terror watchlist gun control

[TheDrake]

My knee jerk reaction was to think "how stupid that someone investigated by the FBI got a gun legally".

Having had time to think about it, I can't possibly agree that this is a good idea for many reasons.

There are no objective criteria for being on the list. It is likely the criteria would be changed, so that more people could be put on the list, since many will react with outrage if anybody displaying vague hints of trouble was not on the list. I could envision the FBI simply putting all Muslims on the list. Anyone observed going to a mosque.

It would also add fuel to the roaring fire of more surveillance, less privacy, and abuse of national security letters. "Well, we had to get all those phone records so we'd know who to put on the no-gun list."

Without due process, I can't abide taking away a right. It's bad enough when it is used to revoke a privilege like air travel.

[Fenring]

Without due process, I can't abide taking away a right. It's bad enough when it is used to revoke a privilege like air travel.

Isn't transportation a guaranteed constitutional right? The distinction of banning "air travel" seems to me shaky, if so, since as technology advances certain "privilege" methods become not only standard but necessary as basic parts of life. It would be like saying of the 2nd Amendment that a person has the right to make use only of an 18th century musket and all other weapons are banned. By forbidding the use of contemporary means you effectively nullify the right. It kind of reminds me of the "right to free assembly" but where this is forbidden on public property whenever the assembly is undesirable.

[Pete at Home]

Without due process, I can't abide taking away a right. It's bad enough when it is used to revoke a privilege like air travel.

Isn't transportation a guaranteed constitutional right?

Yes.  14th Amendment, "privileges and immunities" was a phrase understood in the 19th century to encompass a right to travel, to enter and reside in cities and states.  The clause was crafted to address, among other things, Southern cities that had begun to post signs warning that blacks could not remain in the city after dark.  Sheet-head squads were formed to circumvent the constitution.

[DJQuag]

I've been arguing just this on another board. The right and the Left have finally agreed on something, and it's to strip (some) muslim Americans of a constitutional right without due process or a chance to defend themselves.

The right doesn't care because terrorists and brown people. The Left doesn't care because it's "doing something" about guns.

[NobleHunter]

I don't suppose we can hope that this will turn into an anchor that sinks the watch list?

[Pete at Home]

I've been arguing just this on another board. The right and the Left have finally agreed on something, and it's to strip (some) muslim Americans of a constitutional right without due process or a chance to defend themselves.

"Strip" suggests permanency.  The correct word is abrogate.  And it's not targeted to Muslims specifically or even to some Muslims.  There are numerous non-Muslims on the list.  The current prime minister of India, a violent Hindu supremacist, was himself on the list until Obama let him off.  How did he get there? for verbally inciting mass murder of Muslims in Guyarat.

The no fly list is constitutionally problematic, but it's the least problematic effective proposed temporary fix for a nation at war.

Another issue is, should we impose a lawful duty on citizens to report the sort of information that the Orlando Killer's wife had, i.e. when he came home angry and left with a bunch of guns?  Currently there's no statute that imposed a duty to her to call police. 

[NobleHunter]

It's not effective, it has more false positives than a psychic hotline. Your example doesn't help unless you want to suggest the Prime Minister of India might hijack a plane.

[LetterRip]

I don't see that there would be a constitutional issue for additional scrutiny for those who are on the no-fly list.  There certainly could be for permanent denial.

My understanding that restraining orders can result in loss of ability to purchase or own guns, are they similarly viewed as unconstitutional?

[Pete at Home]

It's not effective, it has more false positives than a psychic hotline. Your example doesn't help unless you want to suggest the Prime Minister of India might hijack a plane.

He inspires mass murder of Muslims by Hindus.  Not a good idea to have him fly over here.  But he wasn't Prime Minister when he was on the No Fly list, and Obama had him taken off after the election.

[Pete at Home]

I don't see that there would be a constitutional issue for additional scrutiny for those who are on the no-fly list.  There certainly could be for permanent denial.

My understanding that restraining orders can result in loss of ability to purchase or own guns, are they similarly viewed as unconstitutional?

Courts have approved loss of gun rights (including the right to continue carrying a gun that you already own, which is WAY more problematic than a simple restriction on purchasing guns) for persons with a temporary restraining order -- and the burden of proof and process for slapping a TRO on someone is probably less than what goes into putting someone on the no fly list.

[Seriati]

Pete, don't confuse people.  The burden for a TRO is low, specifically because it's a temporary order intended to address emergencies. A permanent restraining order is much harder to get, and you get to defend yourself to the court, which you can't do in connection with a TRO.

Anything more than a 48 hour freeze on a gun purchase should require the government to show probable cause.  It's not okay to take away a right based on suspicion alone.

