The NRA Statement on Terror Watchlists

Wednesday, June 15, 2016 Fairfax, Va.- The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists: National Rifle Association NRA logo

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

What is your take on the proposed laws to be voted on next week? Trump and the NRA’s position on the watchlist? Share your opinions and perspectives in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (67)

  1. lmao ! the terrorist planted the seed decades ago, now you see that it’s here, not over there . propaganda, unconventional warfare and recruiting americans to put the plan into action . IEDs, suicide/car bombs will be part of life in the U.S. last time i watched the news they did not mention anything about guns, all i heard was how many people were killed by suicide bombers . maybe the feds need to put a watchlists on gas, propane tanks and beater cars .

  2. I am shocked the NRA is agreeing to this monstrosity. This no fly list is based on throwing out due process of law, while arbitrarily adding names without proof of wrong doing. If these “terrorists” are real, there must be proof they are, or they wouldn’t be labeled “terrorists.” That proof should be enough for an arrest, charging the individual, prosecuting said individual, and, if found guilty, thrown in jail or executed, I don’t care which.

    What I do care about is the trampling of DUE PROCESS. This is the basis of our justice system. It presumes suspects are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the government to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the suspect is guilty and deserves to lose his/her rights. The no fly list presupposes the guilt of the suspect, and his/her right is taken away without benefit of a hearing. Further, the NRA is in collusion with the government’s no fly list in making an innocent person having to prove his innocence.

    For this reason, I will not join the NRA. Support the nation’s DUE PROCESS.


    1. If they are terrorists, why are they free to walk our streets, free to buy guns? If they are suspects, gather evidence to arrest and prosecute them. If the gov’t can’t, then leave them alone to enjoy their right to buy guns, or to fly.

    2. Norm,
      The NRA’s statement states due process needs to be in place. It says, once investigated and evidence is found, the sale should be blocked and the person prosecuted. ~Dave Dolbee

    3. Dave,
      What I read is, once your on their watch list, due process is initiated to get you off. Meanwhile, your 2nd Amendment rights are gone. Prove you’re innocent. Read more carefully.

  3. This Bill will allow Obama and Minions to begin collecting
    firearms of Veterans who they have already Labeled “Domestic Extremist”.
    They will likely be the only group that is targeted. Muslims will NOT
    be targeted as that would not be “Shariah Compliant”.
    I’ve been suggesting, for a couple of years, that Liberals and Progs
    should volunteer to the ATF, BLM, IRS, USPS, etc, etc in order to help them Confis98y08t95- Collect all the firearms, there are many. They can just walk up to our front-door with outstretched arms and I am sure
    they will get what they are asking for.

  4. Really? WTF??? I can’t believe the NRA would take this position! First, the so-called “watch list” isn’t the same as a “no-fly list.” Anyone can be on a watch list. All it takes is a disgruntled neighbor to call and say you have an antisocial attitude and way too many guns and ammo and you’ll never know you’re flagged. Or, did you know, just about anyone whose served in special forces is already on their list because of their training and ability. These guys are psych-profiled out the ying yang, will they be denied? Second, the part of their statement that reads, “due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed” stinks of prove your innocence; rather than the burden of proven guilty. Lastly, “Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.” How long does that take? If class 3 stamps are any indicator, you’re looking at 6 months. This whole thing stinks of liberal compromise…

    1. BTW, NRA elections are coming up. Let’s make sure this Chris W. Cox fellow, who delivered this statement needs a new job.

    2. Totally agree. It seems due process is being trampled in favor of a semblance of safety and security, which this no fly list foes nit guarantee.

  5. I strongly disagree with the NRA’s stated position. The ability to fly on an airplane has little or no relationship or relative legal equivalence to exercise of a Constitutional right. Also, denying one any Constitutional right because they are named on some list appears to be a Bill of Attainder, strictly prohibited by our US Constitution in Article I, section 9, of the United States Constitution (1787) as well as by the constitutions of all 50 US states. U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).

  6. The government watch list will be used against law abiding citizens , do not trust Washington . These are the same people bringing in jihadis , they also have given the Muslim brotherhood some of the highest offices in the land , because of the NRA stance on this issue I will join gun owners of America . I don’t want jihadis having guns either , but due process is the law of the land.

  7. Secret “no-buy” lists are illegal for a reason. These lists are specifically created to strip political opponents of their rights. Show me the part of the U.S. Constitution that allows this garbage. You can’ t opt “out” if you didn’t opt “in” in the first place.

    Since when should an innocent person be required to beg to have their name removed from an illegal list – on which his/her name was placed illegally by a scumbag political activist? And how exactly does an innocent victim gain compensation for having their name wrongfully placed on said list? Where is the punishment for political activists and bureaucrats that wrongfully placed innocent people’s names on the list? And why should an innocent person be forced to beg to get back their rights that were illegally and wrongfully taken without due process? What mechanism will enforce removal of innocent person’s names from these illegal lists? What fines and prison sentences will be imposed on government activists and bureaucrats that wrongly placed innocent person’s names on the secret no-buy lists?

    These lists are illegal for a reason. Think about it. If someone is suspected of being a terrorist, then why aren’t they being arrested, prosecuted, and held in prison? There was evidence right? So where is the arrest?

    The latest killer in Orlando is an excellent example. No illegal super secret list was necessary to arrest and imprison him – simply following the law and prosecuting him for past crimes, would have given him a felony record and banned him from owing a gun. He pulled a knife on co-workers and threatened their lives on multiple occasions according to the news. This is either a serious misdemeanor or felony – punishable by at least a year in prison and permanent record to block gun sales on a NICS background check. And yet somebody deliberately failed to prosecute him. Why?

    1. And yet somebody deliberately failed to prosecute him. Why?
      Courts and prosecutors at city, county, and state levels are swamped. Prosecutors tend to take on cases that they know they can win. Others are plea-bargained down to a lesser offence. It was this combination that led to Operation Exile – moving firearm/drug cases to federal courts. It worked.
      Any time the question is raised, “Why don’t hey …..” – the answer is lack of money.

  8. You can’t take away someone’s rights without due process. The no fly list is a secret list created by bureaucrats that has no checks and balances or due process.

    1. Flying, like driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. If a private company does not want you on its plane, they can deny you. Our 2nd amendment is a right and in no way should even be labelled in the same category as the “no fly list”. We will not accept secret list or secret tribunals to judge us.

  9. Both G-man and Dr. Dave have made well written comments. It is refreshing to read rational comments on this controversy. But I agree with Dr. Dave that we must accept some compromise on this issue. Our democratic government was born from compromise. If our founding fathers had not been willing to compromise we wouldn’t have a constitution. CAPCHA

    1. Fred Overstreet,

      No one ever said compromise can’t enter into the equation of life from time to time.

      However, it is knowing when and what to compromise that defines the strength and character of a man to perceive when to hold his ground; especially whenever he has influence over determinations which impact the true strength of freedom for so many others, as well as generations to come.

      Choose wisely, for such decisions do not just affect one’s self.

      It is a careless man that is willing to gamble over relinquishing such freedoms all in the name of feeling more secure, but without the slightest assurance to actually be secure. Such a proposal can never be considered a true compromise because you receive nothing at all in return.

      A man willing to hastily give away certain freedoms is incapable of understanding the full impact until it is far too late. Such freedoms are never recovered without bloodshed that is far greater than that which he intended to prevent.

      There are many alternatives for resolving such matters rather than always stripping another right away. But the anti-gunners always seem to make this the go-to solution for everything; that alone should give pause and make anyone suspicious enough to demand other resolutions.

      There is no end to their so-called “compromise” because their solution when followed to its illogical conclusion is the outright ban of all guns. You guys are kidding yourself if you actually believe they will be satisfied with partial compromises. The reality is – all you will have done in the end is given up yet another right as they take until there is nothing left to take. That is the reality folks.

    2. To compromise DUE PROCESS is to remove the basis of fairness for our justice system. What then, is the need for our courts, judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers?

      And WHO, is the final arbiter of a person’s fate?

      As g-man says, be careful what you wish for. Your freedoms are easily lost when you are so ready to compromise them away. Once lost, how do you get those freedoms back?

  10. “Common sense is not all that common”! However, unfortunately being “politically correct” is widely accepted, I whole heartedly support both the NRA and Donald J Trump.

    Nothing about the “no fly list” makes common sense. Why have a national database if it’s only focused on “flying” and not on other forms of public transportation such as trains, cruise ships,
    and metro/subway systems?

    Last time I looked, law abiding US citizens aren’t the one’s terrorizing innocent men, women, and
    children! Until we call terrorists terrorists, no national database of gun owners will ever protect our homeland and families.

    As for me, I’m not protected by any “political party or politician” but rather by the brave members of the armed forces of the USA and the law
    enforcement agencies selfishly putting their lives
    on the line every day!

  11. Just curious if anyone else who looks here, besides me has sent their comments in to the Social Security website about dockett # SSA-2016-0011 concerning the removal of firearms, even that old deer rifle of dads that you really can`t wait to inherit, from Senior Citizens, people on Medicare and Veterans who have had a diagnosis of Depression, PTSD and others. If you haven`t please check it out and do what you think is best and if you can see your way to it, forward it to as many people as you know because the period for remarks ends on July 5, 2016.

  12. I object to restricting or delaying gun rights based on an arbitrary list made up by any branch of the government, no matter what processes are set up to get your name off the list.. The problem is who makes up the list. Janet Napolitano, 1st homeland security head for this administration, called “Right Wing Conservatives, Christians, and Veterans” more dangerous than Islamist Terrorists.The IRS, under this administration, harassed Conservative Tea Party groups and prevented them from participating effectively in the 2012 election, The current homeland security head just called right wing conservatives as dangerous as middle eastern terrorists. I am a conservative, Christian, second amendment loving, constitution supporting, tea party member. I believe that if another Democrat administration and Congress is elected I will possibly be on those lists. If this compromise is passed and a Republican administration and Congress is elected, will we see “Move On.Org, Occupy Wall Street, and George Soros” supporters wind up on those lists? Democrats ought to think about that before they support this bill. So should the Republicans and the NRA.

  13. The NRA is right. It is unconstitutional to strip someone of their rights and have no mechanism in place for due process.

    From looking at the comments on this website the no fly list should have alerted federal authorities to the Orlando shooters purchase. But with it being used as only a way to track movements and purchases they did not take appropriate action. They could have stopped this tragedy and did nothing.

    A gun shop owner refused to sell the shooter ammunition and body armor and alerted federal authorities to the attempted purchase and the feds did nothing.

    Has anyone considered the possibility that they knew the shooters intentions and continued to watch him and allowed this tragedy to happen in order to further their gun control agenda?

    I know I will be labeled a conspiracy nut for saying this but look at the fast and furious debacle. I remember a quote from a BATF official who was questioned about the innocent lives lost by releasing these weapons to criminals. He said “if you want to make an omelet you need to break some eggs”.

    1. Most likely they did just what you suggested, stood by and watched it unfold. And, if you do a search you will find that documents recently released regarding the Fast and Furious debacle showed that, at least, the partial intention of the feds was to do exactly the same thing! To allow violence to occur to further the justification for gun control. So you are not a nut at all. It is not unfathomable to believe that our govt will try anything to get justification for their intentions. It’s obvious when anyone can look at the bottom line for cause of death in the US. And it’s not from firearms, so why are they so adamant on focusing on only gun control and not any of the actual leading causes of death?

    2. The FBI should be held responsible for either being completely inept or complicit in the Orlsndo attack. And San Betnadino. And Boston bombing. Did you ever consider it may not be gun control they are trying to justify? Maybe they’re simply trying to continue to scrape the hell out if people about Idlsmic terrorism? Or fear and chaos in general? Righties act like Bush was not a complete screw up and liar. Invading Iraq was warned to be “opening the gates of hell in the Middle East” but Bush/Cheney proceeded anyway. R’s must not have ever hear of Bandar Bush. Or chosen to pretend they haven’t maybe?

    3. @ Doil,

      There is without a doubt validity to everything you’ve stated here. With each passing year the timed release of historical records, forced open by law, consistently reveals and confirms this Nation’s deep propensity for true government conspiracies, scandals and cover-ups.

