Would You Trust Donald Trump to Decide Who Can Buy A Gun?

[amigocabal]

Recently, some members in Congress proposed a law prohibiting persons on the Terrorist Watch List from buying guns. Initially, I had thought that it was a list of persons convicted of terrorist-related crimes. But as it turns out, it is a list of persons that government agencies suspect have ties to terrorism, a list compiled purely with the discretion of the executive branch.

In related news, presidential candidate Donald Trump was open to the idea of a database on Muslims. One can only imagine what a President Trump would do with a Terrorist Watch List.

Should we trust someone like Donald Trump to unilaterally decide who may or may not buy a gun?

[Elheru Aran]

The problem isn't with the individual in the Oval Office, it's with the various branches and how fucked in the head some of them are. Mike Wong (the guy who owns this board, you know) happens to have a son with the same name as a guy on the terrorist watch list. You can imagine how fun that made a trip to the States some years ago. The watch list has issues. Passing more laws to harass the people on it aren't going to help. If it was put together in a reasonable manner and enforced equitably (rather than being a laundry-list of ethnic names), then this law might be worth something. It's little more than political posturing post-Paris. Trump's depravity has little to do with it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't trust Trump to walk down a street without insulting someone, so no.

Also, where's all the Second Amendment wanking now? You'd think that giving the executive branch discretion over who can buy fire arms would have the whole Right screaming.

[amigocabal]

I wouldn't trust Trump to walk down a street without insulting someone, so no.

Also, where's all the Second Amendment wanking now? You'd think that giving the executive branch discretion over who can buy fire arms would have the whole Right screaming.

Ben Carson opposes this.

So does Reason.com.

Many people probably believe that it is a list of convicted terrorists ( as did I).

[The Romulan Republic]

For that matter, I very much doubt that such a law, if it really is just up to the executive branch to decide, would survive a visit to the Supreme Court.

[Zaune]

I wouldn't trust Trump to walk down a street without insulting someone, so no.

Also, where's all the Second Amendment wanking now? You'd think that giving the executive branch discretion over who can buy fire arms would have the whole Right screaming.

Ah, but Trump is proposing to make the Second Amendment only apply to people the Right approve of. Nobody ever minds bending the Constitution when it applies to "bad" people; that's something the Left can be just as guilty of.

Besides, if the terrorist watch-list bore even a notional resemblance to reality then this would honestly be pretty uncontroversial.

[Elheru Aran]

Besides, if the terrorist watch-list bore even a notional resemblance to reality then this would honestly be pretty uncontroversial.

This is true. I've seen a few articles making hay out of how the NRA opposes the act... but come on, that's what the NRA does. Also there's been a statistic floating around that supposedly shows how x ridiculous numbers of people on the terrorist watch list have been able to buy guns without issue. The problem with that is there's no way of really monitoring the watch list-- from what I vaguely understand it's mostly just a list of people. If you happen to have the same name as someone on that list, your life is gonna get *really* fun whenever you try to fly around the country or get stopped by police... but otherwise that's about it.

But as I said, if it was run in an equitable and reasonable manner, and the people on the list were *actual* security risks, then yes, I have no problem with telling Bubba McKlan "no, your name came up on the list as a serious risk for shooting up a black church or something, you cannot buy a gun for that reason". It's better than summarily refusing to sell guns to any guy named Mohammed, that's for sure. (I can't say that's happened, but I can't say that hasn't in some places, either)

[Joun_Lord]

No I wouldn't trust Trump to decide who can buy guns. Trump is an idiot, a rich classist (spelling is probably wrong) asshole. I'd trust him about as much as I'd trust Micheal Bloomberg.

That said the barring people on the watch list is a whole lotta bullshit for multiple reasons. One, it is inaccurate as fuck. Plenty of people are supposed to be on list who have no actual ties to terrorism. People with the same name as someone, people with a cousin or friend who went jihad, bullshit like that. People who are guilty by association, people who did nothing wrong.

