The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

mack59 · May 14, 2010, 09:57 AM

"Restricting people on the watch list sounds like a potentially sensible idea, but if successful would it stay at this."

This is the problem:

1. It sounds reasonable, after all who wants terrorists with guns

2. But the legislation would ban sales to people on the ever expanding secret government lists - no fly list, suspected terrorist list, in addition to one or two other lists of suspected or potential terrorists or threats.

3. Those lists are ever expanding because there is no downside to adding someone to the list - just to be safe - and a big downside if you don't add someones name and they actually do turn out to be a real/actual threat or terrorist.

4. Proposed legislation would deny individuals their RKBA without due process - individuals would in effect be considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

5. Proving yourself innocent would/could be nigh impossible as they don't have to disclose why you were denied (i.e. that you are even on a list) - and if you can learn that you are on a list and then want to contest it and prove your innocense, you are treated to an abridged due process procedure - where you and your attorney do not get to even see - let alone directly address or contest the evidence against you - only a judge gets to see it as allowed by the Atty Generals office - and if after all that the judge says you shouldn't be considered a threat or a potential terrorist and the Atty Generals office disagrees with the judge - then you still are out of luck cause the Atty Generals office gets the final say.

So this legislation would give an office of the executive branch the power to prohibit anyone from buying a gun - that that office deemed was a "potential terrorist" or a "potential threat". And ultimately an individual so denied, might be able to appeal it through the courts - but the courts would not have the final say even then that would reside with the office of the Atty General who also gets to decide who is or isn't on the list and what is or isn't a potential threat or terrorist.

Shades if the RED Scares - are you now or have you ever been - have you ever been associated with terrorists organizations - like the VFW, NRA, GOA, Tea Party, the baptist church, the DAR, etc...

May 14, 2010, 09:57 AM	#4
mack59 Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2004 Posts: 447	"Restricting people on the watch list sounds like a potentially sensible idea, but if successful would it stay at this." This is the problem: 1. It sounds reasonable, after all who wants terrorists with guns 2. But the legislation would ban sales to people on the ever expanding secret government lists - no fly list, suspected terrorist list, in addition to one or two other lists of suspected or potential terrorists or threats. 3. Those lists are ever expanding because there is no downside to adding someone to the list - just to be safe - and a big downside if you don't add someones name and they actually do turn out to be a real/actual threat or terrorist. 4. Proposed legislation would deny individuals their RKBA without due process - individuals would in effect be considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. 5. Proving yourself innocent would/could be nigh impossible as they don't have to disclose why you were denied (i.e. that you are even on a list) - and if you can learn that you are on a list and then want to contest it and prove your innocense, you are treated to an abridged due process procedure - where you and your attorney do not get to even see - let alone directly address or contest the evidence against you - only a judge gets to see it as allowed by the Atty Generals office - and if after all that the judge says you shouldn't be considered a threat or a potential terrorist and the Atty Generals office disagrees with the judge - then you still are out of luck cause the Atty Generals office gets the final say. So this legislation would give an office of the executive branch the power to prohibit anyone from buying a gun - that that office deemed was a "potential terrorist" or a "potential threat". And ultimately an individual so denied, might be able to appeal it through the courts - but the courts would not have the final say even then that would reside with the office of the Atty General who also gets to decide who is or isn't on the list and what is or isn't a potential threat or terrorist. Shades if the RED Scares - are you now or have you ever been - have you ever been associated with terrorists organizations - like the VFW, NRA, GOA, Tea Party, the baptist church, the DAR, etc...