quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
One should not (cannot, really) have their rights removed because their name appears on a random government list. We've had cases of 8 year olds on the no-fly list because they share a name with a 'suspected terrorist' and the ACLU has already filed suit against the government for their no-fly list.

Nobody wants to see firearms fall into the hands of someone intent on doing harm to others but bypassing the Constitution is not the way to go about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: https://www.aclu.org/cases/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list
Until the government fixes its unconstitutional new process, people on the No Fly List are barred from commercial air travel with no meaningful chance to clear their names, resulting in a vast and growing group of individuals whom the government deems too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

If the government can maintain a list of names, and people whose names appear on a list have no recourse (in violation of the 14th Amendment), and the government can deny the rights of people on said list, what's to stop government from sidestepping the entirety of the Constitution?

This is not just about the 2nd Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Because the amendment is so vague and does not specifically guarantee the individual the right to own any firearm they please laws have been allowed to regulate types and ownership of weapons under certain conditions. So... a law prohibiting those on the no fly list would not be in direct conflict with the Constitution. BUT... again various gun laws have been challenged and repealed by the Supreme Court so there would assuredly be a challenge to the law if it were enacted. The result of this challenge could go either way depending on the make up of the Court.

I'm afraid it will take more gun deaths and tragedies as we have been suffering before the people force their representatives to enact gun laws that will not be challenged.
'
Butch

If the government can maintain a list of names, and people whose names appear on a list have no recourse (in violation of the 14th Amendment), and the government can deny the rights of people on said list, what's to stop government from sidestepping the entirety of the Constitution?

This is not just about the 2nd Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
...
Oh and technically the gubblmint collecting and putting your name on one of their lists without your prior consent if no crime is being committed is a violation of your property rights. Your name is your property not theirs. No one including them have the right to trespass upon your property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
One should not (cannot, really) have their rights removed because their name appears on a random government list. We've had cases of 8 year olds on the no-fly list because they share a name with a 'suspected terrorist' and the ACLU has already filed suit against the government for their no-fly list.

Nobody wants to see firearms fall into the hands of someone intent on doing harm to others but bypassing the Constitution is not the way to go about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: https://www.aclu.org/cases/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list
Until the government fixes its unconstitutional new process, people on the No Fly List are barred from commercial air travel with no meaningful chance to clear their names, resulting in a vast and growing group of individuals whom the government deems too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest.

Again, I see the crux for your case is that currently, the way they identify who gets put into the no-fly list is extremely flawed. As you said, 8 yr old gets put in there as well. So the problem really is, sorting out the no fly list to have it properly include real dangerous people.

Secondly, there are many dangerous terrorist suspects that are being monitored but not arrested BECAUSE they have not commited their crimes. After all, we live in a world, where you can think and plot all you want, but you are only guilty after you actually harmed people.

So not surprise alot in the no fly list are suspects but have not commited anything heinous yet.

Currently, in my own country, a Singaporean man accused of soccer match fixing in Europe is held without a trial in Singapore, due to foreign pressure from Europe. I personally am looking at that case, and I am surprise Europe is applying so much pressure on Singapore to prosecute this person. When he was release, due to crime not being committed in Singapore, Europe protested like crazy and wanted us to keep him in jail.

It's not even a terrorist. So he bribes soccer players to lose matches. Now I would like to see them react the same way with suspected terrorists!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

I'd say, clean up the no-fly list. That 8 yr old with the same name as a terrorist suspect, is clear laziness of the person compiling that list, for not checking age as well!

It just needs to be managed better.

I think at the very least, just make it difficult for dangerous people to own guns. At least on this ground, both left and right should agree to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, as have I, so no need to be frangible. Although, if they fixed the no fly list and incorporated it into nics (also a list) you see how these things relate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

There is a recourse and like I said there is no Constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Like the Republicans did with prisoners from Afghanistan between 2001-2008? They took a pile of individuals, accused them of petty crimes, flew them to Gitmo, and tortured them! During their captivity, they didnt get to see a lawyer, see the evidence, have a trial (even a speedy one at that), or see the evidence against them (violations of the 5th and 6th amendments). They were tortured (violation of the 8th amendment). The Republican White House call these individuals 'enemy combatants'. Do you know what an 'Enemy Combatant' is defined? Someone with no rights. Not even basic human rights! Let alone Constitutional rights (which they were most certainty entitled too).

