The problems with the so called "No Fly List"

[huskerfan2000]

I can say it.. using the "no fly list" is asinnine. Flying is not a constitutional right, owning guns are!

And there is no doubt whatsoever that using the existing no-fly list system to stop people from buying guns is unconstitutional.

In fact, it's unconstitutional to use the existing no-fly list to stop people from flying. Flying actually is a consitutional right, although not enumerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

The no-fly list ignores due process.

being on the no fly list does not infringe on your right to movement.

 

[GBRedneck]

I can say it.. using the "no fly list" is asinnine. Flying is not a constitutional right, owning guns are!

And there is no doubt whatsoever that using the existing no-fly list system to stop people from buying guns is unconstitutional.

In fact, it's unconstitutional to use the existing no-fly list to stop people from flying. Flying actually is a consitutional right, although not enumerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

The no-fly list ignores due process.

being on the no fly list does not infringe on your right to movement.

Huh? Of course it does. But there's no amendment that says the right to move around the country shall not be infringed.

But, it is an unenumerated right. It requires less scrutiny to infringe it than it does to infringe gun rights. And the simply fact that the no-fly list completely ignores due process means as soon as someone takes it far enough in the court system, it will be ruled unconstitutional as currently implemented.

There's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a no-fly list. But the current version wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

 

[Saunders]

I can say it.. using the "no fly list" is asinnine. Flying is not a constitutional right, owning guns are!

And there is no doubt whatsoever that using the existing no-fly list system to stop people from buying guns is unconstitutional.

In fact, it's unconstitutional to use the existing no-fly list to stop people from flying. Flying actually is a consitutional right, although not enumerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

The no-fly list ignores due process.

being on the no fly list does not infringe on your right to movement.

I'm not a fan of "Papers, please" but whatevs.

 

[GBRedneck]

I can say it.. using the "no fly list" is asinnine. Flying is not a constitutional right, owning guns are!

And there is no doubt whatsoever that using the existing no-fly list system to stop people from buying guns is unconstitutional.

In fact, it's unconstitutional to use the existing no-fly list to stop people from flying. Flying actually is a consitutional right, although not enumerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

The no-fly list ignores due process.

being on the no fly list does not infringe on your right to movement.

I'm not a fan of "Papers, please" but whatevs.

Here's a good article about the no-fly list and other terror watch lists.

http://theweek.com/articles/593827/kill-terror-watch-list?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

[huskerfan2000]

I can say it.. using the "no fly list" is asinnine. Flying is not a constitutional right, owning guns are!

And there is no doubt whatsoever that using the existing no-fly list system to stop people from buying guns is unconstitutional.

In fact, it's unconstitutional to use the existing no-fly list to stop people from flying. Flying actually is a consitutional right, although not enumerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

The no-fly list ignores due process.

being on the no fly list does not infringe on your right to movement.

Huh? Of course it does. But there's no amendment that says the right to move around the country shall not be infringed.

But, it is an unenumerated right. It requires less scrutiny to infringe it than it does to infringe gun rights. And the simply fact that the no-fly list completely ignores due process means as soon as someone takes it far enough in the court system, it will be ruled unconstitutional as currently implemented.

There's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a no-fly list. But the current version wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

So you are saying you can't move about freely because you are on a no fly list? You can't walk, you can't ride a horse, you can't do anything because of the no fly list?

I'm not saying I am in favor of it, just saying there are many ways to travel freely, and until they start having checkpoints at the entry of each state then you can move about freely.

 

[GBRedneck]

I can say it.. using the "no fly list" is asinnine. Flying is not a constitutional right, owning guns are!

And there is no doubt whatsoever that using the existing no-fly list system to stop people from buying guns is unconstitutional.

In fact, it's unconstitutional to use the existing no-fly list to stop people from flying. Flying actually is a consitutional right, although not enumerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

The no-fly list ignores due process.

being on the no fly list does not infringe on your right to movement.

Huh? Of course it does. But there's no amendment that says the right to move around the country shall not be infringed.

But, it is an unenumerated right. It requires less scrutiny to infringe it than it does to infringe gun rights. And the simply fact that the no-fly list completely ignores due process means as soon as someone takes it far enough in the court system, it will be ruled unconstitutional as currently implemented.

