Should the terrorist watch list ban you from buying (or owning) a gun.

[Deanimator]

No mere mortal knows how you get on the list.

No mere mortal knows how to get off the list.

If Ted Kennedy got on it, and it took THREE WEEKS to get him off, how long would it take any of us? Would we get off of it AT ALL?

And if it's OK to ban the fundamental right of a citizen to own a firearm on the basis of a list which has NO known checks or balances, why not use it to limit other fundamental rights, such as speech, association, travel, marriage, ownership of property and voting?

As it's currently implemented, the list itself is a dangerous intrusion on fundamental freedoms. It's as close as you can come to a Bill of Attainder. Using it to arbitrarily and without oversight limit OTHER fundamental freedoms is not just dangerous, it's unAmerican.

 

[Pyzon]

If Ted Kennedy got on it, and it took THREE WEEKS to get him off, how long would it take any of us?

Ted should have been precluded from a firearm purchase by NCIS as a felon, but hey, so should have OJ. Neither are buying guns anymore.

With only two choices as an NRA member, I voted no, but the list itself is so flawed it should be $hitcanned to begin with, like a lot of other bureaucratic failures too numerous to mention.

 

[routine]

Correct me if Im wrong, but doesn't the 2nd Amendment protect everyone's right to keep and bear arms (not just American citizens)?

 

[General Geoff]

routine is correct. The 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) guarantees protection against infringements on inalienable rights inherent to all people, not just American citizens.

 

[natman]

The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It’s been that way since the BoR was written and has since been confirmed by DC v Heller.

The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu. They are all important and you don’t get to pick and choose which ones to follow.

The terrorist watch list is on shaky constitutional ground at best. The concept of a secret list with no oversight has a strong un-American flavor. It’s bad enough to use it to flag someone for extra scrutiny at the airport. Using a secret list to deprive someone of their specifically enumerated constitutional rights is flat out wrong.

Constitutional rights should not be infringed without due process. Being able to appeal after the fact is not due process and neatly switches the burden of proof from the state to the individual and the presumption from innocent-until-proven-guilty to guilty-until-proven-innocent. Accept no substitutes.

It’s even more wrong to try to score political points by trying to link opposition to the proposed bill to being “soft on terrorism”. That’s just cheap political mudslinging. There are plenty of serious, legitimate reasons to oppose this bill. If the activity being limited by the terrorist watch list was anything but guns, the ACLU would be all over it. But since the American Craven Liberals Union is flamingly hypocritical with regards to guns, the NRA has to fill the void and protect the civil liberties the ACLU should be protecting.

“…when the government has the power to deny legal rights and due process to one group of people, it puts all our rights in danger.” ACLU http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights

Unless the group in question is gun owners.

If this sort of legislation was pointed at anyone else, of any race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation it wouldn’t be tolerated. But for some people there is no legislation too onerous, no breach of constitutional law too flagrant to accept – as long as it’s directed at gun owners. Which illustrates that while there have been great advances in social equality over the last 50 years, bigotry has not died out; it has merely shifted targets according to the whim of social fashion. Lautenberg is trying to use the tools of Joseph McCarthy in the 50’s to violate the civil rights of a particular group to ride a wave of fear and ignorance to political prosperity, just as George Wallace and Lester Maddox did in the 60’s.

For shame.

 

[woerm]

sever problems, constutional

hmmm,

accused by anon

can't get chance to confront anon

stripped of civil/human right be anon accuser.

and I could go on and on not to mention conspiracy by .gov to deprive constitutional rights. which would be a section 1983/84 violation as well as a section 242 violation.

I already have enough problems traveling by air as somedue with a similar name is on the stinking list and I can't get on a plane with out being searched three times. did I mention I can't even find out why?

grrrr.

 

[kenno]

A camels nose under the tent, the first step on a slippery slope towards total Obammanation.

 

[Mags]

A camels nose under the tent, the first step on a slippery slope towards total Obammanation.

What does Obama have to do with the terrorist watch list? We can blame Bush for the Patriot Act. Don't bring politics here especially statements that don't hold any truth and are pure political mumbo jumbo.

This coming from a right wing republican (me).

 

[SMMAssociates]

What does Obama have to do with the terrorist watch list? We can blame Bush for the Patriot Act. Don't bring politics here especially statements that don't hold any truth and are pure political mumbo jumbo.

Zero wants the AG to have unlimited authority to put anybody on that list. Once you're on it, unless you're Ted Kennedy, there's nearly no way to get off, or find out why you're on it.

In short, if "he" decides you're an enemy of the state, you right to own firearms is abrogated, as well as having your right to travel severely limited.

The list was a bad idea, and we can blame Bush & Company for that, but Zero wants to expand the use of the list to discriminate against his enemies. That is, us....


Regards,

 

[Nico Testosteros]

[What does Obama have to do with the terrorist watch list? We can blame Bush for the Patriot Act. Don't bring politics here especially statements that don't hold any truth and are pure political mumbo jumbo. /QUOTE]

Thanks Mags for pointing that out.
The current President didn't create the watch list. I bet 99% of the law enforcement/intelligence officials involved with it are leftover from the previous administration anyway as they are career government officials and not political appointees.
Obama didn't create the illegal wiretap program either.

And I vote no, no prohibition without a trial. No prohibition on guns, no prohibition on fire works, no prohibition on fertilizer, propane, knives, arrows, sticks, rocks, fingernails, all kinds of slanted jagged pointy things.
Cars kill more people than guns or terrorists anyway.
Prohibit them.

 

[Atroxus]

I voted no. I have heard too many stories of people put on the watchlist wrongly, and having difficulties being removed from it. With that track record in mind I don't think it passes nearly close enough scrutiny to prevent law abiding citizens from wrongly losing their right to bear arms.

