Come on. I demand my grenade launcher so I can hang out 400 yards from the end of the main runways at PDX. What could go wrong? 
Actually, given the experience of flying anywhere these days (and for the last 15 years), that would make me pretty happy.
1 Like
“An updated report by the Government Accountability Office, released Tuesday by Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office, shows individuals on the terrorist watch list were involved in background checks to purchase firearms 244 times – with 223 of those transactions, or 91%, allowed to proceed.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/terrorist-watch-list-91-percent-approved-guns/
Are you arguing in favor of allowing the other 9% to purchase. You are not making a civil liberties argument, you are making an NRA argument.
1 Like
Really? What makes you think that?
Their isn’t a secret requirement to owning a firearm. And as already noted, the proposed bill calls for an appeal in open court.
Yeah, I’m headed to JFK next week for the delightful experience of slogging through baggage check and security, followed by having my knees in my mouth for 7-8 hours, followed by the exotic experience of Heathrow. I can’t wait.
1 Like
Once again:
Your arrest hypothetical: Innocent until proven guilty–the onus is on the government to either bring a case to a jury or make the citizen whole again.
Proposed law: Guilty until proven innocent. Zero onus on the government. Kafkaesque nightmare.
Bingo. Clearly something needs to be done, but this bill isn’t it. And no, it’s not even a “good start.”
1 Like
What statute lays out the tests that have to be met for someone to be put on the no-fly list?
OK, Democrats, let’s push for a ban on assault weapons ban. Problem solved. Much better. You have the attention now, go for it.
1 Like
From what we have in some of the media reporting, the killer in Orlando was being investigated as a terrorist suspect. If he had been put on the no-fly list and kept there, and this law had been in place (and the gun show loopholes closed, etc.) it might have prevented the carnage.
Granted that is a multiple step hypothetical, but as the cliche goes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. This proposed bill is a needed first step, and many others should follow. Such as improving the no-fly and watch- lists, better appeal process, the aforementioned gunshow loopholes, etc.
We have to start.
2 Likes
You have a right to be legal firearms. I haven’t forgotten the “well regulated” part, and I’m all for applying limitations to that right. Hell, I think the enture 2nd amendment should be chucked - legally. However, I’m definitely against granting the government (or anybody) the power to secretly and arbitrarily remove constitutional rights, even the shitty ones.
Irrelevant. The default is not being on the no-fly list for over 300 millions+ citizens and legal resident. I was pointing out the default state in your comment is backwards from a “presumed guilty” assertion.
Except as noted, the proposed bill isn’t “secret” and allows an appeal in open court.
[quote=“lestatdelc, post:66, topic:39539”]
And as already noted, the proposed bill calls for an appeal in open court.
[/quote]You may have information that I don’t have, but my understanding is that the government can hide any of their reasons for placing an individual on the No-Fly list simply by claiming that it would reveal sources and methods. How does one challenge that?
An after-the-fact appeals process violates presumption of innocence. The 2A isn’t absolute and should be regulated, but in a way that doesn’t violate foundational principles of our legal system.
1 Like
Yes, there is plenty of evidence, in fact, it is overwhelming “An updated report by the Government Accountability Office, released Tuesday by Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office, shows individuals on the terrorist watch list were involved in background checks to purchase firearms 244 times – with 223 of those transactions, or 91%, allowed to proceed.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/terrorist-watch-list-91-percent-approved-guns/
2 Likes
I trust you see the flaw with that, right? Was any of those guns subsequently used to kill anyone, or to carry out an act of terrorism? If not, doesn’t that suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, the list is a mess?
In a way, it reminds me of the TSA proudly stating that they seized X number of dangerous items from passengers. But if they didn’t arrest those passengers as terrorists, all they’ve really done is deprive X perfectly innocent, harmless individuals of their property for no good reason.
If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bus.
Following your logic, are you prepared to do away with the security checks at airports? Does it matter if people want to bring guns and box cutters onto airplanes?
If you accept the possibility that the national security apparatus has been at least partly responsible for preventing Paris-style attacks in this country, isn’t it also possible that the No Fly list, as imperfect as it is, may be partly responsible? I simply don’t agree that it’s a “waste of time figuring out who’s safe and who isn’t.” You can disagree, but I’m not sure there’s a rational basis for the disagreement.
1 Like