Two perspectives I disagree with.

casper1947

I thought I would post this in "Gun Rights" where no one would see it.

Two perspectives I disagree with.

1. "Asked in November on ABC's This Week if people on an FBI terror watch list should be allowed to buy a gun, Trump responded, "If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely."

Reached by phone on Monday, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still holds that position. "I don't think it's changed," he said. "I haven't seen anything contrary to it."

http://www.allenbwest.com/matt-palumbo/theres-one-form-of-gun-control-donald-trump-supports

Due process should be required. Lists are very subjective. "One mans terrorists is another man's freedom fighter"

2. Bill O'Reilly: `This Is the Key to Solving the Gun Problem'

"O'Reilly said that it would be perfectly legitimate for Congress to to "debate" and "define" which types of weapons should be outlawed completely nationwide because "federal law always takes precedent."

"Secondly, O'Reilly proposed making every gun crime - including the illegal sale of guns - a federal crime."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/14/bill-oreilly-this-is-the-key-to-solving-the-gun-problem/

I guess at least he is honest. The Constitution is irrelevant. "Federal law always takes precedent." 10th Amendment be dammed. As well as enumerated powers. I thought the Constitution took precedent.

Don McManus

O'Reilly also stated that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment provide Government with power to regulate firearms.

He apparently thinks Justice Scalia was a pinhead, or has not read the Heller decision.

From the decision:

a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of he operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22-28.

This, based upon Heller, is how the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is currently viewed. It is, in practice, what the Constitution now states.

Of course Scalia then went on to affirm the following powers of Government in the final statement of the decision:

...Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.



So, while affirming that the totality of the operative verbiage in the 2nd Amendment is 'The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed', Scalia and the court specifically stated three methods of legal infringement:

1. Background checks to determine individual qualification.
2. The power to force registration of firearms.
3. The power to force the licensing of the individual (even if the fire arm is solely for use in the home).

O'Reilly's statement comports with the reality of the decision, but he does not understand from where that reality emanates.

Mr. Perfect

Maybe the US gov't should get their hands on some pre-cogs and get to work eliminating all crime before it happens.

tallcharlie

There is already a mechanism for preventing those on watch lists from acquiring firearms from FFL dealers.

Dealers are encouraged to make a separate, informed judgement about each and every sale, even if the buyer passes the NICS background check.

FFL dealers are repeatedly told by the BATFE that they are not required by any law to sell a firearm to anyone, and they are not required to tell the applicant why they will not sell him or her the firearm. Simply put, if a dealer doesn't like the looks of the applicant, the sale can legally be aborted.

The FBI runs the NICS and has access to all the watch lists, as well.

Therefore, simply informing the dealer via the NICS background check results that a potential buyer is on one or another list, would place the responsibility for the sale back on the dealer, and enable a legal and effective way to prevent such sales.

casper1947

Has the "FBI terror watch list" actually caught a terrorist? or stopped an attack?

They may well take a position that in talking about successes would compromise their methods and jeopardize success, assuming there are actually successes, in which case not talking about it is self serving.

My problem with the "FBI terror watch list" is its total lack of due process. With no due process (court order) to get on the list, due process is denied in getting off the list. Any of the alphabet agencies may submit someone for the list with little evidence, if any. If you allow this list to deny a constitutional right how hard would it be to add additional lists? You know, "Common Sense".

The MOST I could accept would be a 24 hour hold and the appropriate agency being notified of the pending sale.