Should the terror watch list be used to constrain gun rights?

July 6, 3:57 PMLaw and Politics ExaminerD. Christian Moore

Previous Next

7 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Law and Politics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Sen.Lautenberg (left) Gov. Corzine and Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) (AP)

Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, has introduced legislation to prevent individuals on the so called “terror watch list” from purchasing firearms. According to his press release announcing the initiative, Sen. Lautenberg commissioned a report from the GAO which found over 900 individuals on the FBI’s list of suspected potential terrorists had applied for, and purchased firearms during the last 8 years. This is because the watch list is not one of the factors used to prevent firearms purchases. While Sen. Lautenberg himself stated he has been frustrated by the FBI’s refusal to release who is on the list and why, he thinks it important to prevent these individuals from purchasing firearms.

With respect, I must strongly disagree. The government's consolidated watch list has grown to more than one million names since its inception, while little is known of the metrics used to compile the list, or the names it contains. It has also drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and erroneous or unclear links to terrorist activity. On multiple occasions innocent citizens have ended up on the list, only to discover the mistake when they attempted to board an airplane.

I fully respect the United States Constitution and I expect the government should do the same; including our right to presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accuser and the right to keep and bear arms. Sen. Lautenberg’s plan infringes on all counts. In effect this amounts to trial by innuendo and conviction and punishment without due process. Once placed on the list, a citizen can be prevented from boarding an airplane, acquiring a travel visa and soon, perhaps, purchasing a firearm. As this CNN story points out, there are multiple mistakes and errors related to innocent citizens being placed on the watch list, and much difficulty in clearing one’s name once accused.

Were the list perfect, the United States still should not be in the business of taking away citizen’s rights because an agency has determined they may commit a crime in the future, and in the absence of evidence they are planning to do so. This seems to me a gross violation of civil liberties against citizens who have committed no crime.

As I referenced above, currently one can be prevented from purchasing firearms if a background check turns up 1 of 9 factors, such as a prior felony conviction. This seems reasonable, and is in accord with the basic principles of a citizen’s rights being constrained following due process in response to previous bad behavior. The terror watch list on the other hand, takes us down a dangerous path of limiting rights in expectation of a potential future crime; I simply cannot square this with the basic concept of liberty.

I would also point out, Sen. Lautenberg has a history of antagonism to the second amendment. As this is his preferred policy position, his right to hold these views and attempt to persuade the rest of us, is a natural part of our continued national discussions. However, he should not be using a government list of dubious constitutionality as a pretext for advancing his own agenda.