Typical!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/de...stom_click=rss

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:35:35 AM UTC-4, burfordTjustice wrote:
Typical!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/de...stom_click=rss

well since you believe everyone should have a gun. why stop there?

how about flame throwers? bazookas? surface to air missles? why not tactical nuclear weapons?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 04:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
bob haller wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:35:35 AM UTC-4, burfordTjustice wrote:
Typical!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/de...stom_click=rss

well since you believe everyone should have a gun. why stop there?

how about flame throwers? bazookas? surface to air missles? why not
tactical nuclear weapons?

How about you calming the **** down and stop acting like a typical
out of control socialist/liberal/democrat.
Perhaps if you are added to the no fly/terror watch list your view
will change.
All groups restored, don't you want to spread your message?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 04:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
bob haller wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:35:35 AM UTC-4, burfordTjustice wrote:
Typical!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/de...stom_click=rss

well since you believe everyone should have a gun. why stop there?

how about flame throwers? bazookas? surface to air missles? why not
tactical nuclear weapons?

BTW people can own flame throwers....duh!

On 6/16/16 10:20 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I would agree that before we do anything else, like adding the no-fly
people to the federal gun check database we should figure out what that
list is all about, who's on it, how they got there, does the list make any
sense, etc. There should also be a well defined appeals process to easily
challenge being put on it, assuming we're going to keep it. I too have
doubts about whether it's really doing anything. The outright ban part
seems a little extreme too. Singling them out for extra special complete
searches of them and their luggage isn't sufficient?

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:04:44 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/16/16 10:20 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I would agree that before we do anything else, like adding the no-fly
people to the federal gun check database we should figure out what that
list is all about, who's on it, how they got there, does the list make any
sense, etc. There should also be a well defined appeals process to easily
challenge being put on it, assuming we're going to keep it. I too have
doubts about whether it's really doing anything. The outright ban part
seems a little extreme too. Singling them out for extra special complete
searches of them and their luggage isn't sufficient?

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

Yes, but people died so we have to pass a new law now, any law, and you can
read it later to find out what it says, what it does, does it work, etc.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

Yes, but people died so we have to pass a new law now, any law, and you can
read it later to find out what it says, what it does, does it work, etc.

.... just ONE more law. That should fix the problem. If not, we can
pass another law and see if that one works.
--
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up."
-- Lily Tomlin

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:19:19 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

Yes, but people died so we have to pass a new law now, any law, and you can
read it later to find out what it says, what it does, does it work, etc.

... just ONE more law. That should fix the problem. If not, we can
pass another law and see if that one works.
--

An example of not using the laws already in place is this. I don't remember
the exact numbers, but it was something like 90,000 people had failed the
existing federal check. You can only fail it two ways, by being a felon or
being committed to a mental hospital. Applying some simple logic, it would
seem that the vast majority of nuts in mental hospitals are not the ones
trying to buy guns, it's the felons that are. So, let's say 80,000 of them
were felons. They just committed another felony. How may were prosecuted?
Less than a hundred. One can only wonder how many violent crimes, how many
homicides would have been prevented if those criminals were sent away for
10 years. Instead, having not been able to buy a gun at the local store,
what do you suppose they did next?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:19:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

Yes, but people died so we have to pass a new law now, any law, and you can
read it later to find out what it says, what it does, does it work, etc.

... just ONE more law. That should fix the problem. If not, we can
pass another law and see if that one works.


Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I know the
FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found anything.

On 6/16/16 11:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:19:19 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

Yes, but people died so we have to pass a new law now, any law, and you can
read it later to find out what it says, what it does, does it work, etc.

... just ONE more law. That should fix the problem. If not, we can
pass another law and see if that one works.
--

An example of not using the laws already in place is this. I don't remember
the exact numbers, but it was something like 90,000 people had failed the
existing federal check. You can only fail it two ways, by being a felon or
being committed to a mental hospital. Applying some simple logic, it would
seem that the vast majority of nuts in mental hospitals are not the ones
trying to buy guns, it's the felons that are. So, let's say 80,000 of them
were felons. They just committed another felony. How may were prosecuted?
Less than a hundred. One can only wonder how many violent crimes, how many
homicides would have been prevented if those criminals were sent away for
10 years. Instead, having not been able to buy a gun at the local store,
what do you suppose they did next?

