The right to own a firearm to protect your family, yourself, and your country, is a right protected by the Second Amendment.
There are strict legal processes by which that right can be stripped.
A loosely (and poorly) regulated government mandated "watch list" does not have the same legal safeguards, or recourses as most of our justice system employs.
Placing the responsibility of clearing their name on an innocent wrongly included in the list borders on ludicrous.
What happened to due process and burden of proof?
Passing legislation supposedly intended on preventing an act of violence (which has yet to occur), which will likely affect many more law abiding citizens than its intended target group, is insane.
The law clearly states what it takes to lose your right to own a firearm.
There are no firm controls on what it takes to add your name to the "watch list".
What controls guarantee names are not added willy nilly for the express purpose of stripping folks of their ability to own firearms, were this legislation to pass?
Perhaps this would never happen, but do you really want to trust that decision to someone who thinks they know better how to run your life than you do?
Jimbo - 14 years ago
An American citizen should not lose a Constitutional right, just because a bureaucrat decided to put you on a list. There serve us - not the other way around. Have the Democrats completely gone over to Socialism? Is there anyone left in Congress with any common sense?
GFawkes - 14 years ago
It's already against the law to kill people. How would using some subjective .gov "suspect list" to take away a constitutional right from someone that hasn't been convicted of anything keep a terrorist from obtaining a firearm?
This would only negatively impact the law abiding among us. Not the people that are wiling to break laws. No thanks.
AngeloD - 14 years ago
The Government has put tens of thousands on the watch list for no good reason.
We see stories every day of young children, grannies, etc. finding out that they are on the list by mistake.
Do we really want to allow the Government to deny basic Constitutional rights just because someone is put on a list by mistake?
We supposedly have a legal concept enshrined in the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments known as "due process". This is where peoples rights aren't taken from them without a court hearing, right to a lawyer, right to challenge the Government's accusations, etc.
Taking away rights just because someone is on the watch list is a blatent violation of due process. The Government still hasn't put in place any mechanism whereby someone put on the list by mistake can challenge it.
It's not just about gun ownership. I don't trust the Government not to abuse this power for violating other rights also.
Getagrip - 14 years ago
If your kid was threatening your life would you give it a gun? Stupid would PROBABLY say yes.
However, 'THE LIST' has to be more than 'suspected' if there it is to infringe upon a persons constitutional rights. The intent of the restriction is based on fear. The same fear that is driving the Miranda arguement.
The application of any restriction has to carry more weight than just being a suspect and fear needs to take a back seat. No attempt should be made to satisfy the NRA concern but anything that is proposed must stand up to whatever oposition there would be to any proposal.
bill murray - 14 years ago
a person on that list, should not be allowed to buy any type of weapon. a weapon of choice in the hands of a well trained person can inflick a lot of damage before a responce. it should be the law
The right to own a firearm to protect your family, yourself, and your country, is a right protected by the Second Amendment.
There are strict legal processes by which that right can be stripped.
A loosely (and poorly) regulated government mandated "watch list" does not have the same legal safeguards, or recourses as most of our justice system employs.
Placing the responsibility of clearing their name on an innocent wrongly included in the list borders on ludicrous.
What happened to due process and burden of proof?
Passing legislation supposedly intended on preventing an act of violence (which has yet to occur), which will likely affect many more law abiding citizens than its intended target group, is insane.
The law clearly states what it takes to lose your right to own a firearm.
There are no firm controls on what it takes to add your name to the "watch list".
What controls guarantee names are not added willy nilly for the express purpose of stripping folks of their ability to own firearms, were this legislation to pass?
Perhaps this would never happen, but do you really want to trust that decision to someone who thinks they know better how to run your life than you do?
An American citizen should not lose a Constitutional right, just because a bureaucrat decided to put you on a list. There serve us - not the other way around. Have the Democrats completely gone over to Socialism? Is there anyone left in Congress with any common sense?
It's already against the law to kill people. How would using some subjective .gov "suspect list" to take away a constitutional right from someone that hasn't been convicted of anything keep a terrorist from obtaining a firearm?
This would only negatively impact the law abiding among us. Not the people that are wiling to break laws. No thanks.
The Government has put tens of thousands on the watch list for no good reason.
We see stories every day of young children, grannies, etc. finding out that they are on the list by mistake.
Do we really want to allow the Government to deny basic Constitutional rights just because someone is put on a list by mistake?
We supposedly have a legal concept enshrined in the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments known as "due process". This is where peoples rights aren't taken from them without a court hearing, right to a lawyer, right to challenge the Government's accusations, etc.
Taking away rights just because someone is on the watch list is a blatent violation of due process. The Government still hasn't put in place any mechanism whereby someone put on the list by mistake can challenge it.
It's not just about gun ownership. I don't trust the Government not to abuse this power for violating other rights also.
If your kid was threatening your life would you give it a gun? Stupid would PROBABLY say yes.
However, 'THE LIST' has to be more than 'suspected' if there it is to infringe upon a persons constitutional rights. The intent of the restriction is based on fear. The same fear that is driving the Miranda arguement.
The application of any restriction has to carry more weight than just being a suspect and fear needs to take a back seat. No attempt should be made to satisfy the NRA concern but anything that is proposed must stand up to whatever oposition there would be to any proposal.
a person on that list, should not be allowed to buy any type of weapon. a weapon of choice in the hands of a well trained person can inflick a lot of damage before a responce. it should be the law