitutions aren't infallible, and can be interpreted in different ways.

There really isn't an plausible reading of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that would allow present legislation. Judges and legislators just kind of make things up that are in keeping with modern sensibilities. Constitutions are barely relevant when they're as powerless as the US Constitution is. It'd be nice if legislators could be bothered to follow an amendment process, but I don't see that being likely.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, good. It's a good thing that the government couldn't infringe on his freedom without any evidence. Yeah, this time it had absolutely horribly consequences, but terror shouldn't scare people into giving away more freedoms and rights.

But Revi, don't you understand that it's just common sense to pass the laws that he Manchin would like? Obviously anyone that disagrees is in favor of slaughtering LGBT people.

[Deleted]

on one hand I'm all for banning people with ties to radical/fundamentalist Islam not just from gun ownership but from the country

on the other hand if a suspicion is enough to bar someone from accessing firearms, what stops them from becoming.. very suspicious of a lot of people? wouldn't that be awfully convenient for certain people and their agendas?

so at the end of the day this would do more bad than good

[Spectral]

I'm really surprised to see this from the Left honestly. I know some people pointed it out, i think the daily show did, but No Fly Lists disproportionately affect Muslims... So this would just be more "oppression"

Watching the cognitive dissonance manifest from various leftist bloggers that I read has been fascinating - I've actually seen a significant number of people spin this around and blame Christian homophobia for the violence. Of course, there's tons of focus on guns, but that's always a left-wing hobby-horse, so I don't begrudge them that one, but the desire to pin the group blame on anyone other than Islamists is remarkable.

- - - Updated - - -

on one hand I'm all for banning people with ties to radical/fundamentalist Islam not just from guns but from the country

on the other hand if a suspicion is enough to bar someone from accessing firearms, what stops them from becoming.. very suspicious of a lot of people?

We could always qualify on what qualifies as "common sense" legislation, right? The left is convinced that it's just "common sense" that private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles". The right is convinced that it's just "common sense" that we stop letting Muslims into the country. Let's compromise! No more guns for Muslims.

Please note - this is thoroughly tongue in cheek and not a serious proposal, intended only to mock the notion of "common sense" when invoked as a policy position.

[Deleted]

So there You Have it the Constitution is the Problem

ok now that I have gotten that out of the way let me express. I'm just as willing as any other sensible person wanting to keep guns out of Terrorist or possible Terrorist hands but we have these pesky thing called Due Process that needs to be followed anytime you suggest taking away ones rights and here in the US we have the right to own a gun

here is my suggestion the agency that wants to put suspected or possible terrorist on a list that denies them the ability to fly or buy a gun. what evidence you have that makes you want that individual on the list needs to be presented to a judge or jury and they need to follow the same standard as you would to issue a search warrant or wiretap which is the standard of Probable Cause
If Probable Cause is enough to warrant the violation of right of privacy that is good enough for me to then be allowed to violate the 2nd amendment

agreed?

that does sound like a reasonable burden of proof and procedure.

[Tijuana]

So there You Have it the Constitution is the Problem

ok now that I have gotten that out of the way let me express. I'm just as willing as any other sensible person wanting to keep guns out of Terrorist or possible Terrorist hands but we have these pesky thing called Due Process that needs to be followed anytime you suggest taking away ones rights and here in the US we have the right to own a gun

here is my suggestion the agency that wants to put suspected or possible terrorist on a list that denies them the ability to fly or buy a gun. what evidence you have that makes you want that individual on the list needs to be presented to a judge or jury and they need to follow the same standard as you would to issue a search warrant or wiretap which is the standard of Probable Cause
If Probable Cause is enough to warrant the violation of right of privacy that is good enough for me to then be allowed to violate the 2nd amendment

agreed?

The constitution is only a problem if you disagree with it, want to change it, and are in the minority about changing it. Other than that scenario, the constitution is the solution, not the problem.

Odd that I don't recall this discussion about guns and constitutions after the Paris attacks.

[Vyxn]

If someone has enough credible evidence to be on a terrorist no whatever list........why aren't these people arrested for terrorism? Given the number of people on the watch list who have done nothing....like the 8 year old boy and a few congressmen it doesn't seem like a very good way to go.

same reason you have enough evidence to get a search warrant or wire tap but no enough for an arrest warrant
two different standards which needs to be met

[Vyxn]

that does sound like a reasonable burden of proof and procedure.

And that is what republicans added to the democrat bill when the democrat introduced a bill to make it so people on the terrorist watch list couldn't buy guns but the democrats reject such measures but of coarse when the republicans voted down the bill because due process wasn't involved the liberal media painted it as republicans wanted terrorist to buy guns

[Deleted]

And that is what republicans added to the democrat bill when the democrat introduced a bill to make it so people on the terrorist watch list couldn't buy guns but the democrats reject such measures but of coarse when the republicans voted down the bill because due process wasn't involved the liberal media painted it as republicans wanted terrorist to buy guns

yeah well having to prove shit is inconvenient - I mean the Federal No fly being racist was never something the left complained about at all.