Claim:Republicans block bill to stop terrorists from buying guns

deirdre

Senior Member.
Neither Congress, guns nor terrorism is one of my strong suits.. so I'm wondering what i'm missing here.

Alex Jones (Infowars) in thier list of why
SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS

says (bold mine)
The shooting occurred hours after House Republicans blocked debate on a bill to prevent people on the government’s no-fly list from exercising their Second Amendment right
Content from External Source



other liberal papers seem to repeat this "no-fly zone" claim as well

The NRA — and their gun-loving Republican cohorts — are refusing once more to stop terrorists intent on getting armed in the U.S.A.

A legal loophole allows suspected terrorists on the government’s no-fly list to legally buy guns, but a bill to fix that will likely wither on the vine. The federal Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, even in the wake of last week’s terrorist killing of 129 people in Paris, remains a long shot due to its rabid pro-gun opponents.

The legislation was initially proposed in 2007 by the Bush administration, with King formally introducing the bill in Congress two years later

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
Content from External Source

it seems to me this "on the no-fly list" is just inference (? not sure that's the right word) Because the bill doesnt read that way at all. The bill, the way it's written, and looking up the definition of "domestic terrorism" is way to vague and does not at all focus on the "no-fly list" only.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076


But my question: from the page of the Bill, i see NO activity on it since last March. So that means Alex Jones is full of it, right? or am i missing something? Are some debates about bills not recorded under "activity?"



and just to show how wide the definition of "domestic terrorism" is (quoted in the bill), and why i believe this Bill has zero chance of ever getting passed:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Neither Congress, guns nor terrorism is one of my strong suits.. so I'm wondering what i'm missing here.

Alex Jones (Infowars) in thier list of why
SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS

says (bold mine)
The shooting occurred hours after House Republicans blocked debate on a bill to prevent people on the government’s no-fly list from exercising their Second Amendment right
Content from External Source



other liberal papers seem to repeat this "no-fly zone" claim as well

The NRA — and their gun-loving Republican cohorts — are refusing once more to stop terrorists intent on getting armed in the U.S.A.

A legal loophole allows suspected terrorists on the government’s no-fly list to legally buy guns, but a bill to fix that will likely wither on the vine. The federal Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, even in the wake of last week’s terrorist killing of 129 people in Paris, remains a long shot due to its rabid pro-gun opponents.

The legislation was initially proposed in 2007 by the Bush administration, with King formally introducing the bill in Congress two years later

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
Content from External Source

it seems to me this "on the no-fly list" is just inference (? not sure that's the right word) Because the bill doesnt read that way at all. The bill, the way it's written, and looking up the definition of "domestic terrorism" is way to vague and does not at all focus on the "no-fly list" only.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076


But my question: from the page of the Bill, i see NO activity on it since last March. So that means Alex Jones is full of it, right? or am i missing something? Are some debates about bills not recorded under "activity?"



and just to show how wide the definition of "domestic terrorism" is (quoted in the bill), and why i believe this Bill has zero chance of ever getting passed:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

The only thing I can find De, is references to Republican POTUS candidates blocking it, but nothing about any actual debates being blocked, unless thats something thats literally happened in the last few hours on CSPAN or something. Im not really sure.

http://commongunsense.me/tag/donald-trump/
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
what does that mean? like in their campaign speeches?

Thats what it looks like.. honestly I have no idea. I cant find anything aside from political rags talking about it, so it MAY not have even happened.. they may be referencing the action you saw earlier this year

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076

DateAll Actions03/31/2015Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Type of Action: Committee Consideration
Action By: House Judiciary02/25/2015Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Type of Action: Introduction and Referral
Action By: House of Representatives02/25/2015Introduced in House
Type of Action: Introduction and Referral
Action By: House of Representatives
Content from External Source
but thats ALL I can find from any credible sources. Ill check CSPAN when I get home tonight and see if there were any emergency meetings after the LA Shootings to see what the deal was, but at this point I cant find squat that says there's been any stalling or even talk about any kind of gun control debate in regards to the legislation.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Ill check CSPAN
ah. thanks. that article from the daily news says "tuesday". maybe only actual debates are registered on the Bill activity. ?

add: looks like Pelosi made the "terrorist watchlist" 'claim".. :) i thought she would have retired by now.

The office of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement today calling on Republicans to join Democrats in calling for a vote on the bill:

Congress’s first responsibility is to protect and defend the American people. The horrifying terror attacks in Paris give searing urgency to that responsibility.

However, Republicans refuse to close the outrageous loophole that allows suspects on the terrorist watchlist to buy guns. In fact, since 2004, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist have successfully purchased weapons in the United States. More than 90 percent of all suspected terrorists who attempted to purchase guns in the last 11 years walked away with the weapon they wanted

Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Something of that nature happened:
http://www.democraticleader.gov/new...ontinue-to-allow-terror-suspects-to-buy-guns/

PRESS RELEASES 12.01.15

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after House Republicans voted to block consideration of H.R.1076, the bipartisan King-Lofgren Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, thereby perpetuating the loophole that allows suspects on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist to buy guns:

“It is outrageous that Republicans are protecting suspected terrorists’ ability to walk into a gun store and buy lethal weapons.

“With their vote on today’s Previous Question, Republicans have chosen to perpetuate the astounding loophole that has allowed more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist to buy guns in the United States over the last 11 years. In that time, more than 90 percent of all suspected terrorists who tried to buy guns in America walked away with the weapon they wanted.
Content from External Source
More detailed procedural explanation in the house:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r114:1:./temp/~r114xN1tM8:e48271:

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three important bills for our energy future, two resolutions disapproving of the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations and a bill that is forward looking that will set this country on the path to greater energy security.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 539 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076.

--
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. ..... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.



Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on ordering the previous question.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think maybe the mentions of the no-fly list are shorthand for:

“The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”;
Content from External Source
As such people would be on the no-fly list.

Of course it's a problematic law, as it basically give the AG the right the deny a gun to anyone they want.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Of course it's a problematic law, as it basically give the AG the right the deny a gun to anyone they want.


Ahh, ok, that might be why the pubs are blocking it then lol.. here I thought my google powers were epic and Mick goes n shows me up :p
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Ahh, ok, that might be why the pubs are blocking it then lol.. here I thought my google powers were epic and Mick goes n shows me up :p
i would think not many libs are for it either based on the wording.. but i could be wrong. still it was 'brought up' at least in COngress. kinda funny Infowars is using liberal 'propaganda' to support his false flag theory! and PELOSI propaganda..lol. thats a new low Alex!
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
i would think not many libs are for it either based on the wording.. but i could be wrong. still it was 'brought up' at least in COngress. kinda funny Infowars is using liberal 'propaganda' to support his false flag theory! and PELOSI propaganda..lol. thats a new low Alex!

click bait
 
Top