Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rubio’s New Terror Gun Bill: “Toothless” “Sham” or Viable Solution?

Rubio’s New Terror Gun Bill: “Toothless” “Sham” or Viable Solution?

Hopes for a bipartisan solution

As Marco Rubio faces a tough battle for his Senate seat in Florida, he introduces a new gun bill aimed at limiting terrorist access to guns.

The legislation, according to Rubio‘s Senate website, “builds on some of the best ideas that have been proposed, and improves them in ways that I hope will make a bipartisan solution more likely.”

Rubio’s Terror Intelligence Improvement Act would:

  • Consolidate all federal terrorism investigation intelligence under the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), strengthening the FBI’s capabilities and helping ensure dangerous individuals do not fall through the cracks.
  • Require the FBI Director and the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) be immediately notified of any request to transfer a firearm to an individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years.
  • When an individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years tries to obtain a firearm, allow the U.S. Attorney General to delay the purchase or transfer for up to three business days and file an emergency petition in court to stop it. If the court finds probable cause that the individual is connected to terrorism, the Attorney General may arrest the individual.
  • Protect the due process rights of law-abiding Americans by ensuring emergency petitions filed by the Attorney General are only granted if the transferee receives notice of the hearing and has the opportunity to participate with legal counsel. If the court denies the Attorney General’s petition, the federal government is responsible for all reasonable costs and attorney fees.
  • Require the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) to conduct an audit of the federal government’s terrorism screening and watch list procedures, and identify any problems in the processes of adding or removing individuals from the system. Based on the audit, the IC IG must then submit a classified report to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees with recommendations for improving the system.

There’s a lot of big government here, not only will it be costly to bulk up the FBI for its new role, but that new role will necessarily mean a consolidation of power and discretion.  Given the changes in approach to terrorism under Obama, it’s also worrying that Rubio proposes the “has been the subject of federal terrorism investigation in the last ten years.”

Considering that the federal government has scrubbed all reference to Islam and jihad and the 2009 DHS report on the “domestic terrorist threat” including returning vets and people who are pro-life or pro-Tenth Amendment, it’s hard to dance a jig of joy about that part of Rubio’s proposed legislation.  However, Rubio is careful to include the need to find “probable cause,” which one would imagine would be more substantial proof of potential terrorist activity than some grandma in Dubuque who opposes illegal immigration.

That said, he does address very real concerns raised by calls for anyone on an airplane “no fly list” to be denied due process and their Second Amendment rights, and puts the burden of proof of terrorist intent on the judiciary and law enforcement . . . where it belongs.

Rubio’s Senate opponent, Patrick Murphy (D-FL), calls the bill a “toothless” sham.”

The Orlando Sentinel reports:

But the campaign of Democratic U.S. Senate opponent, U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, called it “a sham bill” that would put an “unworkable” burden of proof on law enforcement in order to stop a gun purchase.

. . . . Murphy campaign spokesman Joshua Karp called the bill “toothless”, saying that it makes a key change from Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins’ bill in saying the Attorney General can “delay” a purchase instead of “deny.”

“Rubio’s sham legislation is backwards,” Karp said. “The burden is on the Attorney General to prove in court that each individual flagged is intending to commit a crime.”

Karp said that someone who met that standard  would likely have been  already arrested or detained.

“Oh, and they only have three days to meet this standard of proof or else the weapon purchase goes forward,” he continued. “Rubio would give a suspected terrorist a weapon in 72 hours if the Justice Department couldn’t get a court to intervene.”

Murphy put out a statement saying, “Floridians won’t be fooled by Marco Rubio’s transparent attempt to paper over his relentless opposition to legislation that prevents gun violence.”

Apparently, Murphy isn’t too interested in due process when it comes to denying people their Second Amendment rights.

In July, the NRA endorsed Rubio for Senate.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Ya lost me at “Consolidate…under the FBI..” They need to step up their game before acquiring any more horsepower.

    tobiathan in reply to oldav8r. | September 19, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    All “gun laws” are unConstitutional.

    ALL of them.

    An 18yo guy who’s gf gets mad at him files a domestic and- POOF!- he loses gun rights FOR LIFE?

    And it happens everyday while we do nothing b/c it “ain’t our problem”…or is it?

    “…Shall NOT Be Infringed..”!

So terrorists buy their weapons through the same channels that I do? I did not know I had legitimate access to explosives, automatic weapons, etc.

Sorry, Marco, but I think this is pure BS. Do something to the terrorists not inanimate objects and law abiding citizens. Open another avenue for the Dems to morph into confiscation.

