Discussion: ACLU Opposes Use Of ‘Unfair Watchlist System’ To Enforce Gun Control

Good for them. I love the extended background check idea but until there is transparency and court review – not FISA – of the watch list we should not expand its power.

10 Likes

I have to say I agree. I am more than happy to see the Dems stand their ground and make a bunch of noise here–it’s drawing needed attention to the issue–but I wasn’t aware we haven’t at all moved forward on the how to rectify obvious errors in these lists. If there are no ways to correct them, then that needs to be first – which leads me to really understand why there’s been no movement in that direction … because if there is a workable mechanism to fix errors with these lists, then the Republicans would have that much less of an argument to fall back on for not doing the right thing. They really are despicable entities.

4 Likes

I’m sorry, but if you can put folks on a Watchlist and stop them from flying, then you can damned well stop them from buying a gun as well.

It’s fatuous to try to argue that folk the government considers potential terrorists should be able to purchase weapons.

I absolutely agree to the fact that the lists need to be improved and made transparent. And for folks to have viable avenues to protest being put on the list. But to stop this kind of measure just because the lists need improvement is to make perfect the enemy of good.

It’s similar to how far left folks wanted (and still want) Obamacare to be struck down because they only want Universal Health Care. Yes, Universal Health Care would be awesome. But do you really want to go back to how f’d up things were until we one day, maybe, get to Universal Health Care decades from now???

11 Likes

The list should be greatly expanded, to include everyone who has ever been convicted of a criminal offense, and everyone who is currently diagnosed with a mental illness or prescribed a controlled substance. All semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with capacity greater than two rounds should be illegal for everyone. All firearms with capacity over six rounds should be illegal for everyone.

1 Like

austinite, I don’t know how to break this to you but…YOU are a potential terrorist (because everyone is), and therefore the government could easily designate you as one since the process has no judicial review. And why stop with guns and airline flights? Once austinite has that extrajudicial label applied, we could then proceed to block austinite from getting a driver’s license, from marrying, from voting…well, you get the picture. Why let an executive-branch-designated potential terrorist do any of those things just because the system isn’t perfect?

It is inaccurate to describe the no-fly and related lists as imperfect. They’re a discriminatory, extrajudicial disaster and a travesty of democracy.

5 Likes

Of all the things the government might prevent an American citizen from doing, buying a firearm is close to the bottom of the list of the things I’m going to be enraged about.

7 Likes

I agree that extending the purpose of the no-fly list is less than perfect but we should not hold out for a ‘perfect’ solution.

But… if it leads to the creating of a ‘No-Buy’ list this would be good too. I look forward to a system where responsible citizens can make note of their fellow citizens immaturity or poor anger management skills and can have them put on a ‘watch list’ that would give any future gun purchase elevated scrutiny.

A ‘slippery slope’ does not always lead to a bad outcome.

1 Like

Sorry, another “fail” for the ACLU. The Repub “due process” argument is simply fatuous: the No Fly system has been in effect for about 15 years. When have the Repubs ever held a hearing or introduced a bill demanding that those on the list be entitled to due process, or even an explanation why? The word “never” springs to mind.

I agree that this is a problem, but if that’s the problem fix that. The bottom line is that if someone is too risky to fly they should not be able to purchase a gun at a gun show or on-line, or anywhere. Period.

The ACLU’s position on this is just sick.

5 Likes

This is simply bogus reasoning.

1 Like

I feel the same way. I mean I understand the ACLU and Greenwald’s points, but why the hell is the left outraged that someone won’t be able to buy guns? Why not argue that the kids at Sandy Hook or the people at the Christmas party in San Bernidino or the people at the nightclub in Orlando didn’t get their due process?

3 Likes

Actually, it’s excellent reasoning. Let’s put aside the question of firearms purchases for the moment, since that’s an emotional subject. Let’s get back to flying on an airplane. Why should the government be able to decide, for unknown, unchallengeable reasons, that you shouldn’t be allowed to fly? Does that not trouble you at all?

Sure, you’re happy when Abu ben-Whatever is kept off a plane. But how would you feel if you were turned away from the security checkpoint at JFK, and told that you could never fly anywhere, ever again? And that there’s no way you can find out why you’re on the list, or challenge it?

This is an awful system, and expanding its use beyond just flying only makes it worse.

8 Likes

If it comes down to it and they are shamed into passing the law, how long until there’s another bill to neuter the list and strengthen civil liberties?

Sounds like a win-win - appear to side with the majority on gun control and run an end-around to get what you wanted in the first place while also supporting civil liberties.

1 Like

What any of the proposals to coordinate watch- or no-fly lists with background checks need is a relatively simple and efficient way for those on the lists to petition to be removed. Let them file a petition and get a preliminary hearing within, say, 14 days. The burden would be on the petitioner to prove that s/he is mistakenly on the list, but the burden need not be high. Then Congress would need to appropriate enough money for the courts to carry out the process.

Its not similar to that in the least. The ACLU argument here is with the watch list in the first place…and from a legal/constitutional perspective,its a very compelling argument. So instead of basing more legislation restricting the rights of people on the list…fix the list by applying constitutional oversights to it.

5 Likes

There is a bigger problem still there, however…which is you don’t even know you are on the list until its used against you, ie, today until you go to board an airplane. And there is very little constitutional protections in play in the process for putting people on the list…basically the FBI says a person should be on it, goes to FISA Court, and the person is on it. This is Star Chamber type stuff.

3 Likes

God … FINALLY. An organization enters the conversation with a sane voice and legitimate points for adult discussion.

The freak-out histrionics since the Orlando shooting have done vastly more harm than good to try and delve into the issue.

The very same people that scream the loudest about the PATRIOT Act being railroaded and passed in the midst of panic-mongering and lies haven’t had any problems with hyperbolic, meaningless language getting inserted into ill-thought out (and mostly not thought out at all) laws.

Gun control / gun freedoms is NOT a topic that we should be wasting any time on in this election cycle. There are vastly more important issues on the table. There is plenty of time to discuss guns in our society.

Mostly, keep in mind that there are no laws either on the books or proposed that would have made any difference in Orlando.

This is a distraction, people. The Republicans are using this deliberately to create divisions and confusion when we need to be intensely focused on taking back the Senate, as much of the House as we can, and as many Governor mansions as we can. AND turning out the vote in 2018 and 2020.

We need everyone to pledge that if you vote in 2016, you vow to show up and vote in 2018.

[ ETA - spelling & grammar corrections, add boldface ]

1 Like

Don’t let the good be the enemy of the perfect.

I don’t agree. As I indicated in an earlier post, the current No Fly system is problematic because it designates people who are precluded from boarding an airplane without any explanation or opportunity for challenge. That is a problem.

However, let’s assume – for a moment – that there are some people on the No Fly list who are terrorists in training. Why is allowing them to get an AR-15 with no questions asked a better solution than providing due process to people to challenge their presence on the list?

The government argues, by the way, that they don’t want to have to explain to people on the list why they’re on the list because they don’t want to disclose the methods used to reach this conclusion. That sounds like a credible reason to me, but I can also see that innocent people who are mistakenly on the list should have some kind of process to challenge that designation. That problem can be dealt with. But the argument that the alternative – in the interim everyone buys an assault weapon – makes no sense.

4 Likes

You realize that your argument is: if your name is added to a secret list, obviously you are guilty and deserve to be on that secret list. Because. The Government.

If you want to talk about whose position on this is just sick, spend some time in front of a mirror.

2 Likes
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available