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

TPM Article Topics
#95

Correct.

Except you are making an erroneous assumption. This is no different from a presumption of innocnece perspective than law enforcement arresting someone and the DA bringing charges. Though it should be noted this isn’t even actually arresting someone, but simply denying a background check to purchase a firearm, not incarceration, etc.

Just because the state is claiming the person is too great a risk to be allowed to legally purchase a firearm, does not mean the court is obligated to uphold that position unless the state can bring the evidence to back it up. There is nothing to indicate that will stand in the court (re-asserting the charge “i.e. too great a risk”).

#96

[quote=“socalista, post:24, topic:39539”]
Flying is not a Constitutional right.
[/quote]Its Articular. It goes back to the right of travel in the Articles of Confederation. And, just to drive this home, the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Or, in plain English, “We might have missed a few.”

#97

Absolutely serious. It worked well before 2005. Check it out.

#98

I’m very disappointed that the ACLU chose this moment to start talking about the inequities of the no-fly list. It’s been a BS law for years, and now that we have a chance to use it against the people who supported it, you have to stand up with them. Fight the right battles for the right reasons, people!

2 Likes
#99

I agree - the timing is dreadful. The ACLU should have been all over this one years ago.

2 Likes
#100

Of course it did. But since 2005, Congress has not only refused to extend the assault weapons ban, it has consistently refused to limit the sale of any weapons, or any kinds of ammunition, under any circumstances, let alone assault weapons. I said you were not serious because, while virtually everyone who follows TPM belives there should be an assault weapons ban, the odds of having one voted into effect by Congress is ludicrously low.

#101

Fix the lists in the process of passing the no buy rule. Win win for everybody.

#102

Whether “this is actually arresting someone” or “what the court is obligated to uphold”, etc. has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is whether one is (1) guilty or (2) innocent if it never goes to court. If it’s the former, which is what the bill proposes, then it directly follows that one is guilty until proven innocent. To claim that it is instead innocent until proven guilty would be turning both logic and the English language inside-out.

1 Like
#103

Not comparable. If you are arrested and charged, you get a day in public court to refute those charges. Not the case with being put on a watch list…that can happen without you even knowing about it.

That immediately infringes upon your right to conduct interstate commerce. And now its being argued that we should use such a list to deprive people of additional rights.

Look, I am all for more stringent gun control, but basing it upon an unconstitutional process is not the way to ago about it.

#104

Hell, why bother giving the on going track record of the Air Marshals with leaving their fully loaded guns all over the place…including on actual planes. I mean, they are freaking under investigation for running a scheme to illegally ship and sale guns.

#105

No it doesn’t. It never becomes actionable until the person tries to purchase a firearm so there would be no standing until harm is done in which case it is actionable in the courts under the proposed bill. You keep repeating the same-upside down “logic” which is simply not present. Despite the hand waving of Greenwald and the ACLU as to presumption of innocent in the court.

1 Like
#106

And under this bill you have your day in court when you try to buy a firearm. The boarding of a plane is not a right protected under the law.

#107

The ACLU is doing exactly what they’re supposed to do. Unfortunately.

Now, I’ve been committed to a mental hospital. I can’t buy a gun, even though I am guilty of no crime. That’s fine, I don’t want one, and I would agree with the policy that prevents me even if I did. But that, too, is extrajudicial. That weakens the argument for “due process,” doesn’t it? Countless people have been deprived of this right without ever setting foot in a court.

Generally a person is committed when doctor determines that they pose a substantial risk of danger to themselves or others. This is a good reason to bar someone from purchasing a gun. But when the danger subsides–as determined by a doctor–they are released. They are cleared as safe enough for society, but are still denied what is supposedly a right.

Either we follow due process, or we prevent as many people from buying guns as we legally can. It’s long past time that gun ownership became a privilege, like literally everything else in society is. And it’s long past time that military weapons were banned outright.

1 Like
#108

So everyone has a right to drive a motor vehicle. (rolls eyes)

#109

Again, you make the NRA argument. Had the FBI known that he was buying an assault rifle they could have been alerted, reviewed and denied. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are a civil liberties purist or you accept that sometimes the safety of American citizens means regulation.

#110

Arguably, it is. It most certainly runs afoul of interstate commerce protections, that have been applied if far less demonstrable incidents with no qualms by the Court.

Keep in mind, that not 2 decades ago, the individual right to bear arms wasn’t protected by the Constitution, either. But Interstate Commerce was most definitely.

#111

False dichotomy. Please stop doing this. I have never said that firearms shouldn’t be regulated. I just don’t know where you’re getting this idea.

There is no reason why we can’t have effective regulation of firearms, but do it in a legally-defensible, Constitutional way. We can get military grade weapons out of the hands of private citizens without violating anyone’s civil liberties. We don’t have to choose one or the other.

#112

Let’s be practical and honest here. There’s no way to get that genie back in the bottle. The arms that are out there are out there, and there isn’t going to be a wholesale surrender or confiscation of these weapons, We can really only stop the sale of them to normal civilians.

#113

Yes, at this point, given the intransigence of congress, we do have to choose one or the other. It has to start somewhere. Right now, regardless of the due process argument, we cannot even get congress to vote on preventing folks on the terror watchlist from buying guns. The provision in place would allow anyone denied to appeal. If the ACLU has a problem with the watchlist then they should fight to change that. But so long as it exists, it should be used as a tool, whether it applies to any recent mass slaughter or not. Purity and absolutes have no place in democracy. The ACLU says if you stop someone from buying a gun then next you take away other liberties. The NRA says if you stop someone from buying a gun then next you outlaw guns and confiscate in order to subjugate. Neither argument moves the issue forward.

1 Like
#114

Australia has done a pretty good job of getting the genie back in the bottle. It didn’t happen overnight, but the results have been impressive.

Granted, the “deep in the bunker” nutjobs are going to be unreachable. But if it’s a felony to sell or give such a weapon to anyone else, and if we redirected LEO’s from making drug buys to making AR-15 buys, that would go a long way. And certainly no one would be able to hang around the Walmart parking lot with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. We see you carrying one, we can arrest you immediately, instead of waiting to see whether or not you’re going to use it. And oh, by the way, possession is a felony, and this is your cellmate.

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