Trump Backs Democrats’ No-Fly List Gun Ban

 

On Twitter Wednesday morning, Donald Trump endorsed the Senate Democrats’ plan to ban people on the “no fly” list from purchasing guns.

During the primaries, the presumptive GOP nominee repeatedly promised to defend Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. On his campaign website Trump states, “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”

Now Trump has reversed himself and backs a plan by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to prevent people who are listed on the shadowy “no fly” list from purchasing any firearms.

Since Senate Democrats first introduced this plan, the NRA has strongly rejected it. “Under the current system, law enforcement is notified every time a person on the list attempts to purchase a firearm,” NRA Director of Public Affairs Jennifer Baker said shortly after the terror attacks in Paris. “Law Enforcement then makes a case by case decision on the appropriate follow-up for each circumstance.”

She added, “the NRA’s only objective is to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process. It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.”

The Orlando terror attack has again inspired President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats to push this Trojan horse for gun control. Despite his repeated promises to defend the Second Amendment, Donald Trump agrees with them.

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 119 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  1. Austin Murrey Inactive

    Solid gold dumpster fire.

    • #1
    • June 15, 2016, at 8:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Mister D Member

    Out: “Innocent until proven guilty.”

    In: “Innocent until placed on a list.”

    • #2
    • June 15, 2016, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Vance Richards Member

    That is the kind of thing that doesn’t sound extreme at first, but then you realize that there is no due process or set standard in determining who gets on these lists. And if the IRS can be used to attack people who disagree with you politically, why should we assume that these watch lists are not political as well?

    • #3
    • June 15, 2016, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Nyadnar17 Inactive

    I feel like no matter how low I set the bar…..

    • #4
    • June 15, 2016, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Mister D Member

    Austin Murrey:Solid gold dumpster fire.

    It’s Trump – at best the dumpster is gold plated.

    • #5
    • June 15, 2016, at 8:53 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Mister D Member

    Nyadnar17:I feel like no matter how low I set the bar…..

    But you have to get on the Trump Train now, or be left behind when it becomes a burning mangled wreck in November.

    • #6
    • June 15, 2016, at 8:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Heather Champion Member

    And he’s completely unaware of any of this.

    • #7
    • June 15, 2016, at 8:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Profile Photo Member

    “[Mitch] McConnell says he MIGHT be ‘open’ to ‘serious suggestions’ on new gun control measures after meeting with Comey….”

    • #8
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:01 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Basil Fawlty Member

    Give him some time.

    • #9
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Hercules Rockefeller Inactive

    Why wasn’t everyone as hot and bothered over McConnell saying this yesterday?

    • #10
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Lazy_Millennial Member

    The Wounded Knee massacre started when the cavalry was confiscating guns. MLK was both investigated by the FBI and denied a concealed carry permit by his county sheriff. This would be an excellent opportunity for the Republican nominee to court minority support by mentioning our country’s history with minorities and gun control. Sadly, I don’t think the Republican nominee knows much history.

    • #11
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Marion Evans Inactive

    Does the law work in reverse? In other words, if you are suspected of wanting to buy a gun, do they put you on the no fly list? Sounds like a joke, but this is how these types of laws go wrong.

    So now no gun for you. And oh you will be driving New York to LA on your next business trip.

    • #12
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    Lol remember he’s going to better than Hilary on guns…or judges…or something.

    • #13
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Israel P. Inactive

    This is a guaranteed formula for abuse. Political, but not only.

    It probably won’t even be used much against the actual bad guys.

    • #14
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Joseph Stanko Member

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: Despite his repeated promises to defend the Second Amendment, Donald Trump agrees with them.

    Is this surprising? He was for gun control before he was against it, before he decided to run for president as a Republican.

    • #15
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    I can’t wait for the Trump “We Need Illegals to Mow Grass at Golf Clubs” Act.

    • #16
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Kevin Creighton Contributor

    The NRA has responded with “Bless your heart, Donald Trump.”

    Look for the walk-back from Trump in 3…2…1…

    • #17
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Hypatia Inactive

    This is what I like about Trump:

    he doesn’t worship the scared cows in either pasture. Stop Planned Parenthood from doing abortions, but don’t defund them, because they do provide gyn care to many women. Let people pee wherever they want. Get control of immigration, but don’t necessarily keep out the really smart people: instead, pay them enough so they have to compete with citizens for those good jobs. And now, he says he will “meet with” the NRA (He didn’t state a position) on the no-fly list and guns.

