◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

obama-e1449003964440

There has been a lot of talk, from President Obama, Hillary Clinton and virtually all the Dems in Congress, about “closing the terror gap” and denying people who find themselves on the double-secret government No Fly List their Constitutionally protected rights. The rhetoric has been that the listees (people like the late Senator Ted Kennedy and 72 Homeland Security employees) who present a clear and present danger need to lose their Second Amendment rights. Now that we’ve actually had an opportunity to look at Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed legislation, their proposed gun buy ban isn’t actually connected to that No Fly List at all . . .

From The Federalist:

It turns out that the gun sales ban is not tied to the no-fly list, as falsely stated by the president and Clinton and numerous other people, including journalists who have baked this false assumption into their writing. But neither is it directly tied to the terrorist watch list.

Instead, the relevant statutory text links the gun sales ban to individuals who are ”known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof.” That language is cribbed from Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6, which is what created the terrorist watch list. Thus, the bill gives the U.S. attorney general the discretion to decide whether a person meeting the terrorist watch list criteria should be prevented from purchasing a firearm.

In other words, the proposed legislation doesn’t merge the No Fly List to the NICS check process. Nor does it tie the less strictly policed “terrorist watchlist” to the NICS check system. Instead, it allows the Attorney General to create her own special list of people she deems to be “known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof” and deny them access to their Constitutional rights.

So it’s even worse than we thought. There’s zero due process involved in putting someone’s name on the list of scary individuals the AG keeps in her desk drawer. There’s no way to know if you’re on it, and no mechanism to get yourself removed once you find out. In short, it’s the holy grail of gun control: an arbitrary, secret government list where they can designate anyone at any time for gun rights removal.

With the New York Times and other media outlets publicly demanding that we start confiscating firearms (not to mention documented government abuses like the IRS targeting scandal), it’s extremely difficult to take the Democrats at their word that the list will be used only for dyed-in-the-wool actual terrorist suspects and not for yanking the gun rights of people the administration doesn’t like. Or as a precursor to confiscation. Who are you voting for next year?

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. Since both the LA Times and Slate, not exactly bastions of gun owners, have come out against it, its not going to happen.

  2. So, the proposal is the violation of basic civil rights without due process at the sole discretion of an non-elected official against whom we have no recourse?

    Pferdescheiße.

  3. “There’s zero due process involved in putting someone’s name on the list of scary individuals the AG keeps in her desk drawer. There’s no way to know if you’re on it, and no mechanism to get yourself removed once you find out. In short, it’s the holy grail of gun control: an arbitrary, secret government list where they can designate anyone at any time for gun rights removal.”

    Sounds like the standard “respect for civil rights” that the Democrap Party embraces!

    • And don’t think for a minute that posting on a site like TTAG wouldn’t get you added to that list. And, once you’re on it and your guns are confiscated, you ain’t gettin’ off and your guns are gone. How’s that for “commonsense gun control”?

    • Shredding the Second Amendment has been the ProgLibites’ wet dream forever and now their leading candidate for POTUS, as well as their current POTUS have taken the public stand that gun confiscation is in fact their end game.

      What we are seeing now in the media is just total vote pandering for the next election. They will do whatever they can to get another Progressive Democrat president and their candidate of choice has declared this a #1 (actually Number two) priority so they are willing to jump on the bandwagon if she thinks this is the winning strategy.

      Even if they do not truly believe that ANY of this will ever actually happen they do believe that it will solidify their low-information voter base and get them out to vote which will be good for all Dem candidates even if HRC doesn’t beat Cruz.

  5. This is exactly why people shouldn’t emotionally react to things and try and pass laws on those emotions.

    The idea is “yeah why should people on the terrorist be able to buy guns?”

    Meanwhile no one sees that the no fly list is extremely flawed. No one asks why the people on the no fly list are walking around free? Why aren’t they arrested?

    Due process.

      • you are 100% correct. the assortment of nincompoops and villains that represent us at government are a symptom of the disease. the pathogen is the multitude of nincompoops which elected them. write your congressman, but evangelize your neighbors, too.