This is rather old, but still interesting. (admittedly 1997) The Bureau
of Justice Statistics looked at those who were carrying at the time of
their offense (BTW: only about 1 in 3 who were carrying were convicted
for violent crimes). 8.3 bought at retail stores, 0.7% got their guns at
gun shows and another 1.0% got them from pawnshops. Roughly 4 of ten got
them from friends/relatives (39.6% and about the same (39.2) got them
from illegal sources,.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

So that means that 80% got their guns from friends/relatives or
illegally. So, how do you regulate either one of these. Actually the
second leading place of procurement is already illegal.
Another example of not using laws already in place. Chicago has
strict gun laws and high gun death rates. They say it is Indiana's fault
because of lax gun laws and that most are brought across state lines as
straw purchases. Maybe, but crossing state lines makes it a Federal
offense (as does selling handguns without a fed license) and THAT law is
the same in both states. So you then have to ask how many cases has the
US Attorney for the area filed. Last I checked none over at least 2 years.

On 6/16/16 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:19:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

Yes, but people died so we have to pass a new law now, any law, and you can
read it later to find out what it says, what it does, does it work, etc.

... just ONE more law. That should fix the problem. If not, we can
pass another law and see if that one works.


Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I know the
FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found anything.

The shooter HAD been on one of the lists twice, but had been taken off
both times after the cases had been closed. He wasn't on any list at the
time he bought the guns or at the time of the occurence.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/16/16 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:19:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Currently there is not only a really good appeal process, but there is
no requirement that anybody be notified they are on the list. Most show
to the airport and have all sorts of problems. I'd have to double check
because my memory is hazy, but I think one of the lists is classified so
they can't legally let anyone know.

Yes, but people died so we have to pass a new law now, any law, and you can
read it later to find out what it says, what it does, does it work, etc.

... just ONE more law. That should fix the problem. If not, we can
pass another law and see if that one works.


Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I know the
FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found anything.

The shooter HAD been on one of the lists twice, but had been taken off
both times after the cases had been closed. He wasn't on any list at the
time he bought the guns or at the time of the occurence.

+1

That's what I heard too. That the procedure is that they go on a list
only while being investigated and that list is somehow tied into the FBI
being notified if the person attempts to buy a gun at a guns store.
I presume it's someone how tied into the federal database check, but
not sure. It's not clear if the FBI is notified in time to block the
purchase (can they even do that?), or if it's after the fact, etc.

If they can't block the sale, it's questionable how that would have
prevented what happened too. Mateen was a guard, had permits, etc,
if the FBI came calling one more time, I don't think he'd be telling
them what he was going to do, so it's back to the cat and mouse game.
Best chance might have been that another FBI probe might have wound up
with the wife ratting him out, but that's far from clear too. What role
she played, we don't know. But it seems she had a pretty good idea
what he was up to and didn't do anything.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/16/16 11:41 AM, wrote:

Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I know the
FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found anything.

The shooter HAD been on one of the lists twice, but had been taken off
both times after the cases had been closed. He wasn't on any list at the
time he bought the guns or at the time of the occurence.

+1

That's what I heard too. That the procedure is that they go on a list
only while being investigated and that list is somehow tied into the FBI
being notified if the person attempts to buy a gun at a guns store.
I presume it's someone how tied into the federal database check, but
not sure. It's not clear if the FBI is notified in time to block the
purchase (can they even do that?), or if it's after the fact, etc.

If they can't block the sale, it's questionable how that would have
prevented what happened too. Mateen was a guard, had permits, etc,
if the FBI came calling one more time, I don't think he'd be telling
them what he was going to do, so it's back to the cat and mouse game.
Best chance might have been that another FBI probe might have wound up
with the wife ratting him out, but that's far from clear too. What role
she played, we don't know. But it seems she had a pretty good idea
what he was up to and didn't do anything.

The FBI people have stated several times that they are not wild about
this idea because if the gun purchase was stopped, the guy might
figure out he was under investigation.
Better would be to go the other way. Simply inform the FBI that he was
buying guns. It would be one more reason to watch him more closely.

