It's a given there are errors on the watch list, but my thinking is the exact opposite of Graham's: anyone on the watch list should lose their 2d Amendment rights until they successfully challenge/reverse being on the list ~ Sooz

Guns and the Terrorist Watch List
By Steve Benen - Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:00 PM EDT

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) hosted a press conference earlier this week to complain about the White House following the law with regards to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, but during the event, a reporter raised a good question: why not stop people on the Terrorist Watch List from buying guns?

"I think, anyone who's on the Terrorist Watch List should not lose their Second Amendment right without the ability to challenge that determination," Graham replied.

It's a legal oddity that doesn't get talked about much: if you're an American on the federal Terrorist Watch List, you can't buy an airplane ticket, and you're likely to have quite a bit of trouble at the border, but you can still buy an assault rifle. Graham sees no need to change this.

In fairness, I should note that the senator wasn't explicitly endorsing letting terrorists buy firearms, so much as he was raising doubts about the accuracy of the watch list, but the practical effect is the same -- those on the list can't get buy a seat on a plane, but they can buy an arsenal. As Salon explained, "Currently, the federal government can only prevent a firearm sale for 11 reasons -- suspected ties to terrorism, or even suspicion that a gun would be used in an attack, are not one of them."

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), an NRA member with a "A" rating, would like to change the law.


If recent history, and Graham's comments on Monday, are any indication, this measure will struggle to overcome a Republican filibuster, too.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/24/17897510-guns-and-the-terrorist-watch-list?lite

It's almost impossible to get off the so-called Terrorist Watch List/No-Fly List without incurring considerable legal costs even though one should not be on the list. Graham has a valid point.

Just imagine a world where the GOP/TP protected ALL rights [including equality and voting] for ALL of us with the same fervor ~ ~ Sooz

Monday, Apr 22, 2013 03:45 PM CDT
Graham: Guns, but not trials, for terror suspects
The senator wants to strip terror suspects' right to a trial, but insists on preserving their right to buy a gun.
By Alex Seitz-Wald

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is not pleased that the Obama administration decided to prosecute Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in civilian court, even though it would probably be illegal and counterproductive to treat the U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant.

The senator, a lawyer and reserve Air Force JAG officer himself, called for stripping Tsarnaev of his constitutional rights to due process even before the 19-year-old was captured Friday evening. “The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise,” Graham said on Twitter on Friday. “Under the Law of War we can hold #Boston suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or appointment of counsel.”

But Graham seems to hold the opposite view when it comes to different constitutional rights for those accused or suspected of terrorism. At a press conference he set up this afternoon to slam the White House on the enemy combatant decision, he was asked about legislation that would stop people on the Terrorist Watch List from buying guns. Here’s his response:


Currently, the federal government can only prevent a firearm sale for 11 reasons — suspected ties to terrorism, or even suspicion that a gun would be used in an attack, are not one of them. Between February 2004 and December 2010, 1,453 people on the terror watch list tried to buy a gun and over 90 percent were not stopped.

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s bill to close what he calls the “terror gap” would not automatically strip anyone’s Second Amendment rights, as Graham suggests. It would, in fact, allow “any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.” In Graham’s world, Tsarnaev would have no such clear recourse to challenge his status as an enemy combatant.

The Terrorist Watch List is imperfect and there are plenty of legitimate civil libertarian arguments to be made against restricting firearms access to people on the list, since people on it haven’t been convicted of any crimes and they’re not even allowed to know whether they’re on the list. For instance, Ted Kennedy was, indeed, briefly and erroneously placed on the no fly list in 2004, though that’s a different list. But Graham’s opposition to limiting the Second Amendment rights of people suspected of being terrorists is wholly inconsistent with his support for completely stripping away their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial in court.

Contrast his opposition to closing the “terror gap” with this, from a 2011 New York Times article:


So the only right that Graham seems interested in preserving for people suspected of being affiliated with al-Qaida is their right to purchase firearms.

The NRA also opposes closing the “terror gap,” fearing that it would be used to strip the Second Amendment rights of “Americans who disagree with the policies of the Obama Administration,” “who believe in federalism,” or “who post their political opinions on the Internet.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/graham_guns_but_not_trails_for_terror_suspects/

The list is definitely imperfect ~ so is the mindset that everyone has the right to unlimited/unregulated weaponry ~

Sooz