Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. But homicidal tendencies are not evenly distributed throughout the general population. Criminals, crazies, and terrorists pose a heightened threat. That’s why even those of us who strongly support the Second Amendment also support federal laws prohibiting the most dangerous among us from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives.
There’s one problem with what I’ve written above: The restrictions in place for convicted felons and the seriously mentally ill do not apply to those on terrorist watch lists. A Government Accountability Office report found that individuals on terrorist watch lists tried to buy guns and explosives 1,228 times over a six-year period ending in 2010. In nine of out of ten cases, the FBI could do nothing about it.
Advertisement
President Bush recognized that this was a problem. In 2007, he asked Congress to give the FBI the power to block gun and explosives sales to suspected terrorists. The Justice Department endorsed the concept. Nothing came of it.
Now, Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) have drafted H.R. 2159/S. 34, legislation that attempts to close what they are calling the “Terror Gap.”
Last week, members of the House Judiciary Committee voted on an abbreviated version of the bill: the Quigley Amendment to the Patriot Act. It would have given the Justice Department the discretion to block sales to terrorism suspects on a case-by-case basis. It was voted down.
On what basis? Some members worry that restrictions on gun rights for anyone — even suspected terrorists — will erode the Second Amendment. I’m not unsympathetic to slippery-slope arguments but the King/Lautenberg legislation clearly targets only those on terrorism watch lists and it establishes a straightforward procedure so that individuals can challenge and reverse any purchase blocked by the FBI in error. In other words, if someone gets on a terrorist watch list by mistake, his right to bear arms will be only delayed, not denied.
Others who voted against the amendment raised the possibility that preventing an individual from purchasing a firearm will tip him off that he’s on a watch list. But the King/Lautenberg bill lets the FBI decide whether it’s better to stop the purchase or let the suspect go ahead and buy the gun and then see where he goes and what he does.
Another objection: Convicted criminals, by definition, have already committed crimes. The seriously mentally ill have been so judged by competent authorities. Suspected terrorists, by contrast, are just that: suspected. But they are not suspected criminals — they are suspected unlawful enemy combatants, a very different category. We draw up “watch lists” because we recognize that by the time we know for certain that someone is a terrorist, it is likely too late. Rare is the experienced suicide bomber.
Last week in New York, two men, Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, were arrested in a sting operation after they allegedly tried to buy guns, ammunition, and a hand grenade from an undercover investigator. Police said they had recorded Ferhani talking about attacking a synagogue or the Empire State Building. If the two had gone to a licensed gun dealer they would not have been prevented from making purchases — even if their names had been placed on a terrorism watch list. The King/Lautenberg bill simply aims to fix that.
Also last week, a suicide bomber in Pakistan killed more than 80 people to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden. I’ll bet the terrorists responsible would rather be in Philadelphia. It is not difficult to imagine an attack on American soil modeled on the operation carried out by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba in Mumbai in 2008: coordinated shootings and bombings that left 164 people dead and more than 300 wounded. No sophisticated weapons were used.
If, one day, such an atrocity should be carried out using weapons legally and easily obtained from licensed gun dealers by terrorists already on a terrorist watch list, expect a clamor for serious limitations on the right to bear arms — not just the modest precaution that King and Lautenberg propose.
“I am certainly dedicated to protecting individuals’ Second Amendment rights,” King told me. “But it defies common sense to allow suspected terrorists the ability to purchase firearms when we already prevent criminals and the mentally ill from doing so.” In these perilous times, that’s hard to argue with — though I don’t doubt there are those who will try.
— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.
Appealing the decision should require a jury, not just a judge to agree that the person is a terrorist. Also, there should be a limited number of citizens who can be on the list at one time. If they find this limit to be low later on, then congress can raise it slightly.
Cem Romanorum catapultae proscriptae erunt turm soli prescript Barbarus habebunt.
(If the Romans had outlawed catapults then only barbarians would have had them).
My problem with the Quigley amendment was denial of purchase was at the sole discretion of the Attorney General. (See amendment here External Link) The actions under three provisions that will sunset on May 27 unless they are extended next week all require a judge to approve them and periodic review. The Quigley amendment had no chance of passing without similar protections.
"In other words, if someone gets on a terrorist watch list by mistake, his right to bear arms will be only delayed, not denied."
For how long will the delay last? This delay will be abused as well as who gets on the list. I do not trust the care of a right so precious as what the Second Amendment describes to be administered by humans. Particularly over people who are suspected and not convicted.
Really? After gazillion of articles by your fellow authors in this magazine warning us about dangers of government bureaucrats managing our lives, unintended consequences, "imagine X being done by folks who work at DMV" and so on, this is what you think is a good law? Oh, I forgot, this is about secuuurity rather than healthcare. Obviously something that we should care about much more actuarial tables be damned. Obviously the people making terrorist watch list are *special* bureaucrats possessing unique wisdom and understanding quite unlike all others. This law is also unique in having no unintended consequences.
To conclude, you, Sir, and your fellow thinkers are no better than Obama. A plague on both your houses.
"Suspected terrorists, by contrast, are just that: suspected. But they are not suspected criminals — they are suspected unlawful enemy combatants, a very different category."
That's complete BS. If they're suspected of being that dangerous then they should be under constant surveillance/investigation. Or, if they're not citizens, deported.
