Feinstein, Lautenberg Introduce Bill that would Ban Those on Terrorist Watchlist from Buying Guns

It looks like the Democrats are trying to pass everything and anything under the sun to restrict firearms ownership in the United States. One that has slipped under the radar apparently is Senate bill 34, the working title of which is “A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.” It sounds good on the surface, until you realize the truth about the terrorist watchlist . . .

First things first, the list isn’t an official legal designation of any sort. Its simply a list of people the U.S. government THINKS might be involved with terrorism in some way. I get the feeling that if the government had hard and fast evidence for someone being a terrorist they would arrest them and trumpet it to the nearest news outlet. So what you’re left with on the list are people that may have purchased Mao’s little red book or visited Anon’s IRC channel once and are forever branded as a suspected terrorist.

Second, the list is secret. So you can’t tell if you’re on the list, WHY you’re on the list, and since no one will confirm your presence no one will remove you upon request. No one knows exactly how or why people are added to the list, and once you’re on who knows when you will be removed.

So what we have is a list that is maintained without any due process, that is nearly impossible to get off, and can have names added at any time. And now Difi wants anyone whose name appears on that list to have their constitutional rights removed.

Sounds to me like someone isn’t familiar with the 14th Amendment…

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

41 Responses to Feinstein, Lautenberg Introduce Bill that would Ban Those on Terrorist Watchlist from Buying Guns

  1. avatarMr. Obvious says:

    Why stop with firearms? Why not also ban those on the list from owning businesses? After all, Al Qaeda has regularly owned private businesses as a means of creating a way to launder funds and provide infrastructure to terrorists (e.g. Sudanese fishing operations doubling as water taxis for AQ insurgents / UBL’s road construction company digging out earthworks for AQ and insurgent forces in Afghanistan). Why let them vote? Why let them speak in public? Why let them have children – after all, we want to protect kids, don’t we?

    This is a watershed issue – the deprivation of rights without due process simply because your name is on a 2 million+ name list that is maintained in secret is a horrifying prospect. There is no method of appealing a listing and you’re not told if you’re on the list, why you’re on the list, or if you simply share a name with someone on a list. It also allows the state to instantly add everyone to the list and essentially terminate the 2nd Amendment by fiat.

    Anyone voting for anything Feinstein proposes needs to go.

    • avatarDirk Diggler says:

      why stop with a list to not fly or prohibit business ownership? Why not round everyone on the list up and put them in a concentration camp? That ought to solve the problem, right? Ironic that it is Feinstein pushing this.

    • avatarDarren says:

      Here are some more scary senarios:
      You are on the watch list, you probably have bombs and bomb making material in your house, so no 4th amendment for you. We need to know where your terrorist friends are, so no 5th or 8th. We are certainly not going to let a terrorist like you abuse the judicial system, so no 6th. we are the feds, we can do whatever we want, so no 10th. But since you are now in a secret cell where no one knows where you are, or ever will, you can have all the 1st amendment rights you want.
      What is really scary, is that there are senators,(Difi) representatives, (King, NY)and administration officials (Napolitano) who would have no issues with what I just wrote.

    • avatarGene says:

      Secret list… Secret court (FISA)… It all stinks.

  2. avatarSwarf says:

    These people are flailing manically.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      Realize this is nothing new. Not that you shouldn’t take it seriously, but the first time I heard this idea was Rham speaking in front of the Brady bunch in 2009. They will keep throwing it at the wall to see when/if it sticks. I wish stupid ideas like this would have the decency to just die quietly, but they never do.

  3. avatarMark says:

    And even if you don’t make it to that list, watch out – anything you say may put you on a list as “mentally unstable”; then try to buy a gun or get or keep a Concealed Handgun License.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      INCLUDING what you just wrote! They’re not so much insane, however, as they are Machiavellian. THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE DOING.

      DON’T underestimate the bastards!

      • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

        Some of the things the FBI under Obama has listed as red flags:

        1) Being concerned about personal privacy
        2) Owning more than 1 firearm
        3) Discussing the constitution or individual liberty
        4)Having more than 2 weeks worth of food (sorry, Mormons)
        5) Being critical of or expressing mistrust of the government

        Slick. Declare all your political opponents suspected enemies of the state, deny them civil rights, and then get on with building your collectivist utopia. Brilliant. I wonder where they came up with idea?

        Oh, never mind. It’s been done before:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Don’t TTAG commenters have a special spot on the list?

  4. avatarRalph says:

    “[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.

    I certainly don’t want realio-trulio terrorists to get their hands on guns, but neither do I want the Great and Powerful Oz hiding behind the curtain to decide who is who.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      That’s a TERRORIST amendment. Just like all the others. In many places around this faltering land of ours, police recruits are taught the Founding Fathers were TERRORISTS!!!

      • avatarMark N. says:

        That’s right. And if Britain had had a terrorist watch list, the Founding Fathers would have been on it.No guns for you nasty Colonials!

        • avatarSammy says:

          As the list of potentials terrorists grows, the more I think 9-11 was the groundwork for the destruction of this country. Terrorist is the new raciest. Disagree and you pass the litmus test for being a terrorist (read anti collectivist). When freedom is considered to be source of terroristic ideas, things are back a$$wards. Freedom is terror to fascists. The West Point study is quite unsettling, flying directly in the face of pose coatatus. Remember Barry said he wanted a domestic military as capable as the regular Armed Forces? Intent becoming clearer.

      • avatarTodd AF Vet says:

        William
        The founding fathers where traitors to the Nation of Great Britain. The difference is that when they won they become the founding fathers of this Great Nation, America. This is no difference from the founders of the modern state of Israel who where all, what we would classify today, Terrorist. Also remember, and I say this to all reading this site, that if armed revolt comes we will also be called Terrorist and branded as traitors to the current nation. I for one understand this and accept it. But like the good Boy Scout I was I am preparing for what the future may hold.

        I would also say to everyone. Decide which principles you are supporting and with who you are willing to work. Not all of the Founding Fathers agreed on all things but like Ben said “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. What do a mean. If your principle is anti-whatever, which is more important, Defending Freedom or that anti position. The cold hard fact is you may have to work with that long-hair hippy or narrow minded Bible thumber to Save America.

      • avatarJB says:

        Terrorist is an interesting word. You know when it was first applied? During the French “Reign Of Terror”, and it was used to describe those running the GOVERNMENT not those who were against it. What was the terrorist’s agency named? “The Committee of Public Safety.”

  5. avatarChris says:

    Nice, add violating the 5th amendment in denying due process to violating the 4th in my right to privacy and the 2nd in infringing on my right to self-defense.

    Any other ones we can violate? Maybe if I talk about guns I can be denied ownership to violate the 1st. How about throw me in jail for no reason because you think I own a gun violating the 6th? How about ATF agents posted inside my home to make sure i am safe with my guns violating the 3rd? How about charging me with a felony and sending me to prison for owning what I am guaranteed to own violating the 8th?

  6. avatarChris Dumm says:

    It’s a pity that a$$holes like her are allowed to pass laws when they clearly don’t understand our concept of the rule of law. DiFi’s decades in the Senate haven’t taught her as much about the constitution as I learned in one course in law school. Sad for her, disastrous for us.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      They COMPLETELY understand what they’re doing. They simply have no RESPECT for the rule of law. They LOATHE it.

  7. avatarJoke & Dagger says:

    This is the stuff we really need to watch out for. This here is how it will be done.

  8. avatarLance says:

    Time to put your pressure on your Reps and Senators kill the ban!

    • avatarWilliam says:

      What should I do? My representative is Eric “the Vanished” Cantor, a zionist prick whose spine disappeared the moment he joined the elite in the House leadership. I voted for his opponent, a very strong pro-2nd guy I met at last Saturday’s demonstration. He had a grand to spend; Cantor has MILLIONS.

