Reintroducing: The Terror Intelligence Improvement Act

[Twinsig]

Guys. Hope this isn't considered a drive-by, I'm definitely not one of those, and this news story, IMO, should be on everyone's radar screen. As many others of course.

Marco Rubio has reintroduced legislation that seeks to suspend the Second Amendment rights of any person who has been investigated for “terrorism” related offenses within 10 years of attempting a gun purchase. Not charged. Not convicted. Just "investigated." The Terror Intelligence Improvement Act would let the FBI and DNI draw up lists of US citizens arbitrarily labeled “domestic terrorists” and flag them during background checks.


https://citizencaller.com/select

[Tom Servo]

I can't seem to find a current version of the bill itself online. The site you linked appears to be fishing for comments but providing little real information.

Rubio proposed a bill with the same name in 2017 and 2019, but it didn't pick up any cosponsors or get through committee either time.

[Aguila Blanca]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/1778/text

[tomrkba]

One headline was that merely being investigated for terrorism results in the revocation of gun rights. No conviction necessary.

This is our future, people. Misdemeanor domestic violence opened the door to this and Red Flag laws solidified the idea in statute. Here we are: not even an accusation is needed to end someone’s rights...talk about lowering the bar!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by tomrkba

One headline was that merely being investigated for terrorism results in the revocation of gun rights. No conviction necessary.

That is what the proposed law calls for:

SEC. 5. Attorney General authority to delay firearms transfer to suspected terrorists.

(a) Establishment of process.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a process under which, for any person who is, or within the previous 10 years was, the subject of a terrorism investigation by any Federal department or agency, the Attorney General may—

(A) delay the transfer of a firearm or explosive to the person for a period not to exceed 10 business days; and

(B) file an emergency petition in a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of the firearm or explosive.

Basically, it looks like a red flag law on steroids. Due process gets turned inside out and upside down -- you get denied and prohibited first, then you get a hearing at which you can try to prove that you aren't the evil terrorist the government claims you sorta, kinda might be (unless you're not, but you still look sneaky so, Judge, let's make him prohibited anyway. It's for the children).

Look at the scope. It applies to anyone who was the subject of a terrorism investigation within the last TEN YEARS -- even if the investigation exonerated the person. So some one could have been investigated -- AND CLEARED -- nine YEARS ago, but now it's an EMERGENCY!!! to prevent him/her from buying a firearm -- even if he/she already owns ten or twenty firearms.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/1778/text

That's the one that was introduced 06/11/2019. It was sent to committee and died there.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

A whole lot of people in the US fit the terror description. 2 billion dollars worth of damage to the US. Thousands of innocent small business's destroyed, police car's torched, innocent people attacked, vandalism, looting, and on and on. Are these the terrorist he is talking about? BLM and Antifa are the terrorist America should be worried about. More of the same this past Friday night. Enough is Enough!

[mehavey]

It's just the current double-secret probation No-Fly list now in effect.
You don't know you're on it til flagged at the airport, or why you're on it, or how to get off it.

It's a bright cold day in April, and the clocks are now striking thirteen.
(Ever see the movie Brazil ?)

[44 AMP]

A reminder to all, we don't do politics here. Discussion of a bill, a law, or govt policy, relating to our rights is within our limits here. Rants about either party, or the people in them, is not.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

That's the one that was introduced 06/11/2019. It was sent to committee and died there.

Oops. Sorry.

[Metal god]

Why would any “pro gun” politician introduced such a crazy law in times like this . I’m hearing an entire political party should be designated a terrorist organization . Quite frankly I don’t see how you discuss this type of legislation without it getting political . This is the exact type of tyrannical legislation anti-gun groups would love to have in their quiver .

[44 AMP]

Quite frankly I don’t see how you discuss this type of legislation without it getting political

You start by discussing ONLY the proposed legislation, and not who proposes it, or why.

Something like realizing the off screen personalities of actors are NOT the characters they portray onscreen, and that the writers of fiction are not the characters they create.

There are many places on the net to discuss politics and political figures. This is NOT one of them. Here we discuss, as best we can. proposed laws, laws and govt policies without getting into the political arguments of either side about personalities and agendas.

If you cannot separate the issue from its creator's agenda, its probably best to refrain from commenting.

