87 Comments - Ahoy! - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:46 pm: I support it in the sense that I don’t oppose it, but I”m with you Rich, this doesn’t go far enough. Why do we let people purchase a weapon of mass destruction that won’t let on an airplane after going through metal detectors, security and only being allowed minimal sizes of toothpaste? - SOIL M - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:47 pm: Yes. Sounds like a great idea as a compromise between security and protecting the rights of people who have not been convicted of a crime. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:50 pm: Voted no. I support Kirk’s idea but certainly not your idea. So you want to shift the burden from the government to the gun seller. If the government had valid legal justification then deny the sale. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:51 pm: It doesn’t go anywhere in the neighborhood of far enough. - FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:54 pm: Until the watch lists as they exist are fixed, I cannot support the idea. These are the same lists that had the late Senator Kennedy listed as a threat. The list is arbitrary and you can be listed because someone thinks you may be a little terrosity. It is hard for people on the list to get off when they have proven they are wrongly listed. It costs a lot of money to fight it. The ACLU is also against the list being used, unless they have changed their position in the last few days. Remember too the terrorist in Orlando had been on the list but removed after they investigated him. This legislation would not have disqualified his transaction. Knee jerk reactions are never the right reactions. Let us think things thru before we do something. - BoozeHound - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:57 pm: It only makes sense. Owning a gun is a privlage not a right despite what some might have us believe. We have a National Guard which fullfills our constitutional right. I am also a combat veteran and in my opinion no one should own an assualt rifle. They have no viable use other than to kill people. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:57 pm: When did Ben Nelson move to Florida? - ChicagoR - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 1:59 pm: I said “no”, as this is just weak tea. Actually prevent the sale and I’ll gladly support. - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:00 pm: Must be Bill Nelson. Ben ain’t exactly in the Senate anymore but could have possibly moved to Florida….. - Wensicia - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:00 pm: No, not good enough. Is it Ok to set up potential victims before law enforcement can track down and verify the possible terrorist’s intentions? - IllinoisBoi - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:01 pm: No. There needs to be more comprehensive gun control. - Jeff Trigg - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:02 pm: Before we debate whether to use the No Fly List to restrict gun purchases we should be debating exactly how that No Fly List works in the first place. FormerParatrooper makes a great point that the No Fly List, as far as we know, is arbitrary with little to no oversight. Just because Chicago Democrats think anti-war protestors and organizers should be investigated, spied on, and treated like terrorists doesn’t mean they are terrorists. - Downstater - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:03 pm: Voted yes, this idea is starting in a good direction… but ultimately I am in favor of banning assault weapons. - SOIL M - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:04 pm: Came across this article after i voted. Apparently one gun shop did deny him sales. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/16/gun-shop-owners-declined-sell-orlando-jihadi-reported-authorities/ - Jerry - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:06 pm: Too weak! Don’t allow sales to anyone on the list. Give them a hearing to argue about getting off of it. Also, yes by all means, let dealers know who they’re dealing with. Very weak sauce by guy up for re-election. - BK Bro - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:09 pm: Dido to JeffTrig. I can’t see even a left leaning corner allowing an arbitrary “no-fly” list to deny some one a constitutionally protected right. Airlines get away with it because flying is not a constitutional right. - Pandora - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:10 pm: I’m stunned to oppose anything that even suggests some kind of limitation on gun ownership, but this is so marginal that I believe it would undermine better legislation down the line. - downstate commissioner - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:12 pm: Like “Ahoy” because I don’t oppose it. Unlike “Ahoy” think it may be a compromise that might be acceptable to hard-liners from both sides for the time being…. - @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:14 pm: “Chicago Democrats think anti-war protesters and organizers should be investigated, spied on, and treated like terrorists” Never let a good point go untainted by hyperbole, right Jeff? – MrJM - just a guy - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:16 pm: This is just an election-year gambit by Kirk trying to look moderate on an issue that’s suddenly hot. It looks like it would keep arms out of the hands of terrorists but it reassures everyone outside of Chicago that he’s not trying to grab guns. - m - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:16 pm: Good idea, but Rich’s addition is better. My