Connecticut Governor moves to ban gun sales to 'no fly' people.

[PLACforever]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/nyregion/connecticut-to-ban-gun-sales-to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html

I'm going to put this here because I cannot imagine what argument the dissenting side can possibly give for allowing anyone on the federal no fly list to purchase a firearm.

 

[NDRock]

The argument I have heard is that the list is too broad and not wholly accurate as to who should be on it.

 

[GoldenDomer]

Common sense. Good job, CT.

 

[drayer54]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/nyregion/connecticut-to-ban-gun-sales-to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html

I'm going to put this here because I cannot imagine what argument the dissenting side can possibly give for allowing anyone on the federal no fly list to purchase a firearm.
*before you think I am anti-gun, I own five (all legally), compete in 3gun competitions and have no issue with following the laws associated with gun ownership.

Only five?

As for the main part, because it is unconstitutional.

Here is a secret list with secret criteria. Even the ACLU doesn't like it. You can't make a hidden naughty list and put people on double super-secret probation and then take away rights and privileges arbitrarily.

Due process is a right. We can't let emotions override our basic freedom.

If someone has done something to be on the naughty list, they shouldn't clear a background check anyways.

 

[drayer54]

Banning Gun Sales to No-Fly List May Not Be Constitutional

The problem lies with the terrorist watch lists themselves, which are both secret and routinely updated without the typical due process given to those who are accused of breaking the law, such as court proceedings. Without a trial, the government can add anyone to watch lists who it believes may be a threat to national security—and exactly how the government defines such a threat isn’t even public knowledge.

 

[GATTACA!]

The argument I have heard is that the list is too broad and not wholly accurate as to who should be on it.

And that you can be put on it for seemingly any reason and you have no course of action for getting your name off the list. There is no trial no jury you can just get screwed and stuck on the list.

 

[BGIF]

Banning Gun Sales to No-Fly List May Not Be Constitutional

Josh Sanburn

Dec 11, 2015

In 2014, a federal court found the no-fly list unconstitutional because it denied those listed due process in challenging their inclusion. Since then, the U.S. government has said it’s providing more information to those who are on the list, potentially allowing persons banned from air travel to appeal and get their names removed. The ACLU, however, is still challenging the list in court, arguing that the government isn’t handing over enough information about how it populates those names. The civil liberties organization is also against barring those included from being denied guns for similar reasons

.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that there are 16,000 names on the list, with the larger Terrorist Screening Database including 420,000 names.

 

[NDPhilly]

Banning anything from people who havent been convicted of anything seems kinda fucked up

 

[kmoose]

Only five?

As for the main part, because it is unconstitutional.

Here is a secret list with secret criteria. Even the ACLU doesn't like it. You can't make a hidden naughty list and put people on double super-secret probation and then take away rights and privileges arbitrarily.

Due process is a right. We can't let emotions override our basic freedom.

If someone has done something to be on the naughty list, they shouldn't clear a background check anyways.

I don't know much about the specifics, but it seems to me that if you are denied a handgun or any other firearm because you are on the no fly list then your presence on the list can hardly be considered a secret...

 

[pkt77242]

And that you can be put on it for seemingly any reason and you have no course of action for getting your name off the list. There is no trial no jury you can just get screwed and stuck on the list.

You can get your name removed from it.

 

[PLACforever]

Only five?

As for the main part, because it is unconstitutional.

Here is a secret list with secret criteria. Even the ACLU doesn't like it. You can't make a hidden naughty list and put people on double super-secret probation and then take away rights and privileges arbitrarily.

Due process is a right. We can't let emotions override our basic freedom.

If someone has done something to be on the naughty list, they shouldn't clear a background check anyways.

Agree completely. However, Yes the list is broad, and in some cases completely wrong, but if you are on it, there should be a process to appeal and you should make every effort to clear your name.

 

[GATTACA!]

You can get your name removed from it.

Yes your name can be removed, but you cant take the decision to trial and face your accuser. If they feel like their decision is justified there is nothing you can do.

 

[PLACforever]

Look, the Constitution is a lot like our grandfather. He’s wise, we love him, and he means well. But, he’s getting really, really old and every once in a while he says something crazy and we gotta go to the other room and discuss what we’re gonna do about him!
-Michael Che (Saturday Night Live)

SNL skit on guns: Constitution "getting really, really old" - Red Alert Politics

 

[GATTACA!]

Look, the Constitution is a lot like our grandfather. He’s wise, we love him, and he means well. But, he’s getting really, really old and every once in a while he says something crazy and we gotta go to the other room and discuss what we’re gonna do about him!
-Michael Che (Saturday Night Live)

SNL skit on guns: Constitution "getting really, really old" - Red Alert Politics

Yea......id rather listen to our founding fathers than some d list comedian.

