No fly no buy?

The other day, someone pointed out that most of the mass shootings involve registered weapons, but I don’t think it much matters to someone with mass homicide in mind whether or not his gun is legal.

I think it is a good start.
If you’re on the no fly list you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun of any kind..

Except the no fly list violates due process. There are all sorts of constitutional issues there.

The FBI has stated that the Pulse shooting was not terrorism related. So no, the no fly list would not prevent another whack job gun nut from shooting up a night club, unless that person also happened to have one of those scary Arabic names.

If we circumvent due process we stand to lose everything so no. Add transparency to lists and proper rights then sure.

The No Fly List is subject to many faults and eroneous listings. According to Wikipedia, as of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names. In 2012, the list more than doubled in size, to about 21,000 names. In August 2013, a leak revealed that more than 47,000 people were on the list. It used be much bigger. Many individuals were “caught in the system” as a result of sharing the exact or similar name of another person on the list;TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.

Even if it was constitutional, I don’t think this list is very accurate. It appears that “No Fly, No Buy” is just another contemptuous invention of irresponsible politicians at a time when the constintuencies are at their most vulnerable. Don’t get sucked into this. It’s bullshit.

It surprises me that the same mendacious bastards didn’t pick the much scarier named “Terrorist Watch List” which contains over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities. If I were so cynical as to work for the other side, that is what I would have done. And why stop with banning gun ownership to these people? What is the difference between the removal of one right or another? Why not remove their right to vote as well?—and keep the argument of the constitutionality of it tied up in the courts at least until the presidental election is over.

Who would most benefit from that, do you think?

I’d rather they ban all guns except those that require manual cocking/pumping/bolt action between shots.

There is, IMO, a legitimate question as to whether the Constitution of the United States was intended to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

I think that question needs to be
* a) answered and
* b) defined.

I’d suspend the legal gun purchasing rights of everyone until Congress and the Court had a final answer.

I believe the answer would be that guns prior to the Gatling gun would qualify.
War resulted in the development of the rest of the guns.

This law won’t do anything in itself, but it is a good first step towards common sense regulations.

As per 2015 data there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. That’s too large no. of weapons to have which must have increased in last year.

Just another failure of a policy, whoever will spend extra bucks and buy it out of a trunk or back alley and then it might be a full automatic with a very large clip.

Did any of you catch the news that there was a run on this rifle after Orlando, one wholesaler sold five thousand AR15’s in just a few hours, not to say how many were sold from gun stores.
Do you think any of these people will surrender the rifle if it becomes banned?

NOTE: and all the were legal sales. I have no idea what this rifle sells for in the states but here in Canada it sells for over $2000 .

Variants sell between $500 to over two thousand. 1k is typical for a proper one

Wow..gun to counter guns..don’t understand in which era we are in?

Fear is big business. I agree that the No-Fly list is punishment outside of due process and so I’m loathe to add to that mess. So many people have been added to that list simply because they share a similar or the same name to someone who was suspected. I think the problem is more nuanced that just a single, simplified solution like this. Last Week with John Oliver just had a good piece about the NRA and common sense gun control legislation. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/watch-john-oliver-lambastes-lawmakers-for-continuing-to-block-gun-research-as-the-bodies-pile-up/

Within days of the Orlando shooting, the NRA was robo-calling anyone that might be sympathetic to the gun lobby.
IMO, the NRA knows no shame, and will stop at nothing to prevent any new restrictions on any guns in the USA.

I don’t think punching holes in ‘No fly, no buy’ really serves anyone’s interest. The NRA is using the ‘take no prisoners’ approach while the ACLU is splitting hairs. Only the NRA is served, IMO.

We’ve got to start someplace, folks.

That someplace needs to not be maintaining lists of people who are exempted from their Constitutional rights just because.

How about a back ground check just in case you were ever convicted of a violent crime, like armed robbery or domestic abuse… something like that? The fact that there are NO background checks are INSANE! I just had to wait over 2 weeks to resume my job because I had to get a renewed police report. I don’t carry a weapon for my job. I carry diapers and tissues to wipe baby noses. Now, I feel obliged to wear a holster full of sippy cups.

@cazzie there are background checks. The problem is that people who have not done anything illegal but are under suspicion or have an undiagnosed mental illness can’t legally be blocked from purchasing. People get denied all the time.

How about a common sense solution.

The only change we make is that, in the name of public safety, there is a total ban on all gun and ammo sales for 90 days after any mass shooting.

Let the NRA turn their considerable resources to prevention.
Put everyone – the government, NRA, ACLU, etc. – on the same track. Imagine if all those resources were combined to prevent gun violence against multiple random strangers.

How would the NRA react if there was a mass shooting by a distraught Sandy Hook parent, 87 days into a 90 day ban? If gun violence was used to protest gun violence by an emotionally overwrought person?

The NRA is not at all concerned with prevention. They are much more profitable when people are being killed. The NRA would love nothing more than a revenge-mass-killing, as the outcry for prevention leads to higher membership, donations, and raises in their investments.

Besides, I don’t think there’s been a 90-day break in mass shootings in ten years or more.

@ARE_you_kidding_me So, you are telling me that there are background checks in every state and at every gun show? Really? Those aren’t the facts as I understand them. Those background checks require a waiting period of a day or two? Do they include domestic violence problems? Do they involve the question, ‘Are you currently taking anti psychotic drugs? Give the name of your doctor here.’ Obviously people can lie, but there NEEDS to be some sort of better vetting system. There also needs to be more onus put on legal holders of firearms to keep them safe from burglary or use of their CHILDREN!

I don’t disagree at all. I can’t even begin to imagine not keeping them locked up and stored properly. I’m not saying there are not problems just that there are checks. Domestic violence, certain mental illnesses and convictions all give you a flag that keep you from buying or legally owning. There used to be a waiting period before the checks were computer automated. I would not be opposed to waiting limits like a week or two. That would potentially stop someone from doing something in the heat of the moment. If someone really wants one they can still go to private sale or black market. With as many firearms as we have here I can’t think of a practical way to stop that.

The 90 day break was my inspiration, @Seek. Effectively a ban gun and ammo sales until we do find some solution.