"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in news:GqKdnazrD_xuV__KnZ2dnUU7-
:

[...] So you then have to ask how many cases has the
US Attorney for the area filed. Last I checked none over at least 2 years.

Even if charges are filed, how many cases are actually prosecuted? IIRC, Kurt, you live in
Indianapolis also. IMPD is pretty good about filing charges for illegal possession of firearms --
by a juvenile, by a convicted felon, possessing a handgun without a license, etc. -- but have
you noticed the frequency with which the prosecutor's office *drops* those charges?
Prosecutor Curry seems to view the gun charges as something that can be conveniently
dismissed in trade for a guilty plea to other charges. ISTM that when the law is clear -- you
have to have a permit to carry a handgun in public -- and the facts are clear as well -- perp had
a handgun in his possession, never had a permit -- that conviction at trial should be a slam
dunk. I can't imagine why they *ever* offer to drop a charge on which a conviction is *certain*.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/16/16 11:41 AM, wrote:

Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I know the
FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found anything.

The shooter HAD been on one of the lists twice, but had been taken off
both times after the cases had been closed. He wasn't on any list at the
time he bought the guns or at the time of the occurence.

+1

That's what I heard too. That the procedure is that they go on a list
only while being investigated and that list is somehow tied into the FBI
being notified if the person attempts to buy a gun at a guns store.
I presume it's someone how tied into the federal database check, but
not sure. It's not clear if the FBI is notified in time to block the
purchase (can they even do that?), or if it's after the fact, etc.

If they can't block the sale, it's questionable how that would have
prevented what happened too. Mateen was a guard, had permits, etc,
if the FBI came calling one more time, I don't think he'd be telling
them what he was going to do, so it's back to the cat and mouse game.
Best chance might have been that another FBI probe might have wound up
with the wife ratting him out, but that's far from clear too. What role
she played, we don't know. But it seems she had a pretty good idea
what he was up to and didn't do anything.

The FBI people have stated several times that they are not wild about
this idea because if the gun purchase was stopped, the guy might
figure out he was under investigation.
Better would be to go the other way. Simply inform the FBI that he was
buying guns. It would be one more reason to watch him more closely.

That might have been what would happen if he had been on that watch list.
As I said, it's somehow tied into a purchase, presumably through the federal
database check. I've heard news people say that the FBI would have then
been notified, which could be just that and nothing more with the person
not knowing it even happened. Then the FBI could figure out what they
wanted to do.

Of course then the problem is if the purchase is not blocked, what
happens when the guy has the gun and then uses it when the FBI isn't
trailing him? I sure wouldn't want to be the guys that have to make
all these calls. A lot of ways to be accused after the fact, by
Monday morning quarterbacks. That's going on with the SWAT team that
ended the incident too. They are taking heat for it taking 3 hours
until they assaulted the club, while wounded were dying. But I see
their point too, that it took time to figure out what was going on
inside, that they were getting phone calls, putting it all together
as to where people where, where he was, etc, before acting. Again,
they can't win. If they went in during the first hour and innocents
wound up getting killed, then they'd be blamed for that too.

On 6/16/16 12:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in news:GqKdnazrD_xuV__KnZ2dnUU7-
:

[...] So you then have to ask how many cases has the
US Attorney for the area filed. Last I checked none over at least 2 years.

Even if charges are filed, how many cases are actually prosecuted? IIRC, Kurt, you live in
Indianapolis also. IMPD is pretty good about filing charges for illegal possession of firearms --
by a juvenile, by a convicted felon, possessing a handgun without a license, etc. -- but have
you noticed the frequency with which the prosecutor's office *drops* those charges?
Prosecutor Curry seems to view the gun charges as something that can be conveniently
dismissed in trade for a guilty plea to other charges. ISTM that when the law is clear -- you
have to have a permit to carry a handgun in public -- and the facts are clear as well -- perp had
a handgun in his possession, never had a permit -- that conviction at trial should be a slam
dunk. I can't imagine why they *ever* offer to drop a charge on which a conviction is *certain*.