only add-on would be that if go with Rich’s idea, you need to protect the dealers so they don’t have liability for selling to people on the list. And I say that primarily because I could see the notification being missed and some honest business owner taking the blame for a terrorist incident. - Downstate Illinois - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:17 pm: This is the first reasonable idea I’ve seen yet since Orlando. We can’t prevent those sales because is a violation of due process but we can notify law enforcement. I like Rich’s idea to notify the seller. I’m sure most of them would prevent the sale on their own. Keep in mind though the answer to terrorists targeting Americans is not disarming Americans. - m - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:18 pm: Someone noted that the Orlando guy was no longer on the list. So you could add that the FBI would be notified if anyone who had ever been on the list would generate the same notification. No sale is legally blocked, so no innocent people are denied any constitutional rights. - m - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:19 pm: And the more I think about this… Doesn’t the FBI run the federal database? Shouldn’t they be able to do this now without any new law? - Kathryn - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:23 pm: voted yes. also believe assault weapons should be banned. their sole purpose is to kill people. - @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:25 pm: I’d go even further and let gun sellers know that they’re about to transact business with somebody on the watch list. The airlines already have this info, so why not gun sellers? Let them decide if they want to actually sell the guns, but make sure they have this basic information. But, whatevs. I would advise a gun seller that, in light of the Justice Department’s unconscionably broad application of the laws prohibiting ‘material support for terrorism’, they absolutely must never, EVER sell to somebody on the watch list. – MrJM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project - BK Bro - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:25 pm: We’d all be better served with a government hearing on how the list works before laws get passed that utilize said list. - Belle - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:26 pm: No Too weak. Your idea is better but still doesn’t go far enough. I’m sick of hearing about people getting killed by guns. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:26 pm: Great idea and the fact that it has bipartisan support is promising. Now what I would like to see here in Illinois is strengthening the penalty for carrying an illegal firearm from 1 year to at least the 3 1/2 year penalty New York imposes. The major problem in the neighborhoods of Cbicago is illegal guns possessed by felons. The 1,300 people on the watch list for causing the majority of the mayhem would be decimated by a change in current law. - Nieva - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:28 pm: Hard core gun lover and NRA supporter but I could live with this. Really no problem keeping guns out of the hands of do not fly list people. Give them a hearing within thirty days and either make a case against them or remove them from the list. - BluegrassBoy - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:29 pm: I’d say yes - this seems like a good way to let business owners decided who they may (or may not) want to conduct sales to. My perspective: I’m a gun owner with multiple guns (but as a matter of taste and personal preference, no black plastic ones). I have no interest in what is commonly referred to as an “assault weapon” but I see gun terminology thrown around by people who often have no idea what they’re talking about. I’d prefer that uninformed people not decide what I can or cannot buy. For that reason I don’t mind if my neighbor may have an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle. Then there’s the slippery slope argument. May seem hyperbolic but with the camel-nose under the tent analogy, could a Colt six shooter eventually be a prohibited gun because it has 6 bullets? Another concern - what about people who are put on lists by mistake? Or put on a list because of an accusation from a spurned lover? I hate to infringe on rights without due process. This is why I kind of like this bill. I feel like giving business owners information and giving them freedom to make an informed decision is a good approach. - Huh? - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:36 pm: No. This is a knee jerk reaction to the tragic events in Orlando. Also, as others have written, there isn’t enough known about the lists, how they operate and what you have to do if you are erroneously put on the list. - 100 miles west - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:37 pm: voted no, does not do much to prevent anything unless you want to hire more FBI agents - Annonin' - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:37 pm: Prefer CommandoMakeItUp work on FEMA reform he promised 3 years ago - PublicServant - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:38 pm: Suspend the sale until the fbi can interview the individual. Anything less allows pols to look like they’ve done something substantial in response when the terror suspect isn’t inhibited in any way - FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:41 pm: My suggestion is to make all these lists searchable by citizens and be able to challenge placement on the list at no cost to those wrongly listed. No due process is associated with the lists. You