All Versions of So-Called ‘Terror Watchlist’ an Affront to Liberty

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_01 Jun. 20 10.01
The threat Obama will not name: Notice how the powers that be who want to further infringe on the rights of Americans all tiptoe around their culpability in setting the stage to make domestic terrorism inevitable? (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA -(Ammoland.com)- Panicky Senate Republicans, spooked by a filibuster into allowing votes on using a so-called “terror watchlist” as an excuse to ban gun sales, are expected to offer up legislation today to compete with Democrat demands, in a wholly unnecessary, election year “compromise” on the right to keep and bear arms.

Even Donald Trump has indicated his willingness to consider such a ban (not surprising considering past statements in support of such a measure), and cited his meeting with the National Rifle Association on the matter as proof of solidarity with gun owners.

For its part, NRA issued the following statement:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump.  The NRA's position on this issue has not changed.  The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period.  Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.  If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist.  At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.  That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate.  Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

That “go to court [and] arrest the terrorist” part seem to be OK.  The concern here is, what do they mean by “due process” (the thing Joe Manchin says “is killing us”) for those who aren’t arrested? A jury trial? A panel with personal political debts and sympathies? A judge with predilections of his own? And explain again how quickly and easily people wrongly on the list can be removed, and what recourse they’ll have for being denied a right…?

We run into many of the same unanswered questions outlined when Cornyn was pushing another NRA-backed disarmament bill on mental health. It’s fair to wonder why both seem so eager to prove that “gun control” works – especially since the most credible study on the matter observed:

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐ extant studies.

Does anyone actually believe committed ISIS operatives will be stopped from their missions of maximum casualty carnage by a new “gun control” law that further tramples fundamental and civil liberties?

Also inexplicable: While stumping for kinder, gentler “gun control,” NRA has remained deliberately indifferent to immigration, both legal and illegal, ignoring the “pathway to citizenship” threat to continued legal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms by falling back on the “single issue” excuse. In the Orlando killer’s case, there’s still no explanation on why admitting his Taliban-supporting father to this country in the first place was in furtherance of one of government’s fundamental reasons for existing, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Speaking of that Democrat Islamic State loyalist (and evidently a self-loathing gay), it’s not like the ball wasn’t dropped on him time and again for threatening statements and conduct. The latest reported development: The shrink who was supposed to give him a psych evaluation for his security employment position says she never did.

So the “solution” to all this is to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms against those who have done nothing wrong? By putting our names on classified lists that are compiled without oversight under the banner of “national security”? And to — as FBI Director James Comey maintains (and naturally, Loretta Lynch denies) — tip a suspect off that he’s been made? And the Republican “solution” is to offer secret mini-lists?

After Sandy Hook, there was a cadre of insiders discussing appeasement measures to help quell the gun ban feeding frenzy, operating on the assumption that “we have to give them something—we can’t offer nothing!” Some colleagues and I were privy to those discussions, and we did our best to make it clear that any sign of weakness or surrender would be loudly condemned. Instead, our unequivocal warning to politicians was:

WE WON’T STAND FOR SCAPEGOATING

NO NEW GUN LAWS

DENY SUCCESS TO MASS MURDERERS BY ABOLISHING PHONY ‘GUN-FREE’ VICTIM / KILLER-ENABLING ZONES NOW

WORK WITH US OR WE WILL WORK TO RETIRE YOU

That’s because any concession allows those playing the long game to advance and establish a beachhead from which to launch their next incursion. Thinking they will then be appeased and let up makes as much sense as throwing a scrap of flesh to a pack of circling jackals and assuming they’ll be satisfied and leave you alone.

Look at what’s happening to prove that:  Before the Orlando shooting, the big issue gun owners considered the front-and-center threat (it still is) was so-called “universal background checks,” in reality the first step toward universal registration.  Now it turns out that’s not good enough, and the gun-grabbers need to expand prior restraints on rights with this “terror watchlist” nonsense rather than be held to account for policies they demanded that have embedded terrorists among us in the first place. And even that won’t be good enough, as there’s a new move to add “progressive”-defined “haters” to the banned list.

It’ll never be enough for those who would control everything. That’s why they’re called “totalitarians.”

Barring another convenient blood dancing opportunity, it doesn’t look like either Democrats or Republicans will reach agreement to pass anything. What we’re seeing now is posturing, sound and fury signifying nothing but jockeying for position.

Don’t think for a second that means the threat isn’t imminent. It wouldn’t be the first time Obama has expressed frustration with the lack of “bipartisan” legislation and acted on his own through imperial executive order decrees that receive full and enthusiastic media backing.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 12 thoughts on “All Versions of So-Called ‘Terror Watchlist’ an Affront to Liberty

    1. at the very least the least should say why? when? who? and how? put you there, should not stop anything, you should be notified, should be revocable, and in case of diffamation or privacy breach they should be held accountable.

    2. Another great article from codrea! The best GOP response to preventing terrorists from engaging in terrorism would be:

      1. Stop letting people from muslim terrorist nations immigrate – background check free! – and raise children who become terrorists

      2. Abolish birthright citizenship so that just because someone from a savage third world nation births a child in america, it does not make them an american citizen

      3. Listen to the words of the same founders who gave us the second amendment and get out of entangling alliances abroad. This means we stop overthrowing governments, drone striking civilians, and giving arms to terrorists in the mid east as part of our insane Wilsonian interventionism that only serves to kill good american soldiers and make recruiting efforts easy for terrorists. Stop trying to slay dragons in the mideast because every time it blows up in our faces and causes far worse problems, See Iraq, libya, afghanistan, syria, etc all for proof. The current refugee invasion and terrorist attacks in europe and america are a direct result of our progressive foreign policy.

      1. Agree, except for the very end of 3. Change “direct result” to “major contributing factor, exacerbating and highlighting our suicidal immigration policies”. Just because we F a country up doesn’t mean we have to welcome a million “refugees” in and let Islamic fundamentalists and jihad sympathizers remain in the USA by the millions. Whatever we do in the middle east, none of these terrorists, sympathizers and breeders (or their parents) should be here in the first place. There is no indirect substitute for directly honoring and faithfully executing our most fundamental national defenses — our borders and immigration policies, numerical limits, criteria, and controls.

        We bombed the crap out of Germany, yet there was not a single successful infiltration attack during all of WWII. Nor did we open the spigot for millions of German, Italian and Japanese “refugees”. Nor did we encourage the invasion-occupation of the USA for “cheap labor” and Democrat votes.

        If it weren’t Islamic “refugees”, the Dems and “cheap labor” Republicans are welcoming in some other crowd.

        1. You will hardly get an argument out of me about immigration. If we let anyone in, it should be people who are already wealthy and/or can easily assimilate and not immediately go to cradle to grave welfare.

          My point about our foreign policy is it is creating the immivasion in europe. Hillary and obama taking out the libyan government is why everyone is now pouring into europe. Their daily drone strikes on civilians and arming terrorists makes it really easy to recruit people to fight against america.

          By the way, the new report is out today on yet another fast and furious disaster from the obama admin: arms sent to the syrian terrorists by the cia have been intercepted by jordanians and sold on the black market. So far, two known americans were killed with those weapons, and that total might increase.

          1. “My point about our foreign policy is it is creating the immivasion in europe.”

            In a way, yes. But Europe was already being “invaded”, and the “invaders” are being welcomed in by the Euro elites and airhead classes. Same thing now, only the rate picked up dramatically. It’s not really an invasion if no one’s trying to stop it, if they’re welcomed in. And that’s the problem. The problem is that the Euro elites and airheads welcome the “invasion” and cultural terraforming of Europe.

            I mostly sympathize with the noninterventionist POV. Bouncing Saddam and occupying Iraq was a worse blunder than Carter helping bounce the Shah of Iran. In a lot of ways it was criminal, possibly treasonous. 6,000 soldiers killed, 60k maimed so the Bush admn could collaborate in the theft & waste of $3 trillion dollars to so.