      So one must ask them self – with so much active deception at play, all intended to control and manipulate our every thought into compliance with a “new world order”, what is the only common denominator that will always allow us to defend against such an untrustworthy government?

      Our Founding Fathers knew the answer – their answer was clearly conveyed through the Second Amendment.

      With so much uncertainty and deception abound, we must never allow any aspect of this valuable Right to be eroded. The Second Amendment is the hinge-pin by which all other freedoms remain.

    4. The second Amendment uses a special term “the right of the people”; a term used only in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments. It has special stature, and carries weight our forefathers knew where particularly important to a free society. The other two guarantee peaceful assembly, speech and press (#1), and (#4) guarantees personal security against illegal search and seizure of person, property or papers.
      NO FLY Status is not a constitutional right. Airlines are private companies that can make their own rules as long as they are administered equally without prejudice. The bar is set much lower and is not constitutionally guaranteed; the same goes for stagecoaches back when.

    5. @ Steve,

      I am sorry I didn’t catch this earlier when you wrote, “The NRA is right. It is unconstitutional to strip someone of their rights and have no mechanism in place for due process.”

      However, the NRA is not right. The Constitution does NOT allow the government to strip one’s Rights first. Before the government can lawfully remove one’s Rights under the Constitution, the adjudication part MUST always come first. Offering adjudication after-the-fact is what the NRA has really proposed here, and that simply does not meet Constitutional scrutiny and never will.

      Another way of looking at it is if (when) such a law goes into effect, every individual mistakenly placed on one of the Terror Watch Lists will automatically have been denied their Right to bear arms – whether they know it or not. As such, a person could sit on such blacklists for years never knowing this unlawful legislation had already stripped them of their Rights.

      Going to purchase a gun and eventually discovering your Right has been denied does not begin the act; the time you were actually added to the list is what denotes the beginning of the denial of such Rights. And as I’ve already stated, that simply cannot be allowed to happen without lawful adjudication first.

      It is okay for the government to maintain super-secret lists which help them curtail terrorism; it is not okay to allow such lists to be the sole arbiter over our Rights. Their hollow promise to offer us an expensive and protracted adjudication after the fact will never fall within Constitutional edict.

      Therefore it is impossible for the NRA’s position to ever be right under any circumstances and they know it. Instead it should be seen as their willingness to sell-out (for some unknown reason) due to political pressure. I was quite disappointed to see the NRA take this position and my wife and I did not renew our memberships which came due this month for this very reason.

      Other than this, your other posts are dead-on correct; including your conclusions alluding to conspiracy theories. Only the truly ignorant that can’t see beyond their noses could label you a “conspiracy nut”. With that said, you may be interested in the link below from another of my posts which addresses this issue:

  14. The problem most folks have with the lists is that they appear to be enemies lists, produced by unknown (to the common folk) bureaucrats, which can be used to punish any ‘enemies’ of the government in general or enemies of those bureaucrats specifically. For example, the IRS audited and otherwise abused those who identified as patriots, tea party promoters, of specific religions, etc. With no due process available to recover from the abuse of the secret government enemies list, it seems to limit the whole concept of equality before the law, and freedom in general.

  15. I was placed on the “terrorist watch list” back in 2010 and didn’t find out until I was trying to fly to California. I was unable to check in via internet or airport kiosk and was informed by an airline gate agent that i was on the “terrorist watch list”. I contacted Homeland Security and was required to jump through the hoops to try to clear my name. I was told not to leave the country or I might not be allowed to re-enter. Homeland Security advised me that there was no time limit for a “clearance” or that they would even clear my name. After 9 months, I received a letter that stated “Security procedures and legal concerns mandate we can neither confirm nor deny any information about you which may be within federal watchlists, or reveal any sensitive law enforcement information. Your experience was most likely caused by misidentification against a government record or by random selection.”

    Since there are estimates of 3 mil names on the terrorist watch list; beware, you might be on this list and not even know it!

    1. That was my point. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater we would be MUCH better off with a system that clamped down on suspected gad guys while allowing for those who are wrongly accused of getting cleared. Right now there is NO way for an innocent to EASILY get cleared from an of the 30+ lists (no there is NOT just one list) If we included language into the new suggested bill that required that a person who is denied a gun is given a streamlined effective way to clear his name we all win. Instead of standing up and screaming infringement why not use this as a way to get the existing system fixed AND at the same time protect the nation from more incidents like Orlando.
      If we are seriously looking to a more secure nation we ARE going to have to give up something to get it. We can’t simply yell foul at every suggestion. The current suggestion to use the watch list process as a means to close up some people who definitely should NOT be allowed to have guns and to change the way the current list process is used is a win win deal. If all we want to do is put our heads in the sand and yell no interest in anything that changes what we have then we are going to be steam rolled over by the rest of the country who are looking to add in additional layers of protection and or more security
      Dr D

  16. @ Dr Dave, (Good read for others, especially at the end.)

    You misunderstand the officially designated purpose of the “No Fly” list, or what little the public is allowed to know about it. However you are not in the minority, as most American’s share the same misunderstanding as you.

    This misunderstanding is perpetrated by a complicit media which intentionally echoes the inappropriate sentiment held by mostly liberal elements within Congress. Unwittingly or by intentional deceit, these representatives have taken these watch lists completely out of context and applied their own definition of purpose in pursuit of their own personal schemes – namely their anti-gun agendas.

    Before I continue, it should interest people to know that watch lists were never established by an Act of Congress but were instead initiated by a Presidential Executive Directive in the wake of 9/11 and to this day remain under the secrecy, direct control and discretion of each sitting president without Congressional oversight.

    It should also be noted that certain watch lists had already existed well before the terror attacks in 2001 under secrecy by the FBI. The FBI denied existence until forcibly thrust into the limelight in 2006 by victims that later discovered they were being politically abused by the secret lists and had to file lawsuits. Only then were minimal aspects of these lists made public, but to date the lists and uses remain protected as secret and therefore not subject to the evidentiary process by those aggrieved.

    I’ll repeat that – due to the secrecy required throughout every aspect of these lists, the process will NEVER be fully shared and thus a true and full Constitutional adjudication entitled to those aggrieved will NEVER be forthcoming regardless of what the NRA or Senator Dianne Feinstein says.