I have less problem with that since it gets the person USING the gun off
the street and often for more time. Where we are falling down is at the
seller end. If they are selling more than a few guns each year, they
need a license from the ATF and if they don't they are subject to five
years and $250,000 fine (I think per sale but the ATF's website isn't
all that clear). If you take seller out, you make it harder for dozens
of people to buy a gun. Do it often enough and you make it even harder.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:26:19 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in news:GqKdnazrD_xuV__KnZ2dnUU7-
:

[...] So you then have to ask how many cases has the
US Attorney for the area filed. Last I checked none over at least 2 years.

Even if charges are filed, how many cases are actually prosecuted? IIRC, Kurt, you live in
Indianapolis also. IMPD is pretty good about filing charges for illegal possession of firearms --
by a juvenile, by a convicted felon, possessing a handgun without a license, etc. -- but have
you noticed the frequency with which the prosecutor's office *drops* those charges?
Prosecutor Curry seems to view the gun charges as something that can be conveniently
dismissed in trade for a guilty plea to other charges. ISTM that when the law is clear -- you
have to have a permit to carry a handgun in public -- and the facts are clear as well -- perp had
a handgun in his possession, never had a permit -- that conviction at trial should be a slam
dunk. I can't imagine why they *ever* offer to drop a charge on which a conviction is *certain*.

DAs in Florida routinely deal away gun charges too. They have the 10,
20 life law but it only works if they can get a conviction on the
underlying crime. If that is a weak case, they might use the mandatory
gun term as a chip to get a plea on the original charge.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman
wrote:
On 6/16/16 11:41 AM, wrote:

Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I
know the FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found
anything.

The shooter HAD been on one of the lists twice, but had been
taken off both times after the cases had been closed. He wasn't
on any list at the time he bought the guns or at the time of the
occurence.

+1

That's what I heard too. That the procedure is that they go on a
list only while being investigated and that list is somehow tied
into the FBI being notified if the person attempts to buy a gun at
a guns store. I presume it's someone how tied into the federal
database check, but not sure. It's not clear if the FBI is
notified in time to block the purchase (can they even do that?),
or if it's after the fact, etc.

If they can't block the sale, it's questionable how that would have
prevented what happened too. Mateen was a guard, had permits, etc,
if the FBI came calling one more time, I don't think he'd be
telling them what he was going to do, so it's back to the cat and
mouse game. Best chance might have been that another FBI probe
might have wound up with the wife ratting him out, but that's far
from clear too. What role she played, we don't know. But it
seems she had a pretty good idea what he was up to and didn't do
anything.

The FBI people have stated several times that they are not wild
about this idea because if the gun purchase was stopped, the guy
might figure out he was under investigation.
Better would be to go the other way. Simply inform the FBI that he
was buying guns. It would be one more reason to watch him more
closely.

That might have been what would happen if he had been on that watch
list. As I said, it's somehow tied into a purchase, presumably
through the federal database check. I've heard news people say that
the FBI would have then been notified, which could be just that and
nothing more with the person not knowing it even happened. Then the
FBI could figure out what they wanted to do.

Of course then the problem is if the purchase is not blocked, what
happens when the guy has the gun and then uses it when the FBI isn't
trailing him? I sure wouldn't want to be the guys that have to make
all these calls. A lot of ways to be accused after the fact, by
Monday morning quarterbacks. That's going on with the SWAT team that
ended the incident too. They are taking heat for it taking 3 hours
until they assaulted the club, while wounded were dying. But I see
their point too, that it took time to figure out what was going on
inside, that they were getting phone calls, putting it all together
as to where people where, where he was, etc, before acting. Again,
they can't win. If they went in during the first hour and innocents
wound up getting killed, then they'd be blamed for that too.

People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.
Innocent until proven guilty.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 2:44:15 PM UTC-4, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman
wrote:
On 6/16/16 11:41 AM, wrote:

Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I
know the FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found
anything.

The shooter HAD been on one of the lists twice, but had been
taken off both times after the cases had been closed. He wasn't
on any list at the time he bought the guns or at the time of the
occurence.