    I mean–is there anybody out there who didn’t entertain the fleeting thought, at least, that someone with ties to known terrorists whom FBI interviewed three times, maybe shouldn’t get a gun so easily?

    Come on!

    I’m GOP and an NRA member, but I won’t be dragooned into denying that this occurred to me.

    Of course, from what we’re told about Omar’s employment, which isn’t much, it looks to me like even if private gun ownership were illegal in this country, he woulda had one, because he worked for a company under contract to DHS! To me the more pressing question here us: why was somebody on the FBI no-fly list working for DHS?

    i posted about DHS’ catch and release policy a few days ago. American Thinker has an article revealing that DHS contracts with private multi-national foreign corps, like Omar’s employer, to pick up non-Hispanic illegal entrants who have crossed our border, and–wait for it:

    transport them in vans to the interior of our country, and release them. Without even the pretense of setting a court date or keeping track of where they go.

    Was that Omar’s job, driving one of those vans? It could have been. And given that, I think the fact that he wasn’t on DHS’ no-hire list is far more serious than the fact that he wasn’t on the national no-gun database. I think Prez Omega’s squeaky-voiced anger should have been directed toward his own agency.

    But all that said,:

    I do see why Trump would want to consider the question–he’s smart to steal the Dems’ thunder by this tweet!

    …and I’m sure he’ll get around to the point I’m raising. At any rate, I’m going to write his campaign about it! Because I think he’s the only candidate who even might make an issue of it. And as I said:

    This is what I like about Trump.

    • #18
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:23 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Hammer, The Member

    I love it.

    This is government. It doesn’t matter, quite frankly, whether we have republicans or democrats, or even whether we have “the king of outsiders” in Trump. Government will always react to heightened emotions by writing new laws designed to “have done something” had they been implemented previously, regardless of the fact that they will have no positive impact. It’s government sugar-pills, except if instead of sugar pills it was massive regulatory burden that trampled liberty and stifled economic growth… all while making people feel virtuous.

    I used to work for the Bureau of Land Management doing fire fighting. Every time there was a death (strange occurrence when you’ve got hundreds of people in trucks and helicopters and planes working with massive fires!), we would see new trainings and guidelines and rules. Every morning was spent drilling and reciting these things. Because “hey, this is dangerous work, use common sense” doesn’t work… that allows for human error.

    Of course, given the track record of government work (I currently work closely with DSHS, which is maybe the most incompetent organization in existence), I don’t think it is about success. It is about liability, perhaps? Maybe it is simply about votes, because people are so amazingly stupid, you can boast about legislation during your stump speech, and with today’s media, the chances of anyone pointing out your failures are virtually nil.

    • #19
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:25 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Mendel Member

    Nothing new under the sun here.

    If/when Trump starts taking too much heat from his own base over this, he’ll change the tweet and deny this ever happened.

    His die-hard supporters will point out that nowhere did he actually say he was supporting a ban on selling guns to people on the no fly list – maybe he just wanted to “talk to the NRA” about the topic to tell them what a bad idea it was!

    And this will just be added to the pile of did he/didn’t he grievances for people like us to rehash endlessly until November…

    • #20
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:30 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. livingtheLoneStarlife Inactive

    Hypatia: he’s smart to steal the Dems’ thunder by this tweet!

    That’s it! Stealing the Democrat thunder by offering exactly what Democrats want. Because he’s smart, and he fights and….

    Sorry, I started laughing too hard to finish.

    Throw out the 5th Amendment so we can severely dilute the 2nd Amendment. That’s the answer.

    • #21
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. PHenry Member

    I’m just a bit confused. Is it the no fly list you object to, or using it to stop gun purchases? If the no fly list is arbitrarily or inaccurately administered, should that fact not be included in this debate over constitutional rights?

    I mean, in many ways being prevented from air travel is as unconstitutional as being prevented from purchasing a weapon. So, if truly the no fly list is rife with innocent people being denied the basic right to travel, then that should be as outrageous as suggesting it also be used in gun purchases.

    Either the list is a valid list of people who can’t be trusted on airplanes, in which case it seems counter-intuitive that they should be allowed to purchase weapons, or the list itself is so questionable as to merit abolishion?

    • #22
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. BrentB67 Inactive

    Hercules Rockefeller:Why wasn’t everyone as hot and bothered over McConnell saying this yesterday?

