The “Terror Gap” Nightmare

If you listen to our political opponents, no one who gets flagged by the no-fly list can possibly be trusted with a firearm – even in the home or used for hunting. They are clearly a danger to society. We hear stories about babies ending up on the list and all sorts of other problems that come from similar names. However, here’s one that was supposedly an exact match of name, social security number, and date of birth.

Yet, he’s cleared to carry a concealed firearm based on a recent background check, he was cleared to ride on an Air Force flight on his way to a foreign country, and he was given a place to stay on the Pearl Harbor naval base while the bureaucrats took time to clean up their mess.

In other words, a guy who is no apparent danger to our country and has no record that should indicate he’s a problem should be a prohibited person according to anti-gun politicians and groups. No accountability, no recourse, just take away people’s fundamental rights. Thank goodness they aren’t going to win that fight. Instead of losing his right to own firearms, the guy in this story was just out five days of hotel expenses in Hawaii and a trip to see his wife who is serving our country.

5 thoughts on “The “Terror Gap” Nightmare”

  1. I often respond to “Terror Gap” proposals in a different way:

    Perhaps the problem with the “Terrorist Watch List” gun ban proposal is that it doesn’t go far enough.

    Although the Supreme Court established that the RKBA is a Constitutional right, we cannot let Constitutional rights stand in the way of the war on terror. Suppose someone is on the terror suspect list (who is on the list is a secret, as is the criteria for being on it). It is not enough to deny their 2nd Amendment right to buy a gun, since they could already have some at home. So we need to also deny their 4th Amendment rights and search their homes without warrants. We also need to question them as to why they wanted a gun, without any right to remain silent. So we must also deny their 5th Amendment rights and punish them if they don’t tell us what we need to know.

    This is the logical next step in the Bush war on terror policies (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a supporter of this very “Terror Gap” proposal on behalf of the Bush administration). The Bush administration had previously only supported the denial of Constitutional rights to those who were actually arrested for terrorism. The next step, as we are discussing here, is to deny Constitutional rights to those whom we just put on a secret list because we for some secret reason just suspect them of some sort of terrorist sympathy.

    I would not have thought that you would be a supporter of Bush/Cheney-type war on terror measures, especially such an escalation — but welcome aboard!

  2. Another thought for proponents of “Terror Gap” legislation to ponder:

    Suppose a new name is added to the (secret) “Terror Suspect Watch List” (using secret criteria) and that person resides in a state with registration, FOID card, etc., and a cross check reveals that the new listee owns guns. Shouldn’t “Terror Gap” legislation have a provision for the confiscation of any such guns?

  3. It’s interesting that due process doesn’t seem to exist in their world … at least not when there’s a chance to Take Someone’s Guns Or Prohibit Them Buying One.

    As far as I know, everyone on “that side” at least pretends to be generally a friend of Civil Liberties and Constitutional Protections –

    1. Due process is supposed to be inconvenient, that’s why DHS has been so opposed to it from their very founding.

Comments are closed.