+1

That's what I heard too. That the procedure is that they go on a
list only while being investigated and that list is somehow tied
into the FBI being notified if the person attempts to buy a gun at
a guns store. I presume it's someone how tied into the federal
database check, but not sure. It's not clear if the FBI is
notified in time to block the purchase (can they even do that?),
or if it's after the fact, etc.

If they can't block the sale, it's questionable how that would have
prevented what happened too. Mateen was a guard, had permits, etc,
if the FBI came calling one more time, I don't think he'd be
telling them what he was going to do, so it's back to the cat and
mouse game. Best chance might have been that another FBI probe
might have wound up with the wife ratting him out, but that's far
from clear too. What role she played, we don't know. But it
seems she had a pretty good idea what he was up to and didn't do
anything.

The FBI people have stated several times that they are not wild
about this idea because if the gun purchase was stopped, the guy
might figure out he was under investigation.
Better would be to go the other way. Simply inform the FBI that he
was buying guns. It would be one more reason to watch him more
closely.

That might have been what would happen if he had been on that watch
list. As I said, it's somehow tied into a purchase, presumably
through the federal database check. I've heard news people say that
the FBI would have then been notified, which could be just that and
nothing more with the person not knowing it even happened. Then the
FBI could figure out what they wanted to do.

Of course then the problem is if the purchase is not blocked, what
happens when the guy has the gun and then uses it when the FBI isn't
trailing him? I sure wouldn't want to be the guys that have to make
all these calls. A lot of ways to be accused after the fact, by
Monday morning quarterbacks. That's going on with the SWAT team that
ended the incident too. They are taking heat for it taking 3 hours
until they assaulted the club, while wounded were dying. But I see
their point too, that it took time to figure out what was going on
inside, that they were getting phone calls, putting it all together
as to where people where, where he was, etc, before acting. Again,
they can't win. If they went in during the first hour and innocents
wound up getting killed, then they'd be blamed for that too.

People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.
Innocent until proven guilty.

That's the path we followed with Mateen. How did that work out?

Plus in the case of the terror watch list, they are innocent until
proven guilty, it's just a watch list.

On 6/16/16 2:44 PM, burfordTjustice wrote:

People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.



Well except for Teddy Kennedy...

Innocent until proven guilty.

On 6/16/16 3:07 PM, trader_4 wrote:

People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.
Innocent until proven guilty.

That's the path we followed with Mateen. How did that work out?



Plus in the case of the terror watch list, they are innocent until
proven guilty, it's just a watch list.

Not if there are consequences for constitutionally protected actions.
Even throwing out the gun side, there are problems with travel, for
instance.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:14:48 PM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/16/16 3:07 PM, trader_4 wrote:

People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.
Innocent until proven guilty.

That's the path we followed with Mateen. How did that work out?



Plus in the case of the terror watch list, they are innocent until
proven guilty, it's just a watch list.

Not if there are consequences for constitutionally protected actions.
Even throwing out the gun side,

Do you know if there is any constitutional issue here with flagging
gun sales? The most I've seen the media say is that if Mateen was on
the watch list, then when he went to buy the guns it would have been
flagged and the FBI would have been *notified*. It did not say that the
sale would have been automatically blocked. If that's how it works,
I don't see any constitutional issue there.


there are problems with travel, for
instance.

Only involving the no-fly list, which is another list, AFAIK.
That would be interesting, for someone to bring a case.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:19:05 -0400, wrote:

DAs in Florida routinely deal away gun charges too. They have the 10,
20 life law but it only works if they can get a conviction on the
underlying crime. If that is a weak case, they might use the mandatory
gun term as a chip to get a plea on the original charge.

+1 You got the having a gun during a felony, brandishing the weapon
(intimidating), firing the weapon during the crime and injuring or
killing an innocent person.

(Lock them sum beaches up.)

I just heard a local news this morning, I can check. ~240 murder cases
are still pending in the courts. The DA (Las Vegas) has asked for the
death penalty in 40 of those cases.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:12:28 -0400
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 6/16/16 2:44 PM, burfordTjustice wrote:

People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.



Well except for Teddy Kennedy...