do not have to be charged or convicted to be added. Think of the implications if we were to make the lists as they exist to deny any rights. What other rights could be denied? Before jumping on the bandwagon at least think it out and research what it is. - A guy - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:42 pm: If someone is already on a no-fly list, OR like this guy, was being looked at by the FBI already (even interviewed twice), I’d agree that having something that makes his blip on the radar twinkle a little brighter might be helpful. If one of those interviewing agents saw he acquired a firearm, he/she might think about the relevance of it and keep a closer eye on the guy. Maybe. I’d support this. - Trolling Troll - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:46 pm: They already do this. Everybody who is trying to buy a gun is ran through the national database to insure that are not violent gang members, or terrorists. VGTOF. - The_Equalizer - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:49 pm: A halfway CYA bill that his own party will likely quash in a few months after the heat is off - Jack Jackson - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:49 pm: This doesn’t go far enough - so voted NO. - Aldyth - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:52 pm: Not strong enough. There was a suggestion out there that there be a denial if you’re on the list and a notification to the FBI for the next five years if you are off the list and you apply to make a gun purchase. - ChicagoVinny - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:52 pm: Without the universal background check component there are a ton of loopholes you could drive a truck through, so no. - Jimmy H - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:53 pm: Voted yes. A little more scrutiny on this guy may have prevented this tragedy. I do not agree with Rich’s idea. I think it should remain with law enforcement to take a closer look. I agree with - PublicServant - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:38 pm: “Suspend the sale until the fbi can interview the individual.” - Summer Intern - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:54 pm: I agree until the point of sale. These lists can be skewed and have individuals on them for no reason at all, but I still do not believe the sale should go through. Let the FBI decide whether or not the sale should go through when they are notified, but no firearm until the “listed” person is 100% cleared. - RNUG - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:56 pm: I voted yes on this even though I’m opposed to any additional gun control given what we already have in Illinois, but I recognize other states may be / are more lenient. I would also go along with Rich’s idea of notifying the FFL dealer that the potential buyer is questionable. Plus the idea by - FormerParatrooper - that citizens need a better method to challenge being improperly placed on a government watch list. One thing I haven’t found yet in all the coverage is exactly WHY, when the FBI apparently had multiple tips, they didn’t act beyond what little has been reported. Was it a systematic breakdown, a failure to pick up clues in just this instance, sloppiness, orders to avoid profiling, or what? I realize no one is perfect, but I really think we need some better answers from the FBI. - Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:56 pm: Not putting in a vote because it’s such a half measure. I’d say the starting point is Rich’s suggestion. - Rasselas - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:56 pm: Voted no. Being on the no-fly list currently is pretty darn inconvenient — you can’t fly. If that’s not incentive enough for people who are mistakenly on the list to get themselves off of it, why worry about their ‘right’ to buy a gun being temporarily delayed while they do so. Get yourself off the list, then get your gun. - Summer Intern - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:58 pm: @Rasselas completely agree - wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 2:58 pm: –Under the legislation, the name of anyone who the FBI or another Justice Department unit investigates for possible terrorist links would go into the same data base used to perform background checks for those buying a gun.– I assumed that was happening already. So…. fine. But it doesn’t “equip the FBI” to do anything at all. There are 300 million privately held firearms in this country, tons of legal firearm dealers, plenty of straw buyers and illegal dealers and no shortage of load. It’s silly to think that thin gruel like this can prevent lunatics of any stripe willing to risk or wanting to go out in a blaze of glory from spraying until they’re dead or empty. Odds are you or someone you love won’t be killed by a nut in one of our regular gun massacres. But you know for sure it’s going to happen to plenty of people, again, real soon. That’s the price some demand of all of us for their perceived “rights” and “freedom.” - blue dog dem - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:00 pm: I voted NO. If you are on the terrorist watch list you should be deported or detained. What is the difference which way you lose your right of due process? My next point. What’s next the “gang” watch list? Wouldn’t Chicago be a much safer place to live, but do you think there would be outcry? - Amalia - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:06 pm: Hi, we’re just letting you know that a person you think could be likely to do harm just left our store with an AR/Sig-folding stock, what the what. Ridiculous. stop