Democrats Want to Take Rights Away From Muslims

Their latest gun control proposal would deny Muslims and other Americans due process

Demonstrators take part in a rally against gun violence on March 21, 2013 in the Harlem neighborhood of the Manhattan borough of New York City. The group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America as well as gun violence victims, youth organizations, healthcare workers, unions, elected officials, faith leaders and artists demonstrated to promote New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's NY SAFE Act as a national model for federal gun control legislation. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

A rally against gun violence in Harlem, New York City. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)

Yes, you read that right. After every major mass shooting in America, you can count the seconds until mainstream media and the Left begin calling for gun control. They propose “solution” after “solution,” even though none would have stopped the shootings they’re responding to.

The latest, which Democrats and President Obama claim would keep those on the “no-fly” list from obtaining firearms, wouldn’t have stopped a mass shooting. It also wouldn’t be constitutional.

“What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?” Mr. Obama asked Sunday night. “This is a matter of national security.”

The proposal came in response to the latest shooting in San Bernardino, California, in which a married couple shot and killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center on December 2. But the couple wasn’t on the no-fly list, so the proposal wouldn’t have stopped them anyway.

Yet the president and his party continue to suggest those on the no-fly list be barred from purchasing a weapon. In his weekly address prior to his Sunday night statement, Mr. Obama said it was “insane” that anyone on the list could purchase a gun.

“Right now, people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane,” Mr. Obama said. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now.”

Here’s the thing: there are around 47,000 people on the no-fly list, and most don’t know they’re on it until they try to fly. You don’t get a notification about being put on the list. It’s a secret list—and not everyone on it is American.

One can get put on the no-fly list for traveling to certain countries at certain times—a broad category that could ensnare the innocent going to visit their families. What are “certain countries”? One can assume most of them are hotbeds for terrorism, where many of the people are themselves being terrorized by terrorists. So it stands to reason that many of the American citizens on the no-fly list are actually Muslims.

So Mr. Obama and Democrats want to keep them from purchasing a weapon—even though they’ve broken no laws and have had no trial or due process to prove they are a danger. In essence, the Left is trying to deny constitutional rights to thousands of American Muslims.

I thought it was the Right that had a Muslim problem.

Worse still, the legislative proposal Mr. Obama was referring to doesn’t actually tie people who wouldn’t be able to purchase firearms to the no-fly list. The bill, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., doesn’t contain the words “no-fly” in the text of the legislation.

The no-fly list is a subset of the terrorist watch list—but Ms. Feinstein’s bill doesn’t tie to that list either. There are around one million people on the terrorist watch list, and the criteria for being on that list is even broader than the no-fly list. It’s so broad, in fact, that journalists and (according to Democratic Representative Stephen Lynch) 72 staffers at the Department of Homeland Security are on the list. So even if Ms. Feinstein’s bill did tie the eligibility to buy a gun to the terrorist watch list, it too would be unconstitutional.

But the bill actually includes DHS language that is used to create the terrorist watch list—not the list itself—stating that individuals “known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof.”

Again, the list and the language in the bill would include people who have not been convicted or charged with any crime. It takes away the constitutional rights of people who are innocent under the law, many of whom are Muslim.

But this isn’t the only gun control measure that steps on rights and would fail to prevent any of the recent mass shootings. California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country that are used as models when crafting proposals for nationwide gun control—yet still the shooters were able to obtain firearms. In fact, the guns used in the shooting were purchased legally but later illegally modified. It’s almost as if criminals don’t care about laws.

The shooter who purchased the weapons, Syed Rizwan Farook, passed all the background checks for obtaining the weapons. So another popular gun control proposal favored by the Left—universal background checks—also wouldn’t have stopped this shooting.

The Washington Post’s fact checker ran an article on Thursday looking into a claim by Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, who said no gun control measures would have stopped the recent shootings. In a rare move for the paper, Mr. Rubio received a “Geppetto Checkmark,” meaning his claim was factually accurate. The Post walked through several recent shootings and found that the guns were either purchased legally, or that existing laws failed to stop the shooters from obtaining weapons, meaning additional laws would have done nothing.

Mr. Obama and Democrats needed a new, flashy idea to turn the conversation away from terrorism—the alleged motive in the San Bernardino shooting—and toward gun control. The new proposal, like others, wouldn’t have stopped any recent shootings (which stands to reason it wouldn’t stop future shootings). But the new proposal had an added twist: Taking away second amendment rights from people who were on a secret list, who may have done nothing wrong, weren’t charged with a crime, and had been given no due process to prove their innocence. Many of these people are Muslim.

Which party is unfriendly toward Islam again?

Democrats Want to Take Rights Away From Muslims