Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

[Tumah]

I can't help it either. Freedom is a b***h. You have to take the good with the bad.
Tom

My personal feeling is
my safety and safety of my family > personal freedom

 

[leibowde84]

This is already approaching beyond my level of understanding of the American legal process.
Ultimately for me what it comes down to is that I wouldn't mind having my freedom curtailed in favor of remaining safe. When I go to the airport and I have to come three hours early (international flight) and then I have to wait on line for hours and be asked these personal questions, I'm ok with that, because ultimately I understand that these rules were not put in place to limit me, but to protect me and they are fulfilling that goal. A legal system that ensures my freedom at the expense of my safety is in my eyes a defective legal system. I understand Americans, the majority of who may not have had to deal with attacks on a daily basis, may have a different feeling on this. But we're not talking about water boarding suspects here, we're talking about just not letting them have a gun. They may argue that their personal safety is at risk without a gun, but the onus is on the person to not put themselves into a situation where they will be suspect. Also maybe the "no fly" laws needed tweaking (for both getting on and off). But this is all rant, and I do hear your point.

I agree that it is reasonable and probably the right way to go. But, our legal system is based on precedent. If we allow legislation that ignores a constitutional right, it will go to Federal Court. If it is upheld, that will create problems down the road. If it is struck down, it would have been a complete waste of time. In short, it is a lot harder than people are realizing.

 

[averageJOE]

I don't know which founders you are referring to. To the best of my knowledge, they were all fond of due process as the preferred method for depriving a person of an enumerated right.

Which right? The right to own a gun? Or the right to travel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

 

[Underhill]

I don't know which founders you are referring to. To the best of my knowledge, they were all fond of due process as the preferred method for depriving a person of an enumerated right.

"My idea then is, that though proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules in all cases will do ill in very few." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison on the Bill of Rights, 1788

Thomas Jefferson, one of the biggest proponents of the Bill of Rights had no problem with exceptions being made, if they were agreed upon by elected leaders. The fact that our elected leaders are worthless morons who can't compromise to save lives is a separate issue.

The question was asked if we supported the plan. I do. Whether or not congress does is a separate issue.

 

[Tumah]

I agree that it is reasonable and probably the right way to go. But, our legal system is based on precedent. If we allow legislation that ignores a constitutional right, it will go to Federal Court. If it is upheld, that will create problems down the road. If it is struck down, it would have been a complete waste of time. In short, it is a lot harder than people are realizing.

Score one for dictatorship, I guess. "Because I said so" does have its uses after all.

 

[leibowde84]

Which right? The right to own a gun? Or the right to travel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution (cited here) has nothing to do with the right to travel by air. It has to do with inhibiting people's ability to relocate legally (exit taxes, interstate commerce, etc.) There is no constitutional right to travel by plane. There is, however, a constitutional right which is currently understood by the SCOTUS to guarantee citizens the right to "bear arms".

 

[leibowde84]

Score one for dictatorship, I guess. "Because I said so" does have its uses after all.

I'm not following you. Because who said so? The framers of the constitution?

 

[leibowde84]

"My idea then is, that though proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules in all cases will do ill in very few." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison on the Bill of Rights, 1788

Thomas Jefferson, one of the biggest proponents of the Bill of Rights had no problem with exceptions being made, if they were agreed upon by elected leaders. The fact that our elected leaders are worthless morons who can't compromise to save lives is a separate issue.

The question was asked if we supported the plan. I do. Whether or not congress does is a separate issue.

Can you name another instance where a constitutional right is denied to a citizen without due process (currently, not historically).

 

[columbus]

The founders, or anyone in their right mind, would look at that scenario and say an exception should be made for potential terrorist.

The Founding Fathers were terrorists, according to King George III. And the many loyalists here in the colonies agreed.
They didn't use the word then, but attacking the government is what George Washington and the minute men were doing. If they hadn't succeeded they would have been totally forgotten by history.
Tom

 

[Nous]

Which right? The right to own a gun? Or the right to travel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Actually I only had the Second Amendment in mind, but the right to travel shouldn't be denied either without due process.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not following you. Because who said so? The framers of the constitution?

No, haha. I'm saying in this scenario a dictatorship would be better than a democracy because when people ask why the no-fly, no gun rule, the dictator can just say, "because I said so", thereby ensuring everyone's safety without the hustle of establishing precedents and dealing with peoples' stupidity.

 

[averageJOE]

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution (cited here) has nothing to do with the right to travel by air. It has to do with inhibiting people's ability to relocate legally (exit taxes, interstate commerce, etc.) There is no constitutional right to travel by plane. There is, however, a constitutional right which is currently understood by the SCOTUS to guarantee citizens the right to "bear arms".

