Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone familiar with the law and the disagreement between the Democrats and REpublicans about whether any judge should be able to arbitrate disputes vs. the Justice Department able to explain the material differences between the approaches? It seems to be a matter of different branches of government, but how does it play out.

I'm very much in favor of gun control, but it actually seems to me that the Republican argument has more solid Constitutional grounds (not a lawyer, though).

My loose understanding is that the Dems want the government to be able to add a person to the list when it decides that person is a credible threat. If the person thinks he was mistakenly added to the list, he can asked to be removed. The Repubs want the rule to be that the govt cannot add anyone to the list without first seeking court permission.

IMHO, the safety the public gains by allowing the government first control over who gets on this list is more important than the need of some individuals to get immediate access to a gun. At worst, the individual's ability to get a gun may be delayed by a few weeks. That's not too big a price to pay to prevent an evildoer from getting access too quickly. Forcing the government to first go to a court for permission will limit the safety and will clog the courts.

What you're saying makes sense, but it doesn't square with the Politico article:

The NRA formally backed an approach favored by Senate Republicans that would allow a judge to arbitrate people who mistakenly end up on the terrorism watch list and want to buy guns, while Democrats prefer giving the Justice Department such authority. Both bills were voted down by the Senate last December.

"If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed," said Chris Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action.

The disagreement as Politico paints it, is difficult to tease out except for the different branches of government. But I can't imagine a reason the Dems wouldn't be willing to accept such a compromise from the NRA...so I feel like your explanation might be the correct one.

This is great! Finally!

Anonymous wrote:I sent emails to Sen. Cardin and Se. Mikulski. Who else should I send email to?

Cornyn & McConnell. Tell them to get their asses to the negotiating table.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone familiar with the law and the disagreement between the Democrats and REpublicans about whether any judge should be able to arbitrate disputes vs. the Justice Department able to explain the material differences between the approaches? It seems to be a matter of different branches of government, but how does it play out.

I'm very much in favor of gun control, but it actually seems to me that the Republican argument has more solid Constitutional grounds (not a lawyer, though).

My loose understanding is that the Dems want the government to be able to add a person to the list when it decides that person is a credible threat. If the person thinks he was mistakenly added to the list, he can asked to be removed. The Repubs want the rule to be that the govt cannot add anyone to the list without first seeking court permission.

IMHO, the safety the public gains by allowing the government first control over who gets on this list is more important than the need of some individuals to get immediate access to a gun. At worst, the individual's ability to get a gun may be delayed by a few weeks. That's not too big a price to pay to prevent an evildoer from getting access too quickly. Forcing the government to first go to a court for permission will limit the safety and will clog the courts.

The low hanging fruit:
-Feds and state police to prosecute (some) straw buyers. I see why they can't/won't sometimes. It's not worth the cost to lose or get a light sentence, but it's just allowing more illegal guns. Prosecute enough, and harshly, to send a message.
-no gun show loophole anymore
-follow up on background checks that come back too late, and default to the gun buyer. In the entire insane process, there are like 7 times this could be followed up on in 100% legal ways.

Start there and then let's talk.

I sent emails to Sen. Cardin and Se. Mikulski. Who else should I send email to?

It's great! But wow what a low bar we have now regarding gun safety.

Anonymous wrote:If only I had a rep...

Contact some other rep. It's not like they have time to research where you're from!

I second that. Go Chris Murphy!!! I'm listening, It's heartening that he's doing this.

Anyone familiar with the law and the disagreement between the Democrats and REpublicans about whether any judge should be able to arbitrate disputes vs. the Justice Department able to explain the material differences between the approaches? It seems to be a matter of different branches of government, but how does it play out.

I'm very much in favor of gun control, but it actually seems to me that the Republican argument has more solid Constitutional grounds (not a lawyer, though).

I just messaged my senators to ask them to join the filibuster.

If only I had a rep...

I sent messages to Kaine and Warner to voice my support

Happening now. Go Chris Murphy! Send him some support, DCUM!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/15/watch-chris-murphy-s-gun-filibuster-live-stream-online.html
https://twitter.com/search?q=chris+murphy+filibuster&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch