Presidential Debate

Trump and Clinton Declare (Again) Support for Denying Guns Based on Gov't Suspicion

'No fly, no buy' rears its unconstitutional head at the debate.


Rick Wilking/EPA/Newscom

Tonight's first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was a massive reminder that they're both on the same page on some of the worst policies. In the law-and-order section arguing over policies on fighting crime, Hillary Clinton declared her support for denying citizens their Second Amendment right to purchase arms if they are placed on government "watchlists" for being suspected of crimes or involvement in terrorism.

Not charged. Not arrested. Merely placed on lists. Unfortunately, Donald Trump declared his agreement with Clinton. Neither of them seem to hold either the Second Amendment, enshrining the right to bear arms, or the Fifth Amendment, requiring due process before taking away those gun rights.

This isn't new, unfortunately. When Democrats raised the idea of using federal government watchlists to deny people the right to own guns, it drew the attention of many conservatives and libertarians. And it created a new push to take a closer look at how these watchlists and no-fly lists actually worked. The opaque and bureaucratic system has previously been operating with very little oversight. If you ended up on a watchlist, the "due process" involved was to send a letter to the government begging to be removed from the list and trying to prove that there's no reason to be suspected of any criminal activity.

The utter lack of actual due process in the system prompted a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing several people on no-fly lists, and they (and the experiences of a scholar who was put on the no-fly list due to a clerical error) have prompted the government to provide a small measure of transparency. But it's not nearly enough, and the ACLU is continuing to fight to add some real due process for people placed on the list.

The ACLU submitted a letter opposing a failed Congressional attempt to craft a law blocking gun ownership from those on watchlists. Clinton's response makes it clear that she will want to see it return if she is elected president. Unfortunately, it looks like Trump has the same idea.

NEXT: Donald Trump Said Stop and Frisk Wasn't Unconstitutional. It Was.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Canadian County Deputy Barrett Storm

      I refuse to believe that this isn’t viral marketing for the next Marvel film.

      1. I posted this in the last thread and my first thought was that the Beretta people must be desperate to advertise their Storm pistol series.

        1. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h..Go to this website and click tech tab to start your work.Visit this web…

      2. “I refuse to believe that this isn’t viral marketing for the next Marvel film.”

        Well, let’s see, there’s the one who’s actually named Storm, and there’s the one who lights himself on fire, and the one who you can’t see.

        So where will the cop fit in?

          1. Try to keep up, his name is Grimm.

            You really need to prep more if you’re going to be in the next Presidential debate.

        1. I notice that none of these cosplayers is actually invisible.

  1. ” the experiences of a scholar who was put on the no-fly list due to a clerical error”

    Professor Tuttle?

  2. What I read: Scoot Shakkfurd agrees with Hillary and Trump that a secret list should deprive you of your rights.

    1. Seems like they’re not familiar with that other part of the 5th Amendment:

      No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

      1. And in case it isn’t clear, guns are property and the right to travel is part of our liberty.

  3. If only there were another choice?

    1. And if only his VP didn’t favor banning assault weapons.

      1. Becuz the VP casts the deciding vote in the Senate if there’s a tie.

        1. Great job with the lipstick, but that pig could use some rouge as well.

          1. Oh, look, Tulpa changed his handle again.

      2. Oh well, I guess we’re stuck with more wars and more spying and more spending on entitlements and everything else then. We’ll have to pass on Johnson and his 20 percent budget reduction because his VP is almost as bad as Clinton and Trump on some issues.

        1. You’re going to have to pass on whatever Johnson’s presidency would have done regardless, because he’s a terrible campaigner and can’t win. His center-left statist positions are just icing on the cake.

          1. Not to mention that even if elected, he’s a squish who gives every indication of folding faster and more often than a gay mexican poolboy.

  4. I suspect that in actuality, the policies these two would enact are eerily close to each other’s.

    They’re both corrupt centrists who lie about everything and will grow the government while wiping their ass with the Constitution.

    1. Well that makes me feel better.

    2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  5. Hillary didn’t only want to deny gun purchases to people on watch lists.

    She also wanted to ban “military style” weapons.

    Did Donald say anything like that?

    1. No, he mostly just babbled and drooled.

    2. If the gun grabbers have no fly – no buy then they don’t need an assault weapons ban.

      1. What do you mean?

        If you’re not on the list, you can still buy an AR-15.

        That’s a whole lot better than Hillary arbitrarily deciding that you can’t buy certain guns–regardless of whether you’re on a watch list.

        1. No, you don’t get it. Every gun owner will be on the list.

          1. Does the term “slippery slope” mean anything to you?

            1. It means a great deal to me. I fail to see what it has to do with this issue though.

              1. Because there’s a no-fly list doesn’t mean people will be put on it unnecessarily. You have to provide evidence for that.

                Because people have been put on it unnecessarily in the past, doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be put on it unnecessarily in the future.

                If you provide persuasive evidence that some people likely will be put on the list unnecessarily in the future, that doesn’t mean all gun owners will eventually be put on the no-fly list unnecessarily.

                And if you assume that because they’ll start refusing to let people buy guns for being on the no-fly list, that means everyone who wants to buy a gun or owns a gun will be put on the no-fly list, then you’re engaging in a slippery slope fallacy.

                1. The slippery slope is a fallacy in deductive logic, but in actual human affairs it’s a tautology.

                  You’re demanding proof that government will abuse arbitrary power exercised in secret with no practical redress? Please.

                  1. “Every gun owner will be on the list.”

                    That’s your statement.

                    You made it.

                    Not me.

                    1. Yes, I did. Do you dispute that that’s possible under NFNB?

                      If not, do you dispute that govt will exploit that possibility?

                    2. You gotta really grok that slippery slope.

                      Like muscle memory.

                      People are gonna exploit it if you don’t really grok that slippery slope.

                      And if you’re pro-Second Amendment or libertarian, I want you to win all of those arguments.

                    3. Oh, shut the fuck up, Ken. Shrieking, “SLIPPERY SLOPE!” every time somebody correctly points out the limitless ambitions of gun controllers and the propensity of government to abuse power whenever it can get away with it doesn’t help anybody win arguments. It just identifies you as a pointless pedantic dick trying, and failing, to sound smart in case anybody’s marking points on some Formal Logic Scoreboard.

                      Free clue: they’re not, and you’re a moron for thinking this matters.

                2. Regardless, there is no due process in creating the various terrorist watch lists, which makes it unconstitutional as a reason to take away the right to own guns. Every other reason (felony conviction, dishonorable discharge from the military,involuntary committment to a mental hospital) that can prohibit a person from owning guns involves due process.

    3. If Congress put such a bill on his desk, do you think he wouldn’t sign?

      I’m skeptical.

      1. The universe trends towards entropy. Making things happen requires active effort.

        Hillary will actively seek laws and Supreme Court justices to attack our Second Amendment rights.

        Even IF IF IF Donald Trump would sign a bill if it got on his desk, that would still put him head and shoulders above Hillary Clinton actively working against our rights.

        And I’m not convinced The Donald would sign a gun control bill that went across his desk.

        If Donald Trump somehow wins the White House in spite of his performance tonight, I expect he’ll face a number of challengers for the nomination four years from now. There’s nothing stopping other Republicans from challenging him, and if screws Republicans over on gun rights, I think that’s an important issue to a lot of Republicans, and they’re likely to make him pay for screwing them in the primaries.

        He’ll be perfectly aware of that throughout his first four years in office.

      2. To be fair, in 2004 GWB said he would have signed an assault weapons ban if Congress passed it.

        1. That’s not surprising, and it’s not as if I’m defending W (or the mainstream Rs who ran for the nom) here.

  6. After some early assertiveness he and the NRA tried to play down their differences. But now, after months of their tonguing his ass, he goes all in on the Democrat line harder than ever.
    This is very, very bad. It was always obvious that a Trump presidency was going to be a fiasco for this frontier of the gun control debate (in fact, any Republican presidency was going to be bad, because it would mean Cornyn and Cornyn is bad). But now Trump has probably moved the debate without even leading the party from the White House. It’s hard to think that a Hillary presidency will not at least get Collins, if the Dems really want it.
    Guess it’s just us and the ACLU, fellas. The NRA was only kind of with us anyway; now it’s worse than we ever thought.

    1. The NRA hasn’t been consistently against denying gun purchases to people that have been diagnosed with depression or anxiety, etc. either.

      Again, Hillary said she wanted to ban “military style” weapons entirely.

      If Donald Trump’s position is other than that, then his position is not the same as Hillary’s.

      1. The article was specifically wrt the No Fly List. That is what my “this frontier of the gun control debate” referred to.

      2. Both of their positions are terrible enough not to vote for so what does it matter if one is slightly worse?

        1. Slightly?

          You think Hillary imagining herself free to violate our Second Amendment rights by her own arbitrary preferences is “slightly” better than Trump?

          Is being hit with a spit-wad only slightly better than being hit over the head with an aluminum bat?

          1. If you vote for Trump you don’t support the 2nd Amendment, full stop. His position is atrocious and Hillary’s is even more so.

            1. If you vote for Hillary, you actively oppose our Second Amendment rights.

              If you vote for Trump, you may be choosing the better of two alternatives.

              1. If you vote for Trump, you may be choosing the better of two alternatives.

                There aren’t only two choices, and third parties don’t need to outright win to make a difference. But if someone can only see what is directly in front of them, I understand how they would arrive at this conclusion. Anyone who votes for either candidate will have played a small role in aiding a staunch authoritarian.

            2. I fucking hate Trump, but it’s pretty clear he is not making the promises to shred the 2A that Hillary is. People have a wide variety of voting ethoses (as appropriate for an action that is largely symbolic), and forcing a choice between the lesser of two evils is certainly a part of many of them.
              Saying you don’t support the 2A for voting Trump is not only presumptuous (I wouldn’t even say that about a Hillary voter), but makes about as much sense as saying you’re not pro-life if you voted McCain over Obama.

              1. I fucking hate Trump, but it’s pretty clear he is not making the promises to shred the 2A that Hillary is.

                He’s not quite as emphatic about them, but he does take essentially the same position.

                NFNB is the end of gun rights in this country. Period.

              2. I stand by what I said and you are responsible for the consequences of your vote. He supports keeping guns from people on secret lists that are incredibly difficult to get off of and he supports unconstitutional “random” searches of people on the streets looking for their guns. And that’s only what he said in one debate.

                And Ken, there are more than two alternatives, including abstaining if you don’t like Johnson either.

                1. I’d love to believe that.

                  Realistically, the person making appointments to the Supreme Court and the person signing legislation and executive orders will be either Hillary or Trump.

                  I won’t vote for Trump.

                  But if my primary concern were the Second Amendment, I’d be awful tempted.

                  Voting for Johnson will show the Republicans which way they should go if they want to win next time. And that is important.

                  If Hillary wins the White House, I sure hope the pro-Second Amendment GOP keeps the Senate.

        2. Ken’s new weight loss plan is to get his cardio by carrying Donald’s water.

          Gotta say it’s working you’ll be ready for bikini season 2017!

      3. The NRA is obviously not only not a libertarian organization, but not even a principled pro-2A one either. I respect their pragmatism. The Hughes Amendment compromise, for example, got us a lot of concessions at a time when we were weaker, and every concession at least seals off a chance for fearmongering on their part and a chance for us to point to “gun laws already on the books.”
        The NRA has actually been great about standing up to certain things, like the Collins compromise, anti-black and -immigrant and -pothead fearmongering, strengthening Lautenberg to an absurd degree, denying to suspected “terrorist” and “thug” and “nutjob” baddies, and so forth that their rank-and-file would have been not only willing but often eager in their “conservatism” to embrace, killing the 2A in a death of a thousand other Constitutional cuts. The bubbas trust the NRA, and the NRA protects the 2A in ways the bubbas are too dumb to do.
        But their ability to do so may not be limitless, and in catering to the bubbas with shit like choosing a law-and-order, grab-your-guns-cause-everything-is-falling-apart, rather than a pro-liberty, we-can-have-guns -cause-everything’s-been-chill-with-them, argument, they are playing with fire in the present and ruining their future in a country where angry white guys will get fewer and further between.

        1. I know they’re not libertarian, but they see the difference between denying people guns on a list and banning certain weapons, too.

          One if far worse than the other.

          1. I agree that one is worse than the other…. the one that allows the govt to prevent anybody it wants from buying any gun.

          2. You haven’t been saying anything here I’d every disagree with. Don’t know if you know that and are agreeing with me, or whether you think I’ve been saying something I haven’t.
            If I were in charge of the NRA, I think I would have hugged Trump a bit less tightly; and I’d definitely start weaning myself off the law-and-order bubbas to plan for the survival of the 2A in tomorrow’s diverse America. But to some extent, I’m just expressing pessimism about what is, rather than suggesting a way they might influence it.

          3. Considering there is no set criteria to put people on the lists, that has the potential to be far worse. Basically speaking, get on the bad side of Homeland Security, and you can end up on the list.

    2. Not sure if the ACLU considers the 2nd an ACL, anymore.

      1. They most certainly do not. But they don’t have to. They consider the 5th to be one.
        Obviously they are hardly always this principled, but I am seriously impressed this time. They stand utterly and defiantly alone against not only nearly every one of their fellow travelers, but against nearly every “staunch 2A defender” except hardcore libertarians.

  7. Johnson, during the debate, tweeted a reminder that Congresspeople had been on the No Fly List.

    But he didn’t point out that Trump was a sellout.

    1. +1 and trumpf and klinton are so much alike they should both be republican candidates

  8. “If you’re too dangerous to fly, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun vote.”


  9. I feel sorry for the Trump supporters I argue with at the gun shop. This is going to be hard to spin.

  10. I actually agree that “if you’re too dangerous to fly, you’re too dangerous to own a gun” but vacuously. We shouldn’t be considering people “too dangerous to fly” in the first place.

    1. If govt thinks I’m “too dangerous to fly,” they can prove it in court.

      1. Yeah, the no fly list makes no sense to me.

        I mean, we all have to go through ridiculous scans and checks at the airport to make sure we aren’t carrying anything potentially dangerous on board. The no-fly list seems to indicate that some people could bring down or hijack a plane even without those dangerous items. But doesn’t that imply that the TSA scans are worthless to begin with?

        1. Well, they are. I think it’s 95% of the stuff the FBI tries to get through airport security as a test actually gets through.

  11. The ACLU sent a letter supporting the right side of an issue? That should be a headline in itself.

    1. Not really. The ACLU is pretty hardline about due process being required to take away rights. They don’t care about the 2nd Amendment, but they are pretty good about the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments.

  12. Tonight’s first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was a massive reminder that they’re both on the same page on some of the worst policies.

    Which, of course, can be said about any pair of major party candidates from any presidential election in the past.

  13. The funniest thing for me was that Clinton brought this up RIGHT AFTER she bitched at Trump for being racist by supporting stop-and-frisk, because stop-and-frisk causes racial profiling.

    She condemned Trump for supporting racial profiling right before moving on to supporting racial profiling!! A beautiful moment.

  14. My Uncle Isaac got Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG by working part time off of a computer.
    see more at———–>>>

  15. both tyrants want a police state like communist russia, its like watching stalin vs hitler. keep voting R and D and see where it keeps leading

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.