Intersection of the Terrorist Watch List with the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendments

[bushmaster1313]

The scuttlebutt has it that the Administration is considering taking Executive Action to prohibit persons on the Terrorist Watch List from purchasing firearms. This raises serious concerns regarding violation of the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendments.

In particular, by exercising their rights to speech, assembly and religion (1st A.), a person could be put on the Terrorist Watch list. This would have the effect of infringing on their right to keep and bear arms (2nd A.) without Due Process (5th A.). Some states are proposing similar measures (14th A.).

We have the misfortune of living in interesting times.

 

[armadillo]

Using the terrorist watch list to prohibit firearms ownership may also violate the 5th Amendment (Due Process) since there is no way to contest being place on the list.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Using the terrorist watch list to prohibit firearms ownership may also violate the 5th Amendment (Due Process) since there is no way to contest being place on the list.

OP edited to reflect that Due Process is the 5th Amendment not the 6th.

 

[CoMF]

No need to worry. I'm sure the .gov will sort everything out after they add everyone to the list.

More people need to be made aware that this is actually happening and well outside tin foil hat territory.

 

[ladder13]

To add if I may, an EO coming to have gun sellers(the guys selling their private arms) at shows to either obtain an FFL or use one for transfers.

 

[bushmaster1313]

As to the use of an Executive Order.

I would think that the most the President could legally do is direct the BATFE to determine under the Administrative Procedure Act whether in their estimation certain types of private sellers are in fact in the business of selling firearms.
If they make that determination a court would then give that interpretation a certain amount of deference when construing the statute. It's called Chevron deference. But I do not think the Predident can order that anyone who sells a certain number of guns a year must get an FFL.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

The courts are going to have a field day with this concept. It is very likely going to boomerang. While the SCOTUS has told us that reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment are permissible the courts will never permit an attempt, however arguably reasonable, to restrict the Second Amendment when it infringes significantly on other, well defined Constitutional rights.

Like BA Baracus said in the A-Team -

I pity the fool.......

 

[bushmaster1313]

One news outlet is saying that under the new orders a background check will now be required for guns purchased from dealers, even at gun shows or online. Duh.

 

[Old TexMex]

One news outlet is saying that under the new orders a background check will now be required for guns purchased from dealers, even at gun shows or online. Duh.

Oh golly. Another loophole is closed!

 

[LoboGunLeather]

What better sign of a society based on equality than to have everyone on the same terrorist watch list? Truly equal justice for all!

If everyone is on the list and you petition to have your name removed from the list, what does that say about you? Probably time to start another list!

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Oh golly. Another loophole is closed!

Still need to close the loophole for no background checks on guns sold destined to Mexican drug cartels...

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

If everyone is on the list and you petition to have your name removed from the list, what does that say about you? Probably time to start another list!

Interesting question.

I suppose that objecting to the terrorist watchlist is reason enough to put your name on the list. Government logic 101.

 

[F75gunslinger]

With the the SAFE act put into place in NY, any firearm sales have to go through a background check, be it private or commercial. And that's been upheld in the courts here.

 

[bushmaster1313]

With the the SAFE act put into place in NY, any firearm sales have to go through a background check, be it private or commercial. And that's been upheld in the courts here.

If we assume that the NFA requirement that FFL holders Must run a NICS check passes Constitutional muster (please, let's not debate that here) I see no reason why universal background checks would not pass muster as well. But it should require an Act of Congress.