Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.
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.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2016
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.
Published in Guns
My recollection is that the right to travel was central to some of the Reconstruction era cases in which blacks were restricted from moving out of state by laws forbidding debtors from leaving. And then, (this is from memory) in a more recent case called Dunn v. Blumstein the court referred to the right in holding that a person who moves into a new state should be allowed to vote immediately, otherwise his right to travel and his right to vote must be traded off.
Of course, this has nothing to do with getting on airplanes.
Its so maddening that our government refuses serious vetting of ‘refugees’.* They’d like to allow anybody in, and tell us they’re going to protect us by removing the long-standing rights of law abiding citizens!
*BYW, experts says its impossible to vet ‘refugees’ from regions where good records on people’s history are not kept. Our country has limited immigration from sectors and counties in its past – there is not a thing wrong with doing it now.
it is pipe-dreaming, but it isn’t heresy.
It sounds like they are adding the demand for more due process before denial, so it may mean a delay for some.
anyone on the terrorism watch list who attempts to purchase a gun should have the sale delayed and be investigated by the FBI.
I am having a hard time opposing that, but it doesn’t relieve the need to tighten the standards for being on the no fly list.
Does that help?
Thank you for pointing this out. Here is a summary of the NRA statement:
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.
I agree with all of that…
Stop being reasonable. You’ll develop a bad rep, like John Travolta in Grease.
No, see, I think the right to privacy is pretty explicit in “rights reserved to the people”. I wanted to recognize PHenry’s very intelligent contributions. But the right to travel doesn’t need to be magically discovered. It’s quite venerable and well-established law.
anyway I think it’s just the opposite of what you said re: gov’t possesses unlimited authority,absent positive rights. On the contrary, unless the Constitution explicitly confers a power on fed or state gov’t, it does not exist–and UN enumerated powers are reserved to the states or –The People!
thank you both, I’m overwhelmed…
Yes I would!
As I’ve said here about 4 times now, we can’t let the Dems say: “all Republicans want terrorists to be able to get guns! They’re so inflexible they wont even consider whether people the FBI is watching should be restricted!”
Trimp’s meeting on the issue blunts that axe–and does absolutely no practical harm to anyone’s rights. You gotta win the election if you want to do anything.
Woah! What the heck?! Any time we go to “prior Federal approval” for activities, we’re on dangerous ground. Absolutely, positively no way.
Awe, PHenry, you had me at the Alfred E. Newman photo. “What, me worry?” Indeed!
I was disappointed when the Ricochet icon process cut off the title, it says ‘What me worry’ across the top. I often wonder how many people recognize Alfred E. Newman these days… Thanks!
Its funny that this meeting between drumpf and the NRA was supposed to have occurred 6 hours ago and the NRA tweeted their position 3 hours ago and yet drumpf has not tweeted anything in response. His handlers must be trying to triangulate the most politically advantageous tweet to this issue since his leftist tendencies were denied by the NRA it appears.
True. Carter banned people from Iran during the Hostage Crisis. This is not a matter of Constitutional law, except that the constitution provides the fed gov’t is to have absolute discretion to determine who may enter.
Foreigners outside our jurisdiction do not have rights under our Constitution. That may be hard for the world to grasp, since they’re so used to demanding everything from us and blaming everything on us. But it is the law.
It is not crazy nor unprecedented to prohibit all entry of people from certain regions. Which is what Trump said on Monday.
i don’t understand why we are supposed to uncritically and unreservedly believe Muslims who say they mean us no harm–but we are NOT supposed to believe the very brave ( courage being a morally neutral virtue) ISIS fighters who brag that they are smuggling their operatives in as refugees, who proclaim that their goal is to fly the black flag of ISIS over our Capitol. Those warriors are willing to fight and die for their faith. Isn’t it the ultimate condescension, the quintessential “cultural insensitivity”, if we don’t take them at their word?
Expect many leftward reversals from Trump in the coming months, and if he wins the presidency, the coming years.
OMG!! That would make him … just like every other politician since Pericles
Not really. The Main Feed’s thumb is down on the #NeverTrump side of the scale so heavily that it is close to being an auxillary of the Clinton campaign. A very simple filter can be applied to almost every question:
Which would deal more effectively with [the question]
A Clinton Administration?
or
A Trump Administration?
I agree with Victor Davis Hanson who suggested recently that it would be beneficial if for every Trump flagellating piece a conservative site runs, it also ran a Clinton flagellating piece.
Why the demand for “equal time”? We’re not here to be cheerleaders for the GOP nominee. We’re here to have conversations about conservative issues. There’s really not much to discuss about Hillary Clinton, we all know she’s anti-conservative on almost every issue. We are trying to hash out what Trump believes and whether we should agree with him.
That could be on his next line of hats: “Trump: Just like every other politician since Pericles.”
Or how about: “Trump: He tells it like it is, but sometimes he leaves room to tell it the other way, too.” That’s kind of long. It might have to go on a sombrero.
Ok, so he didn’t officially endorse the idea yet. Duly noted.
Most likely then his intention is to float the idea, with the NRA in the meeting but more importantly by tweeting about it he wants to test the waters and see how conservatives will react before committing himself to a stand.
Therefore, if we disagree, now is precisely the time to howl about it. He left himself room to backtrack, so perhaps if enough conservatives are outraged, he’ll change tack. If we wait until he takes a firm stance, he’s less likely to back down.
What is the utility of Clinton hit pieces posed to an audience that already knows her faults and have fought against her for years? To preach to the converted? To make you feel better about yourself?
As per my last comment, enough criticism from conservatives on this issue might make him back down. Criticism of Clinton for the same stance — from conservatives who aren’t likely to vote for her anyway –is highly unlikely to affect Clinton’s position on gun control. If anything it would just encourage her and her followers further: “Look at the latest attack from the vast right wing conspiracy! Donate today!
Well I suppose you’re not really converted until you’re enthusiastically supporting Trump…
How about “Trump: If you don’t like my position you’ve misinterpreted me.”
or “Trump: Why limit yourself to one side of an issue?”
That could go well on a new line of tricorn hats.
Every time I start to feel a tad more comfortable with voting for Trump, he pulls the rug out from under me. My bad. I should know better.
Sell me again on how he’s different than Hillary? I know it’s not just because there is an R behind his name.
A little late but…
*Not really. It’s still “supreme court” 90% of the time.
Uh….is that really such a stupid question?
In fact, I think this would actually be a good slogan. Or do you really think every issue has only one side?
I hate the Left–but I hate the fanatic Right too.
This is what I like about Trump.
#change1mind