    According to center right he is a conservative and fights against the Obama agenda.

    • #23
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Hypatia Inactive

    Mendel:Nothing new under the sun here.

    If/when Trump starts taking too much heat from his own base over this, he’ll change the tweet and deny this ever happened.

    His die-hard supporters will point out that nowhere did he actually say he was supporting a ban on selling guns to people on the no fly list – maybe he just wanted to “talk to the NRA” about the topic to tell them what a bad idea it was!

    And this will just be added to the pile of did he/didn’t he grievances for people like us to rehash endlessly until November…

    Actually, that is what this article says, and what Trumps tweet says:that he’s meeting with them.

    As I said in my comment 18 above, I think he’s very smart to pre-empt the Dems’ inevitable cry:”Republicans want terrorists to have guns!”

    And if he dies end up sticking with the NRA position, it’ll be because he’s educated himself, or been educated by NRA, as to all the excellent arguments on their side, as ably expressed in comments here.

    • #24
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:39 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. Mark Wilson Member

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:On Twitter Wednesday morning, Donald Trump endorsed the Senate Democrats’ plan to ban people on the “no fly” list from purchasing guns.

    Popehat wrote about this last December:

    Last night the President of the United States — the President of the United States — suggested that people should be deprived of Second Amendment rights if the government, using secret criteria, in a secret process using secret facts, puts them onto a list that is almost entirely free of due process or judicial review. Because we’re afraid, because they could be dangerous was his only justification; he didn’t engage the due process issue at all.

    • #25
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. BrentB67 Inactive

    Is there a link to another quote from Trump?

    The tweet says he is going to meet with the NRA and doesn’t outline a position or endorse Shumer’s position.

    How is that tweet an endorsement of preventing people on the no fly list from buying guns? I assume there is more and I am just missing it.

    • #26
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. Lazy_Millennial Member

    PHenry:I’m just a bit confused. Is it the no fly list you object to, or using it to stop gun purchases? If the no fly list is arbitrarily or inaccurately administered, should that fact not be included in this debate over constitutional rights?

    I mean, in many ways being prevented from air travel is as unconstitutional as being prevented from purchasing a weapon. So, if truly the no fly list is rife with innocent people being denied the basic right to travel, then that should be as outrageous as suggesting it also be used in gun purchases.

    Either the list is a valid list of people who can’t be trusted on airplanes, in which case it seems counter-intuitive that they should be allowed to purchase weapons, or the list itself is so questionable as to merit abolishion?

    The list is quite questionable and desperately needs a way for citizens to quickly appeal being put on the list. And air travel isn’t explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights

    • #27
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:47 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. Hammer, The Member

    PHenry: I mean, in many ways being prevented from air travel is as unconstitutional as being prevented from purchasing a weapon.

    … but it’s not.

    Owning a weapon is a constitutionally protected right. Flying is not.

    Now, I’d argue that this isn’t how the constitution is designed to work, and I’d be right. But we’re talking about the law as it exists, not as it should exist.

    • #28
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:48 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Hypatia Inactive

    livingthehighlife:

    Hypatia: he’s smart to steal the Dems’ thunder by this tweet!

    That’s it! Stealing the Democrat thunder by offering exactly what Democrats want. Because he’s smart, and he fights and….

    Sorry, I started laughing too hard to finish.

    Throw out the 5th Amendment so we can severely dilute the 2nd Amendment. That’s the answer.

    Not sure what part of the 5th you’re referring to. But I’ll just say again, I’m a Republican, and a gun owner, and I DON’T want terrorists to have guns. I appreciate Trump clarifying that position.

    It may be an unnecessary violation of due process to deny people the right to buy ’em based on FBI’s list. Or not, depending on what you have to do to get on that list. I’m open to educating myself further about that–and so is Trump.

    See PHenry’s excellent comment 22. Please!!!

    • #29
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Hypatia Inactive

    RyanM:

    PHenry: I mean, in many ways being prevented from air travel is as unconstitutional as being prevented from purchasing a weapon.

    … but it’s not.

    Owning a weapon is a constitutionally protected right. Flying is not.

    Now, I’d argue that this isn’t how the constitution is designed to work, and I’d be right. But we’re talking about the law as it exists, not as it should exist.

    The ” right to travel” is a constitutional right.

    • #30
    • June 15, 2016, at 9:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4