bill on capitol hill

The NSSF is raising the alarm about an imminent action on the part of a few anti-gun Senators. Apparently the plan is to attach the previously defeated Manchin-Toomey “Universal Background Check” bill as an amendment to an existing proposed piece of legislation and hope it slides by without anyone noticing. But wait — there’s more! The NSSF claims that there’s another amendment that’s about to be introduced which would add anyone listed on the “terrorist watchlist” to the prohibited persons list for NICS checks. The result would be that anyone on the “terrorist watchlist” (a list that includes suspected terrorists, not just convicted ones, and where “suspected” often includes people who were added because a racist co-worker made false claims that no one bothered to check) would have their Constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights revoked without any form of due process whatsoever. For more information on why using the “terrorist watchlist” is a terrible idea click here, and stay tuned for more information throughout the day.

75 Responses to BREAKING: U.S. Senators to Propose Law Banning Anyone on “Terrorist Watchlist” from Owning a Firearm

    • And what bill are they planning to attach this crap to? And why isn’t their a rule in the Congress that you can’t attach an amendment to a bill unless it has some actual pertinence in amending some part of that actual bill, not just sliding in unwanted legislation that could never otherwise see the light of day?

      Well, at least the Senate has a system of voting on the amendments proposed and throwing the crap out (now that Harry Reid isn’t in charge), so it may be just a symbolic gesture on the part of some Progressives who want to pander to their voting base.

      • They attached the Import Export bank reauthorization to the transportation funding bill. It doesn’t matter what bill, we’ve been betrayed again by the GOP.

      • “And why isn’t their a rule in the Congress that you can’t attach an amendment to a bill unless it has some actual pertinence in amending some part of that actual bill, not just sliding in unwanted legislation that could never otherwise see the light of day?”

        Because rules are only for the equals. Not the more so.

  1. Let’s just be clear here. This is a specific plan. They have started calling the NRA and any gun-owner a Terriorist and we have a Change.org petition to make it so. If this gets passed, in the future simply owning a gun will = terrorist, and then you can’t get another one.

    • Certainly.

      If it gets out of committee, the bill will not pass the Senate, much less the House. Destined to fail. But it’s supposed to. When it does, that is when Obama will call a press conference. He will look very sad. Perhaps even dab at the corner of his eye. Then, he will say that he must act since Congress simple will not do its job (of forwarding The Agenda). He will then announce that he has ordered the terror watch list to be combined with the prohibited list. There’s a decent change that he’ll declare all private sales require background checks, too, even knowing that he can’t enforce that.

      • Everytime there’s been a “gun-scare” and accompanying hysteria, the NRA has stepped in and adroitly used it’s not inconsiderable power to let politicians, liberal and conservative, know that several million members and allied voters are watching them very carefully. This, coupled, with the fact that each gun-control campaign has failed miserably and, in fact, generated marked new support for gun-rights. The NRA is not my perfect version of a gun-rights organization but I’ll support it warts and all because when the chips are down its been the NRA that fought the good fight.

      • Followed by a congressional investigation and a subpoena of the NRA’s membership list. And Voila…revolution.

      • This is just like the domestic violence issue. A real problem cheapened by this BS. Call in your ex you now hate, and BAM! the troops arrive at your door.

        SWATing will be so passe when anti’s can get ANYONE they want on the no-removal watch list with a simple phone call.

        Very simple really. Star chamber stuff.

  2. That sound you hear is the Progressives tearing up the Constitution. It’s necessary to keep us safe, you see.

    But seriously, why stop with guns? Terrorists recruit other terrorist, so we should limit their free speech. You never know what they are cooking up in their basements, so we eliminate their protections against unreasonable search and seizure. And since we already know they’re terrorists, we should eliminate their right to trial by jury, protection against self incrimination, etc. For the children, of course.

    Aren’t slippery slopes fun?

    • Didn’t they start with complaining about the use of encryption? Right before or after the Paris attack? Will the NSA now continue bulk data and metadata copying? What’s next? Wire-taps without warrants?

      • I’m pretty much a Libertarian and I’ve never really had a problem with wire taps without a warrant . I think my right to free speech covers my protection if I’m not treasonous or criminal . I can scream fire in an empty theater . I can record in writing , on paper , as much garbage as I choose with out fear of the government taking them from me and then harming me for their content . If I publish them or send them over wires or into the cloud then I become responsible their content . Common sense to me . I don’t believe wires or clouds are ownable or protectable .

