TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... watchlist/

Well an interesting question. NRA apparently opposes.

Some of my anti gun friends have stated that 2000 have already done so.

NRA opposes due to ease of which you can be incorrectly put on list..

At first blush, this sounds like something only a crazy person would oppose. However, I've heard a number of horror stories of people being erroneously added to the list and how difficult it is to a) find out who's on it and b) get your name off of the list if it shouldn't be there. The lack of accuracy and transparency of the list make this something I would be uncomfortable throwing a bunch of support behind. (while considering myself *not* a crazy person)

This is the USA, where our constitution prohibits terminating someones rights without due process.

If our founding fathers ever found out someone's Second Amendment rights were terminated just because some bureaucrat put their name on a list, they would all rise from the grave and start another revolution.

There are a number of legal reasons a non citizen should be able to buy a firearm. Foreign hunters, Permanent resident aliens, and so on. That however is nothing in regards to the no-fly or terrorist watch list. Imagine he abuse certain parties might enjoy performing when suddenly you can deny someone a constitutional right without due process by simply adding their name to a secret list with a secret process. What if the president decides to issue an executive order that says multiple gun purchases in two years or getting a license to carry is grounds to be added to the list because terrorists would want to do that in order to better facilitate their efforts... However imagine that the president is caught up in an election year and rather than issue such a directive himself his secretary of homeland defense issues the directive for him. Or maybe it's the director of the FBI, or perhaps the director of the ATF, or maybe its the person in charge of maintaining the NICS database, or perhaps ... Who knows because the public has exactly no clue who has the authority to establish the criteria for being added to the watch list(s). We have seen Elected officials and babies denied the right to fly because of this list, keep in mind that many gun control activists hold the idea that all gun owners are a bunch of revolutionaries and potential terrorists simply because they have guns.

"7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/2 ... 17599.html

As usual, John Lott is on top of this: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/25/does- ... -have-now/

It sure sounds scary.

But Bratton surely knows better. Law enforcement is notified every time that a person on the terror watch list attempts to buy gun. If it raises other flags, that case may be further scrutinized.

Being on the watch list doesn’t mean that you have been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of a crime. Of over 2,000 people on the watch list that bought guns between February 2004 and December 2014, not a single one has been identified as using a gun in a crime.

It is pretty easy to get on the terrorist watch list even if you haven’t done anything wrong. About 700,000 people were on the watch list last year, and this number has grown dramatically during the Obama administration. In 2014, about 50,000 people were on the “no-fly” list. This is a 10-fold increase since the beginning of 2009.

If there are 700,000 on the suspected terrorists watch list, we are doomed.
First, for failure to arrest a single one on this list.
Second, if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, why there are 700,000 on list in for the first place.
Third, if anyone would deny a person a civil right, then it has to be after due process (court, evidence, challenging the accuser, appeals, etc.).

Said list is unconstitutional.

Beiruty wrote:If there are 700,000 on the suspected terrorists watch list, we are doomed.
First, for failure to arrest a single one on this list.
Second, if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, why there are 700,000 on list in for the first place.
Third, if anyone would deny a person a civil right, then it has to be after due process (court, evidence, challenging the accuser, appeals, etc.).

Said list is unconstitutional.

Something that is usually ignored by our media and politicians is that the BOR doesn't list the rights of "citizens," it lists the rights of "the people" and individual "persons."