Yes. This I know. My job directly deals with this, in terms of travel. I have heard and dealt with many of people who attempt to use that law when they are denied, or kicked off, planes. However, it does not stop savvy lawyers to argue it anyways.

Now, do you agree with not allowing someone who is on the No Fly list to fly?

 

[Underhill]

Can you name another instance where a constitutional right is denied to a citizen without due process (currently, not historically).

Privacy with internet data in the name of fighting terrorism. People held in prison for extended periods without trial because we don't have enough judges on the bench.

But I believe you missed my point. I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the case. I'm saying what I think is right. I think congress should make exceptions to several of our rights. Neutering pedophiles... no problem. Assassinate terrorist, no worries. But these things are my opinion and absolutely meaningless in a court of law.

 

[Nous]

"My idea then is, that though proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules in all cases will do ill in very few." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison on the Bill of Rights, 1788

What exception to due process do you propose in order to deny "potential terrorists" who are US citizens the right secured by the Second Amendment as upheld in Heller? By what method do you identify "potential terrorists"?

 

[Underhill]

The Founding Fathers were terrorists, according to King George III. And the many loyalists here in the colonies agreed.
They didn't use the word then, but attacking the government is what George Washington and the minute men were doing. If they hadn't succeeded they would have been totally forgotten by history.
Tom

I'm not arguing that. If it were up to me we would automatically hold a constitutional convention every 20 years or so, just to update the books. But what the hell do I know?

 

[Underhill]

What exception to due process do you propose in order to deny "potential terrorists" who are US citizens the right secured by the Second Amendment as upheld in Heller? By what method do you identify "potential terrorists"?

Couldn't care less. I like guns, I own guns. I don't need guns. If I were added to the list, I could function just fine without them. It would be an annoyance and nothing more. This notion that they are sacred is in and of itself laughable.

I think everyone who wants a gun or guns should have to get background checks and be registered. Waiting periods, okay with me. Making people lock up their guns, great idea!

But am I going to loose sleep because some poor bloke was accidentally put on a list of people who can't own a gun? No. So long as their is a process to get your name off the list, and it is reasonable, it doesn't bother me one iota.

Lock someone away without due process.... That I have a problem with. Taking away their guns while we try to figure out if they are a criminal... I do not.

 

[fantome profane]

It seems to me that there is a strange "hierarchy of rights" that is presented in this discussion. I would say the right to travel freely is an extremely important right. When the government interferes with the right of someone to travel it can have devastating consequences to a person's life. I am not saying that the government should never interfere with someones right to travel. Obviously there are circumstances under which the government must interfere with this right.

But I ask why is the right to own a gun so much more sacrosanct and inviolable than the right to travel under identical circumstances?

If someone is on the no-fly list without good cause there are remedies they can seek. I admit these remedies are often not as efficient as they should be, but they do exist and they do work give time. Someone who is wrongly put on the no fly list will be able to get their gun eventually after they make their appeal. And someone on the on the no-fly list for good reasons should not be allowed to purchase or own a gun.

 

[leibowde84]

No, haha. I'm saying in this scenario a dictatorship would be better than a democracy because when people ask why the no-fly, no gun rule, the dictator can just say, "because I said so", thereby ensuring everyone's safety without the hustle of establishing precedents and dealing with peoples' stupidity.

Oh ... haha. Yeah, there is something to be said for that.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. This I know. My job directly deals with this, in terms of travel. I have heard and dealt with many of people who attempt to use that law when they are denied, or kicked off, planes. However, it does not stop savvy lawyers to argue it anyways.

Now, do you agree with not allowing someone who is on the No Fly list to fly?

Yes, I do. The list certainly has its flaws and is in no way perfect, but we have to take the bad with the good.

 

[leibowde84]

Privacy with internet data in the name of fighting terrorism. People held in prison for extended periods without trial because we don't have enough judges on the bench.

But I believe you missed my point. I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the case. I'm saying what I think is right. I think congress should make exceptions to several of our rights. Neutering pedophiles... no problem. Assassinate terrorist, no worries. But these things are my opinion and absolutely meaningless in a court of law.

There is no constitutional right to privacy on the internet. There is no expectation of privacy when putting things online, and the constitution doesn't mention "privacy". That right was recognized by penumbra reasoning, and, as such, is not specifically referred to in the constitution.

Believe me, I'm frustrated by the 2nd Amendment. But, we have to be careful.