NRA Now Backing "No Fly, No Buy..."?

L

LogicMan

New member
NRA Statement On Terror Watchlists - so it seems that basically the NRA is supporting a ban on people on the Terror Watchlist from being able to purchase guns. So what are they caving to pressure from gun control proponents?

They add the qualifier, "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." Yeah okay, but how exactly is that done? I highly doubt any bill passed would really include such protections where you could just dial a number and say, "Hey, government, you put me wrongly on the list!" And we have the problem of the Justice Department already refusing to process background check appeals, let alone appeals for a people denied via the Terror Watchlist.

Also, as some have pointed out elsewhere, how exactly do you "prove" that you are not a terrorist? Especially when the standards of what defines a possible terrorist, according to the government, are so arbitrary. Remember when DHS early in the Obama administration had people who were white, male, right-wing, supporters of the Constitution, etc...as possible terrorists? Then we also have how some Democrats and media have been clamoring to have the NRA itself declared as a terrorist organization.

I do not think that anything good could come from such legislation. I think that the behavior of the Justice Department with stalling the background check appeals is proof enough of this.

So now that the NRA has said this, will a bill just be passed? Will all the GOP fold now because of the NRA's position? I am almost tempted to call the NRA and tell them to cancel my membership.
 
how exactly do you "prove" that you are not a terrorist?
Click to expand...

You don't.. THEY must before a judge. THAT needs to be an integral part of any legislation. Charge me or remove me from the lists. ;). It's just like the requirement that they prove you committed any other crime.
 
This is how Reagan and the NRA helped us in 1986. Don't you feel better? Trump met with the controllers and he is on board. They all can't get my rights signed away fast enough.

Has Trump already folded. They reported on FOX that he was personally taking this issue to the gun lobby.

Maybe Hillary's security detail should give up their guns as a good faith effort.
 
As long as there are far more protections built in than the asset forfeiture system there could be some validity to it. However as long as the list is secret, with no accusation, no burden of proof of guilt, and no public scrutiny it cannot be acceptable.

As it stands now, and as asset forfeiture has been used, this should be rallied against by many groups.
 
No one wants terrorist to be able to buy guns. But the way it is now the list is secret. You never know who or why you are on it. Plus you can not get off it. There has to be an appeal process and only a Judge can put you on it. One list for no fly and terrorist. I'll vote for that
 
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Click to expand...

I know that says criminal prosecutions but I find it alarming that we would even consider that we can remove peoples rights to freedom of travel (I know, air travel in particular is not protected)as well as the right to bear arms without due process alarming.
 
There will be some type of feel good legislation happen. I do believe that's a given. Trump is calling for a ban on purchases for the terrorist and no fly lists. He needs to tread lightly here. I believe this election is now his to lose.The NRA says it won't change it's stance on this. I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was some way to see who is put on these lists. The way I see it is that it is to easy for anyone who is inclined to use these lists as a back door gun control attempt. As always, this is personal opinion.
 
This isn't a new position by the NRA. This is the same legislation the NRA and Republicans supported that was rejected by the Democrats. The way it works is if you are on the watchlist and attempt to buy a firearm, you are delayed. The government is notified and has to get a court order to block the sale. So Americans get due process and terrorists can't use a NICS check to see if the FBI is on to them.

As a political move, it is smart as the Democrats already rejected this once. Now that Trump has drawn all this attention to it, they either have to accept the NRA position or try and explain why they are rejecting an offer to block people on the terrorist watchlist from buying guns. Good media judo.
 
There has been some chatter buried into this discussion about the role the internet has played in recruiting extremists. Sure the shooter may have not been supported by anyone in person but maybe he got gotten aid or comfort from others online in a type of virtual support group.

Do you all really know who you are chatting with online? Or how close to being on that watch list you may be? 100% comfortable with your browser history because the NSA probably has it?
 
The phrase "if you are on the watchlist" is one of the most offensive things that I can remember in contemporary domestic politics, and I am over 50.
 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
A watch list like that would be abused by the government as soon as it got signed.
The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's all the gun contol we need
 
Last edited:
Mainah said:
The phrase "if you are on the watchlist" is one of the most offensive things that I can remember in contemporary domestic politics, and I am over 50.
Click to expand...
What everyone seems to forget is that the Orlando shooter was NOT on any watch list. He had been investigated by the FBI, they didn't find any threat, and they REMOVED him from their internal list (different from the "no fly" list) of potential terrorists.

This guy was squeaky clean. He had both a concealed carry permit and a "guard card" (armed security license). He was NOT on any watch list. Nothing anybody has yet proposed would have flagged him and prevented him from buying guns.. The question is how the FBI could have investigated him TWICE and missed all the clues.
 
Nothing anybody has yet proposed would have flagged him and prevented him from buying guns.....
Click to expand...
I am reminded of Harry Summers speaking w/ the NVA Colonel after the war
-- "You never defeated us in the field."

