Bipartisan House Group Drafts “Compromise” Watch List Gun Ban Bill Or Something

It’s bipartisan, folks, just like the Collins bill!

(ABC News) Hoping to cut through the gridlock around gun control, a bipartisan group of House members introduced a gun control compromise Friday identical to the measure proposed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, after the Orlando nightclub shooting.

The proposal from Reps. Seth Moulton, D-Massachusetts, Carlos Curbelo, R-Florida, Scott Rigell, R-Virginia, and Bob Dold, R-Illinois, would prevent people on the federal government’s no-fly and Selectee lists from buying guns, and provide a mechanism to appeal a denial.

“Simple reforms like this are demanded by the American people,” Moulton said in a news conference.

Identical to the Collins bill. Remember that. No article that I can find, including from the VOA, Reuters, and Washington Post, actually describe the mechanism for appeal. How it works, which courts, etc. Supposedly, the AG would have the burden of proof.

Of course, the proof is in the text, and H.R. 5576 removes discovery, limits, if not does away, with the ability for the accused to see the secretive information that landed the citizen on one of these lists, and really does little to limit the reason why someone ended up on the list. And the lawyer fees? They shall be “reasonable”, which doesn’t mean “all.”

Katie Pavlich delved deep into the Collins bill itself, noting

2. After being stripped of their Second Amendment rights for landing on a No-Fly list, Americans can retroactively seek due process through appealing a denial in court. Further, attorney fees can be recovered so long as a a defendant wins their case against the U.S. government? After hours, days, weeks and potentially years spent buried in paperwork, government bureaucracy, missed work, stress and thousands of attorney’s fees to prove innocence? How generous….Americans can’t even get through the DMV in a timely fashion, not to mention getting through a court appeal with the federal government after being improperly placed on a secret list.


3. If classified information is involved in an appeal and must be protected, it will be impossible for a regular, every day American who is innocent but on the lists to make their case and quickly win an appeal.

Sounds great. Oh, and then there is this

But the lawmakers started working on the proposal before Democrats waged a 25-hour sit-in on the House floor for gun control votes, a tactic that exasperated Republicans and emboldened Democrats.

Which now means that the Democrats have scuttled any attempt to push through even a terrible but not as bad as most of the others “bipartisan” bill such as this one, because most Republicans have tuned out after the Democrat temper tantrum. So, perhaps Democrats did all the Americans who are in favor of their Constitutional rights a favor.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

26 Responses to “Bipartisan House Group Drafts “Compromise” Watch List Gun Ban Bill Or Something”

  1. Hoagie says:

    I warned everybody the entire kerfuffle (that’s the word I used) was no more than a pre-election season trial run. Point: Hoagie.

  2. Odysseus says:

    You know every “compromise” like this drives people like me into the arms of Libertarians. Maybe I’m alone in this but one way or another I’m in good company.

  3. john says:

    Sorry guys Americans just don’t want terrorists to have guns
    Hopefully when Clinton gets to appoint 3 Associate Justices the amount of people who shouldn’t have guns will be reduced.

  4. Odysseus says:

    And then whoever gets do define terrorist gets to deny due process to their opponents, yeah that will be great for civil society.

  5. Jl says:

    Professor John-nobody wants terrorists to have guns, genius. It’s just that the criminal element will always find ways to get them, so the best defense is armed citizens. Liberal “logic” on guns- it’s like blaming the Holocuast on Zyklon B gas instead of the Nazis.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Professor JL,

    Why don’t US terrorists have RPGs, Stinger missiles and machine guns?

  7. Hoagie says:

    Why don’t US terrorists have RPGs, Stinger missiles and machine guns?

    Who says they don’t? Unless you are a terrorist Jeffery, you have no way of knowing what they do or do not have. You only know what they have or have not used. Common sense dictates if their terrorist counterparts in the Middle East has a type of weapon then American terrorists has access to it.

    You also fail to understand terrorists use what’s on hand, like a passenger jet as a missile. Or a pressure cooker as a bomb. Would you like to outlaw pressure cookers?

  8. Jeffery says:


    Stop playing dumb.

    How do we know that US terrorists don’t have RPGs, Stingers and machine guns???

    Because they haven’t used them, that’s why!

    Why don’t they have them? Because they are not available! Are you now advocating making RPGs, Stingers and machine guns available?

  9. Jeffery says:

    In March Christy Sheats typed: “It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family was taken away.”

    Saturday she shot and killed her daughters Taylor, 22, and Madison, 17, in the street outside their Houston home following a family spat. The police shot and killed Ms. Sheats.