Oh, Hillary can trust the FBI but can I?

Looks like he’s going to lose Republican support. Another RINO who can’t be trusted.

Amen to that

Do they not mention the constitution in law school?

When it comes to Marco Rubio, you must examine all documents with a prism from opposing divorce attorneys. The deal sweeteners are really smoke screens, the meat could be past expiration date and the ink may never dry.

I have been eviscerating Marco Rubio from the earliest days when many pre-Gang-of-8 tea partiers were sold hook line and sinker (looking at newbie radio guy Tony Katz, undercover Stage Right guy Larry O”Conner, spitball throwing lawyer & “Hour of Hate” “co-star” Kurt Schlichter, Derek Hunter and many many many others).

Why?

If a Junior Senator wants to prove his bonafides then why not carry the bullhorn against perhaps the greatest financial malfeasance in the history of mankind? Especially in the one state whose constituents were victimized in numbers greater than the average.

Mortgage fraud. If you are unaware of the Sunny Sheu case and how was killed after reporting a death threat from foreclosure Judge Joseph Golia…If you haven’t read the mountains of reports of robosignings…where does the malfeasance end? HINT: IT DIDN’T. IT DOESN’T.

Marco Rubio knew back then. He had to know. If you knew and you didn’t care in 2008-2009 then YOU ARE IN THE GAME. And if you are in the game then you are an Establishmentarian A-HOLE. Any wonder why this Jackwagon got hoodwinked by OR co=conspired with Chuck Schumer?

In summary LET’S TRUST MARCO NOW WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. ( ARE YOU PEOPLE ON F-ING DRUGS!!!!!)

“* …allow the U.S. Attorney General to delay the purchase or transfer for up to three business days and file an emergency petition in court to stop it…
* Protect the due process rights of law-abiding Americans by ensuring emergency petitions filed by the Attorney General are only granted if the transferee receives notice of the hearing and has the opportunity to participate with legal counsel. If the court denies the Attorney General’s petition, the federal government is responsible for all reasonable costs and attorney fees.”

Oh, goody. You’ve got three days to find an attorney, schedule an appointment, file the paperwork, get time off from work, travel to wherever the hearing is, and deal with a bunch of other details that I’ve probably missed.

Gee, I’m impressed. Not.

I do not like this idea at all. Just more government B.S. to screw with honest citizens.

of course this is a stupid proposal: Rubio came up with it.

we don’t need more gun laws: the feds need to start enforcing the ones we have already

What is this, another stop on the Democrat’s bus tour of the Nine Rings of Hell? I don’t see how any American can get on board this one.

If they have a terrorism suspect but don’t have the evidence to arrest, charge, try, convict, and incarcerate him, then by definition he’s not guilty of anything. Period, end of story. There’s really not a lot of room for compromise on this. There’s no justification for depriving him of a civil right; nor is there any justification for harassment.

A “bipartisan solution” is out of the question; to the D’rats, the goal isn’t to make it harder for terrorists to obtain guns, it’s to make it harder for everyone else to obtain guns. Concern about terrorists is a blind. Any “compromise” which doesn’t penalize non-terrorists is, to them, useless. We already know all this; assuming he’s not actually brain-damaged, Marco knows it too. Is he trying to call their bluff? This doesn’t seem like a terribly clever way to do it.

Is anyone really worried about terrorists acquiring guns from FFLs?

Rubio just can’t control himself. “Bipartisan”? Means Democrats get what they want.

Obie1, the March 2016 GAO report linked from this article indicates the following:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/suspected-terrorists-and-guns/

“Since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System began checking prospective gun buyers against terrorist watch list records in February 2004, ‘individuals on the terrorist watch list were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 2,477 times, of which 2,265 (about 91 percent) of the transactions were allowed to proceed and 212 were denied,’ according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. (See GAO chart below for more details.)”

    The problem with all of these “lists” is people are put on the list for nothing more than breathing on their own. There is no control of who is on a list or why. If someone is on a Terrorist Watch List why are they out wandering around in public and not in jail? Probably because there is not a shred of probable cause other than they vote Republican or some such related B.S. as PTSD or Honorably discharged veteran.

      And from what I’ve read, you don’t know you are on “the list” until you are denied something due to being there, and there are no procedures to challenge your inclusion on “the list”.

      Somebody want to tell me how this is even legally possible in a constitutional republic?

“…an individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years.”

Is that going to include Christians, Tea Party patriots, or other loyal Americans the likes of Obama/Jarrett and Hillary ‘Deplorable’ Clinton who had the deplorables ‘investigated?’

What an idiotic bill.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend