Posted on Dec 3, 2015
Should people on the "no fly list" be precluded from buying guns?
5.62K
32
35
6
6
0
As usual, before the facts are in, President Obama lept to the podium to vilify guns and defend Muslims following the recent shooting in San Bernardino. However, he did make a very good point when he lamented that people could be precluded from flying on airplanes but not from buying guns. I suppose we must assume that no one has thought of this before, certainly not the President, but why not? Should those on the "no fly list" also be placed on the "no buyum guns list"? Yes, I know that those intent on committing criminal acts won't have any reservations about breaking a law to obtain a gun illegally.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/02/obama_people_on_the_no_fly_list_can_buy_guns_we_cant_stop_them.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/02/obama_people_on_the_no_fly_list_can_buy_guns_we_cant_stop_them.html
Terrorism
Gun Control
Office of the President (POTUS)
Crime
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
No. I'm not a fan of "government lists" of people that restrict Constitutional rights without due process, and there is no due process to be placed on the no fly list. There is no jury or judge required to convict you of anything in order to be placed on a no fly list, nor any jury or judge to take you off the list. You can be placed on the list just because you received a phone call from a number the government is worried about. What kind of rules are we passing that lead to stripping of Constitutional rights without legal due process? That is a terrible idea.
Think of the implications. "If you can't fly, you shouldn't be able to..." -- what's next? Maybe you shouldn't be able to drive across State lines? Or attend sporting events due to risk to large crowds? All because an analyst somewhere decided to add you to a "government list." The lack of due process around the no-fly list makes it a terrible baseline to make such decisions. The government can add anybody they want to the no fly list with no recourse and no public justification.
Think of the implications. "If you can't fly, you shouldn't be able to..." -- what's next? Maybe you shouldn't be able to drive across State lines? Or attend sporting events due to risk to large crowds? All because an analyst somewhere decided to add you to a "government list." The lack of due process around the no-fly list makes it a terrible baseline to make such decisions. The government can add anybody they want to the no fly list with no recourse and no public justification.
(6)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Oh my! You mean the government is already acting unconstitutionally? Oh, the shame of it...
(1)
(0)
COL Korey Jackson
MAJ Yinon Weiss, you are correct that there is limited to no due process in being placed on the no fly list.
However: Noting that at least two of the guns of the subjects in the mass shooting in San Bernardino were purchased legally, nor is there evidence available at this time to indicate that the subjects Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik were on a No Fly list (indeed, Syed Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia this year), then what does this terrible incident have to do with No Fly lists and the legal sale of guns to American citizens?
However, there are gaps in the sales of guns and the required background checks. via NICS - the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Evidence which places one's name on a no-fly list should be available to officials and perhaps the gun dealer in considering if he should sale a gun to an individual.
Many of us know individuals that are a little "off", that we wouldn't fully trust with guns, - those who we would not trust in the next lane at the range, or would be very uneasy to share a duck blind with or see in the next deer stand . However, many of these individuals have not been institutionalized, nor convicted of crimes which place their names in the NCIC.
I do advocate improved vetting/background checks of all individuals involved in gun sales in the United States - with appropriate due process available to those who, for whatever reason, are denied the sale of a firearm.
Having said all that - even if there were more expansive background checks: is there any evidence that Syed Farook (an American citizen) would have been denied the legal purchase of his lethal firearms, to include assault rifles? How about his wife Tashfeen Malik (presumably a legal permanent resident)?
How are mass shootings, such as at San Bernardino, best prevented?
However: Noting that at least two of the guns of the subjects in the mass shooting in San Bernardino were purchased legally, nor is there evidence available at this time to indicate that the subjects Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik were on a No Fly list (indeed, Syed Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia this year), then what does this terrible incident have to do with No Fly lists and the legal sale of guns to American citizens?
However, there are gaps in the sales of guns and the required background checks. via NICS - the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Evidence which places one's name on a no-fly list should be available to officials and perhaps the gun dealer in considering if he should sale a gun to an individual.
Many of us know individuals that are a little "off", that we wouldn't fully trust with guns, - those who we would not trust in the next lane at the range, or would be very uneasy to share a duck blind with or see in the next deer stand . However, many of these individuals have not been institutionalized, nor convicted of crimes which place their names in the NCIC.
I do advocate improved vetting/background checks of all individuals involved in gun sales in the United States - with appropriate due process available to those who, for whatever reason, are denied the sale of a firearm.
Having said all that - even if there were more expansive background checks: is there any evidence that Syed Farook (an American citizen) would have been denied the legal purchase of his lethal firearms, to include assault rifles? How about his wife Tashfeen Malik (presumably a legal permanent resident)?
How are mass shootings, such as at San Bernardino, best prevented?
(0)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arnold
You can be placed on the no fly list because a flight attendant or a airline agent thinks you are rude or threatening. That is no system to use to decide is a citizen should be denied a second amendment right.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
The 5th amendment to our Constitution states "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." and the 14th states "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
I started with that because the right to keep and bear arms falls under the definition of liberty. So in order to revoke said right there must be due process to take said right away. Inclusion on no fly lists is something that the Executive Branch does unilaterally without due process and as such prohibited by the Constitution.
Will people slip through the cracks? Absolutely, however trading rights for some measure of false security is unacceptable.
I started with that because the right to keep and bear arms falls under the definition of liberty. So in order to revoke said right there must be due process to take said right away. Inclusion on no fly lists is something that the Executive Branch does unilaterally without due process and as such prohibited by the Constitution.
Will people slip through the cracks? Absolutely, however trading rights for some measure of false security is unacceptable.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT Jack Durish SGT David T.
This is old news but a last year a Federal Judge declared the DHS process to remove oneself from the TSA no-fly list was unconstitutional. If somebody is placed on the no-fly list by mistake they have at least one advocate.
In 2014 and earlier "under the redress program, the government responds to passengers with a letter that neither explains why they are on a watch list that usually bars them from flight nor says whether they've been removed from a watch list."
"The Department of Homeland Security's method for the public to challenge placement on a no-fly list is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled [PDF] Tuesday [June 2014]. US District Judge Anna Brown ordered the authorities to revise the process she declared as "wholly ineffective."
Brown's ruling stems from a case brought by 13 people on a no-fly list. The judge wrote that 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."
It was the first time a court declared the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program run by the Department of Homeland Security as unconstitutional.
“Our clients will finally get the due process to which they are entitled under the Constitution. This excellent decision also benefits other people wrongly stuck on the no-fly list, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardship. We hope this serves as a wake-up call for the government to fix its broken watch list system, which has swept up so many innocent people," said Hina Shamsi, the national security project director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The decision comes months after a Muslim woman was the first to successfully challenge her placement on a watch list. But that decision did not raise the broader constitutional issues like the case decided Tuesday. The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision and declined comment on whether it would appeal.
Under the redress program, the government responds to passengers with a letter that neither explains why they are on a watch list that usually bars them from flight nor says whether they've been removed from a watch list.
Brown ordered DHS to disclose to the plaintiffs, with unclassified information, why they were placed on a watch list.
Sheikh Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, who is the imam of Portland’s largest Mosque and a plaintiff in the case, was elated with the decision.
“I have been prevented by the government from traveling to visit my family members and fulfill religious obligations for years, and it has had a devastating impact on all of us," he said in a statement. "After all this time, I look forward to a fair process that allows me to clear my name in court.”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/no-fly-list-removal-process-unconstitutional-judge-rules/
This is old news but a last year a Federal Judge declared the DHS process to remove oneself from the TSA no-fly list was unconstitutional. If somebody is placed on the no-fly list by mistake they have at least one advocate.
In 2014 and earlier "under the redress program, the government responds to passengers with a letter that neither explains why they are on a watch list that usually bars them from flight nor says whether they've been removed from a watch list."
"The Department of Homeland Security's method for the public to challenge placement on a no-fly list is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled [PDF] Tuesday [June 2014]. US District Judge Anna Brown ordered the authorities to revise the process she declared as "wholly ineffective."
Brown's ruling stems from a case brought by 13 people on a no-fly list. The judge wrote that 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."
It was the first time a court declared the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program run by the Department of Homeland Security as unconstitutional.
“Our clients will finally get the due process to which they are entitled under the Constitution. This excellent decision also benefits other people wrongly stuck on the no-fly list, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardship. We hope this serves as a wake-up call for the government to fix its broken watch list system, which has swept up so many innocent people," said Hina Shamsi, the national security project director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The decision comes months after a Muslim woman was the first to successfully challenge her placement on a watch list. But that decision did not raise the broader constitutional issues like the case decided Tuesday. The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision and declined comment on whether it would appeal.
Under the redress program, the government responds to passengers with a letter that neither explains why they are on a watch list that usually bars them from flight nor says whether they've been removed from a watch list.
Brown ordered DHS to disclose to the plaintiffs, with unclassified information, why they were placed on a watch list.
Sheikh Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, who is the imam of Portland’s largest Mosque and a plaintiff in the case, was elated with the decision.
“I have been prevented by the government from traveling to visit my family members and fulfill religious obligations for years, and it has had a devastating impact on all of us," he said in a statement. "After all this time, I look forward to a fair process that allows me to clear my name in court.”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/no-fly-list-removal-process-unconstitutional-judge-rules/
No-fly list removal process unconstitutional, judge rules
Judge says there's no "meaningful mechanism" to dispute placement on watch list.
(2)
(0)
SGT David T.
LTC Stephen F. Thanks for clarifying that. However, I still don't support the idea of taking away rights without due process. The person has a redress process but what is the process for adding someone to the list and how does that mitigate the risks of placing someone who doesn't belong there on it?
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
SGT David T. - I concur with you and LTC Yinon Weiss about being opposed to taking away rights without due process.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google