I'm sorry, I am all for guns I love em, and would never give them up. But I can understand the terrorist watch list being a reason to refuse gun sales. The govt doesn't just go around throwing people on the list for fun. It is actually a very serious thing to be on that list, and not taken lightly.
NRA Now Backing "No Fly, No Buy..."?
- Thread starter LogicMan
- Start date
In the absence of due process, how can you know that?
The consequence of being on a list can be serious, but that doesn't mean that the reason one is on the list is serious. Steve Hayes is on the no-fly list. Other than being a journalist who has been critical of the current administration, why would he be on the list?
Without due process, only the people who put him on it will know.
Is being placed on the Governments Terrorist Watch list a violation of Due Process? I do not think so, after all it is just a list.
It is what they do with that list, that can violate Due Process and Constitutional Rights.
He is how I think this is supposed to work.
You are placed on a Watch List. You attempt to purchase a firearm and are delayed for 72 hours. During that 72 hour period the FBI or other Law Enforcement agency presents evidence to a judge as to why you are on the list and as to why you should be Denied a firearms purchase. If the evidence satisfies the Judge then you do not take possession of the firearm. Similar to the process of obtaining a Search Warrant. This appears to me, to be "Due Process".
If you are placed on the Terrorist Watch list in error and the FBI is not watching you, then Law Enforcement will not be wasting time presenting evidence to a Judge that they do not have, and after 72 hours or sooner, you can take possession of the firearm.
It is what they do with that list, that can violate Due Process and Constitutional Rights.
He is how I think this is supposed to work.
You are placed on a Watch List. You attempt to purchase a firearm and are delayed for 72 hours. During that 72 hour period the FBI or other Law Enforcement agency presents evidence to a judge as to why you are on the list and as to why you should be Denied a firearms purchase. If the evidence satisfies the Judge then you do not take possession of the firearm. Similar to the process of obtaining a Search Warrant. This appears to me, to be "Due Process".
If you are placed on the Terrorist Watch list in error and the FBI is not watching you, then Law Enforcement will not be wasting time presenting evidence to a Judge that they do not have, and after 72 hours or sooner, you can take possession of the firearm.
mikef262 said:
The "govt" doesn't do anything. It's made up of people with various ambitions, goals, and beliefs who will exercise whatever power you're willing (or unwilling) to cede to them. You may be anxious to surrender your rights to the whim of some random bureaucrat for the illusion of a little safety, but don't count on me to back you.
Senator Ted Kennedy's experience with the watch list:
It took a senior (42 years in the Senate at the time) US Senator a "period of weeks" and direct intervention by the Secretary of State to be removed from the list. What chance do you think a wrongly listed average citizen would have?
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
steve4102 said:
That's actually part of the genius of the overall communication strategy. Trump is targeting a very specific demographic in order to win. That demographic likes guns a lot; but still voted for Obama around 50% despite that - in part because they (big generalization coming) correctly guessed that a Republican congress who had otherwise promised a lot but delivered little would hold the ground on guns.
So Trump's move is great for him on multiple levels. The demo he is appealing to likes guns; but they don't reliably vote their guns - so they are unlikely to bail over "stopping terrorists from buying guns." And because the media gave no play at all to prior NRA attempts, Trump looks like a master negotiator who managed to persuade the famously stubborn (at least in the mass media view) NRA to support gun control. So now he can reach out to NE moderates and portray himself as the one guy who can make gun control happen (which is funny because it is true) while doing nothing more than pushing legislation the NRA already proposed.
The only real danger from Trump's perspective is that he alienates a large enough percentage of harder 2A supporters that it costs him an otherwise reliable state (Utah would be a good example). And that isn't an impossibility by any means- he is probably overly trusting in the NRA's ability to move solid 2A supporters to him; but the overall numbers probably help him here.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
You guys better knock off that right-wing extremist terrorist talk before you get the thread locked.
45 auto said:
I'd say the odds for the average joe to be removed from a no-fly list would be hovering around 0 and would take about a year or two to achieve that result. Secret lists of American Citizens seem to me as a weak excuse by the government to ignore rights and bypass due process.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
LogicMan said:
Part of the rationale in accepting the ban was that the NRA naively believed that the gun control crowd had made a major mistake and that they would be able to overturn the ban in court and create major pro-2A precedent. This is why the Farmer v. Higgins case was filed within days of the law becoming effective (with Stephen Halbrook for the plaintiff). That case didn't go quite like the NRA planned and SCOTUS denied cert.
When you understand that, you have a better grasp on the decision to swallow the poison pill in 1986; as well as the NRA's later reluctance to back Parker in its initial stages.
If we accept that the individual right to keep and bear arms is an individually protected right and being on that list (without accusation, trial, or conviction) forfeits that right then yes it is a violation of due process.
I can reduce the risk of anyone on that list from committing a crime by jailing them in max. security prison. After all its ok because they were on the list although I am not going to tell you why, allow you to review the evidence, face your accuser, or have a trial by judge and jury because I'm not actually accusing you of a crime just putting you on a list.
Who besides the Democrats and the Feinstein Bill are advocating this?
Certainly not the NRA (Thread Title) or the Cornyn Proposal.
Again, being on a list is not a violation of due process, it is part of the process, it is what they do with that list that can violate, as in "forfeits that right".
The NRA position does no such think, in fact just the opposite.
This was posted earlier, did you read it?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/senat...eir-terror-watch-list-gun-ban/article/2002814
Here is the NRA official statement again.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists
steve4102 said:
First, being put on the no-fly list is more than merely having your name being placed on a piece of paper. It is called a no-fly list for a reason
This is in addition to whatever dubious uses the list ends up being used for in the future. Secondly, there isn't any transparent and objective criteria to show how one gets put on or gets off the no-fly list. You are guilty until they prove you are innocent, if they decide to get around to it...The difference in some of these proposals is that the government has the burden of putting the matter before a judge and posing the argument as to why your purchase should be blocked. The state would have to show a reasonable suspicion rather than just assert that you are on double secret probation.
So I get to face my accuser during those proceedings? Or know about them?
Either the individual right to keep and bear arms is an individually protected right or it is not. If it is an individually protected right and we can suspend it for some people without due process than we can suspend any right for any person without due process.
"It's not technically a criminal prosecution." Are you comfortable suspending individual rights without criminal prosecution? We change the name of it and that makes it ok?