Should people on the "no fly list" be precluded from buying guns?

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:38:04 -0500

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

Obama: People On The No Fly List Can Buy Guns, We Can't Stop Them

Within a few hours of today's mass shooting in San Bernadino, CA, the president responded. OBAMA: For those concerned about terrorism, some might be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes, bu those same people who we don't allow to fly, can go into a store right now in the U.S. and there is nothing we can do to stop them. That is a law that needs to be changed.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 3 at 2015 10:40 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:40:15 -0500

Yes people on the no-fly list should be prohibited from buying guns CPT Jack Durish if they are on terrorist watch lists. The irony of the POTUS statement is that many on the no-fly list are outside this nation and we don't have jurisdiction over foreign nationals in foreign nations.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Dec 3 at 2015 10:42 AM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:42:53 -0500

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.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 3 at 2015 10:45 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:45:25 -0500

Unless that person has been convicted of a crime or committed because of mental illness, NO. This is still America and we still have laws and due process.

Response by SGT David T. made Dec 3 at 2015 10:58 AM

SGT David T. — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:58:58 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Dec 3 at 2015 11:03 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:03:38 -0500

I would have to say no they shouldn't , if they are on a no fly list that means they are being investigated and assumed possible terrorist. If we are going to be pro-active and fight the war on terrorism then this is a good idea.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 3 at 2015 11:10 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:10:15 -0500

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.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Dec 3 at 2015 11:14 AM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:14:08 -0500

Since I don't fly I don't care. However like most government lists the no fly list is not very accurate and has included such people as Ted Kennedy, the president of Bolivia, toddlers and anyone named Robert Johnson. Another good question is after that list which list is next. Senator Diane Feinstein has stated that ALL veterans have mental problems. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were on the list. Obviously that did not keep them off of planes. The main problem that I have with the list is that numerous agencies can place you on the list and they don't have to have a valid reason, don't have to tell you why and don't give you a way to get off of the list.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 3 at 2015 11:14 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:14:40 -0500

Good Grief! How can this even be a question? A Made my feelings noted in a different thread regarding the ability of anyone on a no-fly list or other terrorist related watch list. It is critical that we know when these types are up to any sort of nefarious activity. As much of a 2nd amendment advocate as I am, I would not hesitate to back such legislation, if it is required. Now someone tell me how it is that the Feds do the gun checks and do not have such people on their databases to verify their legitimacy to own firearms. Its unbelievable that this is not included in a reason not to authorize the purchase of firearms by these people. BTW, there is normally a backlog of checks and the purchase can be made without the check if the delay is over 88 days.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Dec 3 at 2015 12:01 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:01:24 -0500

Is it even going to make a difference? If they want a gun, they'll get one. No problem.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Dec 3 at 2015 12:29 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:29:12 -0500

Teddy Kennedy and Al Gore was on it. Ted only needed a car. And Al Gore is. Whack job. I would at no because there are people on it that should not be. The list is it perfect.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Dec 3 at 2015 12:32 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:32:35 -0500

Sure makes sense to me. If folks are not able to fly on commercial airlines, they should have enhanced surveillance and not be able to pass a background check for a weapon.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 3 at 2015 12:32 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:32:45 -0500

Unless the Government can show that "list" is 100% accurate and in accordance with Due Process, not No, but #%^&$^& No.

Here's the deal. The Government is NOT efficient. Everyone on this site has worked for the Government. If anyone here can tell me with a straight face that the Government is efficient, I will call them a liar to their face. Especially a Government Bureaucracy.

The Government is also NOT Trustworthy. Someone, please tell me you trust the Government. Please, I would LOVE to hear of someone saying they TRUST the Government. Not individuals, but the Government as a whole. I'm sure for every example of the Government doing the right thing, I can come up with a dozen examples of wrongness.

Erring on the side of Caution, means erring on the side of the People. Not the Government. The Government could screw up a wet dream.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2015 1:05 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 13:05:40 -0500

I think people want to be lied to. They want to believe that everything bad that can happen is somehow "caused" by something that a law can protect them against. The alternative, is that you are never, ever secure from the madness...and have to define yourself as the first line of your own defense.

When another group of people accepts that fact, it slowly starts chipping away at the wall our society has been building between itself and personal accountability for at least six decades...if not longer. Give the authorities the power to enforce law and investigate criminals...and criminals have a better chance of being stopped. Give the private citizen the right to defend themselves...and you can't intimidate them into letting you have your way. Give people the right to their principles...and those without principle will soon loose power over law.

I believe if we ever got back that self-reliance, you'd see less, not more abuse of power. Why? Because if an official has the right and power to enforce law free of trumped up accusations...they are also free to make sound judgement calls when less, not more, is warranted. If every American owned, and was proficient with a weapon (we all know the difference)...there would be no "soft" target for an enemy to take. If we would respect the right of the person to believe, think, act as they see fit according to their best ideals...I think we'd find ourselves in far less disagreement.

What does a "no fly list" really do? Nothing more than the "No Guns" sign at the mall.

If you've attracted enough attention from the people charged with our security to be banned from flying...there ought to be someone with lots of training, from some alphabet soup entity watching you closely enough to know what you sing in the shower.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2015 1:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 13:51:59 -0500

There are what's called false positives and even when identified the person could remain on the list. EXAMPLE:
Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as a Democrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, "This could just be a government screw-up, but I don't know, and they won't tell me."[41] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple.

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Dec 3 at 2015 4:33 PM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 16:33:53 -0500

MAJ Yinon Weiss summed it up rather well. NO to your question.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Dec 10 at 2015 7:37 PM

MAJ James Woods — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 19:37:16 -0500

If this list is truly a watchlist dedicated to surveillance of individuals suspected of criminal activities or connected to criminal or threat organizations then common sense dictates enacting measures preventing access to certain resources like weapons. Not sure why there's much of a political debate not do I expect to see a lot of innocent names on that list.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 6:47 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:47:51 -0500

CT has passed it. I couldn't be more against it, there is no due process for the no fly list and if we are that sure someone is a threat that we will deny them the 2nd amendment then they should be dealt with in more serious ways.