them from getting the weapon. - Harvest76 - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:09 pm: Yes, but doesn’t go nearly far enough. - illini97 - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:19 pm: Yes. It’s a start, but could go farther. At the least, it should allow the seller to be notified. - Former hillrod - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:20 pm: Several commenters want a ban on “assault weapons”. What do you call an “assault weapon”? - titan - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:22 pm: They are saying “no fly” list (which is pretty small, I think under 100k people), but a lot of the talk about specifics seems to contemplate using wider/secret lists (like TIDE) with several million names, no publicity and no way to get oneself off if wrongly listed. If some of the lists used are secret with no due process route to find out if you’re on it and get off of it if there erroneously, then the most that could constitutionally be done is alert the feds for follow up. - Wensicia - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:25 pm: What I’m watching now is the Republicans want the feds to prove in court the buyer is a threat, within a 72 hour waiting period. Ridiculous. - Enviro - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:34 pm: Rich has the right idea. Mark Kirk’s bill doesn’t go nearly far enough to protect us from terrorists. There were so many red flags and still this guy could buy an assault weapon, ammunition, and carry out the massacre of so many people. Voted no. - Nick Danger - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:38 pm: Voted yes. We need to go further, such as ban on assault weapons, but that ain’t going to fly anytime soon. As for Kirk, well, this points at bad actors and not the gun lobby. So he’s threading a needle, in a hay stack, on a camel’s broken back. As it were. - AC - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:38 pm: Voted No, but I’d be an easy Yes if there were due process associated with the terrorist watch list or the no fly list that was used. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:43 pm: Yes. This gives the government useful data without disenfranchising citizens who are innocent until proven guilty. Congressmen including John Lewis, journalists and federal Air Marshals have been mistakenly placed on the no fly list. Sen Kirk’s bill is a smart combination of safety and due process. - AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:46 pm: If you leave it up to the salesmen, 9/10 salesmen make the sale. - Team Warwick - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:48 pm: NO. This is a complicated topic but i will over simplify. there are various levels of security clearances. the gun dealer and the FBI’s invwztigations are not on the same level of access permissions. So it puts a “security hole”in our internal controls about who knows about our investigations. Some are routine and results in an “unfounded” result. So if i complain to the FBI that Rich Miller is a closet violent jihadist because he wants to march on the Capitol bldg and they investigate my tip info thats not indicative of whether you are a real threat or not, and if then tbe gun dealer is flagged that you are being investigated he cant accurately gauge if its for real or routine nor should he even know to begin with. I can understand the problem they are trying to solve but its the wrong way. They should flag the FBI that a person of their past interest bought a gun. The FBI can then interpret what that means. Im very completely certain im correct on this so Sen Kirk might need to juggle the wording in this legislation. - IllinoisBoi - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:52 pm: ==Keep in mind though the answer to terrorists targeting Americans is not disarming Americans.== Keep in mind that most mass shootings are committed not by foreign terrorists, but native-born Americans. - DGD - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 3:54 pm: ** What I’m watching now is the Republicans want the feds to prove in court the buyer is a threat, within a 72 hour waiting period. Ridiculous.** And Democrats want to forgo due process al together for the sake of “doing something”. Oh yeah, and assult weapons are already banned unless you have a class 3 federal license, which very few people have. - Huh? - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:01 pm: “protect us from terrorists.” What do you mean by terrorist? The kind in the middle east that belong to ISIS or al qaeda? Do you mean the run of the mill gang banger like the Latin kings, gangster disciples or Aryan nation that murder more people in a week than what happened in Orlando. Or do you mean one of those armed militia type, anti-government groups, a bunch of white ranchers, that took over the Oregon wild life refuge? Or the lone wolf nut job like the guy in Orlando? We have a much greater chance of being shot by a toddler picking up a loaded gun than getting shot by a terrorist. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:02 pm: Shocker, Mark Kirk with an idea that isn’t goofy gobbledegook. Yes. - Harry - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:07 pm: I voted No. Anyone can wind up on a watch list for any reason including totally unsupported allegations by someone just looking to cause trouble, or mistaken identity as with Ted Kennedy. You have no right to even know you’re on the list (letting you know would defeat the whole security purpose, which is also why Rich’s idea about telling the gun shop owner and presumably the erstwhile purchaser is unworkable), let alone why, or to contest that reason. That is no basis for denying a constitutional right. And telling the gun dealers like Rich suggests is just a thinly veiled threat and it’s clear he means it as such. That is, I daresay, un-American. Illinois and Chicago are notorious for not dealing sternly with people who use guns in the commission of crimes, compared to many other places (e.g., New York). For our local gun violence problems, let’s start there, if our corrupt local pols want to get out of the pockets of the gangs and actually do their jobs… per Chicago Magazine expose from late 2011 or early 2012. For terror, we need to acknowledge that the main problem is jihadism and guns are just tools. The Tsarnaevs used a pressure cooker in Boston. 20 years ago McVeigh used a truck full of fertilizer. On 9/11 they used box cutters. And in France they had real automatic weapons, which have been illegal in the US since the 1930s, despite very strong French anti-gun laws. This whole gun debate since Orlando is a smokescreen because the current administration, and the previous one, have spent almost 15 years not looking at what is the source of modern terrorism because they don’t want to confront some facts that they find unpleasant… that and they want to disarm people for what reason I cannot say but the pattern is obvious. - Lester Holt's Mustache - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:07 pm: Just for the record, “assault rifles” are banned. “Assault weapons”, which are defined as semi-automatic weapons with a pistol grip and/or flash suppressor, are not banned. An M-60 is banned, for example, but not the AR-15. Two very different weapons. To the post, I agree with word in that this is pretty thin. There are more guns than people in the US. - DGD - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:11 pm: Lester - so you are saying they should be banned because they look scary ? In reality they function no differently than the typical semi-auto handgun, which by the way is nearly every hand-gun sold today. - DGD - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:14 pm: Boozehound, I think you’ve been living up to your name. Gun ownership have always been a right, and was confirmed by the Heller decision. The weapon you used in the military isn’t the same as a modern AR. - Wensicia - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:17 pm: DGD - What’s the point of a terrorist watch list if you can’t prevent violence? Why are they prevented from flying? Because of the potential to cause great harm or death to a large number of people aboard an airplane. So many innocent lives shouldn’t be at risk. The same can be said for a person on this list buying a weapon that can cause mass destruction of life on the ground. If this can’t be achieved before harm is done, what are we saying? Safety for potential victims is important 30,000 ft above the Earth and nowhere else? - Former hillrod - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:24 pm: Machine guns are banned for just about everyone and have been for a long time. Are you folks who are calling for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” saying we should ban semi auto rifles? The Virginia Tech shooter used semi auto pistols with 10 round magazines I believe. Do you say we should ban those too? - Former hillrod - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:31 pm: Weren’t muzzle loading rifles the “assault weapon” of their time? Weren’t lever action rifles “assault weapons” of the 1880s and bolt action riffles of WW1? Isn’t an assault weapon anything used to assault another human being? What about knives and baseball bats? - Lester Holt's Mustache - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:33 pm: ==Lester - so you are saying they should be banned because they look scary ? In reality they function no differently than the typical semi-auto handgun, which by the way is nearly every hand-gun sold today.== How in the world did you read my comment and come up with that statement? I didn’t say anything about banning any weapons, I simply pointed out the difference between an assault rifle and a machine gun and mentioned that this bill doesn’t do a whole lot considering the amount of firearms already available to the American public. That’s part of the problem with strong 2A supporters, and especially among NRA and ILRA members - they are so busy hyperventilating over any possible deviations from their own point of view, they end up insulting even those who (somewhat) agree with them. - jerry 101 - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:36 pm: No. People on the watch list shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns, period. If they shouldn’t be on the watch list, let them take it up with the FBI and get their names removed. - Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:40 pm: I like the balance between informing law enforcement and stopping a sale. I would like to be sure that the FBI has the people and systems to respond quickly. I think there needs to be a time frame for background checks to be completed. I would go for 5 business days instead of 3. FOID card holders should be prequalified. I would also support weakening privacy laws so the mentally ill who are potentially dangerous would be banned or flagged. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:42 pm: ===And telling the gun dealers like Rich suggests is just a thinly veiled threat and it’s clear he means it as such. That is, I daresay, un-American.