Should people on the terrorist watch list be allowed to buy guns?

[Stranger in a strange land]

No, of course not (sane).

[Marokai Backbeat]

No.

[Green Line]

No. But unfortunately I think it might be unconsitutional to prevent them

[DC Al Fine]

What are the rules around terrorist watchlists?

If one can get on the watchlist for arbitrary reasons, I don't want it used as a basis for restricting civil liberties.

[Kevin]

What are the rules around terrorist watchlists?

If one can get on the watchlist for arbitrary reasons, I don't want it used as a basis for restricting civil liberties.

Same I'm all for preventing legimate terror suspects from obtaining firearms.

However, on things like No-fly lists and other watchlists there are alot of indviduals on those that don't belong there who could end up getting their rights even further restricted then they are now.

Also it's fairly dubious imo arguing that gun control can prevent terrorist attacks esp. considering what happened in Paris and similar actions that have occured in countries with strict laws on guns.

[publicunofficial]

Worst case scenario is an innocent man is temporarily hindered from purchasing a firearm. Best case scenario is obvious. So No (D/Sane)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No way.  Babies shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, and a ban like this is one way to stop that from happening.

[Crumpets]

Republicans: If the inmates at Guantanamo had guns, they wouldn't need habeas corpus!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Of course. They have not been subject to ANY due process. Taking away a fundamental right without due process is monstrous and unconstitutional. Felons have had their day in Court. The mentally ill are entitled to an adjudication before a Judge before their rights are restricted. Depriving an American citizen of the Bill of Rights just because they are brown or Muslim or sound foreign is repugnant. I mean, there is no formal process for petitioning to have your name removed, the determinations are arbitrarily made without any adversarial hearings, and the list is rife with error. There are around 700,000 names on the list. Names, not identities. If there were really 700,000 dangerous terrorists in this country and we had a list of their names, do you really think DOJ would not be prosecuting more people. Ted Kennedy was on the list for a time for Christ's sake. Such a ban is a moronic knee-jerk proposal simply to make people think you've done something."Look see we banned teh turrists from getting guns! Terrorism is fixed!" It's literally a feel-good show-vote. Additionally, it would probably assist some terrorists and undermine legitimate investigations. All an actual terrorist would have to do to find out if they are under surveillance is try and buy a gun. Instant confirmation.

[7,052,770]

No, obviously not, but if there are people on terrorist watch lists who legitimately aren't terrorists, those people should be removed from the lists.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, obviously not, but if there are people on terrorist watch lists who legitimately aren't terrorists, those people should be removed from the lists.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of a watch list.

[DINGO Joe]

What do you do if they bought guns before they got put on the watch list?

[SATW]

No (literally sane) (pro-gun rights)

And someone mentioned not violating civil liberties? since when did EITHER party care about civil liberties?

[7,052,770]

No, obviously not, but if there are people on terrorist watch lists who legitimately aren't terrorists, those people should be removed from the lists.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of a watch list.

The only argument against this is "bbbut some people on those lists don't deserve to be on there, and THOSE people should be able to buy guns."

Alright. You're not going to get any disagreement that people who shouldn't be on the lists should be removed. The FBI can scour the lists and cross the false positives off, but then the remaining people don't need to be able to buy guns. I realize some of them might be able to find guns illegally, but why make it easy for people we have legitimate reason to believe might use them in terrorist attacks?

[DC Al Fine]

No, obviously not, but if there are people on terrorist watch lists who legitimately aren't terrorists, those people should be removed from the lists.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of a watch list.

The only argument against this is "bbbut some people on those lists don't deserve to be on there, and THOSE people should be able to buy guns."

Alright. You're not going to get any disagreement that people who shouldn't be on the lists should be removed. The FBI can scour the lists and cross the false positives off, but then the remaining people don't need to be able to buy guns. I realize some of them might be able to find guns illegally, but why make it easy for people we have legitimate reason to believe might use them in terrorist attacks?

To paraphrase shua, I still don't think you understand what a watchlist is.

[DC Al Fine]

How on earth do ostensibly pro-civil liberties lefties think this is a good idea?

Such a policy would restrict the rights and freedoms of people without due process. They wouldn't have to commit a crime or even be indited and there is a vast potential for discrimination based on race, religion, politics etc given the arbitrary nature of these lists.

[dead0man]

Lefties (generally) don't think owning guns should be a right, so they have no problem using race or religion to take the option away.

[bedstuy]

The right to own a gun is not absolute.  You can't own a gun if you're a felon, have a warrant for your arrest, etc.  We determine those people are a threat to commit a crime if they're allowed to have a gun.

The same is true of a terrorist.  If the government is worried that someone is a terrorist, it's very likely that they're buying the gun to use in a terrorist attack.  In that case, simply buying a gun legally would be a crime.  It's probable cause at least to think that person is currently involved in a terrorist conspiracy plot.

The concern is putting someone on this list improperly.  The answer is that you need some type of process where you can challenge the government in a judicial hearing and get taken off the watch list.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

How on earth do ostensibly pro-civil liberties lefties think this is a good idea?

Such a policy would restrict the rights and freedoms of people without due process. They wouldn't have to commit a crime or even be indited and there is a vast potential for discrimination based on race, religion, politics etc given the arbitrary nature of these lists.