Innocent until proven guilty.



yea, but does murder count for dems?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 2:44:15 PM UTC-4, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman
wrote:
On 6/16/16 11:41 AM, wrote:

Has anyone said the shooter was actually on a watch list. I
know the FBI looked at him but they didn't say they found
anything.

The shooter HAD been on one of the lists twice, but had been
taken off both times after the cases had been closed. He
wasn't on any list at the time he bought the guns or at the
time of the occurence.

+1

That's what I heard too. That the procedure is that they go
on a list only while being investigated and that list is
somehow tied into the FBI being notified if the person
attempts to buy a gun at a guns store. I presume it's someone
how tied into the federal database check, but not sure. It's
not clear if the FBI is notified in time to block the purchase
(can they even do that?), or if it's after the fact, etc.

If they can't block the sale, it's questionable how that would
have prevented what happened too. Mateen was a guard, had
permits, etc, if the FBI came calling one more time, I don't
think he'd be telling them what he was going to do, so it's
back to the cat and mouse game. Best chance might have been
that another FBI probe might have wound up with the wife
ratting him out, but that's far from clear too. What role she
played, we don't know. But it seems she had a pretty good
idea what he was up to and didn't do anything.

The FBI people have stated several times that they are not wild
about this idea because if the gun purchase was stopped, the guy
might figure out he was under investigation.
Better would be to go the other way. Simply inform the FBI that
he was buying guns. It would be one more reason to watch him
more closely.

That might have been what would happen if he had been on that
watch list. As I said, it's somehow tied into a purchase,
presumably through the federal database check. I've heard news
people say that the FBI would have then been notified, which
could be just that and nothing more with the person not knowing
it even happened. Then the FBI could figure out what they
wanted to do.

Of course then the problem is if the purchase is not blocked, what
happens when the guy has the gun and then uses it when the FBI
isn't trailing him? I sure wouldn't want to be the guys that
have to make all these calls. A lot of ways to be accused after
the fact, by Monday morning quarterbacks. That's going on with
the SWAT team that ended the incident too. They are taking heat
for it taking 3 hours until they assaulted the club, while
wounded were dying. But I see their point too, that it took time
to figure out what was going on inside, that they were getting
phone calls, putting it all together as to where people where,
where he was, etc, before acting. Again, they can't win. If
they went in during the first hour and innocents wound up getting
killed, then they'd be blamed for that too.

People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.
Innocent until proven guilty.

That's the path we followed with Mateen. How did that work out?

Plus in the case of the terror watch list, they are innocent until
proven guilty, it's just a watch list.

Then they can buy a gun!

Not if there are consequences for constitutionally protected actions.
Even throwing out the gun side,

Do you know if there is any constitutional issue here with flagging
gun sales? The most I've seen the media say is that if Mateen was on
the watch list, then when he went to buy the guns it would have been
flagged and the FBI would have been *notified*. It did not say that the
sale would have been automatically blocked. If that's how it works,
I don't see any constitutional issue there.

IIRC there are three levels and don't remember the parameters of them
all. There is a list where the sale is blocked because the FBI was
trying to get that changed because they didn't want warn the person they
were being investigated.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:12:28 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:


People on the terror watch list and the no fly list have
committed NO CRIME.

Well except for Teddy Kennedy...

It would have made my day to tell the important ****er -No Fly Fly
today for you. Next customer!

I always mess with "self-important" people.

A lawyer thought he would bring a satchel of cash (lot of cash). Told
him no - foaming at the mouth, he was - "what do I do with it?" Being
a helpful type I pointed him to my Jeep in the parking "or you can
lock it in your own trunk."

One night I spooked a lawyer just showing him a concrete alligator. He
ran all the way to the exit gates so I told control to let him out. "I
got one comin' at cha!"

"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in
:

On 6/16/16 12:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in
news:GqKdnazrD_xuV__KnZ2dnUU7- :

[...] So you then have to ask how many cases has the
US Attorney for the area filed. Last I checked none over at
least 2 years.