            But it’s done, and now you have the Islamic State butchers, and I have no problem bombing the life out of them, or even getting ground forces back in there for a bug hunt, provided it’s done decisively and quickly and then get the hell out. Except for keeping a base here and there for the purpose of doing it again from time to time any time they become a problem, and creating safe camps and zones for the refugees to eliminate the excuse for letting them come here. And then send the bill to the Saudis.

            If the USA weren’t bombing Islamic State, Muslims would still be invading Europe, just not as rapidly, for many reasons: Economic, quality of life, liberty, religious and socio-cultural conquest by Dhimmigration and outbreeding.

            As you probably know, Left “Libertarians” love to claim that open-immigration and lax borders would be no problem as long as

            1. Non-interventionist foreign policy. This is in part an appeasement argument, but it has some mitigation merit in the context of countries with suicidal policies immigration controls and borders.

            2. If we didn’t have welfare (but we do have welfare, yet the Ls support open immigration anyway, And third world immigrants and fundo Muslims would swarm into the west for jobs even if we didn’t have welfare, and wreak just as much havoc to our culture, security, liberty, quality of life and voting control.

            3. If only we didn’t have any gun control or “gun free” zones. Again there’s some mitigating merit there, but we DO have gun control and “gun free” zones, yet they still want open immigration and call Trump a racist because he doesn’t. The behave as if CCWs can prevent every attack and keep the body count down to zero. But of course all it does is tend to prevent *some* attacks and mitigate others. The jihadi has the advantage of planning, surprise, firepower, possibly armor. Some will very likely die before a CCW takes him out. There’s no guarantee a jihadi won’t get the jump on, outgun and kill one or more of the CCWs present.

            And obviously CCW does nothing to stop attacks like Boston: Bombs, incendiaries, snipers, derailments, poison gas, infiltrating airline maintenance or food service, becoming actual airline pilots,

            1. You are conversing with a follower of rothbard and hoppe, so no need to worry about the left libertarian koch brothers cato nonsense.

              No disagreement here about elites pushing immigration for cheap labor and to destroy the culture of western civiliation and Christianity, all while saving money for their billionaire comrades. My point about Libya was Gaddafi had a backroom deal with Berlusconi to keep the immigrants from invading europe. Once Hillary and obama took him out, as well as aiding the terrorists in Syria, the floodgates opened and it allowed people like Nazi collaborator soros to use them to take advantage of the situation and permanently destroy europe via immivasion.

              The desire to import third worlders is always there, but the US foreign policy certainly makes it much easier to accomplish.

            2. To Trumped:

              Ah, a real (Paleo) Libertarian. Great. Me too.

              I agree. Just want to emphasize that we in the USA and Europe need to police our own borders and immigration controls, not depend on deals with folks like Qaddafi to do it for us. If it isn’t us bombing, there will always be some natural, political or economic catastrophe from time to time to drive refugees to first world countries that don’t police their own borders. I’m sure we agree on that.

              Reminds me of Guest Worker Bush’s North American Union plan to “solve the problem” by having Mexico be responsible for our “extended borders”.

            3. P.S. Perhaps worse than the Koch-Cato is the San Francisco “Independent” Institute. Talk about Orwellian. These guys are effectively globalists. Their founder & pres Theroux claims that borders and immigration controls = “slavery”. Real piece of work

            4. I don’t even like to call myself a libertarian these days because the cato types have taken over the meaning of that word like the neocons took over conservative. I also hated seeing rand paul call himself a libertarian, when he was running to appease leftists and neocons, unlike his dad. Ron Paul was backed by mises and similar groups, and just look at how he did in 2012 compared to the cato influenced rand. Left libertarianism is not only stupid, but basically no one in america outside the media actually support it.

    3. Lets not forget banning Freedom if you ever had a misdemeanor , ‘ Cause that’s where they are going.
      It WILL EXPAND to all misdemeanors …… laws like this always grow in a BAD way !!!

      1. True. Let’s also not forget there were 320 people in the Florida club. So at least a handful of people would’ve been carrying, and the body count would’ve been far lower had the NRA not inserted “gun free” zones into Florida carry and then let these victimization zones stay in the law all these decades. The attack also would’ve ended with CCW carriers saving the day.

    Leave a Comment 12 Comments