And that leads into my second problem, the people on the list did nothing actually wrong. They are on the watch list rather then in jail because they didn't do anything wrong. They might have said some bullshit, hung out with some shits, or had a name like Mohammad McBomber but haven't actually done anything illegal. I feel its pretty shitty restricting someones rights because they "might" do something. If they commit or attempt to commit a serious crime, then sure they lose their 2nd amendment rights right alongside a slew of other rights like right to travel, right to freedom, and to a degree 1st amendment rights. But until they do that they aren't criminal and shouldn't be treated as such.

Now if someone is on the watch list that should factor in whether or not they can buy a gun but it solely shouldn't bar someone from it. That should go along with a number of other factors that are looked at during a firearm purchase. But the list should be fixed to actually hold only people who might be a risk rather then a bunch of random people before the list is used as a factor in firearm purchase. Right now using it is akin to using Facebook posts to identify sexual predators. Sure you might find some accurate info but alot of it is bullshit or attacking someone with the same name as the pedo (like anyone named Jared Fogle, he likes his women like his subs, 6 and 12).

[Zaune]

But as I said, if it was run in an equitable and reasonable manner, and the people on the list were *actual* security risks, then yes, I have no problem with telling Bubba McKlan "no, your name came up on the list as a serious risk for shooting up a black church or something, you cannot buy a gun for that reason". It's better than summarily refusing to sell guns to any guy named Mohammed, that's for sure. (I can't say that's happened, but I can't say that hasn't in some places, either)

Indeed. As long as "actual security risk" is defined as something reasonable like being a named suspect in an active criminal investigation. Just being a member of the Klan probably shouldn't be enough, if only because I am distinctly uncomfortable with the precedent that sets for organisations like Occupy or the Ferguson protestors.

[amigocabal]

But as I said, if it was run in an equitable and reasonable manner, and the people on the list were *actual* security risks, then yes, I have no problem with telling Bubba McKlan "no, your name came up on the list as a serious risk for shooting up a black church or something, you cannot buy a gun for that reason". It's better than summarily refusing to sell guns to any guy named Mohammed, that's for sure. (I can't say that's happened, but I can't say that hasn't in some places, either)

Indeed. As long as "actual security risk" is defined as something reasonable like being a named suspect in an active criminal investigation. Just being a member of the Klan probably shouldn't be enough, if only because I am distinctly uncomfortable with the precedent that sets for organisations like Occupy or the Ferguson protestors.

A method already exists.

It is called criminal prosecution.

[Zaune]

A method already exists.

It is called criminal prosecution.

Well, yes. Obviously. I was referring more to people who are under active investigation as persons of interest but haven't been formally charged.

And yes, I realise that might not be 100% in accordance with the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty but somehow I don't think the Supreme Court would be very sympathetic to a murder suspect complaining that having to wait a few weeks before buying a new shotgun is a violation of their constitutional rights.

[Adam Reynolds]

As Bruce Schniner points out, the idea of something like a no fly list or bag screening is inherently flawed. The problem is that if something is a serious threat, it should be illegal. The idea of bag screening for things like penknives and liquids is foolish. Because it is not illegal to attempt to circumvent it, then all a prospective terrorist has to do is to try a few times. Contrast this with trying to take guns onto airplanes, the attempt itself is illegal.

The same principle applies to a terrorist watch list. If you are dealing with someone who is banned from something but is not considered dangerous enough to put in prison, all he has to do is make several attempts until he succeeds in whatever he is attempting.

[bilateralrope]

Given the sheer lack of due process involving a lot of things related to preventing terrorism, I wouldn't trust anyone thinking of using those anti-terror activities to restrict gun ownership.

Many people probably believe that it is a list of convicted terrorists ( as did I).

I don't think convictions have ever had anything to do with the terrorist watch list. Now for the interesting questions: Are you on any terrorist watch lists ?