    What this means is that well before Feinstein ever knew what a watch list was or realized her potential to exploit one for gun control, such lists were already being secretly abused at the hands of a Republican administration for their own deceptive purposes as proven in Court. Thus indicating neither side of the isle has the public’s best interest in mind.

    Instead they see these lists as a tool from which they can execute their personal biddings knowing all the while they will remain protected under a shroud of secrecy. So, right out the shoot these lists historically have an abusive stigma attached to them, and will remain so for good reason.

    Nevertheless, these lists (and there are several types in use) aren’t specifically intended to “trigger a process” or “know when terrorists try to move about” as you’ve stated. For example, the “No Fly” list doesn’t only apply to would-be terrorists, but also lists drug users and traffickers, child molesters and other various criminals not related to terrorism in any way. And thus its written mission statement, as revealed through court documents, is specifically designed to stop individuals listed as too dangerous to allow onto commercial aircraft.

    This means the intent of the “No Fly” list has everything to do with airline safety and hazard prevention and nothing to do with “knowing when terrorists try to move about”. However, if acquiring such information becomes a useful by-product of such lists then so be it, but that was never the intent of the “No Fly” list as you’ve stated.

    In addition the mission statement never mentions domestic flights and only precludes listed persons from boarding international flights that are leaving out of the U.S. or entering into the U.S. – you can take that for whatever its worth.

    Keeping in mind that the very little we do know about the “No Fly” list was only revealed as a result of the ACLU lawsuit that was filed. But as for the remainder of the other various watch lists, how you arrived at the notion they are designed to “trigger the process into action” is beyond me. What action do you speak of when the – who, what, why, when, and where of these other watch lists are heavily guarded as secret? So anything you think happens is really just pure speculation on your part accompanied by a little push from the liberal media.

    It is for this very reason I caution your ideology which prompts you to offer up at the altar of the anti-gun gods a misguided token of truce totally founded on secrecy which makes it utterly impossible for you to even know what it is you are offering.

    A final but important note: It may come as a shock to everyone, but every NICS gun background check is already always run against the “No Fly” list along with all the other terrorist watch lists. This should make it abundantly clear that if the FBI already as the potential to deny gun purchases to known terrorists, then new legislation is not necessary. So the question remains, why the push?

    The answer is simple; it places gun control officially into the secret and untouchable realm.

    1. I can’t make more comments as to the full function of the lists being discussed. I agree 100% with the above comments that lists have been around for many years prior to the 911 episode. My former career was the east coast Director of the Drug Interdiction Task Force from 1980 thru the early 90’s so with it I can confirm the existence but not the use of the lists beyond what I said. All that civilians need to know is that the lists are not “intended” to be airline related. Yes it is used for NO fly purposes but it has MUCH deeper value to society in its function. Yes it does include FAR more then terrorists. In fact FAR more non-terrorists are on the lists then terrorists. The lists are used for everything from drug traffickers to even tax evaders to MANY other types of people that trigger events but not prevention for travel. The lists are INTENDED to create tracking. SOME people are locked out of travel but the THOUSANDS of hits to the list a day are used to analyze activity of list members so as to what they are doing including credit card purchases and toll plaza movements and even shopping at the stores that have club cards. The PRIMARY reason for the lists are not to keep airline use restricted but to track activity. Most actions on the lists are purely for tracking reasons only a TINY bit are for travel restriction. MANY of you might be on a list but never know it since your actions have not made something known to you to realize you are on the list. Just because you are being tracked doesn’t mean you will ever know it. You might be on the list not because YOU did something but your neighbor be the target and they are tracking your actions to see what he or she is doing. The lists are not nefarious or evil they are here and have been here since the 1920’s when J Edgar started the FBO and will NEVER go away so we can fight all we want but they operate in close quarters and always will
      Dr D

    2. @ Dr Dave,

      I am a federal agent with 33 years of service and counting. Many have read my contributing posts in this forum for years. However, it would be inappropriate for me to reveal my agency in a public forum that offers me anonymity that also affords me an outlet to openly speak my mind on controversial issues.

      If you were in-fact a drug interdiction director then we most assuredly had crossed paths at some point in our careers. I cut my teeth on drug interdiction in the 80s and 90s (Reagan’s War on Drugs) and landed a position in charge of establishing and coordinating nationwide efforts primarily through the President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), HIDTAs, DOJ, DoD, NDIC, and DEA’s EPIC in conjunction with every federal and local law enforcement agency you could imagine.

      I’ve worked with virtually every past and present drug interdiction director and task force commander coast-to-coast by standing up various multi-agency drug task forces and coordinating national assets both military and law enforcement.

      After 9/11 most of my time was transitioned towards counter-terrorism, spent working less operations and more of the intelligence side building data networks and establishing counter-terrorism centers at all levels of government to coordinate data connectivity and work-flow between each state.

      I do not wish you to reveal further who you are and ask that if you have figured out who I am by now, that you respect my wishes to remain anonymous. That said; you know quite well by now that I have an exceptional understanding of the Watch Lists and hands-on interaction to match.

      Given my credentials, I would appeal to you and other forum readers to consider my job knowledge of the situation as quite valid. I worded my first post to you in such a way as to not violate my office, yet still offer the general public insight and access to open source information that I consolidated in such a way as to point thinking people in the right direction – so they may make appropriate decisions on this matter.

      I truly do not know what else could be said on the matter.

    3. Excellent explanation, and why we should not cave in to the government over this topic without legally binding assurance of Due Process.