=== What’s un-American about it? Seriously. That’s ridiculous. I’m not saying they shouldn’t sell the guns, but they ought to know what sort of person they’re selling guns to. - Former hillrod - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:43 pm: The current watch list seems a bit too arbitrary because of how easy it is to be put on it. Yes I agree that those folks on it should be more scrutinized. Perhaps Rich is on to something regarding the seller being more involved in the process. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 4:44 pm: I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular idea, seems kinda weak to me, but I do strongly think that we need to get the FBI some more people given their responsibilities these days. - BK Bro - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 5:16 pm: If gun sellers want to find out if some one is on the “watch list” they should be allowed to do so voluntarily. Gun sellers that think the list is nuts can just not consult it. - FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 5:50 pm: Boozehound, I too am a combat veteran of several theater’s. I believe you have your firearm nomenclature wrong. - Cleric dcn - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 5:58 pm: Just at face value if I want a gun I am going to be able to get one no matter what the situation. I must say I don’t own a gun or plan to buy one but maybe the problem is social median and instant news. - Harry - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 6:17 pm: Rich–the govt telling a dealer, who needs a govt license to operate, that a customer is on the watch list tells the dealer that if you sell him that gun and anything happens, your a** belongs to us. Loud and clear. That is a threat and everyone will understand it as such. No dealer in their right mind would sell that gun. Furthermore, stopping the sale is the only reason to even tell the dealer that is why the application is denied, because there is no other reason why the dealer needs to know the reason–all he needs to know is whether or not he can make the sale. And when the dealer tells the customer it can compromise an investigation if the customer is under real suspicion. Even if the dealer doesn’t say anything, the customer will know something’s up when the sale is refused, as it will be. That’s how things are in the real world, Rich. as for the accuracy of the lists, and getting errors corrected, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/15/one-woman-s-case-proves-it-s-basically-impossible-to-get-off-the-no-fly-list.html - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 6:32 pm: ===No dealer in their right mind would sell that gun=== And so you’d rather that they sell the gun to a potential terrorist? I don’t get your logic. The free market should be as transparent as possible. This is transparency. What’s the problem with that? - burbanite - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 8:17 pm: Doesn’t go far enough IMHO. - eil t - Thursday, Jun 16, 16 @ 10:11 pm: THe bad thing, to the person put on the no fly list, is generally ( not all cases, but in many, especially if they were born here, and of american ancestry), IS YOU DO NOT GET A NOTICE IN THE MAIL THAT YOU ARE ON A WATCH LIST. If I remember correctly (correct me if I am wrong, it happens), Sen Kennedy did not know he was on the list til he went to fly shortly after he was put on there. There are isntances of people with the same name as a bad individual who get tagged on it, and they do not know until they buy a airline ticket. From a bit of reading, ( kudos to former paratrooper), it is expensive, time consuming, and difficult to get off the list if THEY do make a mistake. If it was clarified how folks get on the list, notification to CITIZENS that they are on the list, and a reasonable appeals process that doesnt cost a person thousands of dollars was included in the bill, I might be able to support it. And if they do notify a bad guy he is on the list, so what? He might think twice about continuing his actions because he knows he has been red flagged. But notification of being on the list and a fair appeal process are key. Not a big Kirk fan, but with modifications to protect a CITIZENS rights, could be acceptable. - Mason born - Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 9:13 am: I voted yes. It’s easy to see that this guy was a dirt bag. Let’s not forget it’s hindsight now. I disagree to Rich’s suggestion. The list both no fly and the larger suspicion list is far from infallible. Most on the list never do anything. As an example I served with a Marine named Muhammed, Good Marine, he shares the most common name on the list. Let’s say he gets on the list due to an error/oversight. He now walks into his local Walmart to buy a .22 the clerk runs his name and it says suspected Terrorist. How does he clear his name? He served our nation yet the Gov’t says he’s terrorist. Since he never knew he was on the list till that point he’s been tried and convicted in court of public opinion with no recourse. I understand Rich’s point I do and if list was infallible or 90% accurate I’d agree. Let’s not forget there is a non 0 chance a racist bigot is elected president in Nov. Really not comfortable with secret lists used to take away constitutional liberties and rights especially right now. I can see Trump suspending 1st Amendment rights for his protesters on basis they foment violence any of you that can’t see that? I prefer the Cornyn Amendment let AG hold sale, take evidence to judge where “accused” has right to refute and after hearing ban sale if warranted and take suspect into custody. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.