If you answered with a "yes" or "no", why are you sure about your answer ?

[biostem]

Not to derail things too much, but I'm not so against the idea of regulating who can or cannot won firearms - I'd just do it in a manner where you are required to take a firearm safety test and demonstrate the capability to use one responsibly, (know how to check if safe, know how to clear a jam, know how to unload and store said firearm safety, etc). It should also include some basic legal requirements - like if you are required to surrender said firearm to law enforcement officials upon request or such.

I watched a video where some senator was asking another whether such limitations on a right to bear arms would/should translate to other rights - right to freedom of religion, as long as it is on the approved list/not on the banned list... right to freedom of speech, as long as said speech isn't on the banned list, etc. The problem, IMO, is that I can't get my freedom of speech, someone else steals it, then uses it to kill another person. Also, there is the case that I cannot go to a theater and shout "fire", as that directly endangers not only the moviegoers, but also the risk that if the firemen answer the call, my "free speech" could have endangered others since they couldn't respond.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because a right is guaranteed, does not mean that there aren't/haven't/will be some reasonable limitations put on it... the emphasis being "reasonable", here...

[Zaune]

Conspiracy to commit a felony is outlawed in the United States and nobody objects to that as a restriction of people's 1st Amendment rights, if you want a precedent.

[amigocabal]

A method already exists.

It is called criminal prosecution.

Well, yes. Obviously. I was referring more to people who are under active investigation as persons of interest but haven't been formally charged.

And yes, I realise that might not be 100% in accordance with the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty but somehow I don't think the Supreme Court would be very sympathetic to a murder suspect complaining that having to wait a few weeks before buying a new shotgun is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Is said murder suspect formally charged with a crime? Out on bail?

I never liked the idea of treating suspects as guilty. If we do what these represenatatives and senators are saying, and treating people like terrorists even without going through the burden of hauling them to court (let alone convicting them), what else could we get away with?

Forbidding them from practicing law or medicine?

Requiring them to submit to searches and seizures by police regardless of probably cause?

Requiring them to wear distinctive badges on their left arms?

(I would not have a problem with the above for persons convicted of terrorism-related offenses. But the line must be drawn at conviction, this far, no farther.)

[biostem]

A method already exists.

It is called criminal prosecution.

Well, yes. Obviously. I was referring more to people who are under active investigation as persons of interest but haven't been formally charged.

And yes, I realise that might not be 100% in accordance with the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty but somehow I don't think the Supreme Court would be very sympathetic to a murder suspect complaining that having to wait a few weeks before buying a new shotgun is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Is said murder suspect formally charged with a crime? Out on bail?

I never liked the idea of treating suspects as guilty. If we do what these represenatatives and senators are saying, and treating people like terrorists even without going through the burden of hauling them to court (let alone convicting them), what else could we get away with?

Forbidding them from practicing law or medicine?

Requiring them to submit to searches and seizures by police regardless of probably cause?

Requiring them to wear distinctive badges on their left arms?

(I would not have a problem with the above for persons convicted of terrorism-related offenses. But the line must be drawn at conviction, this far, no farther.)

It also bothers me because the organization(s) that maintain these lists do not have to disclose who is on them, and *why* they are on them - as you point out, it is basically a form of being accused and convicted of a "crime" without all that nasty due process...

Don't get me wrong - if a member of law enforcement finds evidence, goes to a judge, and gets the necessary warrants, then I have no problem with it...

[amigocabal]

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/6 ... 8460372996

Actually, there is a way that President Obama can stop a person on the list from buying a gun, without any new legislation.

all he has to do is arrest that person for terrorism-related offenses and haul that person to court. If the person in question contests the charges, he then presents evidence supporting the charges.


Surely the Press Secretary should have known that.