There's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a no-fly list. But the current version wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

So you are saying you can't move about freely because you are on a no fly list? You can't walk, you can't ride a horse, you can't do anything because of the no fly list?

I'm not saying I am in favor of it, just saying there are many ways to travel freely, and until they start having checkpoints at the entry of each state then you can move about freely.

I already had this argument with St. Paul above. "Infringe" does not mean "prevent".

If I said you (and only you) could no longer use the Internet or write letters to the editor of the local newspaper, would that infringe on your right to free speech?

 

[Saunders]

One Woman’s Case Proves: It’s Basically Impossible to Get Off the ‘No-Fly List’

Before the 9/11 attacks, there were perhaps a dozen people worldwide on America’s no-fly list. The numbers soared after the attacks and by 2013 there were some 47,000 individuals on the list, according to a Justice Department audit. Grandmothers, infants, honorably discharged veterans, and the disabled have found themselves barred from boarding. A few notorious cases made headlines, such as when Sen. Edward Kennedy was stopped several times—because, it turned out, there was a “T. Kennedy” on some agency’s terrorist watchlist. Kennedy’s name was, of course, removed. For tens of thousands of others, it was not so easy.

The no-fly list is part of the post 9/11 security apparatus, which is a labyrinth of euphemisms and acronyms. The effort is coordinated by the Terrorism Screening Center (TSC), a multi-agency group of officials managed by the FBI in coordination with the CIA. All federal departments and agencies are responsible “for collecting information about potential terrorists or attacks” and sharing that information with the FBI or the CIA, either of which can “nominate” individuals for inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).

From that database, names are passed “downstream” (in bureaucratic jargon) to the so-called “frontline” agencies—for example, to the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), which administers the no-fly list, and to the State Department, where the names are put into the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS), which American consular officers around the world call up when a foreigner applies for a visa.

State and local law enforcement officials have access to the database, which now has some 700,000 records. A police officer pulling over a driver for speeding can check the name on the driver’s license against the TSDB. In addition, the lists are shared with more than 20 foreign governments.

An FBI agent need only have a “reasonable suspicion” to “nominate” someone, the FBI guidelines say. It is supposed to be more than “a mere guess or hunches.” But, as Huckabee noted, the standard is well short of the probable cause the police need to arrest a person.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/15/one-woman-s-case-proves-it-s-basically-impossible-to-get-off-the-no-fly-list.html

 

[StPaulHusker]

This just means that the no-fly list as it is implemented today is not a viable resource for implementing any form of "gun control." That doesn't mean it couldn't be a useful tool down the road if changes were made.

 

[Saunders]

This just means that the no-fly list as it is implemented today is not a viable resource for implementing any form of "gun control." That doesn't mean it couldn't be a useful tool down the road if changes were made.

But the President is saying we need to use it today, in its current form. That's bad. And I don't trust the government to fix the No Fly list any time soon. Once we allowed the Patriot Act to exist, and we began handing over our rights.

 

[StPaulHusker]

This just means that the no-fly list as it is implemented today is not a viable resource for implementing any form of "gun control." That doesn't mean it couldn't be a useful tool down the road if changes were made.

But the President is saying we need to use it today, in its current form. That's bad. And I don't trust the government to fix the No Fly list any time soon. Once we allowed the Patriot Act to exist, and we began handing over our rights.

I look at it like that is the opening of negotiation. Someone always opens high and someone counters low and the deal gets done somewhere in the middle. When I see them use the no-fly list in it's current state to ban ALL people on it from having guns, I will be one of the first to scream. Until then, it's just fear mongering on both sides of the idea.

 

[Saunders]

During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

Republicans reject that argument. “These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there’s no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they’re having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon,” Senator Marco Rubio, a top Republican presidential candidate, said on Sunday.

Last week, prior to the massacre in San Bernardino, House Republicans blocked debate on the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. On Thursday, the measure failed in the Senate as well. While its sponsors say the bill would prevent those on terror lists from acquiring guns, the law doesn’t specify whether it would bar those on the no-fly list or on several other federal watchlists.

