The first aims to close the so-called "terror gap" in existing gun laws by prohibiting any one on the country's "no fly" list from being allowed to purchase a gun. Such a prohibition would allow the FBI to stop "people who are too dangerous to get on a plane from buying guns and explosives," said New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a co-founder of the mayors group. This proposal is a no-brainer.
There has been quite a lot written by the pro-gun crowd in opposition to this proposal, using lots of inflammatory language about freedom and rights, but doesn't the MAIG proposal make good sense? No one is suggesting the federal government should be allowed to keep open-ended lists of political enemies and to abuse the system in any way, but the idea of preventing "people who are too dangerous to get on a plane from buying guns and explosives," seems fairly simple, does it not?
If the people on the list are too dangerous to get on a plane or buy a gun, why do we allow them to walk around free? Shouldn't they be arrested and put on trial?
ReplyDeleteThis whole Terror Gap nonsense doesn't pass the smell test.
"people who are too dangerous to get on a plane from buying guns and explosives,"
ReplyDeleteIf these people are so dangerous, why aren't they sitting in prison?
As the list currently stands, you cannot even find out if you are on it nor is there any mechanism for getting your name removed. Under the current proposed legislation to deny gun rights to those on the list, it specifically states in the law that the Attorney General can add anyone he wishes based upon suspicions presented by Homeland Security. Then, the fact you are on it or the reason you are on it is considered national security and would be criminal for anyone to reveal that. There is an appeal process in that within 30 days of finding out you are on the list, you can ask to be removed. However, you will not be able to argue anything since you cannot find out why you were added. Finally, after the 30 day window, you are forbidden from appealing ever.
ReplyDeleteRead the legislation Mike before you blindly throw in because Bloomberg said so.
Who besides Bloomberg, Fienstein, Schumer, Adolf Hitler, Mao or Stalin thinks this is a good idea?
The problem with this proposal is that it doesn't go far enough.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court may have established that the RKBA is a Constitutional right, but we cannot let such things as Constitutional rights stand in the way of the war on terror. Suppose someone is on the terror suspect list (who is on the list is classified, as is the criteria for being on the list). It is not enough to deny their 2nd Amendment right to buy a gun, since they could already have some at home. So we need to also deny their 4th Amendment rights and search their homes without warrants. We also need to question them as to why they wanted a gun, without any of that right to remain silent stuff. So we must also deny their 5th Amendment rights and punish them if they don't tell us what we need to know.
This is the logical next step in the Bush war on terror policies -- in fact, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a supporter of this very proposal on behalf of the Bush administration. Previously, the Bush administration only supported the denial of Constitutional rights to those who were actually arrested for terrorism. The next step, as we are discussing here, is to deny Constitutional rights to those whom we just put on a list because we (for some reason) just suspect them of some sort of terrorist sympathy.
Mikeb, I would not have pegged you as one who might support Bush/Cheney-type measures in the war on terror, especially such an escalation over previous policy -- but welcome aboard!
Haven't we had this discussion several times before?
ReplyDeleteAt a minimum, the government should not be allowed to restrict enumerated rights without both due process and extreme justification--that applies to using the watch list as either a "no fly" or "no guns" list.
A list of restricted people without oversight will become an enemies list, a revenge list, a widely abused list.
Maybe there's room for a middle ground. Some bad guys deserve a place on the list but there's not yet enough evidence to lock them up. They shouldn't be buying guns in the meantime.
ReplyDelete"Maybe there's room for a middle ground. Some bad guys deserve a place on the list but there's not yet enough evidence to lock them up. They shouldn't be buying guns in the meantime."
ReplyDeleteIf you can't trust them to buy a gun, why do you trust them to otherwise walk around free with access to gasoline, fertilizer, household chemicals, and anything else that could used to make a weapon of mass destruction?
If you're going to subscribe to Bush Doctrine, don't half-ass it.