The "Terrorist Watch List" and Firearms Purchases….

It has become quite hip to call for denying people whose names appear on the federal terrorist watch list  their right to purchase firearms.  If the list had any validity, was based on anything other than supposition and conjecture, that demand would be reasonable.

But it's not.

There are currently over one million names on the terrorist watch list.  

That's right, one million.  

One million people whose names have been added because of SUSPECTED ties to terrorism.  Not because they have actually been charged or convicted of a crime, but because someone thinks they might be suspicious. 

And now people are screaming for these people to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

Here's the problem: we have this Constitutional thing called "due process." "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," Fifth Amendment, US Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment clarifies what this means:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is no due process associated with the terrorist watch list.  One can be added to it for almost any reason without ever having been convicted, or even charged with, a crime of any sort. 

Prohibiting a person from purchasing a firearm who has never been charged or convicted of a crime but has been added to some secret list anyway is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and equates to depriving them of their Constitutional rights. 

If someone is suspicious enough to be added to some secret list of possible terrorists, then do what the Constitution requires - charge them, prosecute them, PROVE THEIR GUILT IN OPEN COURT IN FRONT OF A JURY OF THEIR PEERS, and punish them.

Psychologist: Psychological Tests Can't Predict Rogue Pilots...

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,

"The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

Brady Center Files Suit On Behalf Of Officer's Widow Against Gun Shop That Sold Firearm Used To Killed Officer….

So the Brady Center has roped in the widow of an officer who lost his life in the line of duty to sue the gun shop that sold the firearm that was used to kill her husband (Brady Center sues gun shop).

Only problem is, the firearm was sold in what is known as a "straw purchase."

In other words, a person who was legally able to buy a firearm, representing him-/herself as the actual purchaser of the firearm, made the  purchase on behalf of someone else who was legally ineligible to do so.  They lied to the gun shop and filled out the NICS 4473 background check form, successfully passing the background check.

Anyone else see the problem here?

The gun shop completed a transaction in good faith.  That is the critical key: good faith.  According to Lawyers.com, good faith, which derives from the latin, bona fides, means the following:

"… honesty, fairness, and lawfulness of purpose 
: absence of any intent to defraud, act maliciously, or take unfair advantage…

… In section 1-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code good faith is defined generally as «honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." Article 2 of the U.C.C. says «good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade." Similarly, Article 3 on negotiable instruments defines good faith as «honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.."

The Brady Campaign contends that the fact that the buyer had completed multiple firearms transactions in a relatively short period of time should have alerted the firearms dealer that they were faced with a straw purchaser, but in no arena of endeavor is the fact of multiple transactions evidence or proof of malicious or criminal intent.  The firearms dealer did everything that is required of them under federal and state laws to insure that the firearm was being purchased by someone who was legally eligible to make such a purchase.  They had no reason to believe that the purchaser was conducting the transaction on behalf of an ineligible individual.

But only God is omniscient (all-knowing).

The Brady Center cares nothing about justice; they care about their agenda.  Their agenda is to disarm everyone, and they will use an emotionally fragile widow to build an emotionally based prosecution with the goal of 1) shutting down this particular gun shop and 2) attempting to pass even more restrictive gun control laws - all of which have been proven to be completely ineffective in preventing criminals from acquiring firearms.

Let me put it this way: according to the logic upon which this case is based, one should be able to sue the car dealership that sells a vehicle to someone who gives that vehicle to an ineligible person who then drives it, causing an accident that injures or kills a family member, or the pet shop owner who sells an animal to an individual who then allows the animal to run freely, during which activity the animal attacks and mauls or kills the paperboy.  Because merchants are not omniscient, there is no way they can know how their merchandise will be used or abused by the customer.

Courts have consistently ruled that firearms dealers that demonstrate good faith in firearms transactions cannot be held criminally or civilly liable in such cases, but that isn't stopping the Brady Center from trying yet again to ruin a business owner.

Perhaps it is time for the Brady Campaign to formally adopt as its motto, "Rerum agendarum ordinemante omnia," the agenda before all else.