        • That’s only true if you believe that elections in this country are free and fair, and not rigged by party rules, gerrymandering, and behind-the-scenes chicanery.

          With Congress having a 15% approval rate AND a 90% re-election rate, something shady has to be going on.

        • Exactly, and on the news RIGHT NOW, The GOP is discussing how to rig the primaries to get a candidate they can control, a figurehead for the hidden powers. Amazingly openly, but you know the same sleazy crap goes on in every party, in every election. I don’t even know who actually counts those votes, I suspect it is a hackable machine.

        • >> With Congress having a 15% approval rate AND a 90% re-election rate, something shady has to be going on.

          Nothing shady about it. There are two possibilities here:

          1. People believe that THEIR congressman is the good one, while others (especially from another party) are not, so the aggregate approval rating is not really relevant to electoral success.

          2. People believe that they’re voting for a lesser evil. They don’t like it, but they’re convinced that if they don’t elect it, an even worse guy will win.

          In practice, it is a combination of #1 and #2.

        • A lot of it is #1. In question after question, people basically say that you’ll find no greater hive of scum and villainy than Congress, but their Representative isn’t corrupt, is doing a good job, is basically in touch with the district, etc., etc.

          Basically, it boils down to “all politics is local”. Someone who is a hit in Seattle would be anathema in a lot of the country, and vice versa.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

  7. And since the same folks have already declared the NRA a terrorist organization… Golly, what could their next planned move possily be?

  9. It’s funny how the left has been railing against the existence of a ‘no fly list’ for a decade and then when someone suggests we use the list to deny citizens rights that they don’t respect the flip overnight and are all for the no fly list. They probably like this even better. It’s like a nation wide may issue law, but for gun ownership rather than just carry permits.

    • “The left” has not been uniform on this. In case you haven’t noticed, ACLU has already raised an issue, and several prominent liberal newspapers have voiced opposition. They have definitely overstepped.

      • Yes, the left has not been in complete lockstep on this, but there are a lot of lefties that will cry bloody murder over their rights until they see you getting away with exercising a right they don’t like. For example, free speech is great until you donate money to a group that opposes same sex marriage. Of course they turn a blind eye to Muslims tossing gays off tall buildings, but opposing gay marriage is a bridge to far. Doesn’t mean that they are willing to give up their speech, just yours.

        • >> For example, free speech is great until you donate money to a group that opposes same sex marriage.

          I’m not sure if you refer to a particular case like Brendan Eich. Note, though, that there’s a difference between believing in free speech protections against the government (“Congress shall make no law …”) and against private citizens. Protesting other people’s speech, including via boycotts and other forms of social ostracism, is in itself an exercise of free speech. So long as government stays out of it, no rights are infringed.

          (Having said that, I do think that the scandal around Eich’s donation was way out of the line, and people who participated in heckling him should be ashamed of themselves – even though I strongly disagree with his position on that issue. It’s just not relevant to his job, period.)

          >> Of course they turn a blind eye to Muslims tossing gays off tall buildings

          I’m not aware of Muslims tossing gays off buildings anywhere in this country, and, of course, American jurisdiction does not extend to Iraq and Syria, so organizations like ACLU can’t exactly do much about it. I also haven’t seen a single left-leaning person who would approve of such a thing, or consider it unimportant.

  12. So the naked Tyranny of the Democrats expands and we now know who the real terrorists are. We can kill Islamic JIhadists, but we cannot touch those in our Government wrapped in the invisible cloak of legitimacy.

  13. Another prime example of how immigrants and refugees are destroying the constitution.

    When illegals can vote, and you are in deep denial if you don’t think that will happen, the Republic will have fallen.

  14. Disturbing pattern indeed. The increasing call for “gun safety” in place of gun control; the liberal pantswetters calling the NRA a “terrorist” organization; the pantswetters’ calls for attaching the terrorist watchlist to NICS and attempting yet another end run around the Constitution; and finally the pantswetter papers unmasking themselves for the gun grabbers they truly are. I would not rule out a violent settlement of this issue in the near future. Be prepared.