[NobleHunter]

It's not effective, it has more false positives than a psychic hotline. Your example doesn't help unless you want to suggest the Prime Minister of India might hijack a plane.

He inspires mass murder of Muslims by Hindus.  Not a good idea to have him fly over here.  But he wasn't Prime Minister when he was on the No Fly list, and Obama had him taken off after the election.

I thought the point of the no-fly list was to protect us against hijackings and plane bombings, not to keep unpleasant people out of the country.

[Seriati]

I thought the point of the no-fly list was to protect us against hijackings and plane bombings, not to keep unpleasant people out of the country.

The point of the no fly list is to make us think the government is doing something, when in truth they really can't pick the radical out of the background noise.

[Pete at Home]

It's not effective, it has more false positives than a psychic hotline. Your example doesn't help unless you want to suggest the Prime Minister of India might hijack a plane.

He inspires mass murder of Muslims by Hindus.  Not a good idea to have him fly over here.  But he wasn't Prime Minister when he was on the No Fly list, and Obama had him taken off after the election.

I thought the point of the no-fly list was to protect us against hijackings and plane bombings, not to keep unpleasant people out of the country.

People who provoke mass murder is a narrower list than "unpleasant people."  And Modi is apparently quite pleasant, when he's not on the war path.

[DJQuag]

I'm with Seriati. A hold of more then two or three days without due process and a judge approving it is unacceptable.

[Pete at Home]

I'm with Seriati. A hold of more then two or three days without due process and a judge approving it is unacceptable.

I can live with 3 days, but it would be more consistent to follow the TRO/Temporary Injunction timeline.  if someone on a terror watch list tries to buy a huge bunch of guns and bullets, the FBI gets immediate notice, and the clock starts ticking until they show that there's some basis... that works.

[Gary238]

I'm all for improving the mechanics of the no-fly list, and would be happy with a three day clock like you-all are talking about.

I'm also all for sensible restrictions on who can buy firearms (I don't think "because the FBI said so" qualifies). I'd like to see required documentation of all sales, perhaps putting the burden on the buyer to provide an "I'm good to purchase a gun" form issued by some local govt entity that can run a background check.

I'd also like to see some sort of standard established for secure storage. Leaving loaded guns lying around for easy discovery by toddlers and casual burglars should be against the law, imo.

I'd violently oppose anything that made it harder for law-abiding folks to own and carry firearms for self-defense, though.

[TheDeamon]

I'd also like to see some sort of standard established for secure storage. Leaving loaded guns lying around for easy discovery by toddlers and casual burglars should be against the law, imo.

I'd violently oppose anything that made it harder for law-abiding folks to own and carry firearms for self-defense, though.

The issue with secured storage is that it defeats the purpose of using the weapon for self defense in the event of say, a home invasion burglary. The burglar isn't going to stand around and wait for you to unlock the gun safe, remove the child safety locks, and load the gun(with ammo likely stored elsewhere "for safety"), all so you can then threaten them with lethal force.

[cherrypoptart]

Would anything being proposed right now have stopped the Orlando shooter?

[AI Wessex]

Different things are being proposed by different groups and individuals. I would like to see a far more rigorous screening process, licensing regulations and mandatory training with periodic reviews for pistols.  Semi-automatic weapons should be in a separate class with more restricted ownership and greater oversight.  But no matter how strict the protections, there will always be both crimes and tragedies that result from negligence or a will to cause harm.  Harm on the scale of the Orlando shooting is the result of a diseased shooter who might have been stopped if we didn't suffer from societal and cultural problems that have produced a failed sense of social responsibility to keep communities safe, but there's no way to guarantee a dedicated person can be stopped. 

Not doing some of these things would be like saying that since the shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS and nothing can completely stop similar acts of terrorism in the future, we should therefore do nothing to thwart terrorism.

[LetterRip]

Cherry, if you are asking if the proposals would have stopped him from purchasing the gun, yes the two proposals I'm aware of in the Senate, if they had been in effect, would have prevented him from purchasing the gun.

[Gary238]

TheDeamon, I think a weapon should be either stored securely or within the physical control of its owner.

IMO, the best place for a home defense gun is holstered on the homeowners waistband.

Perhaps there needs to be a provision for guns in the home for nightstand gun sorts of arrangements, but those guns should all be going into safes or leaving with their owners.

I definitely want to allow for personal defense, but I think there should be a higher and more consistent standard for keeping ones weapons out of the wrong hands.

[Pete at Home]

TheDeamon, I think a weapon should be either stored securely or within the physical control of its owner.

IMO, the best place for a home defense gun is holstered on the homeowners waistband.

Not the best idea if the homeowner is getting drunk off his ass or walking through a nest of pickpockets.