[General Zod]

The biggest problem with these sort of lists is there's absolutely no transparency or oversight. You can get on them for any reason and you have absolutely no method of knowing until you're trying to do something like buy a plane ticket or get a job. To make it worse there's no mechanism in place to challenge your inclusion on the list because it's "classified". The whole thing is fascist bullshit.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It's more that I wouldn't care; I don't support the Second Amendment in the first place, or consider gun ownership to be of value. So, such a list wouldn't matter to me, and I don't think he could do any actual damage with it. But that's due to considering it irrelevant, it has nothing to do with any nonexistent trust for Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Even if you don't agree with a law, would you want to see it enforced in an unfair/inconsistent manner, as opposed to either being enforced fairly or abolished altogether?

Edit: Also, who the hell voted yes?

[General Zod]

It's more that I wouldn't care; I don't support the Second Amendment in the first place, or consider gun ownership to be of value. So, such a list wouldn't matter to me, and I don't think he could do any actual damage with it. But that's due to considering it irrelevant, it has nothing to do with any nonexistent trust for Trump.

What if employers started using a gun registry to determine whether or not someone was considered employable? If you couldn't buy a gun then maybe you don't deserve to have a job. It could have significant unforeseen consequences.

[Simon_Jester]

I wouldn't trust Trump to walk down a street without insulting someone, so no.

Also, where's all the Second Amendment wanking now? You'd think that giving the executive branch discretion over who can buy fire arms would have the whole Right screaming.

Ben Carson opposes this. So does Reason.com.

Many people probably believe that it is a list of convicted terrorists ( as did I).

People on the left have been pointing out, since around 2002, the problem here. To be precise, the fact that the "terrorist watch list" is an indiscriminate grab-bag of everyone who has a name that kind of sounds like someone who might theoretically have been at one time interacting with an organization that some wannabe-Gestapo clown thinks might be considering terrorism.

Gun rights became involved, and now you too are aware of this fact.

This is good.

I suggest you consider revisiting some of your other opinions in light of this fact you have now discovered.

[amigocabal]

I wouldn't trust Trump to walk down a street without insulting someone, so no.

Also, where's all the Second Amendment wanking now? You'd think that giving the executive branch discretion over who can buy fire arms would have the whole Right screaming.

Ben Carson opposes this. So does Reason.com.

Many people probably believe that it is a list of convicted terrorists ( as did I).

People on the left have been pointing out, since around 2002, the problem here. To be precise, the fact that the "terrorist watch list" is an indiscriminate grab-bag of everyone who has a name that kind of sounds like someone who might theoretically have been at one time interacting with an organization that some wannabe-Gestapo clown thinks might be considering terrorism.

Gun rights became involved, and now you too are aware of this fact.

This is good.

I suggest you consider revisiting some of your other opinions in light of this fact you have now discovered.

In most people's defense, the watch list has been used solely for the purpose of watching. It is no different in principle than a local law enforcement having a list of people they suspect of having ties to known felons. Police agencies would take a closer look if the people on such lists did things like withdraw large amounts of cash, travel overseas, and yes, purchase firearms. Unobtrusive investigations do not implicate due process.

However, if they relied solely on this list to conduct a warrantless search, they would be slapped down. And if they tried to get a warrant, a mere suspicion that they were connected to known felons would usually not result in a judge granting the warrant.

[Purple]

It's more that I wouldn't care; I don't support the Second Amendment in the first place, or consider gun ownership to be of value. So, such a list wouldn't matter to me, and I don't think he could do any actual damage with it. But that's due to considering it irrelevant, it has nothing to do with any nonexistent trust for Trump.

What if employers started using a gun registry to determine whether or not someone was considered employable? If you couldn't buy a gun then maybe you don't deserve to have a job. It could have significant unforeseen consequences.

Hypothetically speaking if such a list was compiled properly and based off actual facts like mental conditions, convictions for violent crime, reasonable suspicion etc. as opposed to being the idiocy it is now. Would you still consider such consequences problematic?