    4. Big difference between a black list and a process that attempts to filter out bad guys. We need to stop looking at the world thru the eyes of the 1800’s and realize that times have changed our society has to give to get. If we don’t accept some modifications in what we have done we can surely expect the loop holes that we define as required to be replaced with hard and fast rules that we can no longer then exercise our needs. We need to put aside our ideas that if we give an inch we will lose because the next POTUS can VERY easily put in 3 new SCOTUS justices and wipe out the entire Second Amendment. The next time a case comes before SCOTUS they can easily retain the existing decisions of both Chicago and DC and instead change the definition of allowed to carry to support the current 9th circuit court. If they do then people will be free to own posses and carry anything they want as long as it is in the comfort of their own house. We as gun advocates need to be more negotiable then we have been but not forgiving just negotiable. We need to give but with the requirement that we GET in exchange. We could easily get a free ride to carry in the open and or concealed in exchange for tighter restrictions on who can buy sell and exchange. Instead of us harping on ANYONE should be allowed to own and carry as WE interpret the 2nd Am we should be looking to gain more access to actual freedom of use and not freedom of possession. We have SO many locales that refuse to allow people to own and or carry various guns if we negotiated with the politicos to gain easier access in exchange for harder regulations as to who is allowed we could be much happier. I think everyone wins if we require tougher laws to get guns but once passed gun owners should be allowed to carry and use them in common places. I would easily give up a more aggressive back ground check in exchange for open carry and concealed carry and silencer use and the like. I care less if the harsh back ground checks stop questionable folks from getting them and if it filters out some good guys they can simply fight to get their permission. We as a society need to accept some controls in exchange for more security
      Dr D

    5. @ Dr. Dave,

      While I generally stand on my own merit and speak for myself, I feel I can speak for the majority consensus in this forum as well as many other gun owners when I say – it is not at all that we don’t get what you are proposing here, but…

      Allow me to put forth to you a strong philosophical value within many that runs so deep that it makes any compromise not only unlawful, but brings shame and dishonor to any brother in arms.

      The reason your ideologies will never be an option for most of us is because it defies the core discipline and lifelong principles on which we’ve based our entire lives, and of which we would stake our lives just the same.

      Simply put, the Second Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution is unwavering. It is not a toy of compromise to be used as a pawn in these perverted games played by the elitist that just as soon crush us beneath their feet than honor some hallow compromise.

      America was not made free through compromise of its principles, and there are just as many of us today that stand tall in the knowledge that American will not remain free through compromise either. So that, Dr Dave, is truly what you are up against when trying to convince us that compromise, in any form, is the answer.

    6. Took me a long while to think about who could be behind the incognito handle but I think I narrowed your real person down and with it I can say it is VERY good to hear from you and it has been too many YEARS!!!! Come down to FL and visit!!! We moved from PA to FL right after 911 and I finished at ground zero.
      I do get it that the concept of the Constitution is inflexible. However logically the whole fact that the Amendments were added to the end means that even the Founding Fathers realized that they needed modification and in some cases clarity. There have been 4 compromises so far in our history as we realized that as time grew on things needed to change. Take for only one example Prohibition. First we had it that was a change because we started out to not affect freedom liberty or the like and then we took away booze. Of course we all know how well that worked and we changed it once again to then reverse course a decade later and allow it. The concept of law and justice is predicated on flexibility. According to SCOTUS justice Brandeis the existence of our system is dependent on the ability to modify the laws to our needs without violating their core values.
      There is NO reason why we can’t alter how we obtain guns in order to insure that we always will have them. Taking literally 2 sentences in 2 documents as cold rigid and planted in stone violates all the doctrines of the United States and going back further the Magna Charta which was the model that was used to begin this nation.
      If we don’t allow flexibility then we will surely falter in fracture. For the United States to succeed we need to be firm in principle and yet flexible in procedure
      To that end to get there we need to understand the original concept of the various dictums and words in the BoR and Constitution. Surely the Founding Fathers could have easily written far more detailed and gracious descriptions for each argument. They could have and easily created a lengthy description of what we now know as the 2nd Am but instead they opted to leave it very short and without defined definition to give future generations the ability to interpret them as they saw fit. Without this ability we would not even need the 3rd division of Gov. We have a SCOTUS for this exact purpose. We always think about the Administration and we always think about the Congress but we always FAIL to think that the Judicial branch makes up the 3rd leg of the stool in which we sit on. Without it we will fall over
      We COULD write glamorously long detailed descriptions of every law and or doctrine in hope that there won’t be any ambiguity or grey area but in reality there always will be and as times change so is the importance on various segments of the wording.
      The 2nd Am defines what was a pre-existing condition of freedom to defend oneself. The issue we have is if the condition exists doesn’t it exist for everyone? Be they citizens or not? Be they criminals or not? Be they illegal aliens or not? Yet we feel very strongly about restricting those members of society from possessing guns. Basically times change. Originally we refused to allow blacks to own guns as they were not considered citizens or even anything more then just property. Today we want to keep non citizens out so we require citizenry as a requisite to gun ownership.
      If the US law actually doesn’t give the freedom to self defend it was there all along; how then can the US take it away from say a felon or mental incompetent?
      Times change!
      Right now we CAN fight for no changes ever allowed or accepted; and with that the majority of the US who makes up interestingly enough 2/3 of the population who don’t own guns (just enough to support an Amendment change) will simply fight to overturn the entire 2nd Am. 320 million Americans only about 120 million are gun owners. If the 2/3rds are not satisfied with their safety as provided by the existing laws they will simply allow the laws to change. Do we want that? HECK NO!
      What we do want is to have every person who is peaceful and law abiding to be allowed to own a gun. Now no where are those words written I created them based on the theme that is both on this forum as well as others. If we don’t allow flexibility in procedure we will lose rigidity in principle. NO DOUBT
      I am not saying that we alter one bit the current 2nd Am what I am saying is how do we get there? How we get there has been in flux since the 1800’s going back to 1938 then 1960’s then the Clinton era issues etc. As society needs to change the way in which we interpret the laws we either allow them or we find that society gets fed up with the rules as they are interpreted and then simply changes them and like alcohol it could easily remove it from society
      With the SCOTUS being as it is deadlocked 4 to 4 the next POTUS is the do or die to the 2nd Am. I refuse to give them cause to make such a decision. I am quite fine by giving up the addition of the no fly list to the NICS in return for the ability to find out why one is on the list and correct it if there addition is wrong. Right now there are literally thousands of people on the list that don’t belong on the list and haven’t flown to know it but they are being investigated for no reason. Using the gun approval process to gain access to the list would be a great win for everyone and would also allow the FBI to know exactly what is happening with listed people in terms of their daily actions and motives.
      WE give up nothing people can still get guns and those who are refused for cause will remain gun free while those removed in error will have an easy way to get them back. NO ONE is taking away our guns or gun rights and we need to stop fight for principles and start fighting for actual issues that matter.
      We either work together or the majority will use their ability to squash the rest out of shear ability.
      Dr D

    7. And how time and money are you willing to have us citizens pay to resolve an erroneous placement on the list which denies our gun purchase. The first expense is the lost cost of our background check and for many states the cost of a dealer record of sale. Now you are willing to allow a financial restriction that for some will not be possible to afford. In principal, with a list that has defined requirements to help prevent erroneous placement, made correction of error simple and at the expense of the agency that makes the mistake, you idea has merit. In truth it is flawed and will only fail as anyone can be placed on these lists without cause allowing for the dismantling of our rights by error.

