In what is possibly the most inane political statement ever, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer and Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced a push to prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing guns in New York State. Schumer and Cuomo areasking the federal government to officially add the U.S. Terror Watch List to the criteria it uses for federal background checks in New York State, exclaiming "we need to move to close the Terror Gap once and for all."
The Statement...
States – Like New York – Cannot, On Their Own, Block Sales of Guns to Those on Terror Watch List Because Watch List Is Restricted; Schumer & Cuomo's Efforts Come On Heels of Federal Failure to Close Terror Gap
U.S. Senator Charles Schumer and Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced a push to prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing guns in New York State.
Schumer and Cuomo are asking the federal government to officially add the U.S. Terror Watch List to the criteria it uses for federal background checks in New York State. This would prevent known or suspected terrorists from legally purchasing guns and would cross-check the terror watch list with a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) request, effectively closing the Terror Gap within the state and barring individuals on federal terror watch lists from legally arming themselves.
Schumer noted that the terror watch list is restricted by the federal government. Cuomo said that, if the federal government won't use the terrorist watch list in conducting background checks to restrict guns to known or suspected terrorists, Congress must develop a mechanism to grant states access to the list and allow them to keep their residents safe.
Schumer and Cuomo say there is urgency to stop terror suspects from gaining legal access to weapons of war, something Congress has failed to prevent on the national level.
Senator Schumer said: “We need to move to close the Terror Gap once and for all. We will continue to push again and again at the national level to put into practice this common sense provision that would do so much to protect the American public, but until we do, today’s push with Governor Cuomo will add momentum to this larger effort. Railing to close the Terror Gap in New York State will send a message to other states – and Congress – to act. The federal government has always been there for New York when it comes to giving us the tools we need to fight terrorism and I remain hopeful that they’ll work with us on preventing terror suspects from passing gun background checks. The feds should move ASAP on this request and I will fight tooth and nail to see that they meet the mark.”
Governor Cuomo said: “The fact that known or suspected terrorists continue to legally buy guns is mindboggling and we cannot allow gridlock, dysfunction and the NRA's stranglehold on Washington to continue to place the safety of New Yorkers at risk. If Congress refuses to act, the federal government needs to step up and either take proactive action to right this wrong once and for all, or allow states to do so. I thank Senator Schumer for his strong and consistent leadership on this critically important issue, and am proud to fight with him to close the Terror Gap.”
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that struck Paris in November, Senator Schumer has led a renewed push in Congress for passage of the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015,” which would give the Department of Justice authority to prevent a known or suspected terrorist from buying firearms or explosives nationwide. Governor Cuomo has also been vocal in calling on members of Congress to stand with Senator Schumer and pass this common-sense legislation.
Sound like a no-brainer … stopping terrorists from having guns? But as Daily Beast points out, in an article called “My Fellow LIBERALS, DON’T Support Obama’s Terror Watch List Gun Ban“:
As Americans we understand well how important due process is. No one, for instance, should be thrown in jail just on the say-so of some government official who declares they deserve it. Such is the behavior of tyrants, the Founding Fathers understood, and so we enshrined in our Constitution the right to counsel, the right against being compelled to testify against oneself, the right to trial by jury, etc.All of these rights are checks to ensure the government can’t simply pluck innocent people out of their lives and strip them of their life, liberty, or property. Only after fairly testing the charges against them can the government punish people with such deprivation.
But none of these hurdles must be overcome for the government to put someone on a list, especially not a list like this, which is a watch list. It is a list of people that for whatever reason (a reason that no one outside the government knows) the government has decided deserve closer scrutiny of their actions.
Is the government right to be concerned about these people? Maybe yes, but maybe not, and there is no way for ordinary citizens to know. Which means there is also no way for ordinary citizens to know whether any of them, even people who in no way intend to commit acts of terrorism, are also on that list.
In other words, there is no way to know whether you are on that list. Nor is there any way to know how to get off it.
That there is any list at all should give us all pause. It has not historically been the hallmark of a healthy democracy when governments have kept lists of people they didn’t like. It is hard to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people when the government keeps track of the people, including those dissidents who would challenge it (which is something that in a democracy they are allowed, and even supposed, to do).
***
What this proposal calls for is the government using the list as a basis to deny the people on it a right to which they were otherwise entitled.
***
Based on the plain text of the Second Amendment and subsequent jurisprudence it is clear that some right is in there somewhere, and what this proposal calls for is for the government to arbitrarily and un-transparently deny this right to certain people without any sort of the due process ordinarily required. And that’s a problem.
***
With this proposal we would be authorizing the government to act capriciously and unaccountably for any reason, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough—bad reasons or no reasons at all, and against anyone, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough, either—people just like you. There would also be no reason why, if the government could take away this right this way today, it couldn’t take away other rights you depend on having tomorrow the same way.
As we concluded previously, we've got to stop mass shootings ... but using a Kafkaesque, fatally flawed watchlist system is not the way. A top liberal Constitutional law expert explains:
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
***
It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
***
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
And liberal icons Gandhi and the Dalai Lama accept gun ownership as moral.