Posted on 06/15/2016 7:20:03 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 28m28 minutes ago 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
I hear Hillary will appoint Lois Lerner watchkeeper over these lists.
I think he maybe meeting with them to get their views and ideas on this subject as they are the experts at this. This is a good move to consult with them so he is not blind sided with a “gotcha question” at a press conference.
Someone who has been the subject of an FBI investigation for terrorism should trigger a red flag in any subsequent gun purchase background check, even if they’ve been cleared.
Have the FBI review the case manually before approving and let the subject know about it.
The FBI needs a housecleaning for sure, but they won’t be able to stop such incidents 100%. To have 100% security requires an armed vigilant public.
Bad guys can be armed too but it’s amazing how polite bad guys can be when they know John and Jane Q. Public are packing.
A court can ban you from saying or writing certain things, take your property, take your liberty, ban you from owning firearms, and many other things. In the most extreme cases it can order your execution.
Of course we have a constitution and the Bill of Rights which limits the causes that the government can use to bring someone to trial, and limits the actions of the Courts.
If the government wants to prevent certain people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights then they need to use the same process that the government would have to follow to abridge their other rights. Namely get the approval of a Court, and guarantee the defendant all the rights every other defendant has.
We're already got a system in place for that. If the government wants to prevent someone from owning a firearm they need to create a law which justifies that loss of rights, and then indict and convict those people that the government wants to take their rights from.
Of course that law needs to pass constitutional tests, and it certainly can't be based on some secret list. At trial the government would need to show all the elements necessary for a removal of a fundamental right.
Any other scheme is unconstitutional and should be rejected.
That’s a slippery slope. I don’t trust the government’s definition of “terrorist” anymore. Who’s to say they won’t put a Tea Party member on the list? Or someone that criticizes Obama? Or Christians praying outside of an abortion mill?
There’s a lot of paranoia here. Trump is seeking approval to campaign on this plank *if* he becomes president.
Once he is president, he can also enact more transparency and a reasonable method to be removed from the list.
Here’s the dialogue we are seeing:
Liberals: We need to see more gun laws enacted.
Conservatives: We need more restrictions on who enters the country.
Liberals: In the meantime, you do nothing stop guns.
Conservatives: In the meantime, you do nothing to secure our borders.
Clearly, Trump wants to answer with “I am proposing sensible restrictions to make it harder for people on terror watch lists to get guns.”
Can liberals then say they are proposing sensible restrictions to keep criminals from entering the country? They can’t because they’re not.
Taking this idea to the NRA *before* announcing this as a campaign pledge allows him to tweak the message instead of just rushing out there in normal Trump fashion. This is a presidential move and I salute him for it.
The problem is, what happens when Trump is no longer in office.
You people are WAY over reacting to this. Trump has not said he is in favor of isn’t in favor. He said he will “be speaking to them about it”
Instead jumping the gun like the media does why not just wait and see how this turns out.
The world has become very complicated.
People can fly to anywhere in a single day. Reliance on computer data bases for decision making on who can purchase a firearm, or board an aircraft, or who owes taxes or child support payments can be flagged with simplicity itself, yet our federal government finds a way to not be able to consolidate the different data resources.
It is utter BS.
Try renewing a Drivers License or car registration in Massachusetts if you have a 20 year old parking ticket or an unpaid excise tax bill from a town with just a few hundred residents.
Our government chooses to not use available data, for what appears more and more to be, sinister purposes.
Actually, you can learn generally why you're on the list, and you can petition to be removed. And you have to be informed of the decision about removal or denial of removal. And can continue from that point forward.
Note you must FIRST be denied flight to start the process - but there is a process. Yes this sucks, yes this is an abrogation of many of our Constitutional rights - there is a process. And you end up with a "Redress" number you can use to override any "no fly" list you may be on.
“NRA will hopefully tell Trump if this is what he wants they are withdrawing their endorsement. Trump is caving to the RINOs.”
Get serious! Trump is doing what any good candidate would do. He’s meeting with the NRA to DISCUSS this issue. The issue of denying an individual the ability to purchase firearms if they are deemed to be terrorist risks is something that needs consideration. The problem as I see it is that there is no legal mechanism that insures someone who is placed on a watch list is notified and has access to due process if they are put there in error. Right now just being on the lists the government has should not be a means to automatically deny someone the right to purchas a firearm because they are all secret and can be used abusively on our citizens without recourse.
Whoever thought up that one needs a promotion.
Precisely as it is designed and intended. IMO some of our security agencies ought to be on a terror list. Because that's what they are doing - terrorizing American citizens.
Republicans are against this.
Yep. My mother, age 72 was on the no fly list....some scumbag with similar name with warrants out. Took her MONTHS to get off of it, with the help of liberal Dem. Vic Snyder believe it or not.
The headache didn't end there. YEARS after getting off the list, I got her signed up for TSA Precheck and Global Entry. Nope. Feds say she can't have TSA precheck or Global entry because, at one point, she was on a no fly list. A couple of thousand dollars in lawyer fees letter, with Senator John Bozeman and Congressman Tim Griffin, we FINALLY persuaded them that she is a good citizen.
72 years old, 800+ credit score, no arrests, no traffic citations, NOTHING....(she did get a C in badminton in 1958).
The "No fly/No Buy" legislation sounds good, but the .gov will screw that up too. Call your Congresscritter and Senator and tell them this story.
I will.
so where is TRUMP on this now?
But a better answer is "Attacks by Islamic extremists are a growing problem around the world. They are generated in large part by the preaching of radical Islamic leaders and by radical Islamic publications. Without those ideas we would not have Islamic extremists murdering people around the world. While Americans are loath to limit people's constitutional rights, it may be necessary to restrict the rights of those spreading radical Islamic ideas. We should have a national dialog on that, and consider when, why and for whom we should reduce the rights enumerated in our Constitution."
Opening that door forces the Democrats and Obama to stand up and defend the rights of the Islamic extremists.
It’s good he is going to check with them on this to see what could go wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.