  10. Hoagie says:

    Well, that does it then. Assault weapons should be banned! But wait, Sheats used a pistol.

    Then we have Leland Yee, democrat senator form Cali and ardent anti gun and gun ban advocate. Sentenced to 5 years for gun running. Guns are okay if you’re a democrat making money.

  11. Jeffery says:

    The feds caught Yee and rightly put him prison, so evidently it’s not OK for even a Democrat to be a gun trafficker.

    On the other hand, an obviously disturbed Sheats shot her daughters in cold blood.

    10,000 or so murders a year is the price we pay for our freedom to play with guns!

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    so evidently it’s not OK for even a Democrat to be a gun trafficker.

    Errr umm…


  13. Hoagie says:

    so evidently it’s not OK for even a Democrat to be a gun trafficker.

    I was pointing out the absurdity of his hypocrisy, Jeffery. Just like the democrats who own guns and have armed guards but want to ban us from owning them. Just like that filthy, leftist, racist, Charlie Rangel who thinks HE needs to be armed but nobody else.

    An estimated 1.2 million felonies are thwarted each year by guns. How many do you think could have ended in murder? When you need help Jeffery, who do you call? You call a man with a gun. Saying 10,000 murders happen because we want our freedom to play with guns is glib and quite stupid. 25,000 people are killed because we want our freedom to play with cars, so what? Exactly what do criminals and the insane have to do with our Freedom as people? Are we supposed to be denied everything because someone could misuse it, abuse it or die from it? Why are you so afraid of guns, Jeffery? Your chance of being killed by a car is far, far greater than you even seeing a gun let alone beg killed by one yet you worry like a child about guns.

    But by using a deranged woman who used a hand gun to kill you showed yourself to be lying about not wanting to ban all firearms. See? I told you there is no compromise with a radical like yourself. It’s not your phony “assault weapons” is it Jeffery? It’s all weapons. So you lied from the start but you expect people to believe you. Foolish boy.

  14. Jeffery says:

    Based on your reasoning, the US should have a low felony rate compared to other advanced nations – nations with stricter gun laws than ours. Do you have that data available, Hoagie?

    I likely have more guns than you, Hoagie. Rifles, shotguns, pistols – about 20, some classic collectibles, Winchester 94s, Colt 38 police specials, 16g double etc. Remington 870 and 1100s (12s and 20s), old 410 for squirrel hunting and several 50 cal muzzle loaders, including a Colt Navy 1851. Granted no assault weapons or high capacity magazines, Hoagie, you foolish child. And I have never shot a person. It’s pretty common for Missourians to have hunting rifles and shotguns. Most of my friends and relatives also have guns.

    When I’m hunting, I obey all the MO restrictions without complaint.

    The problem with NRA extremists is that no restriction is acceptable. You admit that a ban on fully auto weapons is acceptable.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Autos have a purpose other than killing. If we banned cars and trucks our economy would collapse, and soon.

    And even though I don’t advocate a gun ban, banning all guns would have little impact, other than cutting our murder rate.

    So, the real issue is how do we as Americans get our murder rate down to that of other advanced nations but consistent with our bill of rights.

    Sheats, Roof, Mateen, Holmes, Lanza, Loughner etc should not have had access to guns. Is it possible to prevent some of these killings? No policy will ever be perfect.

    Should we sacrifice thousands of citizens a year to assuage the insecurities of men who feel they need vast firepower to feel safe? (That was a gratuitous insult, sorry).

  16. Obama's boyfriend says:

    The government should have to prove its case and if you need to appeal it should be a jury trial within 10 days of notification of being on the list, if you choose to appeal. If the government cannot convict the government should pay triple the legal costs.

    As for the facists drafting this bill, I think citizens should be able to place politicians on a no re-election list, no appeals.

  17. Hoagie says:

    Yes Jeffery, guns are made to kill, but not to murder or commit crimes just as cars are made for transportation not to kill and maim. Both kill needlessly in the wrong hands. Both exist and cannot not-exist. Both require licensing.

    So, the real issue is how do we as Americans get our murder rate down to that of other advanced nations but consistent with our bill of rights.

    You tell me. You tell me how if a person wants to murder someone we can stop him and get the murder rate down? There are as many ways to murder as there are people. Fully automatic weapons are already tightly controlled to the point of almost a complete ban. Now what?

    I assume by the fine list of firearms you own that you feel they should be legal. I own 31 firearms, no antiques, mostly hand guns, four semi auto rifles and two semi automatic shotguns. I have shot people in Vietnam. I used to hunt but no more. In Pennsylvania everybody hunts deer.