 

[kayak-man]

Heres my stance on the No-Fly, Terrorist Watch list theory. The people you are dealing with (Gun sellers, cops, Airport Security) have a list of names. Thats it. I happen to have a very common name. That being said, I do not like being temporarily detained by the airport security because my name is the same as someone else. I did not enjoy it.

I don't want to go to buy my gun, then have to wait an extra couple days because they needed to verify my identity even more.

 

[NMGonzo]

I know two guys that are on the terrorist watchlist and they are in that list because the share their name with a known australian citizen tried for terrorism.

 

[kayak-man]

+2 Nico - Inocent until proven guilty.

And ban the cars instead. I ride my bike to work when I can, and less cars + more cyclists = greater awareness of cyclists + less bike vs car incidents

 

[SMMAssociates]

How the heck can "kayak-man" be a common name....

(I've got an unusual last name - I Googled it again the other night and found a few more people with it, though. Damn relatives keep making more relatives.... )

IAC, it's an infringement.... What's needed is a a mechanism for dealing with it, and limits on it's use....

Regards,

 

[lobo9er]

anyone of us can be put on the no fly list for any reason. the the "no fly, no buy" is a terrible idea. i know of an army sgt. who was on the list, he was removed after he was not alowed on a plane to go to drill but it shows anyone can be put on it at anytime. The supreme court just ruled that citizens can now be held indefintly without trial if thought to be linked to "terrorism". Define terrorism. You look like you have exposive material (reloading equipment) a closet full of guns and a stack of ammo what are you planning?

 

[Jim K]

It might be interesting to challenge supporters of the idea to name ONE other right that should be taken away based on a secret list, prepared by unknown persons, working for an unknown agency, at an unknown place, with an unknown agenda, and using unknown sources. If the idea is good, then persons on the watch list should also be denied the right to vote. They should also be prevented from owning a car, owning or renting a house or apartment, serving in public office, engaging in demonstrations, writing to or for newspapers, or speaking to others. Unless we are prepared to arrest or totally isolate those people, like we would quarantine a germ, they should have the same rights as anyone else.

Make no mistake - the "watch list loophole" is just another of an endless list of "problems" that Bloomberg and his Nazi-like henchmen want to solve by banning all guns and executing gun owners. That is what the so-called "liberals" really want.

Jim

 

[w_houle]

Do you know anyone who is a terrorist? Are you sure about that? My FFL was put on the terrorist watch list because Tim McVeigh had a receipt from that store. Pat and his wife, from Pat's P&G in ogden was also on the watch list for selling a gun to him as well. Legitamate people doing legitamate business put on a watch list without the benefit of any legal channel for recourse... and we are asking if such capricious and arbitrary actions are worth looking in to?
So, since I have done business with those who have done business with terorists: Does that make me a terrorist?

 

[Nico Testosteros]

Make no mistake - the "watch list loophole" is just another of an endless list of "problems" that Bloomberg and his Nazi-like henchmen want to solve by banning all guns and executing gun owners. That is what the so-called "liberals" really want.

Horse hockey.
Executing gun owners? Seriously? What's in that tea you guys are drinking?

 

[MisterMike]

Columnist Steve Chapman's take on it: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-16/news/ct-oped-0516-chapman-20100516_1_gun-sales-terrorist-homeland-security

 

[KBT1911]

Hell no

They didn't have a "Hell No" option. No govermnent made-up list should ever take precedent over anyon'es Constitutional rights.

 

[Polar Express]

To addres the poll specifically, I voted no. Your rights to own/buy a firearm are guaranteed you by the Constitution, and that right cannot be removed without due process of law to prove that you should not be allowed that right.

In the first couple of posts, Ohiogunguy made an interesting point. I'm just starting to think about this specific idea, but if you are not a citizen of the USA, does our Constitution grant you rights? Should it? If you're trying to properly become a citizen, it behooves you to behave very well, so as to be allowed citizenship, and once you have it, you get all the benifets, in the form of rights that are guaranteed you/us by our Constitution.

I'm inclined to think that if you are not a US Citizen, you don't have the rights secured and defined by our Constitution. And therefore, if you are NOT a US Citizen, being on that terror watch list would be grounds enough for a lot of restrictions, that might otherwise (if you're a Citizen) be inappropriate.

I may change my mind on this, but I'll be interested to follow this topic. I'd like to know what more of you think,

PE

 

[General Geoff]

Polar Express:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Inalienable rights do not depend on nationality or citizenship. The Constitution does not grant anyone rights. It merely restricts the government from infringing on certain rights.

 

[Polar Express]

General,

Thank you. You are absolutly correct about that.

Now, the the 2nd Ammendment reads a little differently. Do you think that it was intended that the 2nd Ammendment applied to citizens only?

I don't know... I'm interested in the debate here. I don't want to deny anyone the ability to do what they want, but I also recognize the idea that we have people in this country who wish to bring harm on her.

I really can see merits to both sides of the opinon.

Thanks again,
PE

 

[General Geoff]

Now, the the 2nd Ammendment reads a little differently. Do you think that it was intended that the 2nd Ammendment applied to citizens only?

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be Infringed.

"The People" does not denote a specific nationality or class of people. It's merely, The People.

Furthermore, the individual right to keep and bear arms far predates the Constitution and Bill of Rights; it has established legal precedent dating back to the middle ages. Much of this was researched and cited in the Heller USSC case.

I don't want to deny anyone the ability to do what they want, but I also recognize the idea that we have people in this country who wish to bring harm on her.

Freedom is not guaranteed safe.