Yet Another Attempt to Ban Using the Terrorist Watchlist (Republicans, this time)

[barnbwt]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/republican-compromise-on-no-fly-list-gun-ban-revealed/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-gop-alternative-to-the-Democrats-terror-watch-list-gun-ban/article/2000231
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00318

Senator Cornyn apparently tried to add an amendment to a healthcare bill that would allow law enforcement to deny for up to 72 hours those persons flagged as being on the SuspectedTerrorist Watch List, but could only deny them the purchase upon presentation of probable cause to a judge. The same burden needed to actually arrest & pursue search warrants/prosecution against these suspect .

Like Feinstein's earlier proposal, as well as the several governors pursuing similar tactics, this would require the worrisome practice of sharing the top-secret federal list (or at least pinging it incessantly) far and wide with local law enforcement officers, both reducing whatever effectiveness the list is supposed to have, and laying the groundwork for other policy initiatives to be enacted that use the list (adoption, state employement, public notification like a sex-offender, etc.) Keep in mind that unless charges are brought (which would be likely if probable cause to deny the purchase was actually assembled for a judge; it'd be too easy to pursue charges at that point) the sale will still complete after 72 hours. Keep also in mind, that we already fail to prosecute hardly anyone who is flat-out denied as a prohibited person (vs. a mere 'suspect') despite lying on a federal form to get to that point. Basically, the same pointless 3-day waiting period that is worthless in preventing crime in the general population, would be selectively applied to a large subset of the population identified by officers accountable to only the president.

As is the case with denied felons that go un-prosecuted, they will obtain their weapons illegally, or simply seek other (also illegal) methods than firearms. And this whole train of thought carries the dangerous precedents intrinsic to 'secret lists of undesirables' ever closer to their only logical conclusion.

And that's not even getting into the due process aspects we're already far too familiar with. Some have suggested this was political grandstanding that was never intended to pass; I personally do not care, and greatly resent even the pretense of toying with our basic civil rights this way, for either promised safety or mere political points.

Below is my letter, specific to Senator Cruz, who surprisingly voted in favor of the president having say over whether your purchases may go through, or require a pointless 3-day waiting period with no appeal...

Senator Cruz,
I am greatly troubled by your decision to back Senator Cornyn's amendment today, which as I understand it would have put American Citizen's second amendment rights under the sole discretion of the Executive branch of the federal government. While not as wildly unhinged in scope as the measure you previously opposed that would deny all people on the president's so-called "Suspected Terrorist Watch List" their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, it would still have denied them the ability to purchase the same. It was still an attempt at a clear injustice on American gun owners.

My worry stems from the fact that the list is maintained solely by officers responsible only to the president; the very office you yourself presently seek. I am shocked that someone with the history of standing up for individual rights would endorse a measure to deny a basic civil right to Americans added to a secret list without due process. Even a 72 hour 'waiting period' is justice denied, since it will reoccur every time that individual attempts to purchase a firearm, for the rest of their life. Seeing as there are practically no prosecutions for felons who clearly lied on forms before being rejected by a background check, there is no reason to believe that enforcement action would be taken against suspected terrorists attempting to procure weapons. In all likelihood, they would simply be denied 72 hours before the sale would proceed, preventing nothing but the timely completion of free commerce.

Senator Cornyn at least required that "probable cause" be provided to a judge in order to actually deny the sale to these people, but understand this proof is also cause for arrest. If probable cause to deny the purchase is met, why on Earth is the suspected terrorist not being arrested & prosecuted instead of being allowed to roam free? As we saw in Santa Barbara, they could easily forsake legal firearms purchases subject to background checks, even when doing so is illegal, or simply eschew firearms altogether and pursue explosives.

Lastly, I must reiterate how unjust the use of the Terrorist Watch List for anything but active surveillance or investigation is. Anyone can be added to it for the flimsiest of reasons, even for suspicions that are dismissed in court as baseless. Having a similar name to a listee can get you black-balled, as was seen in the case of Senator Ted Kennedy and others. And finally, once on the list, it is practically impossible to get off. The only appeals process to be removed is solely at the Executive branch's pleasure; the same office which erred in putting the person on the list in the first place.

The lack of due process in using the Watch List for public policy or legislation, the incompetence with which it has historically been administered (and those within it investigated), and the steady increase in persons on the list --now over one million persons, many of them American citizens-- make this very amendment's proposal outrageous, and your vote in favor of it extremely disheartening. As there will doubtless be another proposal to use the Watch List for promises of safety and security at the hands of an unaccountable government administration, I should hope you will take the opportunity to oppose them as an affront to civil liberties.

Thank you for your service to Texas and the nation,
barnbwt

 

[SKILCZ]

Nice letter. It's both amazing and infuriating how politicians will respond, like clockwork, to a mass shooting by attempting to pass laws that would not have prevented it.

 

[MEHavey]

"...but could only deny them the purchase upon presentation of probable cause to a judge."

What I found fascinating when reading the actual bill was that the "evidence" could be totally
redacted when presented to the Judge for decision (and s/he therefore make the decision more
on Trust-Me than Verify-to-Me), the accused never see any of it.

Star Chamber at it's best.

 

[tiamat]

As we saw in Santa Barbara

oops.

 

[barnbwt]

"What I found fascinating when reading the actual bill was that the "evidence" could be totally
redacted when presented to the Judge for decision (and s/he therefore make the decision more
on Trust-Me than Verify-to-Me), the accused never see any of it.

Star Chamber at it's best."

No kidding. I tried to stay in the realm of the 'actual' vs. 'potential' bad/stupid nature of the bill in my letter, but yeah, when you roll in a predatory executive branch run amok, pretty much anyone can be made subject to it at any time.

At that point (widespread mis-application of the list) you'd have a class of gunowners all subject to 3-day waits, they can do nothing about.

Roll in a corrupt/incompetent judiciary, and things get even more out of hand (though it's not like a corrupt executive + judiciary working in tandem can be opposed effectively; it is incumbent upon us to ensure things don't get that far). I doubt judges would stand for being shut out of all 'sensitive intelligence' evidence, because, being ego-maniacs, they'd be rather insulted to be told to just trust the judgment of officers. Most likely the result would be a secret federal court that could actually be exposed to the pertinent intelligence, the same type of compromise between Intelligence's convenience and civil liberties that spawned the FISA courts. But to have any effect & deny sales of any frequency as the list balloons, you'd need a whole new system of regional federal reviewing judges, operating parallel (i.e. outside) the normal public judicial system.

"Star Chamber Branch of Government" more like. I still am shocked Cruz had anything to do with this, even as a poison pill (and I don't see any obvious spoiler language that would suggest it was intended as such), since he more than most of our elected representatives has shown some level of understanding for what each government branch is supposed to be doing or not doing within the constitutional checks & balances. Stuff like this makes me wonder if he's more 'pragmatic*' than he lets on. Still head and shoulders above the other guys in the running for prez with any chance of election in this area, but it still worries me (considering that he would be the one in charge of the list if he wins...)

TCB

*Remember that buzzword back in '08?

 

[barnbwt]

So, Cornyn wrote back about his commitment to concealed carry laws...