    I don’t think there is any way to stop people from murdering. I certainly don’t think disarming the innocent will affect the actions of the guilty.

    Sometimes the answer is that there is no answer. At least not one which strikes an acceptable balance between freedom and security. It’s a trade off. But I for one do not wish to live in the type of society where the police and military are the only ones armed. If I did I’d move to North Korea, Cuba or China and from what I hear those folks are trying like hell to get here.

  18. david7134 says:

    The US has an exceptionally low rate of crime, once you subtract out that caused by blacks. This was shown in a book written by two Harvard guys called the Bell Curve. I suggest you read it. So, maybe our problem is not guns but a minority that can’t get its shit together.

  19. david7134 says:

    I might point out that it is against the law to kill someone or commit terrorist acts. So if you outlaws guns, then only the outlaws will have them. Keeping law abiding citizens from having guns will do nothing to crime or murder or terrorism.

  20. Jeffery says:


    The US has an exceptionally low rate of crime, once you subtract out that caused by blacks.

    Not according to the FBI. Whites accounted for 69.3% of arrests for crimes in 2012 compared to 28.1% for Blacks. Subtracting crimes committed by Black Americans (as well as subtracting the number of Black Americans) cuts the overall crime rate only slightly. If you eliminated all white criminals our crime rate would be low indeed!

    And as much as you would like to ban Blacks from America, they are citizens, exactly like you.

    If one looks at homicide rates, you have a better case (although why should I make your arguments for you?). Our homicide rate is about 4 per 100,000. Doing the same math as above, the homicide rate would be cut almost in half by eliminating Black murderers, but still more than double Australia, England, Japan, S Korea, Germany, Denmark, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, China, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland… you get the idea. And still greater than wild west Canada, Israel, civil war riven Sierra Leone, Ghana, Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Romania, Algeria, Serbia etc. Even our whites are more violent than citizens of other advanced nations. Obviously, the availability of firearms is one obvious difference, but that fact in and of itself doesn’t mean that firearms are the cause.

    Would you like to revise your statement that America has low crime except for our Black citizens? The evidence does not support your claim.

  21. Jeffery says:


    Why don’t outlaws have machine guns? Wouldn’t having a machine gun be a big advantage for an outlaw?

  22. Hoagie says:

    Most outlaws use standard hand guns. They’re light, they’re cheap, they’re plentiful and they’re stealthy. Lugging a machine gun around is none of those things. If I were an outlaw I’d want to get in and out as fast, as quietly and as unseen as possible. Plus, to buy a machine gun is just way, way too expensive. Unless one goes to Mexico and picks one up Obama sold down there.

  23. David7134 says:

    They do Jeff.

  24. David7134 says:


    You made my point.blacks are only 13 percent of the population and account for over 30percent of general crime and a large part of the violence. In my area with 50percent black they commit most of the crime.

  25. Jeffery says:

    White Sheet dave,

    Here’s what you typed, in case you forgot:

    The US has an exceptionally low rate of crime, once you subtract out that caused by blacks.

    Your point was that America’s crime rate would drop significantly without Blacks, and that’s clearly untrue.

    Now you’re changing your story to make the point that Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, which is true, but was not your original point.

    Your original wet-dream idea of eliminating all Black Americans would not result in an “exceptionally low rate of crime”, although it would cut our homicide rate almost in half, noting that most murders amongst Blacks are Blacks killing other Blacks. Whites murdering whites would stay the same. According to actual evidence, 69% of crime would still remain even if you and Mr. Trump forced all Blacks out.

  26. Hoagie says:

    Your point was that America’s crime rate would drop significantly without Blacks, and that’s clearly untrue.

    You don’t find a 30% drop in crime to be “significant”? How much does crime need to drop then to get the “significant” rating on the Jeff-O-Meter?

    According to actual evidence, 69% of crime would still remain even if you and Mr. Trump forced all Blacks out.

    I don’t recall where Dave called for “forcing” anybody out, do you? When you start calling people names like “White Sheet Dave” and accusing them of wanting things they never said they wanted you accentuate your bankrupt philosophy. It’s the usual ploy for closed minded bigots to play the race card on any person trying to have an open discussion. And then throwing Trump into the barrage is just priceless. When has Trump ever said he wanted to force out blacks? In fact, I’d bet Trump has employed more blacks than you ever have. Hispanics too. It amuses us on the right how racist you leftists are yet how quick to try and insult others with your own projection.

Pirate's Cove