It doesn’t. But flying on an airplane is not a protected right. Just because that is the tripwire that is conditionally preventing a legal firearm purchase, doesn’t mean that can’t be overcome on appeal in open court. The “problem” of the no-fly lists are almost entirely mistaken identity.
You’re kidding, right?
Again, you make an NRA argument. The Orlando killer was at one time on the watch list. He was then taken off. The legislation being proposed says the FBI could go back 5 years to determine eligibility. If that had happened, the killer would not have been able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon and therefore his ability to efficiently kill as many people as he wanted would have been limited http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/283290-orlando-shooter-was-on-then-off-watch-list
2 Likes
No, but most of it is security theater. One goofball tries to bring combustible stuff onto a plane in his shoes, so the rest of us spend the next couple of decades padding around airports in our socks. Funny how the underwear bomber didn’t trigger a similar overreaction.
3 Likes
[quote=“lestatdelc, post:82, topic:39539”]
The “problem” of the no-fly lists are almost entirely mistaken identity.
[/quote]We can’t know what the true problems with the no-fly list are, nor can we know even if we are on one until we try to fly, and are denied. To my knowledge, it has been near impossible to get removed from the list, even when the person is mistakenly identified, simply because the agencies that compose the list reveal nothing to the person (and his lawyer) appealing his inclusion on it.
The creation of a secret list for secret reasons is the antithesis of due process, all justified on national security grounds, but without ever having to be openly reviewed.
That’s a flawed argument. You are arguing that because I am not legally allowed to drive without first getting a license, I am in a Kafkaesque hellhole of being guilty until I prove my innocence.
You are assuming that the courts will take the you are already guilty position if a flagged person who wants to purchase a firearm will have the burden of proof.
Why are you making that assumption? There is nothing in this bill which would upend the pressumptuon of innocence in the courts anymore than an arresting officer and a DA bring charges in court that the accused is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That court proceeding will either make the person “whole” as you are want to call it if the government can prove that they are a risk if they have legal access to a firearm.
Again, the barring of boarding an airplane is not a right. And if the government cannot prove risk if a person is denied legal firearms purchase in open court, they will be allowed to purchase the firearm.
Why you and many others assume that the pressumptuon of innocence is somehow magically upended if this bill was passed I don’t really know.
This would be no different than a DA bringing charges and it goes to court. If the government can’t or won’t bring evidence, the court will find for the accused (in this case the person accused by the government of being a risk in owning a firearm).
And if there are indeed problems with the no-fly lists (which I think is true) then fix the no-fly list process.
No, the NRA argument is that there should be no restrictions on gun purchases. My argument is that there are many legally-defensible, highly-effective measures that we can take to restrict gun purchases and ownership, and that we should be taking those measures, rather than focusing on this one, which is legally troublesome and of doubtful efficacy.
But if he had been able to challenge his inclusion on the list, isn’t it equally likely that he would have been taken off it? After all, the FBI apparently didn’t think he needed to be on that list.
1 Like
The appeal is for the government, not for the person on the no-fly list.
Here is the problem. All the government needs to do to prove risk is to show that the individual is included on the list. But if the individual cannot challenge inclusion on the list effectively, then his rights to fly and his rights to gun purchase could be denied. If the new measures deal effectively with the appeal process for the list, that would be an improvement, but after 15 years it is still a problem despite multiple efforts to resolve the issues.
Wikipedia has a good explication of some of the issues with the list, as well as the long delays in rectifying them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
It should also be noted that the No-Fly is is different from the Terrorist Watch List, which is even more extensive and secretive.
If the government is required to make a case then (in this country, anyway) it’s automatically innocent until proven guilty because if the arresting authority does nothing further the citizen wins.
If on the other hand the citizen is required to make a case it’s automatically guilty until proven innocent, because if the citizen does nothing further the government wins; in other words, one can either go to court to attempt to prove one’s innocence or one can accept one’s guilt. Whether one receives a fair hearing or not is neither here nor there.
Ummm…this isn’t obvious?
Unfounded assumption. And again, this is basically hand waving along the lines of claiming the courts will automatically rule in favor of the state because the DA brings a charge.
Huh?
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”).
[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.”
Absolutely serious. It worked well before 2005. Check it out.
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
I agree - the timing is dreadful. The ACLU should have been all over this one years ago.
2 Likes
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.
Fix the lists in the process of passing the no buy rule. Win win for everybody.