Terrorist Gun Ban

On Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller proposed to Congress that terrorist suspects be barred from purchasing firearms. Conventional wisdom is "Duh...of course terrorist suspects shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. It's a no-brainer"

Or is it? How's this supposed to work? Someone tries to buy a gun and they are told they may not because they're a suspected terrorist according to the FBI? Wouldn't this be compromising the FBI's investigation?

Another problem with this "no-brainer" proposal is that it relies on the doctrine of prior restraint. It is a restriction of one's rights and liberties without the due process of law. The people on the FBI's list are suspected terrorists, which is quite different than being a convicted felon. Some editorialists are apoplectic that anyone would have the temerity to suggest this idea being flawed. Would they be equally supportive of prior restraint on their right to freedom of speech? After all, some nations stifle free speech, because they understand how threatening it can be to the health of the state. Some oppressive regimes have been started based upon certain writings, such as The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The followers of these doctrines have killed far more people than all the privately owned guns in history.

Another detail that hasn't been considered is the accuracy of this list. Outspoken anti-freedom activist and U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg justifies prior restraint on the basis that it is done for "no-fly" lists. Let us take a look at the track record of the crackerjack agents of Homeland Security in the air travel arena. Senator Ted Kennedy was flagged on the no-fly list, and it took over three weeks to get his name removed. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) was stripped searched at National airport while attempting to return to Michigan. If the government can't get it right with two of their prominent law makers, what can an average citizen expect?