Do I really have to remind you that Napolitano expanded the pool of "suspected terrorists" to include pretty much everyone who didn't vote for Obama? Do you really think that if she had the power to block gun sales by merely putting someone's name on a list that she wouldn't do it?
And even if we suspend disbelief long enough to assume the government will always act in good faith I would think that our experience in the airports over the last decade shows that they're just not competant to properly manage such a list.
I'm really shocked to see a piece on NRO advising that we pre-emptively surrender our rights today so that we won't have to defend them tomorrow. I'm surprised to see the byline on this article isn't "Schumer".
We still have no idea who is on these "watch lists", how they get on these lists, and how to get off these lists. Basically you're endorsing the idea that a person can be put on a secret list and have their rights suspended. Try it on the first amendment.
The is just an excuse for our "superiors" to create enemies lists. You shouldn't have to prove you're NOT a criminal. More freedom lost to "security". Prisons are secure, but I don't want to live in a prison.
Ted Kennedy was on the terrorist watch list. While in my mind that is accurate, I recall some high profile blunders that didn't belong on the list as well, just can't remember who.
"only delayed, not denied". Just like justice itself, eh. And as long as we're on that, "only" delayed. Tell that to the woman who has a crazy ex on the prowl.
Any gun law drafted by Lautenberg (and for that matter, King) is one that anyone with a functioning brainstem should know to stay away from. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is a laudible goal. Nothing those two pompous clowns do would help that, in fact I'd bet a years salary that it will make the situation worse.
This has all the characteristics of a well-intentioned regulation that would, in the end, only foster abuse and infringement on civil liberties.
Do I think terrorists should be able to buy guns? Not really. I think terrorists should be in prison cells or body bags.
However, a "watch list" suspect does not a terrorist make. If our intelligence is working correctly, we find these people BEFORE they obtain the tools to commit the act, ONCE we know there is an active plot and attempt to commit it. Absent that last part, this watch list exception just becomes a place for bureaucratic meddling or law enforcement overreach.
We have instant background checks for firearm purchasers now. If a prospective purchases has enough of a background to suggest he should be ineligible to purchase, why not let that mechanism work as designed? If he has no background, why should he be prevented?
I never had strong feelings about Cliff May. Now, I suspect he is a moron. This is the most vile idea I have ever read on this site. Why not grant Congressmen jus primae noctis?
I have no problem with denying terrorists guns. Let's put the burden on the government, where it belongs, to prove someone belongs on this list. Then you can talk about denying rights to these citizens.
If terrorists really wanted weapons they will get them illegaly. this will just place one more burden on the American people and will do little to solve the access problem
I was nearly apoplectic reading this column on NRO. I was gratified to find the comments overwhelmingly stating my opinions and thoughts on the matter, so I won't beat a dead horse, except to say you should mark me down as another who thinks this is a terrible, terrible idea, for the many reasons other posters have given.
"the King/Lautenberg bill lets the FBI decide whether it’s better to stop the purchase or let the suspect go ahead and buy the gun"
Recent events in Arizona, which allowed the ATFE to force reluctant gun dealers to sell 1,300+ guns to 'straw purchasers' connected to Mexican drug and illegal alien smugglers, worked out really well, didn't it? Only one Border Patrol Agent killed (so far). Holder claims he didn't even know this operation was going on. Let the buck stop somewhere else, eh? I don't trust Holder, who would use this authority to further his ongoing efforts to corrupt the Justice Department and trample on the rights of those that "aren't his people." All while claiming "plausible deniability" for what went on.
We should continue to strive to be a nation of clearly defined laws. Not one that gives authority to unelected bureaucrats to compile secret lists. Particularly when there is currently no mechanism to find out who is on such a list or how to get removed from that list.
"If, one day, such an atrocity should be carried out using weapons legally and easily obtained from licensed gun dealers by terrorists already on a terrorist watch list, expect a clamor for serious limitations on the right to bear arms — not just the modest precaution that King and Lautenberg propose."
I do expect it, but that is not justification for giving up freedoms before the fact.
What it means is that we had better be ready for the legal fight that will ensue to restrict our right to defense because some abuse it.
This struggle after the fact will take place whether we have a more modest bill in place or not. These folks who want to restrict rights do not back off when a compromise is employed. It only makes them see us as weak and makes them hunger for more.
Good things do not come from secret government lists.
Any bill authored by Frank Lautenberg aimed at gun owners is a bad idea. Senator Lautenberg has been a consistent foe of the second amendment for his entire career, earning himself an F rating with the NRA.
We normally set a high bar for depriving someone of a fundamental constitutional right, and that process usually requires the conviction of a serious felony. Guns should be no different. If the FBI really thinks someone is a threat, then they should go develop evidence that said person has committed a felony, convict them of a felony, and in that manner deprive them of their second amendment rights.
"In these perilous times, that’s hard to argue with — though I don’t doubt there are those who will try."
It's extremely annoying, by the way, when someone proposes a position and then declares it inarguable, declaring that anyone who even tries to advance a contrary opinion is wasting their time.
And it's DOUBLY annoying when the proposition thus described is as wrong-headed as the subject of this article.
I expect that kind of rhetorical nonsense from the Left, not from NRO.
