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

[esmith]

Change the subject? Your thread isn't about being on the No Fly list?

I think you changed the subject of your own thread. Now you are talking about abortions???

So, do you agree with the No Fly list? Or, do you think it should go away? Need a base first to see what you think of it.

Guess you can't read: Here is the subject of my thread.
Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

Now I admit that Obama has not directly said that he would use executives orders about the no-fly-list and purchasing firearms. However, he has made it quite clear that he doesn't think people on the no fly list should be able to buy firearms. Obama and No-Fly-Statement

"Right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun," he said in his weekly address. "And so I'm calling on Congress to close this loophole, now."

Now about using executive orders on gun control from http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/09/obama-considering-executive-order-on-gun-control/]

President Barack Obama is thinking about implementing a new gun control measure by executive order and without the support of Congress.

Now put statement 1 and 2 together and what could Obama do if Congress will not do what he wants. He has done this in the past.

Now your concern about "abortions". I was not talking about abortions, but using that as an example of comparing Obama possibly using executive orders concerning the no-fly-list and a future president using an executive order on something that people have a concern over which in this example was abortions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Change the subject? Your thread isn't about being on the No Fly list?
I think you changed the subject of your own thread. Now you are talking about abortions???
So, do you agree with the No Fly list? Or, do you think it should go away? Need a base first to see what you think of it.

I think I can clarify.....
If the prez can waive a citizen's particular civil liberty (in this case, gun ownership) by fiat,
then this is precedent to waive any other civil liberty without due process.

Note: This is not the same as the slippery slope argument.
The legal basis for eschewing due process in taking away a constitutional liberty would be applicable to others.

 

[Nous]

Now I admit that Obama has not directly said that he would use executives orders about the no-fly-list and purchasing firearms. However, he has made it quite clear that he doesn't think people on the no fly list should be able to buy firearms. Obama and No-Fly-Statement

"Right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun," he said in his weekly address. "And so I'm calling on Congress to close this loophole, now."

Perhaps what the President is referring to is the "loophole” on background checks, or relating to non-citizens on the No-Fly List purchasing guns. The article doesn’t say.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/09/obama-considering-executive-order-on-gun-control/]

Now put statement 1 and 2 together and what could Obama do if Congress will not do what he wants.

Your link does not go to an article. I’m certain the President didn’t suggest that he was considering issuing an unconstitutional executive order. There’s no reason to leap to paranoid assumptions.

 

[averageJOE]

Guess you can't read: Here is the subject of my thread.
Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

Now I admit that Obama has not directly said that he would use executives orders about the no-fly-list and purchasing firearms. However, he has made it quite clear that he doesn't think people on the no fly list should be able to buy firearms. Obama and No-Fly-Statement

Now about using executive orders on gun control from http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/09/obama-considering-executive-order-on-gun-control/]


Now put statement 1 and 2 together and what could Obama do if Congress will not do what he wants. He has done this in the past.

Now your concern about "abortions". I was not talking about abortions, but using that as an example of comparing Obama possibly using executive orders concerning the no-fly-list and a future president using an executive order on something that people have a concern over which in this example was abortions.

And I have already voted "yes".

Now answer my question.

 

[fantome profane]

I think I can clarify.....
If the prez can waive a citizen's particular civil liberty (in this case, gun ownership) by fiat,
then this is precedent to waive any other civil liberty without due process.

Note: This is not the same as the slippery slope argument.
The legal basis for eschewing due process in taking away a constitutional liberty would be applicable to others.

If the prez can waive a citizen's particular civil liberty (the right to travel by plane)
then this is precedent to waive any other civil liberty without due process.

 

[esmith]

If the prez can waive a citizen's particular civil liberty (the right to travel by plane)
then this is precedent to waive any other civil liberty without due process.

Well look at it this way, aFederal Courts have ruled that the "No-Fly-List" is unconstitutional. So, ask yourself why it is still used to determine who can or can not board an aircraft
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../25/judge-rules-no-fly-list-unconstitutional/

also good article on the no-fly-list and banning persons rights to buy a firearm if on the no-fly-list
http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-e...rights-no-fly-malloy-1215-20151214-story.html

 

[Revoltingest]

Well look at it this way, aFederal Courts have ruled that the "No-Fly-List" is unconstitutional. So, ask yourself why it is still used to determine who can or can not board an aircraft
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../25/judge-rules-no-fly-list-unconstitutional/

also good article on the no-fly-list and banning persons rights to buy a firearm if on the no-fly-list
http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-e...rights-no-fly-malloy-1215-20151214-story.html

I like the last link in particular.
It illustrates how the NRA is much more rational than Obama,
who would sacrifice constitutional liberties for security theater.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

No one is denying the right to travel. Only the method, flying, is proscribed.
if you can levitate you are as free as if you walked, or went by ox cart, as forseen in the constitution.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one is denying the right to travel. Only the method, flying, is proscribed.

That's a pretty severe restriction on travel though.
I agree with the judge on this.

 

[averageJOE]

That's a pretty severe restriction on travel though.
I agree with the judge on this.

Yet every single day someone is either denied boarding a plane or a plane is diverted to kick someone off, all for different reasons.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet every single day someone is either denied boarding a plane or a plane is diverted to kick someone off, all for different reasons.

Some reasons are good, & others are bad.

 

[fantome profane]

Well look at it this way, aFederal Courts have ruled that the "No-Fly-List" is unconstitutional. So, ask yourself why it is still used to determine who can or can not board an aircraft
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../25/judge-rules-no-fly-list-unconstitutional/

also good article on the no-fly-list and banning persons rights to buy a firearm if on the no-fly-list
http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-e...rights-no-fly-malloy-1215-20151214-story.html

I am not even arguing that. What I am saying is that at least in principle the government can restrict basic civil rights if there is legitimate cause, due process, and a legitimate appeal process. The no fly list as it is may not meet these requirements, but that does not mean these requirements cannot be met at least in principle. I am also saying that any circumstances where it would be legitimate to prevent someone from boarding a plane, it would be legitimate to prevent them from purchasing a gun. And for exactly the same reason.

The idea is that it has been determined that it is likely that an individual will attempt to kill a large group of people by causing a crash or explode. And if we have determined that an individual is likely to try to kill a large group of people (or even a small group of people) then we have legitimate reason to prevent them from buying a gun. If the no fly list is sufficient to limit flight it is sufficient to limit gun ownership. If it is insufficient to limit flight then it is insufficient to limit gun ownership (and should be fixed or scrapped)

 

[averageJOE]

Some reasons are good, & others are bad.

What would be a bad reason?

 

[Revoltingest]

What would be a bad reason?

Being on the no-fly list is one, when the person is clearly not a terror threat, eg, a child who shares a name with someone on the list.
Another is diverting a flight when a passenger is misbehaving in a non-threatening manner.

 

[Nous]

Well look at it this way, aFederal Courts have ruled that the "No-Fly-List" is unconstitutional.

The district court did not find that the No-Fly List is unconstitutional. Rather, the court held that the DHS TRIP process violates procedural due process. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/..._list_ruling__-_latif_v._holder_-_6-24-14.pdf

 

[Nous]

No one is denying the right to travel. Only the method, flying, is proscribed.

As already noted, the district court in Latif found that international travel, which is a liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment, is substantially burdened by prohibiting persons to travel by air.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes I agree with it - as long as there is a process to challenge a ruling, as mistakes, and same name problems have occurred.

*

 

[Underhill]

I like the last link in particular.
It illustrates how the NRA is much more rational than Obama,
who would sacrifice constitutional liberties for security theater.

Wow, that is a bold and ludicrous statement.

As it stands we have established that the president thinks those on the no fly list shouldn't be able to buy firearms. Like me, he isn't arguing constitutionality or feasibility, how is that irrational? I know a great many people who agree that suspicious people should not be able to buy guns.

I mean if some pissed off lunatic runs into my gun shop and wants to buy a gun right now, while mumbling under his breath about his '***** wife', I don't think I would stand on principle and sell him the gun and bullets. This is the same thing. Is that constitutional? Personally I don't care. That is for the courts to decide.

 

[Underhill]

Well look at it this way, aFederal Courts have ruled that the "No-Fly-List" is unconstitutional. So, ask yourself why it is still used to determine who can or can not board an aircraft
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../25/judge-rules-no-fly-list-unconstitutional/

Because the courts ruling didn't ban the no fly list but it struck the notion that the government can put you on the list with no cause given. Thus eliminating due process. They said if cause was given, and a process was in place to get off the list if wrongly accused it was okay. In fact your second link explained this reasonably well...

also good article on the no-fly-list and banning persons rights to buy a firearm if on the no-fly-list
http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-e...rights-no-fly-malloy-1215-20151214-story.html

 

[metis]

The NRA is "rational"? Ya, that's why my father, who was a proud member of the NRA for two decades, cut up his NRA membership card and mailed it to them and told them where they could stuff it.