        • I believe you do not understand my position . I know people believe that wire taps violate their 4th amendment rights and I disagree . I believe that the 1st A protects what someone says over wire or digital cloud and people can listen all they want to . I don’t believe wire or digital cloud should be considered any different than air . It isn’t the same as paper . I can write down my thoughts and put them in my dresser drawer without fear of government intrusion without a proper warrant but as soon as I stand out front and address those thoughts to my neighbors , I become responsible for their content .
          I don’t think the 4th A should protect a criminal or treasonous person or terrorist and I have no problem with those who I hire to protect me from catching an idiotic whacko who discusses their plot over wire or cloud . Listen all you want to my phone calls and you can do nothing to me about anything I may say as long as I’m not conspiring to criminal or terrorist acts because of my 1st A freedoms .
          My opinion is obviously only that .

    • BTW – On a perhaps unrelated subject do you know Charlie LeDuff? I suppose I was sort of a friend of his at Berkeley 20+ years ago.

    • You never know what they are cooking up in their basements, so we eliminate their protections against unreasonable search and seizure. And since we already know they’re terrorists, we should eliminate their right to trial by jury, protection against self incrimination, etc.

      For the most part, that’s already the reality. The 4th amendment currently looks like swiss cheese and we have kill lists that include American citizens with AUMF authority to follow through.
      Blaming the Left for this only exposes half the perpetrators. DC is rotten top to bottom, left to right.

    • Heck, they also must be added to the terrorist list then as I consider them a threat to this country and their citizens. And just for kicks, put a “traitor” dunce cap on them. That way there’ll not doubt as to their stupidity.

      Jeeze, what a bunch of idjits.

    • http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2015/12/sneak-attack-by-dems-fails.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&m=1

      The roll call vote on Feinstein’s amendment breaks down like this:

      YEAs —45
      Baldwin (D-WI)
      Bennet (D-CO)
      Blumenthal (D-CT)
      Booker (D-NJ)
      Boxer (D-CA)
      Brown (D-OH)
      Cantwell (D-WA)
      Cardin (D-MD)
      Carper (D-DE)
      Casey (D-PA)
      Coons (D-DE)
      Donnelly (D-IN)
      Durbin (D-IL)
      Feinstein (D-CA)
      Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)
      Heinrich (D-NM)
      Hirono (D-HI)
      Kaine (D-VA)
      King (I-ME)
      Kirk (R-IL)
      Klobuchar (D-MN)
      Leahy (D-VT)
      Manchin (D-WV)
      Markey (D-MA)
      McCaskill (D-MO)
      Menendez (D-NJ)
      Merkley (D-OR)
      Mikulski (D-MD)
      Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA)
      Nelson (D-FL)
      Peters (D-MI)
      Reed (D-RI)
      Reid (D-NV)
      Sanders (I-VT)
      Schatz (D-HI)
      Schumer (D-NY)
      Shaheen (D-NH)
      Stabenow (D-MI)
      Tester (D-MT)
      Udall (D-NM)
      Warren (D-MA)
      Whitehouse (D-RI)
      Wyden (D-OR)
      NAYs —54
      Alexander (R-TN)
      Ayotte (R-NH)
      Barrasso (R-WY)
      Blunt (R-MO)
      Boozman (R-AR)
      Burr (R-NC)
      Capito (R-WV)
      Cassidy (R-LA)
      Coats (R-IN)
      Cochran (R-MS)
      Collins (R-ME)
      Corker (R-TN)
      Cornyn (R-TX)
      Cotton (R-AR)
      Crapo (R-ID)
      Cruz (R-TX)
      Daines (R-MT)
      Enzi (R-WY) Ernst (R-IA)
      Fischer (R-NE)
      Flake (R-AZ)
      Gardner (R-CO)
      Graham (R-SC)
      Grassley (R-IA)
      Hatch (R-UT)
      Heitkamp (D-ND)
      Heller (R-NV)
      Hoeven (R-ND)
      Inhofe (R-OK)
      Isakson (R-GA)
      Johnson (R-WI)
      Lankford (R-OK)
      Lee (R-UT)
      McCain (R-AZ)
      McConnell (R-KY)
      Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK)
      Paul (R-KY)
      Perdue (R-GA)
      Portman (R-OH)
      Risch (R-ID)
      Roberts (R-KS)
      Rounds (R-SD)
      Rubio (R-FL)
      Sasse (R-NE)
      Scott (R-SC)
      Sessions (R-AL)
      Shelby (R-AL)
      Sullivan (R-AK)
      Thune (R-SD)
      Tillis (R-NC)
      Toomey (R-PA)
      Vitter (R-LA)
      Wicker (R-MS)

      Not Voting – 1
      Warner (D-VA)

      And the roll call vote on this year’s Manchin-Toomey universal background check amendment is as follows:

      YEAs —48
      Baldwin (D-WI)
      Bennet (D-CO)
      Blumenthal (D-CT)
      Booker (D-NJ)
      Boxer (D-CA)
      Brown (D-OH)
      Cantwell (D-WA)
      Cardin (D-MD)
      Carper (D-DE)
      Casey (D-PA)
      Collins (R-ME)
      Coons (D-DE)
      Donnelly (D-IN)
      Durbin (D-IL)
      Feinstein (D-CA)
      Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)
      Heinrich (D-NM)
      Hirono (D-HI)
      Kaine (D-VA)
      King (I-ME)
      Kirk (R-IL)
      Klobuchar (D-MN)
      Leahy (D-VT)
      Manchin (D-WV)
      Markey (D-MA)
      McCain (R-AZ)
      McCaskill (D-MO)
      Menendez (D-NJ)
      Merkley (D-OR)
      Mikulski (D-MD)
      Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA)
      Nelson (D-FL)
      Peters (D-MI)
      Reed (D-RI)
      Reid (D-NV)
      Sanders (I-VT)
      Schatz (D-HI)
      Schumer (D-NY)
      Shaheen (D-NH)
      Stabenow (D-MI)
      Tester (D-MT)
      Toomey (R-PA)
      Udall (D-NM)
      Warren (D-MA)
      Whitehouse (D-RI)
      Wyden (D-OR)
      NAYs —50
      Alexander (R-TN)
      Ayotte (R-NH)
      Barrasso (R-WY)
      Blunt (R-MO)
      Boozman (R-AR)
      Burr (R-NC)
      Capito (R-WV)
      Cassidy (R-LA)
      Coats (R-IN)
      Cochran (R-MS)
      Corker (R-TN)
      Cornyn (R-TX)
      Cotton (R-AR)
      Crapo (R-ID)
      Cruz (R-TX)
      Daines (R-MT)
      Enzi (R-WY) Ernst (R-IA)
      Fischer (R-NE)
      Flake (R-AZ)
      Gardner (R-CO)
      Graham (R-SC)
      Grassley (R-IA)
      Hatch (R-UT)
      Heitkamp (D-ND)
      Heller (R-NV)
      Hoeven (R-ND)
      Inhofe (R-OK)
      Isakson (R-GA)
      Lankford (R-OK)
      Lee (R-UT)
      McConnell (R-KY)
      Moran (R-KS)
      Murkowski (R-AK) Paul (R-KY)
      Perdue (R-GA)
      Portman (R-OH)
      Risch (R-ID)
      Roberts (R-KS)
      Rounds (R-SD)
      Rubio (R-FL)
      Sasse (R-NE)
      Scott (R-SC)
      Sessions (R-AL)
      Shelby (R-AL)
      Sullivan (R-AK)
      Thune (R-SD)
      Tillis (R-NC)
      Vitter (R-LA)
      Wicker (R-MS)

      Not Voting – 2
      Johnson (R-WI) Warner (D-VA)

  3. The Terrorist Watchlist is not a list of persons, but a list of names. Many of the names are aliases, often without the real name of the person being known. So essentially you would be banning anyone who, by chance, had the same name as an alias of a suspect, from owning a firearm. And that is unconstitutional.

    • There are (reportedly) no descriptors other than a name. In the famous Ted Kennedy case, the prohibited name was “T. Kennedy”, a nickname some terrorist gave himself.
      Of course ole Teddy was able to call Tom Ridge on the phone and ask What the Hell. The rest of us are screwed.

      • The Snowden leaks revealed that names were added to a variety of watchlists for no reason whatsoever. In fact, some names were added for personal vendettas or petty domestic disputes.

        Truly, the new professionalism.

  4. They could not get convicted on a charge of attempting to protect anyone with this bs and no one has even accused them of being moderately interested.

  5. 1) Were these two on the watchlist? If not, STFU and go do something useful.

    2) How do I find out if I’m on the watchlist? I can’t? STFU and go do something not facist.

    3) How do I get off the watchlist? Oh, there’s no judicial setup for that? ST… you get the point.

    • No, according to CNN, those two were not on the watch list. Though it is coming to light now that they did have contact with some ‘minor’ folks that were known.

      • Of course they weren’t on any watch list, and even if they were the TSA was too busy, taking toys from 4 yr old kids and throwing them in the trash, to notice!

  6. Seems like this christmas is the last holiday we on TTAG can buy any more guns. We’ll all be on the list lol

  7. Who needs interment camps when you can just make the nation one big camp?

    Probably shouldn’t permit alleged enemies of the state to vote or operate motor vehicles either. They should just go all out balls to the wall with this whole no due process rights revocation thing. Half-measures just aren’t as interesting.