    8. My point (albeit really late to post I am sorry as I didn’t realize that more comments were made) is that the current issue of “mysterious lists” as both myself and G-man suggested could be changed by this new considered addition of them to the NICS system. Since the NICS system is basically arbitrary as it is since not all states upload data to it and most jurisdictions refuse to include anything but major crimes and or convictions and rarely are mental health issues posted at all. The new compromised system COULD be engineered like the credit bureaus. If you apply for a gun purchase and are clean then you get approved and done. If you are however blocked initially by some hiccups in one list or another then the Gov has to a set period of time (maybe 14 days or so) to tell you exactly why you are stuck AND give you a free and simply way to correct it. SO no added cost and more importantly unlike today where no one gets off without huge expense and hassle anyone who was wrongly assigned can be fixed easily. A win win deal instead of the current debacle with no one knowing why and no knowing how to get off the various lists.
      Make the use valuable rather then arbitrary.
      As I see it if we don’t agree to compromise regardless of how much it stings we surely can expect that in years to come the anti-gunners will absolutely take as much of what they can away.
      I would much rather not go down then go down fighting.
      I had a WW2 Vet father who was critically injured in the war so I DO get it that people have given up LOTS of things for our country but since we have Amendments we by definition have made errors in our original thoughts of government. Had we not made any mistakes we would have been able to function off the Constitution.
      Time to rethink the lack of detail in the 2nd and add to it more value so that the rest of the society can’t strip it form us simply because too much rigidity was held to by the rest of us looking to prevent our losses
      Dr D

    9. @ Dr Dave,

      First, I must clear my good name – at no time did I ever post anything that could remotely lead you to think it appropriate to speak for me or use my name in concert with your statements – which I emphatically do not agree with. You wrote:

      “…the current issue of ‘mysterious lists’ as both myself and G-man suggested could be changed by this new considered addition of them to the NICS system.”

      Not only have I never suggested any such thing, but I have made it clear in posts for years that NICS itself is a violation of the Constitution, and thus I would never have recommended any changes other than to abolish NICS completely.

      Now that is cleared up, I have to comment on your narrative in which you continuously push to convince readers that we’d better tuck our tails and cave to some of the anti-gun rhetoric and demands; otherwise you expect one day “the anti-gunners will absolutely take as much of what they can away” or worse – take all our guns.

      However, I have to point out that for you to arrive at such a conclusion would require you to have a defeatist attitude to begin with. Even with the Constitution on our side of enumerated Rights, which includes such significant specifics as the Second Amendment and the millions of gun owners devoted to defending the freedoms it provides, and yet you still have such a defeatist attitude. Why?

      Why, when it is “they” that are at odds with standing laws, not us? I submit there can be only one reason for you, and others like you, to have such a losing attitude – and it requires that somewhere deep down inside you believe “they” are somehow more right than “us”. Otherwise why else do you ultimately presume “they” will prevail?

      Therefore, I suggest that you may be on the wrong side of this issue but may not realize it. So I propose that you go to the other side where your ideas would be more welcomed. Remaining on this side with your position simply means you are effectively admitting you believe it is acceptable to reward their tyranny with compromises of our freedom – and all in the name of your comfort and the perception of peace.

      And finally, your perception that Constitutional Amendments are by “definition” proof of our “error” is ludicrous. The first 10 Amendments did not alter any Articles, but instead were considered additions insisted upon as refinements to the overall body of the Constitution. These were distinguished as the Bill of Rights and were added before the Constitution was even ratified.

      Thereafter the same can be said of the remaining 17 Amendments with only a few declarations which actually modified, suspended, or repealed other specific Articles. With such an infinitesimal amount of revision over a 222 year period, I’d say that is instead the “definition” of immense success rather than “error”. I suppose it’s a “glass half full” versus “glass half empty” argument, but with my glass being much fuller than yours.

      Regardless, your point that you believe the Second Amendment is so flawed that it needs to be amended has been duly noted. Try to enjoy your Independence Day… I suppose while it still lasts given you believe “the anti-gunners will absolutely take as much of what they can away”.

    10. To compromise DUE PROCESS is to remove the basis of fairness for our justice system. What then, is the need for our courts, judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers?

      And WHO, is the final arbiter of a person’s fate?

      As g-man says, be careful what you wish for. Your freedoms are easily lost when you are so ready to compromise them away. Once lost, how do you get those freedoms back?

      Compromise on DUE PROCESS is totally unacceptable. The whole secret list (s) thing is based on trampling DUE PROCESS. 6

    11. It is “trampled” as you put it every day so why not instead of screaming not to instead create a system to make stop gaps to reverse the actions.
      Right now every day there are over 50 MILLION people in lists that they have no clue they are on and why. They don’t know they are being monitored and or tracked. The only way to know they are is to have them do something that creates a stir. With that why not simply have that stir be the attempted purchase of a gun. If someone goes to buy a gun they discovered they were on a list and then were given a chance to be removed above board rather then thru some amazingly high cost difficult process. If the system was open door and people could be told why they were on a list and then if in error they could be removed.
      Instead of us yelling we won’t allow our due process to be violated when in fact it already IS it makes much much much more sense to acknowledge that it exists and then to go after it with a process.
      Sure we can be birds and put our heads in the ground and pretend that the lists don’t exist but they DO so why not use that fact to our advantage.