I actually agree with DC Al Fine on this one. Lately, I've been alarmed by the enthusiasm for "background checks" and various measures proposed to limit access to guns that would require increased levels of surveillance. For one, evidence suggests that these measures are ineffective. Secondly, I'm not sure how this is preferable to a general hand-gun ban and buyback policy. Just because something is "moderate" doesn't mean that it is preferable.

Get rid of the liberty, which isn't a liberty at all, or don't. No more "half-measures" that don't work!  

Note: I'd certainly support the usual laundry list of liberal items that constitutes "gun control" in 2015 if I could vote on it. I'm just a bit concerned about the evolution of the liberal literati over the past few years, it seems that the "radical" position of the present is to forward a series of half-measures that would hardly effect gun ownership but could create a basis or framework for discriminating against those with mental health conditions. This evolution of opinion has placed the emphasis on gun violence in the wrong place, some immutable tendency towards violence that goes along with a mental disposition, and ignored the general tendency of gun ownership and its link with gun violence.

The problem is gun ownership. If you want to do something about it, and I know that most liberals on this forum recognize want to reduce gun ownership rates, we have to convince the public that gun ownership is at fault.

[DC Al Fine]

The right to own a gun is not absolute.  You can't own a gun if you're a felon, have a warrant for your arrest, etc.  We determine those people are a threat to commit a crime if they're allowed to have a gun.

The same is true of a terrorist.  If the government is worried that someone is a terrorist, it's very likely that they're buying the gun to use in a terrorist attack.  In that case, simply buying a gun legally would be a crime.  It's probable cause at least to think that person is currently involved in a terrorist conspiracy plot.

The concern is putting someone on this list improperly.  The answer is that you need some type of process where you can challenge the government in a judicial hearing and get taken off the watch list.

But that's precisely my point. A felon has been proven beyond reasonable doubt of some crime that gives the state cause to take away his right to a gun. Someone on the terror watchlist merely has to what, go to the wrong mosque or be the Senior Senator from Massachusetts?

This proposal flips the entire idea of due process on its head, and is ripe for abuse. And yet alleged liberals are all to happy to start restricting people if they come up on some unaccountable list.

[ag]

I do not mind people on terrorist watch list buying guns, as long as people buying guns are put on terrorist watch list.

[bedstuy]

The right to own a gun is not absolute.  You can't own a gun if you're a felon, have a warrant for your arrest, etc.  We determine those people are a threat to commit a crime if they're allowed to have a gun.

The same is true of a terrorist.  If the government is worried that someone is a terrorist, it's very likely that they're buying the gun to use in a terrorist attack.  In that case, simply buying a gun legally would be a crime.  It's probable cause at least to think that person is currently involved in a terrorist conspiracy plot.

The concern is putting someone on this list improperly.  The answer is that you need some type of process where you can challenge the government in a judicial hearing and get taken off the watch list.

But that's precisely my point. A felon has been proven beyond reasonable doubt of some crime that gives the state cause to take away his right to a gun. Someone on the terror watchlist merely has to what, go to the wrong mosque or be the Senior Senator from Massachusetts?

This proposal flips the entire idea of due process on its head, and is ripe for abuse. And yet alleged liberals are all to happy to start restricting people if they come up on some unaccountable list.

Someone with a warrant for their arrest hasn't been proven guilty.  So, that's not a necessary condition at the moment.  Here's my basic point on that:

If you're a member of ISIS and you buy a gun to use in a terrorist attack, buying a gun is a crime,  by itself.  If a suspected terrorist buys a gun, that's basically "probable cause" of a crime.  You can get arrested on "probable cause" of a crime, the cop just needs to believe you committed a crime.  This is a similar situation.  If you give people a chance to get off the watchlist at a hearing, I don't see the problem.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The right to own a gun is not absolute.  You can't own a gun if you're a felon, have a warrant for your arrest, etc.  We determine those people are a threat to commit a crime if they're allowed to have a gun.

The same is true of a terrorist.  If the government is worried that someone is a terrorist, it's very likely that they're buying the gun to use in a terrorist attack.  In that case, simply buying a gun legally would be a crime.  It's probable cause at least to think that person is currently involved in a terrorist conspiracy plot.

The concern is putting someone on this list improperly.  The answer is that you need some type of process where you can challenge the government in a judicial hearing and get taken off the watch list.

But that's precisely my point. A felon has been proven beyond reasonable doubt of some crime that gives the state cause to take away his right to a gun. Someone on the terror watchlist merely has to what, go to the wrong mosque or be the Senior Senator from Massachusetts?

This proposal flips the entire idea of due process on its head, and is ripe for abuse. And yet alleged liberals are all to happy to start restricting people if they come up on some unaccountable list.

Someone with a warrant for their arrest hasn't been proven guilty.  So, that's not a necessary condition at the moment.  Here's my basic point on that:

If you're a member of ISIS and you buy a gun to use in a terrorist attack, buying a gun is a crime,  by itself.  If a suspected terrorist buys a gun, that's basically "probable cause" of a crime.  You can get arrested on "probable cause" of a crime, the cop just needs to believe you committed a crime.  This is a similar situation.  If you give people a chance to get off the watchlist at a hearing, I don't see the problem.

which crime is buying a gun probable cause of?   is a warrant required?

[dead0man]

Food for thought....

Congressman Stephen Lynch

You must be logged in to read this quote.

72 people on the list are also Dep of Homeland Security employees.  The terror watch list is broken and there is no easy method to appeal.

[DrScholl]

A thousand times no.