TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:All right ladies and gentlemen, tell me where I'm wrong.

It seems to me that there's no problem with prohibiting people that are on the no-fly list from buying or possessing a gun. It seems that there is a problem with The List. It is unreliable and secretive. If the government went through a court and due process to put someone one that list then would it still be a bad thing?

I agree, partially, with you, maybe completely...

The list is a problem. I believe that the processes around it are the problem, due process is needed. If you are to have your rights rescinded, you must have enough evidence for an arrest.

I support the idea of a specified process that gets people on the list, a transparent way to challenge being on the list, and when blocking a sale of a firearm, requiring the attorneys office for whatever relevant jurisdiction go to court and defend their reasoning for blocking a sale. I think a 72 hour window for this to happen is reasonable. That is the window for a delay on current NICS checks.

Keep the burden on the government to prove to a judge that rights should be suspended - this is what has to be done for an arrest warrant, seems logical that the same level should be applied to revocation of other rights. Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

RoyGBiv wrote:Just to be clear, while I despise the idea of subjective membership on a list that causes my rights to be denied without due process, I think the NRA is pursuing the issue in the correct manner. The folks in charge over at NRA have proven themselves wily and worthy of my trust, especially so over the last few years. The media is looking for anything they can use to beat and vilify the NRA (and all gun owners) and one of the components of any good strategy is to deny that opportunity to your enemies. It's important to separate the bad policy itself from the strategy being pursued to block or mitigate that policy.

If Chris or Wayne or Jim are reading this, please know you have the firm support of this Benefactor member.

The 72 hour hold, then go to a judge and block the sale with the same level of evidence as it takes to get an arrest warrant. I believe this is acceptable as it keeps the burden of proof on the government - innocent until proven guilty. Whack jobs on the other side say this is too hard to do - if it's too hard to do then you shouldn't be able to restrict anyone's rights!