This Is Not A Nail; Put Away the Hammer

 
Chris_Cox_by_Gage_Skidmore

Chris W. Cox by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0.

As Jon reported yesterday, Donald Trump announced that he was meeting with the NRA “about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” For years, America’s premier defender of the Second Amendment has consistently opposed using such lists to restrict firearms purchases. In a 2011 article titled “Why NRA Opposes Gun Control Supporters’ ‘Terrorist Watchlist’ Bills,” they wrote:

As the name suggests, the “watchlist” is not limited to people guilty of “terrorism” or who are suspected of other acts serious enough to warrant their arrest. It broadly includes people “known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,” including those only “being preliminarily investigated to determine whether they have links to terrorism” and those “for whom the FBI does not have an open terrorism investigation.”

A person accused of serious wrongdoing has the right to know what he has been accused of, to offer evidence in his defense, and to be judged by a jury. A constitutionally protected right cannot be taken away on the basis of a secretive or unsubstantiated accusation. A judge should be allowed to consider evidence which may support the innocence of the accused.

In a post published last October that included a graphic mocking the lists’ expansiveness and linking approving to several articles by our own Charles Cooke — including one titled “The NRA Is Absolutely Right to Fear the ‘Terrorism Watch List” — they reiterated their position:

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.

But in response to Trump’s announcement, the the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action executive director Chris W. Cox issued the following:

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.

Under a generous reading, this makes absolutely no sense. The question at hand is not whether “terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms,” but whether the Terrorist Watch List or the No-Fly Lists are appropriate tools toward that goal. Given that those lists notoriously lack due process protections and are so over-broad as to have included the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, it’s hard to see how the NRA could responsibly support their use in any context without first being satisfied as to their reform.

Under a less generous reading… well, I’ve also said regrettably weaselish things after getting caught making an ass of myself.

Published in Guns, Islamist Terrorism
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    The categories of people who should be denied fundamental rights should be vanishingly small and exceedingly hard to get into.

    • #1
  2. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    I disagree. Their position is that being on the no-fly list would be grounds for law enforcement to delay the purchase so that the matter can be adjudicated by a judge, not that anybody on the list is automatically banned from purchasing a firearm without due process. The reason the judge is required is precisely because the lists lack due process protections.

    Law enforcement is allowed to detain and question suspects of crime prior to their court appearances. This is not considered a violation of due process, even if they are ultimately found to be not guilty.

    Of course, there are limits. They cannot detain people indefinitely.

    By extension, any delay of a person’s right to purchase a firearm would also have to be strictly limited in order to satisfy the due process requirement.

    • #2
  3. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    Misthiocracy: Their position is that being on the no-fly list would be grounds for law enforcement to delay the purchase so that the matter can be adjudicated by a judge

    Back up a little.  How about anyone on a no-fly list have their day in court?  Or is guilty without being accused of a crime and without access to due process now acceptable?

    Why should we ignore the 5th amendment and use it to potentially limit the 2nd amendment?

    • #3
  4. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    livingthehighlife:

    Misthiocracy: Their position is that being on the no-fly list would be grounds for law enforcement to delay the purchase so that the matter can be adjudicated by a judge

    Back up a little. How about anyone on a no-fly list have their day in court? Or is guilty without being accused of a crime and without access to due process now acceptable?

    Why should we ignore the 5th amendment and use it to potentially limit the 2nd amendment?

    Is not that a separate topic? The NRA is concerned with the Second Amendment and that is the issue currently on the table with regards to the no-fly-list. I certainly have not heard any politician get on the air since Orlando and discuss getting rid of the mechanism all together.

    • #4
  5. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    livingthehighlife:

    Misthiocracy: Their position is that being on the no-fly list would be grounds for law enforcement to delay the purchase so that the matter can be adjudicated by a judge

    Back up a little. How about anyone on a no-fly list have their day in court? Or is guilty without being accused of a crime and without access to due process now acceptable?

    Why should we ignore the 5th amendment and use it to potentially limit the 2nd amendment?

    I agree, up to a point, but I think that’s a separate issue from what the NRA is saying.