  8. How does one get a name added to that list? I know of somebody who supports terrorist groups worth money and weapons. I’m thinking if we can get Obama on that list, it will be the most effective way to prove how stupid it really is.

  9. We’ve entered an age where as a society, we’ve replaced feelings vice reason as a motive for action. We are going to legislate ourselves right into the next totalitarian regime. And we’re going to do it with the best intentions, to feel safe. A concept that history has proven is a fantasy. Appeasement, concessions, reasonable all lead to the same place..

  10. Appears to be this news blast here: http://nssf.org/share/blastLinks/ActionAlerts/2015/AA_120315.htm

    Call Your Senators Now. Tell Them to Vote NO on These Amendments

    NSSF has learned that anti-gun U.S. Senators are expected to bring up a vote at ANY MINUTE this afternoon on the previously defeated Manchin-Toomey “universal background check” amendment as well as an amendment expanding the prohibited persons list to anyone unknowingly placed on a secret, error-prone government list, the so called “terrorist watch list.”

    The links for the UBC and Terrorist Watch List link their (NSSF’s) documentation.

  11. I just got a text alert from the NRA regarding those issues issues mentioned above. The anti senators are trying to get a vote TODAY. Contact your senators ASAP.

  12. Apparently anyone known to be a “prepper” is on a watchlist somewhere. It seems that if you as an individual are preparing for a natural, manmade, terrorist, or military disaster you are somehow an enemy of the state? I thought our “state” was us? Guess not, apparently now the state is “Us” and all of us have become “them”?

  13. I just got an e-mail from Sad Pandas Astroboy and Gabby, decrying how ‘uninmaginable’ and ‘unthinkable’ that both amendments failed miserably in the voting. The poor ARS fascists are very upset. And of course they’re channeling their outrage to unseat the Senators who voted against their little scheme.

  14. At first blush, this sounds like a good idea. Who would not want to make it unlawful for a potential terrorist to own a gun?

    The problem I see is that I cannot trust the politicians running the country. The potential for abuse is only overshadowed by the probability for such abuse. Give the government powers and they take them and run.

    Giving them the power to deny someone a firearm based on unproven comments, lack of due process, etc. is a bad idea. They are sure to abuse it.

  15. They’ve been working on sneaking something through Congress for a while now that would grant the Executive Branch some kind of discretionary veto over any gun purchase. Their previous try involved trying to reopen the “indefinitely delayed background check” loophole. This is just the latest incarnation.

  16. And then, since “terrorism” is an ideology, it’s gonna be easy to put on this list any NRA member, any gun owners, any people with more than 7 days of food at home, any people with more than 10 rounds clipazine, any people that read pro-guns blogs and YT Channels, any republicans, etc…

  17. Pro-gun groups need to call these (hopefully well-meaning) clueless out as loudly as possible about the fact that many of the same people who support this also have opposed the watch list’s existence in the first place for the very same reasons we are now bringing up.
    Hmmmmm, could this be a backdoor way to eliminate the list altogether? Either way, the Dems win.

  18. Well, remember the names of the authors, co-sponsors, those who shepherd this through “the process” and everybody who votes “yea.”

    It’s politics. Once you have a seat at the table, you have to use it. Vote, and tell them why.

    (… as I told a gay-activist friend of mine a few decades ago. No, you don’t need to protest more. Anybody who’s going to be convinced by that is convinced. They’re inviting your interest group to the “round-tables” and treating it as a constituency to be acknowledged and cared for, in public. You have a seat at the table. So, play your cards along with everybody else. Indeed, you have a stronger hand than most: valuable demographic profile along with greater than average issue affiliation and political participation.)

    Contra my gay-activist friend, the not-so-anti-gun-folk still need more access to the zeitgeist, and recognition of their legitimate place at the table, too. So, both prongs of the strategy.

    • Oh, god, de-trolling simple conversations is such a burden. Preemptively, then…

      From above, I said: “No, you don’t need to protest more. ”

      At the time, then and there, my friend’s org and agenda had the convincables(sp?) convinced, the un-convincables(sp?) with their heads down, and every arm of culture and state playing “I’m more on-board than you.” for weeks. Meanwhile, their plan was to lock up Manhattan at rush hour. To “raise awareness” – that’s the exact wording.

      Making a mess once the message is out will only piss off the folks you’ve convinced, and justify the scorn of the unconvinced.

      Pocket the win. Lock in your chips by publicly thanking the folks who did effective stuff, once they get some results.

      /Back to meta

      So, my friend had forgotten in the moment that the realities of politics apply also to groups and policies on the side of the angels. Outrage is not effective advocacy most of the time.

      That perspective might even apply to how to approach an issue like citizen gun rights in the USA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *