Donald Trump

No-Fly List, No Guns: Trump Agrees with Obama, Clinton. He Thinks the NRA Should, Too.

After Orlando, Trump wants to meet with NRA to convince the organization to support denying guns to people on the no-fly list, terror watch list.

|

Trump
Todd Krainin

Donald Trump is not a man of ideological principles, conservative or otherwise. He's a reflexive authoritarian who thinks the answer to virtually every problem is more government involvement, at least and especially if "winners" like himself are in charge. Case in point: Trump is backing a gun control measure fervently supported by Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

And he wants the NRA to do the same.

Earlier today, Trump tweeted:

A spokesperson for the NRA replied that the organization is happy to meet with Trump, though the NRA will remain opposed to using the no-fly list, or terror watch list, to deny constitutional rights to American citizens.

On this issue—the issue of whether people should lose their rights because the government merely suspects them of doing something wrong—the NRA shows more respect for civil liberties than most Democrats. Denying guns to people on the no-fly list is an obvious violation of due process that, if allowed to stand, could easily imperil other rights. As Mark Joseph Stern writes at Slate:

If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are wrong to think that arbitrary lists are a valid and legal means of stripping Americans of their gun rights. It would be nice if the Republican Party had chosen as its standard-bearer someone who could articulate the conservative case for the Second Amendment and due process. Instead, it chose Trump. Now gun rights will be in jeopardy, no matter which of the two charlatans currently seeking the presidency prevails.

NEXT: The Failure to Stop Orlando Shooter Was Not a Surveillance Gap, So Reject Calls for More

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It would be nice if the Republican Party had chosen as its standard-bearer someone who could articulate the conservative case for the Second Amendment and due process.

    Gillespie must be dead.

    1. A sentence that could have been written any time in the last, oh, nearly 50 years.

    2. The reasoning was to stick it to the RINOs the GOP should nominate someone who is a demostrated squish on most every issue conservatives purport to care about but will fight for…something.

      It does not make sense to me either.

    3. Make 14500 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website.._________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. So, is the NRA going to endorse Johnson then? I don’t see how they could seriously support either Trump or Clinton at this point.

    1. Well I don’t see how anybody in either party with a brain could endorse either one of them right now, but it sure isn’t stopping them.

  3. Denying guns to people on the no-fly list is an obvious violation of due process that, if allowed to stand, could easily imperil other rights.

    Especially once it occurs to those in charge that they can place people on a list for the express purpose of denying them their rights.

    1. “No, you see, we flag people who we think might be acting dangerous. Then we investigate them and put them on a list to make sure they can’t be allowed to do dangerous things. What criteria get people flagged? Can’t tell you that, otherwise the dangerous people might stop their dangerous behavior and sneak by our system. And we make sure this is all above-board and Constitutionally sound by asking the court for a warrant. Well, no, not just asking an ordinary court, but a secret court, because we can’t let the dangerous people know we’re on to them, or they might get slippery and find a way to become dangerous without us knowing.”

      1. Can you imagine some of this:

        “You know, that Nick Gillespie over at Reason is really treating us like shit. Let’s put him on the list.”

        “Sorry Mr. Gillespie, you’re on a government list. No guns for you. Also, we will be vetting your columns, since people on a list don’t have complete First Amendment rights.”

        1. If I see some programming friends use this argument I’ll respond with what you just said.

        2. Sadly this is EXACTLY how the gov’t pre-fascists are behaving as we’ve seen from the whole Lois Lerner affair. The internal IRS emails showed an almost blase attitude they had towards crushing their political opponents.

          And with no due process to get oneself off of the no-fly list, this is ripe for abuse.

      2. “And you know we only ever go after the truly suspicious, because the secret court virtually always approves our warrants.”

      3. Don’t forget the part about, if you challenge your inclusion on the list, we’ll hold the trial in a remote area and put your witnesses on the list so they can’t fly there and appear at trial.

  4. RE: Donald Trump is not a man of ideological principles, conservative or otherwise. He’s a reflexive authoritarian who thinks the answer to virtually every problem is more government involvement, at least and especially if “winners” like himself are in charge. Case in point: Trump is backing a gun control measure fervently supported by Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

    And he wants the NRA to do the same.

    That’s right NRA.
    Get in lock step with Trump the Grump wise and benevolent political ideas.
    We can’t have fascism in Amerika if the unwashed masses own firearms.
    One can only wonder what other amendment Trump the Grump will want to wipe his butt with now that he wiped his ass with the Second Amendment.
    One can only speculate.
    Stay tuned.

  5. Guys, I think Donald Trump might be a jerk.

    1. John, would you like to give a response?

      1. Was thinking the same thing Gojira, I’m curious to see what he thinks about this. It will be a key into the mind of how a Trumpist rationalizes things.

      2. I’ve got one below. HyR’s bloggers are trying to paint Trump as an extreme authoritarian outlier. He’s not.

        Face it, guys, we are the outliers. (I was the blind date, if you catch the reference. Heck, even if you don’t.) All radicals are. From our POV we could paint nearly everyone like that, & there’s no justif’n for singling out Trump. “No fly, no guns” would be a very popular opinion not only in the USA, but worldwide. Argue against that, i.e. the opinion. You’re making Trump a straw man in reverse, thinking you can take him down by his simply espousing an opinion that to most people would be common sense.

        What if you did that about narcotics laws? He doesn’t want to legalize heroin (or at least hasn’t said it lately, though I’m not sure he’s disavowed it either) either, so why not paint him w that brush? Or not being against legal tender laws (though I’m not sure he is)?

        1. I agree with most of what you say Robert, but those types of hypothetical drug situations are specifically used to discredit Libertarians any time we’re brought up so you’ll forgive me if I don’t use the availability of heroin to children as any kind of litmus test of my own.

          Mark Levin was bashing the entire Libertarian Primary just a few days ago for that very reason, while he’s apparently more than happy to gloss over the fact that the Republican primary was literally just as ridiculous as some of the insanity that goes in (L) circles.

          I mean, Ted Cruz’s dad helped assassinate Kennedy? Seriously? This is better than legally available heroin in what alternate universe?

          1. You don’t use a litmus test, but Robby Soave seems to be pretending to use one. And what does any opinion about the assassination of any of the Kennedys have to do w anything? You might as well go by opinions on biologic evolution like Bailey.

            Why do I care who Mark Levin’s bashing? But at least if he bashes libertarians for that reason, there’s justif’n for doing so, because we really are outliers on narcotics issues. If he bashed libertarians for being opposed to triple parking, that would be more like what I’m complaining about.

      3. John will be happy to tell you how Trump has made a wise and smart decision about the whole issue, but he can’t say what wise and smart are until after Trump announces it. 48 hours later when Trump says something just the opposite, that too will be wise and smart. Trump could announce he’s sat down with the NRA and they’ve convinced him he was mistaken in calling for the ban and in fact even more strongly oppose gun laws and that will be great. Trump might also say he’s sat down with the NRA and can’t convince those assholes a gun ban is a good thing so fuck those losers, Trump’s going to call for even more gun restrictions and that will be great too.

  6. I’m guessing that meeting won’t go very well.

  7. Of course the NRA will go along with Trump. This is the moment they’ve been waiting their whole lives for. Ideology shmideology.

    1. I hope they don’t. By parting w him on this, they’ll help both themselves (NRA) & Trump?the latter because a good # of voters will appreciate his independence from “the gun lobby”. Most gun rights supporters won’t drop their support of Trump because of this, but he’ll gain even more crossover votes.

      1. Don’t feed troll….

      2. Honestly if the NRA broke ranks with Trump and the GOP over this, I might respect them again.

      3. I can’t help but wonder if Trump planned it this way.

  8. I can see legislators salivating over the idea of denying rights to people for being on a list. Next would be people under indictment for crimes, then people currently under investigation, then people who have been investigated or suspected of a crime at some point in their lives, and so on until there’s no one left but government employees.

    1. But that wouldn’t include Herself, of course.

    2. Government employees to be excluded from the other categories, of course.

    3. At a certain point they cease being employees and just start being “members”. “Employee” denotes some sort of dis-association – a sense of self that exists separately from the organization for whom you labor.

    4. Uhh…after they can deny 2nd Amendment rights for just putting you on a list they’re done. They’ve won. Everyone goes on the list. One and done, son.

    5. Isn’t the “terrorist watch list” basically a suspect list?

  9. “On this issue?the issue of whether people should lose their rights because the government merely suspects them of doing something wrong?the NRA shows more respect for civil liberties than most all Democrats.”

    Fixed it for you.

    1. I noticed that too.

      The implication is that oooh, how shocking it is that Democrats don’t respect civil liberties “on this issue”, while “on this issue”, they don’t support any liberty at all, and haven’t in my lifetime. Some Republicans do.

  10. Hopefully the meeting consisted of the NRA saying “fuck off”.

    1. Are you kidding? NRA loves Trump not only because he’ll defend their right to bear arms, but he’ll provide so many great reasons to use them.

      1. Such as…?

        1. To be fair, Trump does tend to turn some leftists into maniacs.

        2. Rounding up illegal immigrants in midnight raids on their ‘safe houses’. Sussing out potential islamic radicals and neutralizing them before they have a chance to possibly detonate. Lots of great reasons to use our guns – reluctantly, of course, and after careful consideration and following industry ‘best practices’.

          1. How does the government using guns in those situations call for more private citizens using guns??

    2. TRUMP: Let’s limit civil liberties?
      NRA: *sound of safeties clicking off*
      TRUMP: Is that a laser pointer? *looks at red dots on chest*

  11. Not to be like one of them, but is all of this fuss being made over that particular tweet? Because it doesn’t say he’s going to try to get the NRA to support this measure, just that he’s going to meet with them to talk about it. He might mean, or he could spin it as a way to backtrack, that he wants to hear the NRA’s position on it.

    1. If he’s smart he’ll change his tune, and say NRA convinced him or something.

      But I don’t think he’s that smart.

      1. Why don’ t you? It seems like if he were dumb and really was all about this, he would not have put out such a obtuse tweet.

        1. What part specifically seems obtuse? If Trump thought it was a bad idea to limit the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens, why would he need to ask? Grandstanding? To whom?

    2. He doesn’t even say he is going to try and get them to support it. He implies it I suppose. I mean why else would he meet with them except to convince them on the issue. But he doesn’t say that.

      Is he just trolling here? Yeah, I am going to meet with the NRA on that issue. So what?

      1. Gets all of us talking about him, doesn’t it? And shows that’s he’s Serious about investigating the hot-button issues.

        1. That is kind of what I am thinking as well.

          1. Yes, it does get people talking about him. Specifically, it gets people to talk about how he doesn’t apparently believe in 2nd Amendment rights strongly enough to know on his own if he should or shouldn’t take them away from an arbitrary group of American citizens.

            Seems like a clever guy though, right? I mean, people are talking about him again! They seemed like they might have stopped shitting their pants for almost an entire six seconds.

      2. He would like NRA support. I take this to mean he’s going to try to find some position the NRA *can* support.

    3. He stated this as his position in November (there’s a link in the earlier article about this subject). And given that the NRA is opposed to the ban, I don’t know why he would discuss it with them unless he was trying to convince them.

  12. I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

    Maybe Trump is all about banning anyone on a watch list from buying guns. I honestly don’t know. But, that tweet doesn’t mean anything one way or another. So he met with them about it. So what?

    Am I missing something here?

    1. just principles.

    2. Trump established this as his position in November.

      http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel…..ontrol.htm

      1. I am not sure that is any clearer

        Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?
        TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,
        Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.
        TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely.

        On the list and an enemy of the state whatever that is? Keep them away from what?

        I don’t think Trump knows what he thinks about this.

        1. Well that’s how Trump talks about virtually every issue. That seems more clear than half of the positions he takes on other issues.

          1. What did he say?

            1. We have watch lists but if the person on such a list is mentally ill or a felon, they already can’t get a gun.

            Then in response to a follow up question “but people on the lists can buy guns”, he says

            If someone is on that list AND and enemy of the state AND we know it, they shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.

            I don’t see how you can fairly read that as an endorsement for banning anyone on a watch list from buying a gun. That is not what he says. He qualifies his position by saying they have to be on the list and we have to know they are a terrorist.

            Of course if we know the guy is a terrorist, we will have arrested him or at least deported him. So if you take what he said at its face value, he effectively says being on watch list shouldn’t prevent you from buying a gun, being a felon or a terrorist should.

            1. If someone is on that list AND and enemy of the state AND we know it, they shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.

              So a subset of people on the secret list will be established as having no Constitutional rights.

              That’s OK, then.

              1. What does it mean to know it? I don’t know and I doubt Trump does either. Whatever you think it means, if we know someone is a terrorist, the government should be and will be doing a lot more than keeping them from buying a gun.

                So, the statement is effectively a null set.

                1. The mental gymnastics you’re undertaking at this very moment should be a clue that you are supporting a monster John. Now you’re just talking about the exact scale of the monstrosity you support.

                  Now would be a good moment to talk about how terrible Hillary is, it will help deaden your sensibilities and principles by creating an Other.

            2. “Q: …individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?”

              Notice the questioner is setting up this about talking about those specific lists

              “TRUMP: …if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have…”

              Notice the word “OR” John. Did you honestly miss it or are you trying to be dishonest?? Because of the word “OR” which does not mean “AND” it means that Trump believes that people on the watch list, which as the questioner stated is the terror watch list or the no fly list, are barred by law from owning guns. Because the word is OR, which I remind you is not synonymous with AND, he is not, as you said, talking about if a “person on such a list is mentally ill or a felon”. He is talking about if a person is on the list, they are BANNED from owning a gun!! There is NO OTHER WAY to read Trump’s statement unless you change the definition of “OR” to mean “AND”, and if you do that, the computer you are using stops working because the rules of logic no longer function as we thought they did.
              .
              “TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely.”

              This particular statement is ambiguous, yes, but based on his first statement, it is clear he already believed that someone on the watch list was banned from owning a gun. Not banned if on the watch list+something else.

              1. Notice the term “this is already covered in the legislation that we already have…” meaning they can’t get a gun now. So if you read the or to mean “either”, he is saying “they can’t buy guns if they are on a watch list now”. And since the question is “should people on watch lists be able to buy guns”, I don’t think that is what he meant. And even if he did, he would have been stating a fact. An erroneous fact but a fact none the less not his opinion.

                And you admit the second statement doesn’t mean what is claimed. The first statement doesn’t mean what you claim either. I know you likely had an orgasm when you first read this. And I know you want to believe that he plans to put everyone on a list followed quickly by a camp. And maybe he does. I don’t know. But whatever he wants to do, those answers don’t say that.

                It is what it is.

                1. Yeah, it’s not 100% sure.

                  But generally

                  When someone says “Should X be made illegal??”

                  And someone thinks it should not be made illegal.

                  Their response is “X should not be illegal.”

                  It generally is not “X is already illegal.”

                  Almost always, people who respond to “X is already illegal” are people who support it being illegal. Trump likes being strategically vague, but even that has its limits.

                  You’re doing a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid calling a spade a spade.

                  It’s like if someone shouted “ALLAHU AKBAR” and opened fire at a crowd, and then you wanted to wait until the police had ABSOLUTE PROOF that this guy was connected to a radical movement before we concluded that this was an act of Islamic terrorism. I mean, sure, people GENERALLY don’t open fire shouting “God is Great” in Arabic unless they are motivated by radical Islam, but there’s a slight uncertainty that this was the case. Maybe they were an Arabic speaking Christian who just happened to say the same thing Muslims usually do…

                  1. Like, for example, if you asked a pro-legalization person “Should weed be made illegal” I’d be willing to bet money that you could find no one pro-legalization who responds “Weed is already illegal” without clarifying their position that it should not be made illegal. Like, I’m even against gambling on a moral level, but I’d still make that bet because I’m dead certain you won’t find anyone who speaks that literally and that obtusely.

                    1. Actually I think it’s likely many such persons would respond that way, & look at you funny like, “You stupid or something?”

                  2. No. The question is

                    Should people on watch lists be able to buy guns?

                    If you think they already can’t do that, the natural answer is not “I think they should”. The natural answer is “they already can’t do that”.

                    Moreover, if you read the first sentence to mean what you are saying, it completely contradicts with the second sentence. He says in the in the second sentence that someone on the watch list AND who we know is a terrorist should not get a gun. If he believed anyone on the watch list should not get a gun, he wouldn’t have said the second sentence the way did. He just would have said “if they are on the list, no”. The reporter asked him to clarify his first answer. And he did by saying AND, not OR.

                    Sorry, it doesn’t mean what you claim. Read it fully and read it in context.

                2. “I know you likely had an orgasm when you first read this.”

                  Eh. I side with you on Trump issues more than not. A third party candidate’s not gonna win and Trump is the more palatable of the two that stand a chance.

                  But c’mon, man. There’s almost 0% chance that he did not mean to support the law by stating that the law was already in place!! There’s a miniscule chance that he did not mean that, but again, you aren’t the sort of person who USUALLY waits for 100%, absolute, total confirmation before calling a spade a spade because there is a sliver of a chance that the spade is actually just a spadelike shovel…

                  1. The words say what they say. Again, maybe Trump does support this. All I am saying is what Clidissident provided doesn’t support that. It just doesn’t.

                    1. Look. I get it. People who try to make every little thing Trump says into bad, horrible, racism is stupid. That’s no good reason to go the other way and assert everything he says is a unicorn fart.

                      “If you think they already can’t do that, the natural answer is not “I think they should”. The natural answer is “they already can’t do that”.”

                      Again, what single person when asked “Do you think Y should not do X” and who thinks they SHOULD, even if they think Y can already not do X, what person in that scenario would NOT answer to make their position clear that “Y should be able to do X” even if they do point out that “Y can already not do X”??

                      Human beings generally don’t speak in a way to cause confusion. I’ll grant you that politicians are different walks of life altogether in that regard, but there’s still a very, VERY minute chance that he is NOT pro this position. When presented the opportunity, he did NOT denounce the position!! Hell, YOU often accuse writers who report certain things here of supporting what they were reporting merely because they did not explicitly denounce them.

                    2. There is almost a certainty that Trump supports this ban, and yet you are so outraged at someone stating the conclusion of a large body of evidence pointing to the conclusion, just because the conclusion hasn’t been 100% proven yet.

                      I get it, Trump’s critics are annoying as fuck, dishonest, and constantly twist his words to make him seem worse. That doesn’t mean you have to defend him on such a stupid thing. There is smoke. Calidissident is saying there is fire. You are stating that there is a small chance the smoke has a non-flame source, and using that as if Calidissident is somehow woefully wrong in asserting that where there is smoke there is fire.

                      Sure, not all smoke means fire, but it USUALLY does.

                    3. Again, find me the pro-legalization dude that states “Marijuana is already illegal” without clarifying that he thinks it should be illegal when you ask him “Should marijuana be made illegal??”

                      You can’t do it.

                    4. *he thinks it should be legal

                    5. I’m sure you could find plenty of such people. Same if you asked pro-choice people if abortion should be made legal, or a lot of other things. They’re not going to clarify, because they’ll think either:

                      (1) This person is so out of it, they don’t know the current state of this law? Why waste time w hir?

                      or

                      (2) This person is being tricky, trying to make a dumb point or trap me. I’m not playing along.

                    6. Trump probably support existing law on this. Is there anything that indicates he would expand on what already exists?

        2. c’mon John this is about the dumbest hill to die on.

          1. How many qualifications are in that paragraph? It is as meaningless as the tweet.

            1. Qualifications are annotated by the word “AND”, not the word “OR”

              Now which did Trump use in the below statement??:

              “if people are on a watch list or people are sick,”

              You get three guesses…

              1. And your reading of it is just wrong. As I explain above. The OR that you are so proud of can’t mean what you say it does in the context it is presented.

                Sorry. I am sure it is a bitter disappointment to you. But don’t worry, I am sure you will get other opportunities.

          2. Must die on EVERY HILL that opposes the Left!! No matter how stupid that hill is, if the hill is Anti-Left, it is WORTH dying for!!

    3. You aren’t. It’s neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the policy.

      1. Jesus Christ people, Trumps abysmal position on guns isn’t like some kind of fucking secret.

        1. I don’t disagree, but critics are making a very strong statement based on a single vague tweet. What’s the rush? Why is there no journalistic follow-up and confirmation?

          1. It’s not just the tweet. He said this in November as well.

            Furthermore, it’s about the context. Why would you say “I’m meeting with the NRA about not letting people on watch lists buy guns” unless you were trying to convince the NRA (who is opposed to that) of that stance? Given the November statement, he shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt here.

            1. He didn’t say that in November. Read what he actually said. I know you desperately want him to have said that. And maybe that is what he meant. But that is not what he said.

              1. “if people are on a watch list or people are sick,”

                “on a watch list or people are sick,”

                “or”

                “or”

                The Power of Reading!!

                1. It is so funny Blue Sky that you had a chance to put up five smug statements about the power of reading before I had a chance to point out why your point doesn’t make any sense.

                  The power of reading alright. Its really too fucking bad that you apparently never learned how to read with any real precision and don’t even realize that you can’t do it.

                  As nice at it is to be right, it is even nicer to be right when the other person not only doesn’t realize he is wrong but is smug about it. It is kind of a special pleasure really.

              2. John,

                When virtually everyone else in the thread is on my side, you can be pretty sure that it’s not just me who’s reading this into that.

                If this was Clinton saying the exact same things, you would never give her the benefit of the doubt the way you are to Trump.

            2. But if there is doubt, why not erase it altogether? Get a statement from Trump, wait for him to explain, wait for the NRA’s account of their meeting.

              I also assume that he believes in this list. At least, I think that’s his gut reaction: dangerous people on list, list is smart, use to stop shootings. That’s smart and tough. It’s also consistent with his anti-1A position. But… you need more than that tweet! And he has more than enough wiggle room to reverse himself and make his critics look very unfair and so so mean.

              1. Giving the fact that Trump has been fairly explicit in using the ‘other’ as a boogieman (Muslims, Mexicans, Trannies, Gays, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists etc. etc.) I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why he wouldn’t support something like this because, in effect, what a lot of people are going to hear is ‘don’t let Muslims buy guns’.

                Note that I don’t really think Trump even believes this stuff, but I think he believes it will get him elected and so far I haven’t seen anything that indicates he’s necessarily wrong on that one. I do think that given people seem more interested in voting ‘against’ that it will be a pretty tough race to the bottom between Hillary and Trump.

                I still think Hillary will win, and if Trump is going to waffle on something as basic as 2nd Amendment rights he’s really eroding the few differences between himself and Hillary that would drive turnout in his favor unless he can twist it into a racist caricature ‘other’ that will have it’s rights stripped, rather than you and me.

                I’m of the opinion that the only way Trump is going to win in the General is if he can keep his trap shut on things like this, and just go full attack dog on Hillary while shedding zero light on himself. That is going to be pretty tough for an obvious narcissist, so take it for what it is.

              2. We can’t wait for the meeting with the NRA to be finished because they might say something that would destroy the narrative.

    4. I don’t care. He appears to think that there are reasons to deny people the right to own guns other than as part of a sentence for a serious crime, so he’s just very wrong. He has no respect for the constitution or natural rights unless it is expedient in the current moment.

  13. This really could be a nice opportunity for Gary. He will have to convince Will to shut his trap or change his tume, but the lp could be the only one for due process on the 2a.

    1. I know Weld isn’t stellar on the 2A but has he come out in favor of the watch list ban?

      1. No, he hasn’t. Which is great. He was more open to surveillance and the like, which is arguably better from our perspective.

  14. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy is filibustering for a gun control bill

    Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy?who had just been elected to his current office when a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut?has launched a filibuster to call for Congressional action on gun control. Murphy began speaking on the Senate floor at approximately 11:20 a.m. during debate on a spending bill; he is yielding to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and fellow Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal for questions and discussion but says he will not yield his overall control of the floor until he receives assurance that the Senate as a whole is prepared to act to require universal gun-purchase background checks and to prevent suspected terrorists from legally acquiring guns.

    Has even one mass shooting gun been linked to a gun show purchase? Not saying it hasn’t happened, but I don’t remember one.

    1. Remember, when Republicans filibuster and hold up the Senate until they get what they want, they’re being obstructionist. When Democrats do it, it’s because they’re noble heroes who won’t give in to injustice.

    2. Has even one mass shooting gun been linked to a gun show purchase?

      How would you possibly know? What’s to distinguish a ‘gun show purchase’ from any other private purchase? If we agree to a purchase and change money at the show and transport the weapon residence-to-residence is that a ‘gun show purchase’?

      1. You’d know by verifying how the gun was purchased. It does seem like a lot of the big shootings were perpetrated with guns bought from a licensed dealer.

        1. I don’t think any have been bought through gun shows or privately.

          Because every time, we get the “we must close the gun show loophole”, and every time, the answer is “that wouldn’t have stopped this shooting because he didn’t get his guns at a gun show”.

          1. I honestly couldn’t think of one. They love to bring it up, I guess it just a line to parrot at this point.

        2. Lanza killed his own mother and took them. Would that constitute a ‘gun show purchase’? Some of the guns present (used?) at Columbine were ‘on loan’ from a friend/witness who bought them at a gun show (the origin of the ‘loophole’ AFAICT), does that constitute a ‘gun show purchase’?

        3. My larger point being; when it comes to killing a bunch of people we all pretty much agree that the gun (or other tool) isn’t explicitly to blame so WTHF difference does it make how the gun was *sold* and how far back?

          I’m sure we’re not going to get the ’68 GCA repealed anytime soon, but acting like the loophole intelligibly and meaningfully exists is little different (and, IMO, worse) than acknowledging that assault rifles are a thing.

          If there were a ‘firearms to murder gays and school children’ loophole, we should probably close that, but I’m pretty sure it’s already stitched up pretty tight.

    3. Columbine shooting guns were straw-purchased at a gun show, for whatever it’s worth.

      1. Huh. Didn’t know that. Interesting.

      2. I read they stole them from their Grandfather? did that change or did they just change the story?

        1. I read they stole them from their Grandfather? did that change or did they just change the story?

          They were underage to legally purchase/own *any* gun, they cobbled together a collection from a variety of sources. IIRC, (just like Lanza) they had more guns on them or prepared than they ended up using or could use.

    4. That seems like a novel use of a filibuster. How is anyone supposed to introduce a bill if he’s gumming up the works?

  15. Has Trump explicitly endorsed the policy in question? The statement posted in that article doesn’t say he’s decided, only that they’re meeting on the issue.

  16. The cool thing about lists for people who shouldn’t own guns is that they double as target practice. Even the NRA can’t resist this is bullet-proof logic.

    1. Fuck off, troll…

  17. Here’s the NRA reply:
    We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

    http://www.nraila.org/articles/201606…..watchlists

    1. But they are still going to endorse Trump? Fuck the NRA. If they really were the single issue advocacy group they claim to be, they’d endorse someone else. But they love cops and the war on drugs and all that shit too much.
      Hell, if they endorsed Johnson, he might have a real shot. How many votes can the NRA influence?

    2. The NRA’s statement is incomplete.

      If you’re on the Watch List and try to buy a gun
      Put purchase on hold and investigate you
      If there is evidence of terrorism, arrest you.
      Else If you’re wrongly put on a terror watch list, remove you from the list and let you buy the gun.
      Else If (not *wrongly* put on the list) then ????? What then?

  18. Making America great again:

    No due process = no rights?

    No problem!

  19. I am shocked that that pull quote came from slate. I’d think they’d be foaming at the mouth to give up more freedoms to our gracious overlords.

  20. Oooo, I have list of people who should lose their 13th amendment protections.
    That salt won’t mine itself.

    1. +1 orphan labor

  21. “This isn’t a gun problem, this is a mental problem,” Trump told CNN

    “I don’t like anything having to do with changing our Second Amendment,” he said. “We have plenty of rules and regulations. There’s plenty of things that they can do right now that are already there. They don’t do them. We have a tremendous mental health problem. We’re closing places all over the world. All over the country, they’re closing. Nobody is doing anything about that. And they should be looking at mental health. We should be build, like, institutions for people that are sickos. We have sickos all over the place. And that’s the problem.”

  22. If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner.

    Indeed.

    If the list is secret, you can’t even challenge your basis for being on it.

    No democratic government should have secret-lists. In fact the term ‘secret’ isn’t even quite right; if citizens can’t check it to see if they come up as flagged, then only “approved” institutions have access to it (airlines? gun-stores?) and these institutions end up becoming de-facto tools of an oppressive state. Naturally all employees would have to be sworn to secrecy and promise never to allow “citizens” similar access.

    The entire concept isn’t just a ‘slippery slope’ to a police-state; its the definition of a police-state.

    If you’re deemed dangerous enough to be on a no-fly list, you’re dangerous enough to take to court and be tried and to have your rights stripped through some kind of actual formal process which gives a person the opportunity to challenge the evidence against them. Anything less is a violation of the constitution, full stop.

  23. Here is the NRA position on this

    The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

    So for the record, the NRA are not absolutists on this issue.

    Reason of course won’t take the link. The language is out of the NRA statement on the issue issued today.

    1. Just delete the https:// off the front of the link and it works.

      1. Or even just the “s” from “https”

    2. the NRA are not absolutists on this issue.

      Well they pretty much said what i said above = if you want to strip a person’s rights, take them to court.

      Presumably you have evidence suggesting they’re a danger. If they’re dangerous enough to refuse to allow on a plane (* and convicted killers presumably still fly occasionally), then they should be dangerous enough to present the evidence to a court; and in so doing give the accused the opportunity to challenge restrictions of their rights.

      1. I agree with that. And if you read Trump’s position that Calidissident is so convinced shows he wants everyone on a watch list to not be able to buy a gun, I think Trump likely does to, though it is not completely clear.

        1. “if people are on a watch list OR people are sick”

          The only reason it’s “not completely clear” is because you failed to read the word “or” or read “and” in its place.

          1. No. It is because you didn’t read closely enough or consider the context.

            If he meant or as meaning and, he said the following

            If someone is on a watch list or they are sick, they can’t get a gun now.

            You should try reading the entire sentence sometime. It helps with understanding things.

      2. If they’re dangerous enough to refuse to allow on a plane (* and convicted killers presumably still fly occasionally), then they should be dangerous enough to present the evidence to a court

        Oh, *that’s* no fun! Anyway, backlogs.

      3. But they also said that the government should be able to arbitrarily delay the purchase of firearms. It’s not even remotely constitutional for the government to be involved in this at all. A fitting position for Negotiate Rights Away.

        Also, being able to challenge your placement on a watchlist isn’t good enough. They shouldn’t even be able to put you on a watchlist without due process to begin with.

      4. Well, that, or just open up a never-ending investigation.

  24. People on the no-fly list should have their driver’s licenses revoked, right? RIGHT?!

    1. Well yeah!! Driving is a privilege.

      1. If they might blow up a plane, they might blow up a car.

    2. Even worse, they should have to get their driver’s licenses renewed.

      1. I don’t know how anyone can leave the DMV and not be an anarchist.

      2. Or have to send a package at the post office.

  25. Is anyone else thinking that actually passing this law would establish grounds to overturn the terrorist watch list/no fly list?

    I seem to recall someone challenging the constitutionality of the lists before and the courts ruled that since denying flying isn’t unconstitutional because you can drive/take a bus/take a train instead, the law wasn’t unconstitutional. Now it’s proposed to deny something actually in the Constitution, it’s going to be challenged on clearly constitutional grounds and there’s a good chance of the government losing.

    1. Assuming you can ever use discovery to find out you were wronged by double secret probation government action in the first place, then yeah. It would also (hopefully) double as an opportunity to further reinforce Heller that the 2A is a fundamental individual right (otherwise, no standing).

      1. Besides, how do you keep it secret? When someone goes to buy a gun and fails the background check for a reason they won’t tell him or her about, you’ll be able to infer you are on a watch list.

        1. There is that. And they have told people that they couldn’t get on a plane but they can’t be told why. I am not kidding. The whole think is out of Kafka.

          Watch lists make sense as a way for law enforcement to know when they have stumbled onto an actual terrorists. They make no sense if they are used to do things like keep people from flying or buying a gun.

          If anything, you would want to let the person on the watch list buy the gun but then make sure the feds know about it. The fact that the guy bought a gun and ammunition is another reason to take a look at him. Maybe this time we will find out what he is up to if he is up to something.

          Ban people on watch lists from buying guns, then they buy them illegally and the feds never have a reason to look at them again. Banning people on the list from doing things defeats the entire purpose of having a watch list.

          1. Ban people on watch lists from buying guns, then they buy them illegally and the feds never have a reason to look at them again. Banning people on the list from doing things defeats the entire purpose of having a watch list.

            Depends on how good your surveillance is and how close you’re willing to skirt the line with entrapment and undercover agents.

            Ban the sale, then have your undercover agent ingratiate them self, and set-up the illegal purchase, then bust them for that. Alternatively, ban the sale and up the surveillance such that you can spot an illegal purchase when/if it happens.

            Only works if your follow-through is good enough though. Banning is not enough. Also might be a problem if the guy waits long enough for surveillance to die back down before trying for an illegal purchase.

            So it could work, but I kind of doubt it.

    2. No. The court would just overturn that part of the law. The rule is where a court can let the constitutional part of a law stand and just overturn the part that violates the constitution, it will do that rather than overturning the entire law.

    3. I seem to recall someone challenging the constitutionality of the lists before and the courts ruled that since denying flying isn’t unconstitutional because you can drive/take a bus/take a train instead

      And where in the constitution does it say that the government can stop you from using a particular means of travel simply because there are technically (but not in practice) alternatives?

      Maybe the government can also arbitrarily ban people from living in particular cities simply because they could live elsewhere. Or stop you from speaking at a particular website because other websites exist. Why not?

      1. The government *can* arbitrarily ban people from living in particular cities. See housing restrictions for people on sexual offender lists.

        It always amazes me when people come up with what they think are hyperbolic scenarios that have already happened.

        1. Well, at the very least, due process is involved there, correct?

          With that said, it’s still a terrible situation.

    4. I seem to recall someone challenging the constitutionality of the lists before and the courts ruled that since denying flying isn’t unconstitutional because you can drive/take a bus/take a train instead,

      Plane vs. Train vs. Bus vs. Car are all just a matter of degree of threat.

      Freedom of movement within the borders should be seen as constitutionally protected.

  26. “If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.”

    In other words, banning orders – straight out of the playbook of apartheid South Africa:

    “…At the order of the minister, a person deemed a communist, a terrorist, a member of a banned organization, or otherwise a threat to the security and public order of the state could be confined to his home or immediate surroundings, prohibited from meeting with more than one person at a time (other than his family), forced to resign any offices in any organization, prohibited from speaking publicly or writing for any publication, and barred from certain areas, buildings, and institutions, such as law courts, schools, and newspaper offices. Moreover, the banned person could not be quoted in any publication. The effect was to render the banned person a public nonentity.”

    Use this meme, is what I suggest. Harp on it. Try to get some former banning-order victims to speak out.

  27. Trumps position on this is sympatico with the NRA. Specificially that terrorists should not be able to get weapons.

    The problem, of course, is with the enforcement. There was already enough information known about the Orlando Murderer to take action against him. He battered a spouse, why wasn’t the VAWA triggered?, he make real death threats against co-workers, including stalking at least one of them, which were forwarded to the FBI twice and discarded by them over political correctness. He subsequently made to unexplained extended trips to Saudi Arabia and other points in the ME, he attended a mosque that was known for jihadi agitation. He was referred to the FBI by Disney for suspicious activity at Disney World in April. Despite all of that, no action was taken in any way, including removing his security guard licenses.

    BTW, the extreme libertarian position that no terrorist should be prevented from obtaining weapons up to the moment that they go one their murder spree is a sure fire political loser, and may draq 1/10th of 1 percent of the popular vote. Hopefully Johnson is dumb enough to go there and we’ll see.

    1. “…the extreme libertarian position that no terrorist should be prevented from obtaining weapons up to the moment that they go one their murder spree…”

      I think this is just due process.

  28. Yeah, I don’t know what you have to do to get on the watch list.

    It’s all a secret, right? No one’s allowed to know how or why they put people on the list.

    Yeah, that’s denying due process.

    Are they taking down license plate numbers on Friday nights at the mosque?

    Did NSA software flag them because of numbers people called or because of the email addresses of people who sent them messages?

    Does a judge even review putting people on the watch list?

    Does the government need to show any probable cause at all?

    And now they’re going to sentence people to not being able to exercise their constitutional rights?

    Yeah, fuck that noise.

    1. Watch lists are a work around for the rule that police can’t keep information on people unless there is a reasonable suspicion they have committed a crime.

      Here is the police side of the watch list issue. Take this guy in Orlando. The FBI interviewed him three times. They never developed any probable cause and likely not any reasonable suspicion based on just one of the interviews. But taken together, the three times he came up on their radar certainly created reasonable suspicion and had they been doing their jobs should have made him the subject of a full investigation.

      Without the watch list, the guys doing the second and third interviews never know about the other two interviews, since taken alone they didn’t establish reasonable suspicion. You keep someone on a the watch list because for some reason their name came up in an investigation but there wasn’t enough information to say if they have any involvement. You want keep the little information you do have so that if in say six months their name comes up again or more information is uncovered about them, you have this information to put with it.

      That is how watch lists work and why they exist.

      1. Some former FBI guy is saying that the director ordered them to destroy files on inconclusive terrorist investigations, with the intent being to prevent exactly what you are talking about,

        1. That doesn’t surprise me. They don’t call them famous but incompetent for nothing. I am just saying how it is supposed to work.

      2. John, not sure I’m comfortable saying that both (a) none of the three interviews created reasonable suspicion but (b) the fact that he was interviewed three times created reasonable suspicion.

        Or maybe I’m misreading what you wrote.

        1. Someone claiming that you have made terroristic death threats can be dismissed as racism or bias on the accusers part. But when divergent accusers make the same claim over a period of time, it warrants a more thorough examination.

          Which is even accepting that the first threat was just caused by the accusers racism and not therefor dismissed out of hand.

        2. You shouldn’t be comfortable with that because that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is the information collected in those three interviews put together creates reasonable suspicion.

          For example, you first are interviewed because your buddy Bob blew himself up for the jihad in Syria. We ask you about it and you say you knew Bob but had no idea he was going to do that. No reasonable suspicion.

          Then a year later, CPB picks someone up at the border who is wanted in Europe for helping people get to Syria and join ISIS and we find your name and phone number in his address book. We certainly would like to talk to you about that. I am pretty sure the fact that you knew Bob and told us you had nothing to do with him going to Syria is something we would like to know when we talk to you.

          Then a few months after that, you show up at some meeting with some radical Imam and are seen talking to people we are investigating for supporting ISIS.

          You see how all that builds on itself but taken individually means nothing. If you don’t keep the information, it is never there to build on.

      3. “Here is the police side of the watch list issue. Take this guy in Orlando. The FBI interviewed him three times. They never developed any probable cause and likely not any reasonable suspicion based on just one of the interviews. But taken together, the three times he came up on their radar certainly created reasonable suspicion and had they been doing their jobs should have made him the subject of a full investigation.”

        Which probably would have turned up nothing illegal other than the wife-beating, which isn’t something the FBI could charge him with anyway, and the local cops could probably give a fuck. You can’t prevent every crime.

  29. Folks need to lighten up on the Trump Derangement Syndrome a bit. This kneejerk, “whatever Trump does is evil or wrong” is so friggin childish.

    All I see is a meeting to discuss, not a policy statement or proposal. That is exactly what most of us should want to happen. Politicians discuss with knowledgeable groups to gain the information necessary to make informed decisions.
    If Trump then comes out with a policy, argue against it…criticize him them. But FFS, you can’t criticize him for being a no-nothing and then also criticize when he meets with experts.

    1. Well, this is Trump.

      So even if he comes out with a strong policy statement, he’ll disavow it and deny he ever made it the next day.

      That said, I think the criticism is for his support of the “No fly, no buy” plan, not that he’s meeting with the NRA.

    2. Opposing the violation of people’s Constitutional rights is not a good example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  30. Donald Trump is not a man of ideological principles, conservative or otherwise. He’s a reflexive authoritarian who thinks the answer to virtually every problem is more government involvement, at least and especially if “winners” like himself are in charge. Case in point: Trump is backing a gun control measure fervently supported by Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

    Now, see, you could just as easily have written, “Hillary Clinton is not a person of ideologic principles…she backs a gun control measure fervently supported by Donald Trump.” We know Trump has lots of ideas we don’t agree with. So what? So do the vast majority of persons who’ve ever lived. But that does not mean Trump or anyone else is “a reflexive authoritarian”. He & 99% of people have a mixture of authoritarian & libertarian ideas. All that factors out in deciding whether a candidate is relatively good or bad. There are plenty of things you could ask Trump about that would not be answered by him w a proposal to put a “winner” in charge w more gov’t involvement. (Even some of Clinton’s answers wouldn’t be that.)

    1. The difference is that Trump switched his views, again.

  31. BREAKING: NRA says anyone on terrorism watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed.

    Reuters. Nothing but a tweet so far.

    1. It is not breaking news and it wasn’t in a tweet. It was in their press release.

      The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

      1. Ah, I just saw in it in tweet. Stupid Twitter.

        1. The link to the whole thing is above.

    2. This isn’t really as bad as it sounds, and I believe it has always been their position. They want the FBI alerted, the sale delayed, and “if an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist.”

      They also say, “At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed,” which is actually significantly better than the status quo–and note, to my pleasant shock, not just for Second Amendment purposes. The NRA, though an excellent buffer against its troglodytic membership’s vulnerability to backdoor attacks on the Second Amendment through due process demagoguery, is of course perfectly willing to play to the cheap seats on all other forms of authoritarianism. In this case, though, the cop-boot-licking, Trump-fellating NRA is actually stronger on the civil liberties of suspected Radical Islamic Terrorists than the entire Democratic party on matters that have nothing to do with the right to bear arms. It really has come to this.

      1. This isn’t really as bad as it sounds, and I believe it has always been their position.

        How so? The government shouldn’t be able to interfere with the sales of firearms at all.

        1. I don’t really follow your reasoning. I said it wasn’t as bad as it sounds from the tweet, not that it was ideal. Why would I expect the libertarian ideal from the NRA? They aren’t that kind of organization.

          The fact is that they have not changed their position from what it was before, nor from what the Congressional Republicans had been counterproposing before (presumably with NRA approval) when the Democrats first started pushing watchlist bans. And, to my surprise, they even threw in support for getting Americans off the watchlists in general, which is interesting ground for the NRA and potentially a civil liberties improvement over the status quo.

  32. It’s getting harder and harder to figure what the difference would be, policy wise, between a Trump administration and a Hildebeast administration. I strongly suspect that it won’t matter at all which shithead wins in November. Not. One. Bit.

    1. I’m definitely with you, but I don’t judge too harshly the folks who believe that Trump will essentially take the Republicans’ judicial suggestions as given. I don’t really believe that myself; but I can see believing it, and believing that the difference between that and HRC’s picks is worth more for the long-term health of America than the difference between him and HRC’s governance in every other respect.

      For me, the balance tips decidedly away from Trump when I think about the Republicans with him as their leader. With Democrats in power, Republicans at least pretend to care about liberty and limited government every now and again. Under Trump, it will be worse than ever.

      1. The trouble is, you’re thinking of the Republicans w him as leader. He won’t be a leader. They won’t have a leader. His election will smash the very idea of leadership. Everyone’s going to try to be the next Trump, & many will succeed.

    2. It will matter enormously. If Trump’s elected, it’ll show the world there is no class of persons created to be our rulers. Any one of us can come from any field & assume the presidency of the USA. There’s no magick in political experience.

      Also, it’ll show that you don’t need the 4th Estate on your side to win it, & you can be politically incorrect. Trump’s winning will do more for the relationship between the ruled & rulers than anything else in modern times, including the wave of assassinations. It may not advance individual liberty that much directly (though I suspect it will, more than you think), but indirectly it’ll help enormously over the next century or so.

      1. Trump’s winning will do more for the relationship between the ruled & rulers than anything else in modern times

        That would be awful.

    3. It’s getting harder and harder to figure what the difference would be, policy wise, between a Trump administration and a Hildebeast administration.

      Hildebeast:
      Multiple big government Supreme Court picks means immediate Supreme Court majority for big government.
      Amnesty and Open Borders leads to an immediate and permanent voting majority for Big Government at the presidential level.

      Game Over. We’re fucked immediately and permanently.

      Trump:
      Multiple conservative Supreme Court picks means immediate likely Supreme Court majority for relatively limited government.
      Deportation of illegals and limiting immigration avoids an instant and permanent voting majority for big government.

      The relentless increase of government power is halted and rolled back in some areas by the Supremes for a decade and more, and there is hope for the future while the fight for votes continues.

  33. In California they are trying to create a different list where anyone who knows you can get your guns removed form your possesion and you have to sue the state to get them back. this is the problem with list made by anyone against anything they may not like.
    If someone is so dangerous that they should not be able to fly maybe they should be prosecuted and when convicted put in jail.

    I always worried that Trump wasn’t a True 2A person and here is the proof.

    1. I’d hate to play a board game with him.

  34. How long before Reason readers, militia members and other fringe groups are added to the watchlist? This seems like an exceptionally easy way to implement a de facto gun ban.

    1. Yes it is. And that is why it is a bad idea. Screw the NRA and Trump (if that is what he believes) for thinking otherwise.

      Beyond that, it defeats the entire purpose of having a watch list. You have a watch list so you can watch people who think might be terrorists but don’t know. Ban people on watch lists from buying guns legally and they will buy them illegally without law enforcement knowing it. Better to let them buy guns legally. In fact you hope they do because that hopefully will give law enforcement a reason to take another look at someone before they do any harm.

  35. Just thought I’d check in and see if anything around here has changed. Nope? Ok. You boys carry on.

  36. I think Trump realizes he is gonna loose on this one. It is thought that a terrorist attack would help Trump. But it is just the opposite if the main weapon used in the attack is a firearm. If this was a bombing, then it probably will help him. But any attack with a gun will help Clinton as it is a call for more gun control and, unfortunately, this is getting traction. Banning Muslims is not. SO he better get on some kind of gun control bandwagon that the NRA and other Republicans can agree with.

  37. Linking the no-fly list to the second amendment?

    It could have a “healthy” effect on the no-fly list.

  38. No fly, no guns. No way.
    The no-fly list are notoriously inaccurate. They have denied flights to a 3 year old but not his parents. They won’t tell you if you are on the list, or why.
    One woman fought in court for several years to get off the list. It turns out someone had checked off the wrong box on a form. Who made the error? They would not say.
    Getting on one of the lists can kill a career in an instant and there is no rational way to get off them.

  39. No Fly List and Terror Watch List violate the 5th and would the 2nd Amendments..
    The fact that his suggestion that anyone on the No-Fly list should be made to surrender their weapons was as unconstitutional as it gets. Of course, that has never been a deterrent to Barack Obama. His absolute disregard for the Constitution is so widely documented it barely justifies recognition. But, just as an exercise, I would like to point out that the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is patently unconstitutional, and that is not who we are.
    http://christianmerc.blogspot……e-are.html

  40. Denying the right to travel guns to people on the no-fly list is an obvious violation of due process that, if allowed to stand, could easily imperil other rights.

    It’s an odd story. Complaints about using the no fly list to restrict gun purchases, while ignoring the no-fly list infringement on freedom of movement.

    Once you grant the premise of the no-fly list, making it a no-gun list is a logical application of the list. Too dangerous to step on a plane, too dangerous to have guns.

  41. This all makes perfect sense. Who wants potential terrorists to get guns?

    But then I remember when Hillary compared NRA members to Iranians (i.e., a thinly veiled hint at terrorism), that the New York Daily News called for the U.S. State Department to designate the National Rifle Association (NRA) a “terrorist organization”, that WAPO columnists says that “NRA chief Wayne LaPierre should be just a few frequent-flier miles short of a free ticket to Gitmo right about now.”

    Because these watch lists have no due process, are secret, and effectively cannot be challenged, it is not hard to imaging a Pres. Hillary from just adding all NRA members, all concealed carry permit holders, and anyone who ever purchased an AR-15 to the list. Because she could and would. Millions of good, law-abiding people stripped of their Constitutional rights by executive fiat?

  42. But there are a number of other things we can use the terrorist watch list for. After all, if they are too dangerous to be allowed to purchase firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to do many other things:

    Immediately revoke any visa or green card for people on the list

    Immediately seize and deport any non-citizens on the list

    Deny any welfare benefits to people on the list (including SS, SSDI, foodstamps)

    Prevent people on the list from renting vehicles (rental vans have been used as bombs)

    Revoke driver’s licenses of people on the list (hard to lug assault weapons on the bus)

    People on the list should not be allowed to vote (why should terrorists get a vote?!)

    If we’re gonna use secret lists for one thing, using them for a lot of things must be better! If we’re gonna deny one Constitutionally-protected right using secret lists, the rest of the Constitutionally-protected rights cannot be far behind…

  43. It seems that most people are forgetting the “Precautionary Principle”.

    If there is even a remote chance of a tragedy, we must do what ever it takes to prevent it. Since there is a possibility, however small, that someone on a watch list will commit mass murder we feel it is necessary to limit their ability to travel and/or purchase weapons. That’s not nearly enough. They can still purchase poisons or fireworks. They can still blow up buses. The criminal possibilities are endless.

    Therefore, there is only one sane course of action. When people are put on these secret lists they must be liquidated. There are, perhaps, 100,000 people on such lists. If it will save just one life isn’t it worth it to kill 100,000 people?

  44. Unfortunately libertarians are mostly alone in worrying about the abuse of watchlists.

    Obviously internet polling isn’t reliable on this, but with 7.4 million votes in on ISideWith, banning gun purchases by no-fly list members has 90% approval rating among Dems, 79% approval with Republicans, 80% with Greens and Socialists, and even 75% with the people who got matched with the Constitution party. Even has 40% approval among the site’s definition of libertarians.

  45. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

    ======> http://www.Today70.com

  46. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  47. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  48. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  49. the issue of whether people should lose their rights because the government merely suspects them of doing something wrong

    or, someone merely targeted because that individual holds to a political or moral or ethical position the government does not endorse……. if you don’t think this can happen, go and find/read the list of organisations targetted by the IRS for harrassment, denial of legitimate status for tax purposes, and in some cases forced to close or not open.

    Or, the list of entities targetted by banks, often pressured by BATF, to refuse to do business with certain “categories” of trade deemed “dangerous”, “risky”, or “undesired” by FedGov…. the same charade used to deny legal marijuana growers access to banking services was also used to deny the same access to firearms dealers and manufacturers operating totally within the law.

    How many on that “watch list” or the “no fly” list are there because someone in government have a score to settlle, a personal grudge to beat, or a given political position to promote/demote?

    Clean up these two lists to the point they ONLY contain those legitimately a threat, then maybe… but STILL< due process cannot be denied for those who believe they are on the list wrongly.

    1. This proposal (no fly no buy, etc) brings strongly to mind the General Warrants issued by the British Crown in the time leading up to our throwing off George Three’s yoke of tyranny. If pressed, I have little doubt a similar yoke of tyranny being imposed on we Yanks will result in a similar response to the tyrants so imposing their corruption upon the rest of us, yet somehow always “magically” exempting themselves.

  50. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  51. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  52. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

  53. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.