    One could argue the problem with the “no fly” list is not that the list exists, per se, but that it automatically bans someone from flying without due process. It’s the “no fly” part that’s the problem, not the “list” part.

    Simply being placed on a list, as a “person of interest”, doesn’t (necessarily) constitute a violation of due process, in and of itself. The violation comes from how the list is used.

    I mean, unless one believes that the very existence of a “suspect watch list” at all is unconstitutional.

    Being placed on a list isn’t the same as being accused of a crime. It merely means that one is a suspect or a person-of-interest.

    Suspects and/or persons-of-interest do not lose their constitutional rights, but they can be detained, questioned, and/or inconvenienced by law enforcement.

    • #5
  6. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Misthiocracy: Suspects and/or persons-of-interest do not lose their constitutional rights, but they can be detained, questioned, and/or inconvenienced by law enforcement.

    Unless its the crime of domestic violence.

    • #6
  7. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Misthiocracy:Being placed on a list isn’t the same as being accused of a crime. It merely means that one is a suspect or a person-of-interest.

    Suspects and/or persons-of-interest do not lose their constitutional rights, but they can be detained, questioned, and/or inconvenienced by law enforcement.

    What other enumerated rights are inconvenienced by being put on this list? Can the person no longer freely associate without government clearance? Can he no longer exercise his religion until some suit gives the nod? Can she no longer speak freely while under suspicion?

    If it makes no sense for any other right, then it makes no sense for this one. The right to keep and bear arms is not granted by government and should not be infringed, even momentarily, without the full measure of due process.

    • #7
  8. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    Roberto:

    livingthehighlife:

    Misthiocracy: Their position is that being on the no-fly list would be grounds for law enforcement to delay the purchase so that the matter can be adjudicated by a judge

    Back up a little. How about anyone on a no-fly list have their day in court? Or is guilty without being accused of a crime and without access to due process now acceptable?

    Why should we ignore the 5th amendment and use it to potentially limit the 2nd amendment?

    Is not that a separate topic? The NRA is concerned with the Second Amendment and that is the issue currently on the table with regards to the no-fly-list. I certainly have not heard any politician get on the air since Orlando and discuss getting rid of the mechanism all together.

    It’s absolutely connected with this topic.  If the NRA is proposing that list be the source for potential suspension of constitutional rights, then we need to question that source.

    The ACLU has, and found it wanting.

    • #8
  9. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    I know this is obvious, but the core problem with banning people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms is that it makes it impossible to keep such a list.

    Anyone can find out if they are on the list by attempting to purchase a firearm.   Once they are rejected, they will know they are being watched, which defeats the purpose.  Also, they will need to have the ability to go to court and have their name removed from the list.  Either way, it no longer can possibly serve as a “watch” list.

    • #9
  10. Hydrogia Inactive
    Hydrogia
    @Hydrogia

    What is needed is an intelligent effective middle ground between the massive internment camps of WW2 and the current wide open door policy of the Obamanation.   Ft .Hood and Boston and San Bernadino and Orlando were all done by  known persons on the radar who were not stopped.

    • #10
  11. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    The King Prawn:

    Misthiocracy:Being placed on a list isn’t the same as being accused of a crime. It merely means that one is a suspect or a person-of-interest.

    Suspects and/or persons-of-interest do not lose their constitutional rights, but they can be detained, questioned, and/or inconvenienced by law enforcement.

    What other enumerated rights are inconvenienced by being put on this list? Can the person no longer freely associate without government clearance? Can he no longer exercise his religion until some suit gives the nod? Can she no longer speak freely while under suspicion?

    If it makes no sense for any other right, then it makes no sense for this one. The right to keep and bear arms is not granted by government and should not be infringed, even momentarily, without the full measure of due process.

    That’s a fair point.

    Also, it should again be pointed out that this policy would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, since Omar Mateen was taken off the terror watch list because he’d committed no crimes.

    Is there much evidence that people on the watch list buying guns is frequent enough to be considered statistically-significant?

