Surprisingly, there’s been a consensus among experts that those on the no-fly list shouldn’t be banned from purchasing firearms. This is an issue where the NRA and ACLU agree, though they cite different parts of the Constitution to make their case.
The government isn’t exactly too conservative in their criteria for what it takes for you to end up on a terrorist watch list. In fact, ” In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations.”
This is different than the no-fly list, but clearly the government is a bit sloppy when it comes to accuracy. The government doesn’t seem to mind however. As NewsMax reports:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has overruled FBI Director James Comey on a key issue involving guns and terrorist watch lists.
Lynch says the Obama administration supports banning the sale of firearms to people on terrorist watch lists — a declaration that flies in the face of Comey’s belief that denying those sales could hinder investigations of potential terrorists.
The Washington Times reports that in a statement issued Thursday, the Justice Department said it wants Congress to pass the so-called “no-fly, no-buy” plan Democratic lawmakers are pushing.
“The amendment gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department’s operational and investigative sensitivities,” Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said.
“Restrictions like bans on gun purchases by people on ‘watch lists’ are ineffective, unconstitutional, or both,” the NRA said this week.
And in an ACLU position paper titled, “Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms,” the group’s National Security Project Director wrote:
“[T]he standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.”
What do you guys think? Be sure to let us know in the comments.