Terrorists and Guns

In the wake of the failed NYC Times Square attack (clearly perpetrated by right wing teabaggers an islamic terrorist from Pakistan), the gun grabbers have been using the spotlight to push for prohibitions on firearms purchases by people on the secret no-fly list. Apparently the guy had a scary pistol caliber carbine (the Kel-Tec Sub 2000). Sen Lieberman has been holding hearings, Mayor Bloomberg is in a tizzy, and the usual suspects are frothing at the mouth. It is kind of funny because in the same Op-Ed the NYT managed to write:

Some law enforcement experts have surmised that he had it to fire at officers in case he was pulled over... all along he possessed a weapon that could have easily done extreme damage...
Unlike those of some rifles, its bullets probably would not penetrate a police officer’s bullet-resistant vest, a law enforcement official said.

Logic check: Pistol caliber rounds will not penetrate soft police body armor. Ergo, the weapon was purchased to shoot at cops. Huh??? Good thing terrorists are stupid, I guess.

Sebastian over at Snowflakes has been discussing this and Peter Hamm from Brady even weighed in. As a sidebar, this is good news -- I certainly don't see the leading activists from our side trolling the blogosphere looking to make comments. They are busy raising money, threatening litigation, and generally winning. A Washington Post op-ed suggested that the NRA is a terrorist organization because it opposes denying rights based on inclusion on a classified government watchlist. This is my answer to that argument:

Thanks for highlighting the NRA's advocacy for terrorists. I wanted to give you some more information for future columns. Did you know that people on the terror watchlist can have letters to the editor published? In fact, they can start their own newspapers and use the power of the press to push inflammatory, extremist rhetoric. They can even purchase dangerous "home office" technology such as laser jet printers capable of printing dozens of pages in a minute and do this dastardly work from their own homes! Terrorists such as Maj Nidal Hassan even utilize electronic mail to communicate with extremist leadership in the Middle East; these terrorists have access to broadband global soap boxes.

Additionally, people on the terror watchlist hide behind prohibitions on "unreasonable search and seizure" which prevents our law enforcement officials from having the tools necessary to deal with their plots. Currently, officers usually require a warrant based on probable cause to search the homes of these terrorists. This is unacceptable, and our law enforcement officials need more tools to prevent the next tragedy. When it comes to terrorists, the police should be able to search with reasonable suspicion, or maybe even whenever they feel like it.

It is clear that extremist groups like the ACLU stand shoulder-to-shoulder with terrorist groups like the NRA in defending the rights of those who would do our society grave harm. I hope that you raise the alarm about the ACLU and other so-called "civil liberties" groups. Clearly, if someone is put on a classified list by the government with little or no judicial oversight then they should lose certain civil rights, just like a convicted felon would.

If you couldn't tell already, the above thoughts are sarcasm. I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record. In fact, I work for the government! For some reason, however, I am on the "no fly" list and get hassled every time I fly -- just like our previous Senator's wife (Cat Stevens), the late Senator Kennedy, and active duty US military trying to return from the combat zone. There is no way to get removed from the list or appeal one's status. I find it very troubling that many people are advocating limitation of civil rights based on an individual's status on a secret government list that isn't even that accurate. Do you really want to set an example with 2A rights that could later be extended to infringe upon 1A or 4A rights?

As I pointed out over at Snowflakes, there is no "loophole" here.

Frankly, the legal and regulatory infrastructure to deal with this is already in place. Felons are prohibited from possessing firearms. If you plot a terrorist attack, you can be found guilty of conspiracy. You are then a felon and a prohibited person. This provides due process and checks and balances.

As we saw over at Mudflats, however, a lot of these people want to stop pre-crime (“I’m not clear on how effective enforcement is if you have to wait for egregious violations”). They threw hissy fits about civil liberties violations under Bush with the PATRIOT act, but now that they are in charge, that machinery is certainly very useful for targeting their opponents and pursuing their pet causes. I'm not sure where I saw this principle, but I think it makes a lot of sense in this context:

Laws should be written as if they are meant to be enforced by your worst enemy.

Can the gun grabbers not envision any way in which their proposal to arbitrarily curtain civil liberties based on a classified determination by the executive branch of the federal government with no judicial or legislative oversight might come back to bite them in the posterior later on?