    • #11
  12. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Hydrogia:What is needed is an intelligent effective middle ground between the massive internment camps of WW2 and the current wide open door policy of the Obamanation. Ft .Hood and Boston and San Bernadino and Orlando were all done by known persons on the radar who were not stopped.

    Of course, being “known” isn’t the same as being on “the terror watch list”. Omar Mateen was “known”, but he had been taken off the watch list because he’d committed no crimes (yet).

    So, just what is the argument here? Is it too easy to be placed on one of these lists, or too difficult?

    • #12
  13. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Misthiocracy: Is there much evidence that people on the watch list buying guns is frequent enough to be considered statistically-significant?

    I’m guessing there’s probably no documented incidence of it happening. The problem with laws like this is they are a toe hold. Once you give in to the idea that this natural right exists in a state where it is the governments to confer or deny then literally any other reason can pass the same logical scrutiny and becomes only a matter of utility.

    • #13
  14. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Misthiocracy: disagree. Their position is that being on the no-fly list would be grounds for law enforcement to delay the purchase so that the matter can be adjudicated by a judge, not that anybody on the list is automatically banned from purchasing a firearm without due process. The reason the judge is required is precisely because the lists lack due process protections.

    If the judge were say Elena Kagan, would that satisfy you?

    • #14
  15. GLDIII Reagan
    GLDIII
    @GLDIII

    So what happens to everyone who has previously voted Republican and is deemed a potential “domestic terrorist” and put on some list somewhere? Normally this would be dismissively chucked off as nutery, however given the public floating of convervatives have mental disorders, and how climate deniers should be locked up with the keys thrown away, I am not sure the government should have any leverage to disarm those citizens who have become indignant about losing their rights.

    Not quite half of the population does not seem to like us.

    • #15
  16. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Israel P.:

    Misthiocracy: disagree. Their position is that being on the no-fly list would be grounds for law enforcement to delay the purchase so that the matter can be adjudicated by a judge, not that anybody on the list is automatically banned from purchasing a firearm without due process. The reason the judge is required is precisely because the lists lack due process protections.

    If the judge were say Elena Kagan, would that satisfy you?

    Does the existence of a judge like Elena Kagan invalidate all other warrants and court orders?

    • #16
  17. Hydrogia Inactive
    Hydrogia
    @Hydrogia

    Misthiocracy:

    Hydrogia:What is needed is an intelligent effective middle ground between the massive internment camps of WW2 and the current wide open door policy of the Obamanation. Ft .Hood and Boston and San Bernadino and Orlando were all done by known persons on the radar who were not stopped.

    Of course, being “known” isn’t the same as being on “the terror watch list”. Omar Mateen was “known”, but he had been taken off the watch list because he’d committed no crimes (yet).

    So, just what is the argument here? Is it too easy to be placed on one of these lists, or too difficult?

    Known is weak, but obviously on the radar.  I think the problem is leadership. All those attacks could have been stopped without any further measures being needed with support from the top and proper priority. It is not silly at all to question the o’s thinking regarding Islam, IMO. In a system with integrity such lists may be very helpful.

    It currently looks to be too easy to get on and too hard to get off , and a fraud because the leadership is very bad to say the least.

    • #17
  18. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    screenshot.13

    • #18
  19. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    GLDIII:So what happens to everyone who has previously voted Republican and is deemed a potential “domestic terrorist” and put on some list somewhere? Normally this would be dismissively chucked off as nutery, however given the public floating of convervatives have mental disorders, and how climate deniers should be locked up with the keys thrown away, I am not sure the government should have any leverage to disarm those citizens who have become indignant about losing their rights.

    It will work like this. You are allowed to purchase a Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR)  as long you can demonstrate mental stability. However, the desire to purchase a MSR is sufficient evidence of mental instability, immediately making you ineligible to purchase a MSR or any other firearm.

    • #19
  20. GLDIII Reagan
    GLDIII
    @GLDIII

    A-Squared:

    GLDIII:So what happens to everyone who has previously voted Republican and is deemed a potential “domestic terrorist” and put on some list somewhere? Normally this would be dismissively chucked off as nutery, however given the public floating of convervatives have mental disorders, and how climate deniers should be locked up with the keys thrown away, I am not sure the government should have any leverage to disarm those citizens who have become indignant about losing their rights.

