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

TPM Article Topics
#22

The other aspect of this is that using the list to restrict weapons sales is a solution in search of a problem (in an odd way, not unlike the “voter ID” efforts of the Republicans). Is there any evidence that anyone who’s on the watch list has ever legally purchased a firearm, to say nothing of using it to kill anyone? Has any mass shooter in U.S. history been on the watch list?

In short, if you’re trying to prevent more gun deaths, a measure like this barely qualifies as “window dressing.” Better than nothing, but only by an amount so small as to be imperceptible. Closing the gun show loophole would be marginally better. But until we decide that military grade weapons don’t belong in the hands of anyone not in uniform, ban the sale and possession of them, buy back the ones that are out there, and feed them to the crusher, we’re just masturbating.

2 Likes
#23

The real question is, why should anyone be allowed to get that kind of weapon? Let’s not waste time trying to figure out who’s safe and who isn’t. We know that doesn’t work, unless you’re prepared to subject every purchaser to a background check that includes several long sessions with a court-appointed psychiatrist (and even that probably wouldn’t do very well - psychopaths, for example, can be very charming).

Expanding the use of the no-fly list is just another bit of security theater. “See, we’ve taken a positive step towards cutting down on the 30,000+ gun deaths we endure very year!” No, you haven’t. It won’t make any difference at all.

4 Likes
#24

Flying is not a Constitutional right. It’s that simple. I wish we could get rid of that damnable second Amendment, but as long as it’s in our Constitution, we can’t just deny that Constitutional
right to citizens based on an extra-judicial process.

1 Like
#25

And if the list starts impacting peoples ability to buy guns, maybe that’ll help those who want to reform the list to get the buy in from the right to actually make some progress on the issue after a decade and a half of nada.

2 Likes
#26

Not so simple. The courts have recognized a fundamental right of freedom of movement well back into the 19th Century. A lot of the early civil rights enforcement by the Federal government was based on the right of citizens to travel freely.

Sometimes, there’s no realtistic alternative to flying.

#27

If i understand this correctly, the ACLU seems to believe that a person’s “right” to buy a gun is more important than protecting human life? If the watchlist is flawed, then fight to fix the watchlist, but not to protect an individual’s right to buy a gun. We have to start somewhere and I for one am willing to cede my second amendment rights

#28

The proposed bill does call for court appeal process in open court. The ACLU is misguided on this one.

1 Like
#29

The proposed bill calls for an appeal process in open court. Your arguement is pure twaddle.

#30

You are misreading that clause. It basically saying that privileges and immunities granted by the federal government apply to any person, regardless of the state in which they reside

#31

Do you know if that appeal would just apply to those purchasing guns or those looking to fly as well?

#32

No, that’s not the ACLU position. Their position is that the watch list system is unconstitutional, and shouldn’t be used for anything. Violating your civil liberties is unacceptable, no matter how noble the goal or how well-intentioned the violation is. As soon as you start making exceptions based on the exigencies or passions of the moment, you’re in trouble.

4 Likes
#33

Please look at the way it’s been applied by the courts.

#34

Except legally the courts have always held that law enforcement can remove firearms from a home upon arrest prior to a court hearing. So it is not as solid an arguement as the ACLU wants to argue this. From a theoretical stand-point, the ACLU position would dictate that people in jail for say, drunk and disorderly can’t have weapons removed from their person while awaiting their court date.

And as I noted in other comments in this thread, the proposed bill in the Senate calls for an appeal process in open court.

4 Likes
#35

Allow actual terrorists to buy guns because Glenn Greenwald considers the phrase “potential terrorist” creepy?

Glenn, “government” is your son and my daughter employed by us as civil servants. To have no faith in government is to have no faith in ourselves.

Yet when it comes to private companies, our faith is endless. People get maimed when their cell phone battery explodes. People die in hospitals because they’re given the wrong medicine. People get crushed when their defective SUV rolls over them. People die from failures of systems we don’t even know about, but that’s okay because mistakes of private companies we can shrug off. Somebody’ll fix it. Maybe, maybe not.

Nothing creepy about that. But government? Jeez, when it’s a matter of government, we have to become involved.

Yeah. Horrific.

2 Likes
#36

I have not read the exact language of the bill, but I believe from the media reporting that it is the gun purchase is appealable in court. There is no Constitutional right to get on an airplane though, so the ACLU has no Constitutional leg to stand on to argue that no-fly lists are a due process violation.

1 Like
#37

Restriction from flying on an airplane is not a constitutional violation of freedom of movement. By that argument driving a motor vehicle is fundamental right, which we know is not tenable as a constitutional argument.

1 Like
#38

What position would you take if your local friendly DMV told you that you couldn’t get a driver’s license because… well, just because? No reason given. Not happy? File a lawsuit.

1 Like
#39

I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we all try our very best to elect Hillary, thereby flipping the SCOTUS, flip the Senate, keep the house in our sights. The carnage is going to continue. This will not end soon. But it may in the future if everyone puts their shoulder to the plough.

1 Like
#40

The ACLU is using a civil liberties purity argument to support the rights of individuals to buy guns. Are they going to argue that a person’s psychological background should not be used to limit their access to guns? Or that an individual with a history of abusing their spouse should not impede their right to by a weapon? Those are lists as well. We have an epidemic of gun violence in this country. We have to use any and all limitations available to slow and eventually stop the epidemic. Are you arguing that you support the Orlando shooter’s right to purchase an assault rifle despite his dubious past? I bet the families of those victims feel differently.

4 Likes
#41

False parallel. In your hypothetical, if the arrest doesn’t lead to a prosecution or if a prosecution is done (in a court) but it results in acquittal any confiscated legal firearms have to be returned.

“…calls for an appeal process in open court”: Guilty until proven innocent.

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