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Geez, as much as I hate to agree with some on these boards, I am forced to at this point.

In another thread, someone suggested using the "no fly list" as a means to ban the sell of firearms to individuals.

The most glaring problem is that the list is a mess, and you can end up on that list for some pretty fucked up reasons.

Then there is this fact:

No-Fly List Offers No Hope for Correcting Mistakes, Judge Rules



The federal government lacks an effective system for allowing people to get off the no-fly list who are put there by mistake, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by 13 American citizens and permanent residents, including four military veterans, who have been barred from flights to or from the United States or over U.S. airspace. Many of them have been told they're on the government's no-fly list.

Each of them applied for relief under the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, but Judge Anna Brown of Oregon said the program is so lacking in providing fairness that it's unconstitutional.

If the government mistakenly puts someone on the list, the judge said, the redress process "does not provide a meaningful mechanism for travelers who have been denied boarding to correct erroneous information in the government's terrorism databases."

I put the last in bold for because there is not just one list, there are over 2 dozen.

What was the state reason these individuals were on the 'No Fly List'? Even if it is a mistake, there would be a listed reason. From there one could perform some investigative work to determine the merits of the issue. Just because someone states they are innocent, does that mean they are?

In my view, to be placed on such a list requires at the very least, some actual evidence. That it can be challenged in court. And that a person is innocent of the charge until proven guilty. So, an issue comes up, and mail sent to the individual (if possible) notifying them of a court appearance on a specific day and time. It is up to the government to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove their innocence. In fact, the Defendant doesn't have to say anything (i.e. observing their 5th amendment right). The judge (with jury depending on the legal mechanics) would have to determine guilt or innocence. That the matter can be tried at a later date if circumstances change.

The current system has to be over-hauled and fixed. Which is a job for Congress. The current Congress seems to inept to handle simply tasks let alone something as complex as the current problem. It is also a low priority to both political parties. They'll get around to dealing with it....AFTER.....giving money to NASA to resettle Americans on Pluto.....

The only way it gets fixed is for a group of people in Congress to have something to gain (politically/financially) with its outcome. Right now, neither party wants to risk allowing some nutcase off the list by a technically so they can go blow up a school full of kids (or machine gun them down).

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Greta there is no constitutional right to fly...or take a train or any other mode of transportation... but of course there is to own guns...different rules.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

I'd say, clean up the no-fly list. That 8 yr old with the same name as a terrorist suspect, is clear laziness of the person compiling that list, for not checking age as well!

It just needs to be managed better.

I think at the very least, just make it difficult for dangerous people to own guns. At least on this ground, both left and right should agree to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Like the Republicans did with prisoners from Afghanistan between 2001-2008? They took a pile of individuals, accused them of petty crimes, flew them to Gitmo, and tortured them! During their captivity, they didnt get to see a lawyer, see the evidence, have a trial (even a speedy one at that), or see the evidence against them (violations of the 5th and 6th amendments). They were tortured (violation of the 8th amendment). The Republican White House call these individuals 'enemy combatants'. Do you know what an 'Enemy Combatant' is defined? Someone with no rights. Not even basic human rights! Let alone Constitutional rights (which they were most certainty entitled too).

Yes, like the republicans started and democrats continued. How is the president handling the closure of Gitmo, one of his election promises? It's closed now, right? Or is Obama secretly a republican?

Did a republican touch you as a child or something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Greta there is no constitutional right to fly...or take a train or any other mode of transportation... but of course there is to own guns...different rules.

Butch

Although, there is the "Right of Movement" which says that we have the right to travel within our country without presenting papers. I've wondered how the TSA rules managed to make it through (although you can technically fly without ID, but it's not pleasant).

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

That is for the courts to decide...and so far at least the right to deny access has been upheld... Could change in the future...but i doubt it...don't you?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
People captured on the battlefield fall into a different catagory than criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75



I think at the very least, just make it difficult for dangerous people to own guns. At least on this ground, both left and right should agree to this.