    It will work like this. You are allowed to purchase a Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) as long you can demonstrate mental stability. However, the desire to purchase a MSR is sufficient evidence of mental instability, immediately making you ineligible to purchase a MSR or any other firearm.

    Correct, you……….nailed it ;)

    • #20
  21. Probable Cause Inactive
    Probable Cause
    @ProbableCause

    We’ve seen what this president does to people on the IRS “watch list”…

    • #21
  22. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    They don’t take you off the list.

    I had a friend who shared the same first, last, middle name, and possibly birthdate of an IRA person on a watch list. My friend was hauled off to interrogation for several years, each and every time she attempted to get on to a plane.

    Ridiculous, that after the FIRST time they cleared her, and found the coincidence to be unrelated to her, she was not given an identification card, or phone number, to clear her in subsequent and legitimate attempts to fly.

    We must remember it is bureaucrats who create and maintain the list(s), and monitor the lines and privileges they seek to limit.

    • #22
  23. Mark Wilson Inactive
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: The question at hand is not whether “terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms,” but whether the Terrorist Watch List or the No-Fly Lists are appropriate tools toward that goal.

    I don’t see any part of the statement where they propose disallowing people from buying or owning a gun because they are on the list.  It clearly says they favor due process prior to abridging any rights.  What am I missing?

    A related question for folks who oppose the existence of such a list in the first place.  Would you prefer the FBI launch a brand new, from-scratch investigation each time a person’s name comes up in association with terrorism?  Or do you think it makes more sense to file the information somewhere so they can refer to it next time and detect patterns of activity that indicate high risk for terrorism?  If so, how is this different from a “watch list” in and of itself?

    • #23
  24. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Mark Wilson: I don’t see any part of the statement where they propose disallowing people from buying or owning a gun because they are on the list.

    Which statement are you referring to?  The first sentence of the OP reads:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: Donald Trump announced that he was meeting with the NRA “about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.”

    • #24
  25. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Mark Wilson:I don’t see any part of the statement where they propose disallowing people from buying or owning a gun because they are on the list. It clearly says they favor due process prior to abridging any rights. What am I missing?

    Linked above:

    NRA’s Chris Cox: 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.

    In other words, so long as you’re on a suspect list subject to very little that resembles due process, you cannot purchase a firearm.

    • #25
  26. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed….

    you cannot purchase a firearm.

    Delayed is not the same as cannot purchase…

    • #26
  27. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    That’s one statement, not the full plan. The actual proposals put time limits on the delay.

    The NRA has pointed out the due process problems with the watch lists for years. No other organization has more credibility than they do on this.

    • #27
  28. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    PHenry:

    Delayed is not the same as cannot purchase…

    It depends on the nature of the delay. If it’s short lived and biased in favor of the purchaser, then I agree. If it’s indefinitely delayed until the government is satisfied of the innocence of the purchaser, then it’s a different matter.

    • #28
  29. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Matt White:That’s one statement, not the full plan. The actual proposals put time limits on the delay.

    Links?

    The NRA has pointed out the due process problems with the watch lists for years. No other organization has more credibility than they do on this.

    Indeed, as I documented. But now they seem to be moderating — perhaps “evolving” — their position on the matter from “No, bad idea” to “Well, with the right safeguards…”

    • #29
  30. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    You made the assertion. You do the homework to show them changing their position.

    The tweet right before the one you posted stated they did not change their position.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NRA/status/743134620976316416

    So are accusing them of lying as well as abandoning the constitution?

    It’s not rational to take a statement that includes a smaller portion of earlier positions and insist that it means they’ve abandoned anything left out of the shorter statement.

    Nothing wrong with asking them if you get a chance, but your insistence that this is a reversal of their previous position is just absurd.

    Even if you are unfamiliar with their previous work, there is this in the statement:

    “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.”

    The protections they reference would include limits to how long someone could remain on the watch list while being investigated.

    We should be grateful for the NRA and hope they are able to explain the bill of rights to Trump.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.