  9. avatarMikeP says:

    “We hold these considerations to have the better part of the preponderance of evidence at present time, subject to later review, that all men are somewhat equitable in most respects, that they are vested by the state, majority will and upon agreement of social utility thereof, with certain privileges, subject to further review in future regarding their social utility and subject to revocation by central authorities who shall in any event create a list of names upon whose privileges have been placed a lien.”

    Ah, yes, the old “known maybe possible terrorist” trick. Oldest trick in the book, that one is.

    @1:12

  10. avatarMatt in SD says:

    I’m glad they’ve decided to address this recent trend of crime associated with people on the terrorist watch list being able to walk in a gun store and buy a firearm. Thanks for lookin’ out.

  11. avatarDave S says:

    Now might go with that rule if:
    1. US acknowledges who is on the list, and why
    2. Persons on list are allowed to appeal
    3. When removed, government states why (ie, we made a mistake folks)

    oh that would require due process… Constitution, what Constitution

    • avatarMark N. says:

      That would be great, but you have to understand the way these people think. You see, if they posted all the names, then the real bad guys would know they were being watched and would cover their tracks better. Better to suspect everyone, then no one knows whose good and whose evil.
      Just an aside, Ted Kennedy got on the nofly list and had a hard time getting off of it. The first time he tried to fly from D.C. to MA and was denied, the fact that he was a sitting US Senator did him no good–and he had to drive home.

  12. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    There are Evil people in this world, no one’s denying that.

    But this whole “War on Terror” is a complete sham and only exists to further unpopular political agendas.

    The one thing you can always count on if for the Elites to utilize Divide and Conqour strategies with labels for different groups.

    • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

      Also remember that earlier this year the Obama Administration redefined “Militant” to mean “Military Aged Male”.

  13. avatarKarim says:

    What is to prevent our beloved attorney general from declaring all Americans “terrorists”? Oh wait, we already did that with the NDAA.

  14. Their intent is to disarm patriotic Americans, including returning serviceman and veterans, who are viewed as terrorists by the Administration. Meanwhile, they’ve enabled real terrorist – Muslim Brotherhood operatives to seize control of the training curriculums and investigative processes of the Federal and state law enforcement communities.

  15. avatarMichael B. says:

    Second, the list is secret. So you can’t tell if you’re on the list, WHY you’re on the list, and since no one will confirm your presence no one will remove you upon request. No one knows exactly how or why people are added to the list, and once you’re on who knows when you will be removed.

    America, land of the free.

  16. avatarIn Memphis says:

    Maybe next they will declair Republicans and Libertarians as terrorist organizations?

    I think after I hang my laundry I am ganna watch V for Vendetta and write a few letters

  17. avatarDale says:

    A friend of mine had a t-shirt made that said “I’m probably on the Terrorist Watchlist”. At this point I feel like I should get one made too.

  18. avatartdiinva says:

    This just in: Feinstein’s bill is DOA:

    The filibuster lives!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/24/mcconnell-reid-agree-on-rules-reform-package/

    I think we owe Harry Reid a bit of an apology. There is speculation that he under delivered on filibuster reform specifically to kill gun control.

    • avatarmiforest says:

      I am not so certain . Harry is cold and calculating . he doesn’t care about any real issue. he is probably worried that if he tries to kill the filibuster it will delay the senate while that fight drags on.
      the GOP could launch a filibuster to prevent a vote on the rules change.
      that would delay the senate’s urgent buiseness like … um… you know.

      the other reason harry may have done this is It puts all the heat on republicans for stalling legislation with ” wide public(media) support”.
      This also prevents Democratic senators from very red states from having a gun control vote on the record. look at the pictures of mancin with guns in campaign ads. he probably doesn’t intend to run again, since he was just sworn in for another 6 years . Younger senate dems from red states can’t be so open .

  19. avatarDerek says:

    Due process? We don’t need to steenkin due process!

  20. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    The goal here is to pass this and then put 315 million people on the list. Sure that will bankrupt the air industry, but at least no one will have guns.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.