  15. Sounds like they want to create a “no freedom” list. Got to love the lists of super dangerous people that aren’t dangerous to really do anything about but deny them firearms and air travel. Seems to me if the people on the list(s) were so super dangerous you’d be doing something more than that. Especially if you had some actual EVIDENCE.

    Soon they will have a special group of police to enforce these lists. “Gestapo” sounds like a great name for your list enforcement police, doesn’t it? Really rolls off the tongue.

    The democratic party says, “We’re for the rights of the people, unless your not one OUR people.”

  17. And these are the people crying that the popular appeal of Trump’s immigration opinion is signaling America’s fascist takeover.

    • Democrats are nakedly fascist but they certainly aren’t going to point that out. Trump is an unapologetic Nationalist. Many in America are too ignorant to know the difference and that is what they are counting on.

      • Trump is an unapologetic Trumpist, nothing more. He merely says or does whatever he thinks will get him the most attention to feed his rapacious ego.

        • A man with an opinion who refuses to apologize for word or deed. Alphas respect him, betas despise him, and the gammas will still vote libertarian.

  18. A friend just sent this to me:

    “The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”

      • Fortunately, in Texas at least, they don’t know who to blow up, would have to kill everybody to avoid going to the door. In their favor, they will only reach the correct door once. LEOs should demand a $20 million life insurance policy as a condition of employment.

  19. “Instead, the relevant statutory text links the gun sales ban to individuals who are ”known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof.”

    So, they’ll put top men on deciding who’s on the “No guns for you!” list. Top. Men.

    “There’s zero due process involved in putting someone’s name on the list of scary individuals the AG keeps in her desk drawer. There’s no way to know if you’re on it, and no mechanism to get yourself removed once you find out. In short, it’s the holy grail of gun control: an arbitrary, secret government list where they can designate anyone at any time for gun rights removal.”

    I think you mean the holy grail of every damn thing they try to do. The problem isn’t all that discretionary power for *this administrator*, who may be on the side of the angels. The problem is the next administrator, possibly attracted to all that arbitrary power, regardless of the side they are on.

  20. “There’s zero due process involved in putting someone’s name on the list of scary individuals the AG keeps in her desk drawer. There’s no way to know if you’re on it, and no mechanism to get yourself removed once you find out. In short, it’s the holy grail of gun control: an arbitrary, secret government list where they can designate anyone at any time for gun rights removal.”

    OK, the only people who like things like this are the ones who think they’ll always be the ones keeping the list, and never the ones on it.

  21. It does not make an iota of difference if it is no-fly list or a terrorist watch list.

    Either way, expect the list to grow exponentially.

  22. I’m no lawyer and these things are painful to read but it does look like there is at least some kind of mechanism for contesting if you’re on the list. Definitely not ideal though…

    (j) Remedy For Erroneous Denial Of Firearm Or Firearm Permit Exemption.—

    (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 925A of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

    (A) in the section heading, by striking “Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm” and inserting “Remedies”;

    (B) by striking “Any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (s) or (t) of section 922” and inserting the following:

    “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (t) of section 922 or a firearm permit pursuant to a determination made under section 922B”; and

    (C) by adding at the end the following:

    “(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A of this title or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B of this title, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination under section 922A or 922B of this title. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B, as the case may be. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. Upon request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.”.

    • Sounds to me as if the Petitioner never gets to see the documents that bans him/her from exercising guaranteed rights, and therefore has no opportunity to submit contrary evidence. This isn’t, imo, due process. This is hardly more “process” than goes into the issuance of a warrant or indictment, i.e., the government satisfies its burden merely by demonstrating that there is either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the Petitioner is a threat to national security. (Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.) Although the Supreme Court in Heller did not (unfortunately) specify the level of scrutiny of such laws, it is difficult to understand how this affords the highest level of protection of the exercise of a fundamental individual right that Constitution demands.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here