    12. @ Dr Dave,

      No one is “screaming”. We are writing our Congressional representatives; and quite effectively I might add – as evidenced by the amazing success our efforts had in shutting down all 4 pieces of anti-gun legislation last week.

      With such success, why would we ever think to entertain your tuck-tail compromises?

      By the way, you are incorrect to say the only way to know you are on a Terrorist Watch List is to “create a stir”. Even then, federal agents will never confirm to you that you are on such a list because it must be kept secret. Only after a major event when a target either dies or is caught may they revealed such information to the public.

      With the exception of the “No Fly” list (intended to prevent dangerous persons from boarding aircraft), the point of the secret Terror Watch Lists within law enforcement is to designate subjects which warrant monitoring to grow investigative leads and create intelligence. It is NOT and never was to prevent them from conducting their illicit activities. So it would be counterproductive for law enforcement to allow a gun purchase to trigger alerting a would-be terrorist that they are being watched.

      Law enforcement does not want such exposure as it would tip-off persons of interest and destroy months or years of investigative work and put CI’s and UC agents’ lives in danger. Instead it is the narrow-minded anti-gun members of Congress, and you apparently, that can’t quite seem to understand the dangers in creating such legislation.

      And as I’ve already stated, this will invariably lead to these secret lists remaining even more protected which makes it impossible for your retro-active adjudication pipedream to ever be realized by citizens; while at the same time giving federal agents the authority to allow terrorist subject’s under NICS checks to proceed with purchases anyway because agents MUST do so in order to protect their investigative covers from being blown. Think “Operation Fast and Furious” and hopefully you’ll get a clue as to what I am saying here.

      What’s the final result? Since it will be business as usual for law enforcement, you will have instead handed the Executive Branch sole authority to create any new secret black lists they please, but this time they will have the authority to link such lists to the NICS system allowing them to effectively strip gun rights from any class of citizen they deem, and then claim secrecy for protection.

      After all, this is really all the anti-gunners in Congress want anyway – so I guess if you can pull it of then mission accomplished for you there Dr Dave.

    13. Dr. Dave, All good points but lets face it bad guys don’t seek background checks, they can purchase firearms from legal citizen to citizen sales, grey and black market sale of stolen weapons etc. So to apply such a lawas you suggest would require all WorLd Governments to confiscate every single weapon upon the planet. Then conduct as you stated “harsh” background checks to reissue a weapon to an individual that has passed such scrutiny. Once all weapons are confiscated I do not believe the powers to be, the Governments of the World to do the right thing and return firearms to us common people.! I’m sure every reader on the blog will agree.

  17. If we do this the way you all suggest then the whole concept of a watch list won’t work. The only way to have the list work is that people are put on it and when an attempt to use the list happens it triggers the process into action. In the case of flying the list is NOT designed to PREVENT terrorists from moving about. We all know that if they want to go from place to place they will find a way. The reason for the list is to know when they TRY. Agencies use the list to monitor activity. YES sure the list MIGHT prevent a BG from getting on a plane and otherwise blowing it up but trust me if the plan was THAT far complete then the BG would simply use a fake ID or another stooge to stand in. The lists are actually a FUNCTIONAL entity. When a list person triggers and action like trying to buy a ticket it is like Whack-A-Mole in that the person has popped his head up and the agency can now track him/her. The same can go for buying guns if we cross reference the systems. If someone WRONGLY on the list tries to buy a gun the NEW system should have a provision that allows them to be excused if the list is wrong. Right now it is a nightmare to get off the list by adding the NFL to the NICS system it would allow good guys the opportunity to get removed if the list is generating erroneous contacts. This makes the list much more valuable to the agencies.
    If we stand our ground and scream we will not accept any changes then we need to be ready for laws that will seriously affect our ability to enjoy our freedom. It is FAR easier to give up little pieces then big ones and the NRA refuses to accept that as they say give them an inch and they will take a yard. Simply not true and what is more likely to happen is they will steal the yard because we refused to give them the inch. Right now we have a hand full of states that all but refuse to allow all kinds of random guns and uses of them instead of people giving an inch they lost the entire yard. More states are going to follow as more and more of these terror actions happen. So we have a choice we can stand firm and scream about our “on alienable rights” and see the 2 sentences as invincible unwavering indefinable words or we can see them as guidelines designed to direct the society in its future interpretations. I am 100% in support of freedom and a life member of the NRA but I also see that if we don’t make way to stop terrorists we will lose our entire freedom to a voting public that can at any point change the basic rules we hold so dearly. It is not like it hasn’t happened 4 other times before. Amendments can be changed and we as gun owners need to not too hard to support the tiny issues when we can easily lose the bigger picture.
    I have NO problem with background checks and adding the DNFT tot he mix as long as it is MANDATED that refusals are given an opportunity to resolve the issue (something that does NOT happen today the only way is to hire a lawyer and sue to be taken off). Dr D

    1. ” It is FAR easier to give up little pieces then big ones and the NRA refuses to accept that as they say give them an inch and they will take a yard. Simply not true and what is more likely to happen is they will steal the yard because we refused to give them the inch.”

      If this is simply not true then why are they still pushing for assault weapon, high capacity magazine and concealed carry bans? A ban on an object in various places, but not all, has no possibility of accomplishing anything towards keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, For that matter, a magazine is not a firearm.

      I think we can all agree that there should be a process to procure a firearm. And that certain people should not have a firearm. But, perhaps an independent private company is required to provide this function. Obviously the people currently assigned can’t handle the responsibility.

    2. The question remains, Why would an innocent, law abiding citizen be denied his right without benefit of DUE PROCESS?

      You are so eager to dismantle our justice system and deny people on the list their rights. Why is that?

  18. Those posts which protest the NRA’s proposal have it right. While I generally support the NRA, they have this one deadly wrong.

    As a matter of Constitutional law, you cannot suspend or deny one’s rights to Second Amendment protections simply from being placed under observation. Such an act under the Constitution calls for a much heavier burden of proof which requires formal adjudication to satisfy and confirm the loss of that right to be appropriate.

    Moreover, such an activity constitutes a flagrant disregard of the Constitution and overwhelmingly violates the core purpose of the Fifth Amendment. I am shocked and dismayed the NRA, given all their paid legal advisors and resources, could have arrived at such an unlawful position which also appears quite un-American.