I wish Congress could do that, but over the last few decades I've been watching them, they rarely do, and that is one of the bigger problems we have with Congress. IMHO....

[Metal god]

How do you not discuss the legislation without the agenda part ? I mean I could use the word purpose would that be better ? There must be a reason for the policy being put forward , are we not allowed to talk about that . If there’s a purpose is it that we cannot discuss the voting and speach history of the people putting forward said legislation to maybe conclude what that purpose might be ?

How about a sports analogy , Do you think it reasonable for the coach of one team not to look at the history of their opponents ? What they’ve been doing to other similar teams to stop them . Would it not be reasonable to look back at tape of what they’ve done to try to anticipate what they may do to you in the future ? I often hear the mods here say we don’t speculate , why not ? Gun control is not a 50-50 , 60-40 or even a 80-20 political issue when it comes to the actual people that cast the votes that change the laws that affect the citizens directly . Sure if you did a nationwide Poll those numbers may be more split but they are not when it comes to the people that actually cast a vote in congress . Since this isn’t a general sub form I think the general public’s opinion about gun control may be irrelevant but I believe the track record and rhetoric of the actual lawmakers casting votes is very relevant to the discussion . Especially in such a divided and polarizing times like we have now it actually may be more relevant now than ever .

That’s my point as to why I think you can’t discuss this type of legislation with out talking about the political part of it .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

That’s my point as to why I think you can’t discuss this type of legislation with out talking about the political part of it .

I have to disagree. I think our rules are clear enough. We can discuss the language of a law -- or a proposed law -- and whether or not we think it's constitutional (and why or why not), how the law may affect us, and basically all the practical ramifications of the law without ever touching on the politics behind the law. Let's face it -- once a law becomes a law, we are stuck with it, to either obey or disobey, regardless of the motivations or politics that led to it.

There are other sites where discussion of the politics underlying laws is allowed and even encouraged. This site is not one of those.

So, in a nut shell, you can discuss laws without discussing politics. You can't discuss the politics behind laws without discussing politics. There is a distinction.

[44 AMP]

How about a sports analogy , Do you think it reasonable for the coach of one team not to look at the history of their opponents ?

I'd say that's fine. its history.

What people are on record as saying, what they have done, that is history, not politics. It may be the history of a political figure, or party, but its history, verifiable, proven and provable facts.

As history, it has a bearing and a valid place (to a degree) in the discussion.

going beyond that and it rapidly enters the real of pure politics and we're not allowing that here. Our experience is that allowing politics sends things into a serious downward spiral that ends in nothing but namecalling and no real discussion. Been there, done that, and saw a forum closed as a result.

The rules here are stricter than the rest of TFL. With good reason. If you cannot in good faith live within them, I seriously encourage you not to post in this forum.

READ THE INSTRUCTION FOR THIS FORUM.

If you cannot, or will not follow them, you will be removed from participating. Its really that simple.

[Aguila Blanca]

44 AMP reminded us in post #9 that the discussion should not devolve into politics. Some people either didn't get the memo, or don't understand the difference between discussion laws and civil rights as opposed to discussing politics and personalities.

Please stick to the topic or we'll have to close this discussion. If your post disappeared ... that's a clue.

[Metal god]

You might as well close it , either nobody has posted in several days or you mods are deleting everything . I stand by might point . This type of law can't be discussed with out talking about who supports it and how it can be used against your political opponents or the citizenry as a whole .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

You might as well close it , either nobody has posted in several days or you mods are deleting everything . I stand by might point . This type of law can't be discussed with out talking about who supports it and how it can be used against your political opponents or the citizenry as a whole .

Okay, then I'll close it. But not before pointing out that your assertion is incorrect.

Any law can be discussed completely without reference to the politics or the personalitiy(ies) behind it. What does the law say? What activities does it regulate or prohibit? Who does it affect? Are there any exceptions to it? When does it become effective? Does it have a sunset provision? Do we think it passes constitutional review? Those are all legitimate topics of discussion, and they don't in any way involve the political motives that underlie the law.

The only reason anyone can't discuss a law (or a proposed law) without delving into politics is that they don't choose to do so -- they want to discuss the politics. And that's fine. The politics behind bad laws need to be discussed -- but not on this site.