And like the NVA Officer I would also respond,...
-- "That is true. It is also irrelevant."

Aguila, They have the bit in their teeth.
That what they do is totally irrelevant to the real solution is... well, irrelevant.
It "feeeeels" good.

But as OWH-Jr said:
"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great,
not by reason of their importance... but because of some accident of immediate
overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."

This one's going over the cliff.
 
This isn't a new position by the NRA. This is the same legislation the NRA and Republicans supported that was rejected by the Democrats. The way it works is if you are on the watchlist and attempt to buy a firearm, you are delayed. The government is notified and has to get a court order to block the sale. So Americans get due process and terrorists can't use a NICS check to see if the FBI is on to them.

As a political move, it is smart as the Democrats already rejected this once. Now that Trump has drawn all this attention to it, they either have to accept the NRA position or try and explain why they are rejecting an offer to block people on the terrorist watchlist from buying guns. Good media judo.
Click to expand...

Thanks and I could not agree more, but it's only good media judo if Trump and NRA can convince their supporters that they are judo fighting for them and not against them. So far after reading the comments here and on other forums, that ain't happening, most are convince just the opposite in that the NRA and Trump have caved.
 
So far after reading the comments here and on other forums, that ain't happening, most are convince just the opposite in that the NRA and Trump have caved.
Click to expand...
So explain it to everyone that you can.

Some won't get it. That's life. In the real world, not every strategy can be as simple as: "Og see evil rock." "Og hit evil rock with club."
 
This is how Reagan and the NRA helped us in 1986. Don't you feel better? Trump met with the controllers and he is on board. They all can't get my rights signed away fast enough.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the 1986 law actually did away with a whole lot of nasty aspects of the Gun Control Act that allowed real abuses of power by the federal government on people. The ban on automatic fire weapons was inserted at the last second. This created a conundrum, because a lot of Congressmen had stuck their neck out in support of the bill and were being hammered by the media as being stooges of the NRA. If they decided to kill the bill because of the ban on automatic weapons, it would have burned a lot of political bridges and a chance to pass such legislation would likely not have happened again for a long while.

The Democrats themselves practically had killed the bill already, but due to a mistake on their part in trying to do so, the bill had survived. So the decision was made to pass the bill, reform the GCA, and accept the ban on automatic weapons.
 
Thanks and I could not agree more, but it's only good media judo if Trump and NRA can convince their supporters that they are judo fighting for them and not against them. So far after reading the comments here and on other forums, that ain't happening, most are convince just the opposite in that the NRA and Trump have caved.
Click to expand...

That is why I started the thread, to learn more about it. It turns out that the Democrats actually killed a version of the bill back in December that did include due process protections, that delays purchasing a gun for people on the list for 72 hours and basically put the onus on the government to prove why they shouldn't be able to purchase one, as opposed to the Democratic party version which puts the onus on the individual to prove their innocence. Here is an article about it:

Senate Democrats Killed A Reasonable Alternative To Their Terrorist Watch List Gun Bill
 
So explain it to everyone that you can.

Some won't get it. That's life. In the real world, not every strategy can be as simple as: "Og see evil rock." "Og hit evil rock with club."
Click to expand...

Worken on it.

Even borrowed a few lines for BR as he speeks gooder than me do.

Hopefully this thread will not get shut down so you guys can do the same.
 
... put the onus on the government to prove why they shouldn't be able to purchase one...
Click to expand...
If I ever set up a country, the legal system will be based on the idea that citizens are innocent until the government can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. :D
...as opposed to the Democratic party version which puts the onus on the individual to prove their innocence...
Click to expand...
Aside from the obvious problem with the idea of being guilty by default--that's pretty tricky stuff there since it can be really difficult to get the government to tell you for certain that you are actually on the watch list.

Citizen: I'm innocent, here's the proof.
Government: Innocent of what?
Citizen: Of being on the watchlist.
Government: Who said you're on the watchlist?
Citizen: Well, if I'm not, why can't I buy a gun?
Government: We don't have to tell you that.
Citizen: How can I prove I'm innocent if you won't tell me what you suspect me of?
Government: Who said we care about whether you're actually innocent or not? We've already got what we want--what's your problem again?
 
I think JohnKSa hit the nail on the head. In the one case that went to trial, the government (State Department, maybe not the rest of the fed) had to set up an appeals process to allow one to try to get off the list. But after the appeals process runs, you are allowed to appear, and not told if you won or lost, which is stupid since you will find out soon enough if you try to fly anywhere. And there is no judicial review. All of course to keep the secret lists secret, because the government does not want people to know that they are being investigated. Even though people know they are being investigated because they cannot fly. If stranded abroad and questioned by the FBI, are asked to waive their constitutional rights (yes, US citizens) if they ever want to get home again. Assert your rights, and you sit in a foreign country or jail until you change your mind, or have enough money to find a different route. It is pretty damned abusive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top