Even if charges are filed, how many cases are actually
prosecuted? IIRC, Kurt, you live in Indianapolis also. IMPD is
pretty good about filing charges for illegal possession of
firearms -- by a juvenile, by a convicted felon, possessing a
handgun without a license, etc. -- but have you noticed the
frequency with which the prosecutor's office *drops* those
charges? Prosecutor Curry seems to view the gun charges as
something that can be conveniently dismissed in trade for a
guilty plea to other charges. ISTM that when the law is clear
-- you have to have a permit to carry a handgun in public --
and the facts are clear as well -- perp had a handgun in his
possession, never had a permit -- that conviction at trial
should be a slam dunk. I can't imagine why they *ever* offer to
drop a charge on which a conviction is *certain*.

I have less problem with that since it gets the person USING the
gun off the street and often for more time.

Only if they don't have enough evidence to convict on the other charges. Otherwise,
dropping the gun-possession charge means the person will be in jail for LESS time.

Where we are falling
down is at the seller end. If they are selling more than a few
guns each year, they need a license from the ATF and if they
don't they are subject to five years and $250,000 fine (I think
per sale but the ATF's website isn't all that clear). If you
take seller out, you make it harder for dozens of people to buy
a gun. Do it often enough and you make it even harder.

wrote in :

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:44 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:


Last time I looked around, despite the increase in gun related violence
in Chicago (and constant whining about how it is Indiana's fault), the
US Atty in Chicago apparently hasn't filed ANY gun-related cases over
the last 3 years.
They don't want to end up on the NRA's "hit-list".


Don't be ridiculous. The NRA doesn't target government officials who file charges against
people who violate the law.

On 6/16/16 5:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:44 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"

in Chicago (and constant whining about how it is Indiana's fault), the
US Atty in Chicago apparently hasn't filed ANY gun-related cases over
the last 3 years.
They don't want to end up on the NRA's "hit-list".

The US attys are all Democrats so they would probably view that as a
badge of honor.

On 6/16/2016 3:54 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/16/16 5:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:44 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"

in Chicago (and constant whining about how it is Indiana's fault), the
US Atty in Chicago apparently hasn't filed ANY gun-related cases over
the last 3 years.
They don't want to end up on the NRA's "hit-list".

The US attys are all Democrats so they would probably view that as a
badge of honor.

They don't want to solve the problem, so they can periodically clamor
for more "gun control".

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:47:58 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:44 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:


Last time I looked around, despite the increase in gun related violence
in Chicago (and constant whining about how it is Indiana's fault), the
US Atty in Chicago apparently hasn't filed ANY gun-related cases over
the last 3 years.
They don't want to end up on the NRA's "hit-list".


Don't be ridiculous. The NRA doesn't target government officials who file charges against
people who violate the law.
How do you know - it hasn't been done recently bg

wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:47:58 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in
m:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:44 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:


Last time I looked around, despite the increase in gun related
violence in Chicago (and constant whining about how it is
Indiana's fault), the US Atty in Chicago apparently hasn't
filed ANY gun-related cases over the last 3 years.
They don't want to end up on the NRA's "hit-list".


Don't be ridiculous. The NRA doesn't target government officials
who file charges against people who violate the law.
How do you know - it hasn't been done recently bg

It's done quite frequently in Indiana (among others). Chicago
politicians find blaming their problems on Indiana to be easier
than actually fixing those problems.

Taxed and Spent wrote in news:njvaqd$upo$1@dont-
email.me:

On 6/16/2016 3:54 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/16/16 5:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:44 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"

in Chicago (and constant whining about how it is Indiana's fault), the
US Atty in Chicago apparently hasn't filed ANY gun-related cases over
the last 3 years.
They don't want to end up on the NRA's "hit-list".

The US attys are all Democrats so they would probably view that as a
badge of honor.

They don't want to solve the problem, so they can periodically clamor
for more "gun control".

+1

On 06/16/2016 05:18 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 04:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
bob haller wrote:

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:35:35 AM UTC-4, burfordTjustice wrote:
Typical!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/de...stom_click=rss

well since you believe everyone should have a gun. why stop there?

how about flame throwers? bazookas? surface to air missles? why not
tactical nuclear weapons?

BTW people can own flame throwers....duh!


And flare guns

On 06/16/2016 04:35 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
Typical!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/de...stom_click=rss


Oh Ya. Protect the sheep by making them even MORE
vulnerable to the predator.