    In addition, contradiction abounds when the NRA vehemently makes arguments using my same point above whenever they defend the rights of Veterans added to the NICS system that were denied the full adjudication process. You can’t have it both ways, as the Constitution simply will not allow for it.

    The laws currently in place already offers the tools necessary to protect citizens from terrorists. Agents and officers need to become more diligent to do a better job at utilizing them more effectively.

    The litmus test is this: If the activities of individuals are so grave that they amount to a terrorist act or plot to commit such, then they also warrant arrest and confinement until such time that adjudication may commence. Simple logic dictates this would physically prevent such individuals from doing harm or possessing a weapon if they physically cannot have access. It also falls in line with the currently established legal process the Constitution had intended.

    Even if such individuals were able to post bail, their arrest still serves as a strong deterrent now that they know they are under observation. At a minimum it precludes them from lawfully checking boxes on the ATF Form 4473 which asks if they are under investigation of crimes that could imprison them for at least a year.

    But to pro-actively support denying rights to unaware individuals that have yet to enter into any sort of adjudication process through the use of secret government watch lists is preposterous; especially when one considers the extreme abuses of power witnessed under the Obama regime, which seems to have been enabled and supported by a do-nothing Congress that acts powerless against anything this man does.

    Yet we want to offer such future regimes the tools to do even more damage? It is scary that anyone agrees with such an outrageous proposition after having seen what this administration was capable of. And then to actually expect such a regime will offer a fair and full adjudication after-the-fact. Stripping one of their rights as a precautionary measure is not something we want, nor is it provided for in the Constitution. By then it will be too late and the damage will have already been done.

    1. This wouldn’t be the first time that we have denied rights to individuals, we have incarcerated whole groups of people, such as the American Japanese. And every time we look back at these events and state how they were a grievous act of injustice. So, I guess what I’m saying is that I agree. The NRA has this wrong,

    2. The NRA definitely has it wrong. DUE PROCESS cannot be trampled. A person’s rights remain in effect until a judgment, after all evidence has, beyond a shadow of a doubt, convicted said person. To arbitrarily place a person on a list and deny his rights before he can defend himself is heading down a road our Republic does not condone.

      Support DUE PROCESS. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! And if you don’t get that, you shouldn’t call yourself American.

  19. As a past FFL dealer and present conceal carry holder, I too support denying transfers to terrorists and people who have been involuntarily committed to mental facilities. These two categories make up almost 100% of multiple killings. Updated and cross-referenced data bases will make identifying the bad-bads easier.

    1. how many of these shooters have been involuntarily committed to a mental facility ?

  20. Why not simply allow the NICS system to include the watch list people BUT allow ANYONE refused the ability by a gun to appeal the rejection? I have to question how many other times the NICS system incorrectly identifies someone who is actually allowed to buy one as being not. So why not have an appeal process built right into buying a gun for EVERYONE not just because a watch list but for ANY reason. just like going to get a credit card or loan or the like. If you get refused you get a copy of why the refusal and then you can appeal the refusal to the agency involved and they have a given time to either prove why you are not going to get one or reverse the decision and grant permission.
    If anyone is in THAT much of a hurry to get a gun then likely they are in fact looking for trouble. The system could even include deadlines like the credit bureaus have that say within 30 days they have to tell you why and or justify the refusal and then if you refute it then another 30 days . Sure beats the current system and shuts up the gun grabbers atleast the system will be more inclusive then the current one and will give more flexibility to everyone when a refusal is met with

    1. So the woman in NJ who was murdered by her ex (against whom she already had a restraining order) while waiting for the government to approve her firearm purchase was actually “looking for trouble”?

      The system already allows the FBI to delay the sale for up to three business days while they investigate further. Additionally, if the sale has completed and they later determine that the sale should have been prohibited, then BATF has the authority to seize the firearm from the purchaser.

  21. If Donald Trump supports infringement of the Second Amendment, the NRA should remove its endorsement/support of Trump.

    Joseph T. Novak
    Benefactor Life Member

    Judy E. Novak
    Benefactor Life Member

  22. The NRA’s position (and Donald Trump’s position) are an absolutely nauseating cave-in to political correctness. One can be put on the list arbitrarily for any number of reasons or for no reason at all. There is no “due process” for listing someone and many are falsely listed. Moreover, the Orlando killer was not on a watch list.

  23. I must respectfully disagree with NRA’s position. The 5th Amendment expressly forbids the denial of life, liberty, or property, which would obviously include the ability to travel freely and purchase firearms, to any person without due process of law, meaning charges being brought, evidence being presented, the defendant having an opportunity to face his/her accusers and present a defense, and a verdict being rendered. When a crime is suspected, law enforcement is supposed to conduct a discreet, informal investigation. If evidence rising to the standard of probable cause is found, a formal investigation including requests for appropriate warrants should begin. Due process is supposed to happen BEFORE any person’s rights may be restricted. These lists are illegal and should not exist. Whether the public can access these lists or not, they have already resulted in, and will only continue to encourage, abuse of power, violated rights and compromised investigations.

    1. Did you actually read their statement?

      Going to court after completing the investigation to get approval to block the sale and arrest the person is pretty much the working definition of due process in this country.

  24. I also agree with them!!! Except I think as soon as it’s proven they are terrorists they should be put to death!!!! Don’t make us tax payers keep them in jail giving them a better life than they had! KILL EM ALL!!!

  25. NRA is right on this issue and I believe after meeting with Donald Trump he will change his opinion on this matter. It would not hurt for all firearm owners to go to the official Trump campaign website and send him an email telling him you agree with the NRA. Search Trump Official Campaign Website Contact

  26. I am totally behind the NRA’s position on terrorists attempting to buy guns. I totally agree that it must be possible for citizens to know that they are on, and be able to challenge, any list that attempts to limit their rights, whether that be to buy firearms, fly or whatever.

    1. Exactly. The lists should exists, but there must be full disclosure to the citizen and due process. The Florida scum bag was under scrutiny more than once and was refused purchase by a gun shop that reported him to authorities and still nothing was done to prevent his act of terrorism. The NRA is right about this.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.