What’s striking about this debate is how closely it mirrors the argument during the George W. Bush administration, when Democrats warned against the excesses of the list and Republicans defended it. The current debate suggests the extent to which the leading voices in the parties are willing to rearrange their positions around hot-button issues like gun rights, and shows how civil liberties tend to be treated as a tactical tool, exalted when they’re politically useful and forgotten when that’s more expedient.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/

Seems pretty black and white what the President & the Democrats (Hillary, Feinstein) want to do. I can't stand the current crop of Republicans, but they're right on this issue.

Over the late 2000s, pressure grew, and the no-fly list actually shrank significantly, to about 4,000. But after the failed Christmas Day “underwear bomber” attack in December 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and significantly ramped up the list. By 2013, according to documents obtained by The Intercept, there were 47,000 people on the no-fly list, topping the Bush administration’s high. Obama’s decision was driven in part by national-security hawks in his own party, including California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who called for a more aggressive list after the failed attack.

We've allowed fear and the illusion of safety to strip away basic freedoms like due process. It's alarming.

 

[StPaulHusker]

During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

Republicans reject that argument. “These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there’s no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they’re having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon,” Senator Marco Rubio, a top Republican presidential candidate, said on Sunday.

Last week, prior to the massacre in San Bernardino, House Republicans blocked debate on the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. On Thursday, the measure failed in the Senate as well. While its sponsors say the bill would prevent those on terror lists from acquiring guns, the law doesn’t specify whether it would bar those on the no-fly list or on several other federal watchlists.

What’s striking about this debate is how closely it mirrors the argument during the George W. Bush administration, when Democrats warned against the excesses of the list and Republicans defended it. The current debate suggests the extent to which the leading voices in the parties are willing to rearrange their positions around hot-button issues like gun rights, and shows how civil liberties tend to be treated as a tactical tool, exalted when they’re politically useful and forgotten when that’s more expedient.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/

Seems pretty black and white what the President & the Democrats (Hillary, Feinstein) want to do. I can't stand the current crop of Republicans, but they're right on this issue.

Over the late 2000s, pressure grew, and the no-fly list actually shrank significantly, to about 4,000. But after the failed Christmas Day “underwear bomber” attack in December 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and significantly ramped up the list. By 2013, according to documents obtained by The Intercept, there were 47,000 people on the no-fly list, topping the Bush administration’s high. Obama’s decision was driven in part by national-security hawks in his own party, including California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who called for a more aggressive list after the failed attack.

We've allowed fear and the illusion of safety to strip away basic freedoms like due process. It's alarming.

The first 2 paragraphs are exactly what I just said. One side goes all in. The other side wants none of it.

 

[Saunders]

During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

Republicans reject that argument. “These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there’s no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they’re having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon,” Senator Marco Rubio, a top Republican presidential candidate, said on Sunday.

Last week, prior to the massacre in San Bernardino, House Republicans blocked debate on the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. On Thursday, the measure failed in the Senate as well. While its sponsors say the bill would prevent those on terror lists from acquiring guns, the law doesn’t specify whether it would bar those on the no-fly list or on several other federal watchlists.

What’s striking about this debate is how closely it mirrors the argument during the George W. Bush administration, when Democrats warned against the excesses of the list and Republicans defended it. The current debate suggests the extent to which the leading voices in the parties are willing to rearrange their positions around hot-button issues like gun rights, and shows how civil liberties tend to be treated as a tactical tool, exalted when they’re politically useful and forgotten when that’s more expedient.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/

Seems pretty black and white what the President & the Democrats (Hillary, Feinstein) want to do. I can't stand the current crop of Republicans, but they're right on this issue.

Over the late 2000s, pressure grew, and the no-fly list actually shrank significantly, to about 4,000. But after the failed Christmas Day “underwear bomber” attack in December 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and significantly ramped up the list. By 2013, according to documents obtained by The Intercept, there were 47,000 people on the no-fly list, topping the Bush administration’s high. Obama’s decision was driven in part by national-security hawks in his own party, including California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who called for a more aggressive list after the failed attack.

We've allowed fear and the illusion of safety to strip away basic freedoms like due process. It's alarming.

The first 2 paragraphs are exactly what I just said. One side goes all in. The other side wants none of it.

But you also said both sides are fear mongering on the issue. If you are referring over the long term (like the R's supporting it a decade ago, and now switching, and the D's flip flopping as well) then yes. The political posturing is stupid.

 

[GBRedneck]

Bluster. That's all it is. That's all it ever is with politicians.