 

[drayer54]

Look, the Constitution is a lot like our grandfather. He’s wise, we love him, and he means well. But, he’s getting really, really old and every once in a while he says something crazy and we gotta go to the other room and discuss what we’re gonna do about him!
-Michael Che (Saturday Night Live)

SNL skit on guns: Constitution "getting really, really old" - Red Alert Politics

This makes my head spin. It's scary that people are willing to sacrifice freedom so easily and throw out the greatest document in our nations history.

 

[drayer54]

Common sense. Good job, CT.

These words are thrown around so often with gun control and it is ridiculous.

Wouldn't it be common sense to repeal gun control measures that were deemed ineffective?

 

[BGIF]

Look, the Constitution is a lot like our grandfather. He’s wise, we love him, and he means well. But, he’s getting really, really old and every once in a while he says something crazy and we gotta go to the other room and discuss what we’re gonna do about him!
-Michael Che (Saturday Night Live)

SNL skit on guns: Constitution "getting really, really old" - Red Alert Politics

A federal court ruled it unconstitutional in 2014 not 1776.

Find a pertinent slur or demand that presidential candidates like Hillary, Bernie, and any other grandparents be barred from holding office.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This makes my head spin. It's scary that people are willing to sacrifice freedom so easily and throw out the greatest document in our nations history.

The founding fathers were great. They created a brilliant document. They were also men of their own time. They knew that. They allowed for mechanisms to change the document. I'm not making an argument one way or another on this topic, but Che was just arguing that it's okay to make changes to the constitution based on new information. The founding fathers would agree.

 

[pkt77242]

Yes your name can be removed, but you cant take the decision to trial and face your accuser. If they feel like their decision is justified there is nothing you can do.

Not from what I understand. You go before a judge but the info is heavily redacted. Also the standard is preponderance of evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[PLACforever]

The founding fathers were great. They created a brilliant document. They were also men of their own time. They knew that. They allowed for mechanisms to change the document. I'm not making an argument one way or another on this topic, but Che was just arguing that it's okay to make changes to the constitution based on new information. The founding fathers would agree.

This is exactly right. He isn't saying burn the thing, but Constitutional Amendments exist for a reason.

There are already tons of disqualifiers that prevent people from owning firearms, this just seems like a pretty damn reasonable one.

I think the right solution is for the list (both no-fly and no-gun) to exist, but if you want to argue your case, you are afforded that opportunity with a reasonable amount of time and effort. (with transparency as to why you were on it in the first place.

 

[EMAN51]

It is time to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Let the state and local governments decide what is an "arm" and how to regulate it.

 

[GATTACA!]

This is exactly right. He isn't saying burn the thing, but Constitutional Amendments exist for a reason.

There are already tons of disqualifiers that prevent people from owning firearms, this just seems like a pretty damn reasonable one.

I think the right solution is for the list (both no-fly and no-gun) to exist, but if you want to argue your case, you are afforded that opportunity with a reasonable amount of time and effort. (with transparency as to why you were on it in the first place.

Why are people on the no fly list? What is the criteria for putting someone on the list? How long are you on the list? Is there a standard amount of time or do you have to wait for someone to take you off? Can you contest being on the list legally?

Until all of these questions are answered i'm not okay with arbitrarily taking away people's freedoms.

You're working under the assumption that everyone that ends up on the no fly list deserves to be there, if that was true than of course they shouldn't own guns. I'm not cool with someone getting stuck on the list because their dumbass 12 year old son posts something from the IP address their parents pays for. Especially in a system with this complete lack of transparency.

 

[Cackalacky]

The argument I have heard is that the list is too broad and not wholly accurate as to who should be on it.

And that you can be put on it for seemingly any reason and you have no course of action for getting your name off the list. There is no trial no jury you can just get screwed and stuck on the list.

You can get your name removed from it.

Agree completely. However, Yes the list is broad, and in some cases completely wrong, but if you are on it, there should be a process to appeal and you should make every effort to clear your name.

Yes your name can be removed, but you cant take the decision to trial and face your accuser. If they feel like their decision is justified there is nothing you can do.

Sounds like we need to fix the no fly list criteria. Seems simpler. Then we can begin on the weapons purge.

 

[Irishnuke]

It is time to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Let the state and local governments decide what is an "arm" and how to regulate it.

No fucking way

 

[IrishinSyria]

I personally think the why are we letting people on the watch list buy guns was a brilliant political move by Obama. He knows it's probably unconstitutional to put the ban through. But lol at watching the right deal with that debate.

 

[MNIrishman]

No fucking way

Come on, man. Individual rights are just a useless relic from our past.

 

[PLACforever]

Why are people on the no fly list? What is the criteria for putting someone on the list? How long are you on the list? Is there a standard amount of time or do you have to wait for someone to take you off? Can you contest being on the list legally?

Until all of these questions are answered i'm not okay with arbitrarily taking away people's freedoms.

You're working under the assumption that everyone that ends up on the no fly list deserves to be there, if that was true than of course they shouldn't own guns. I'm not cool with someone getting stuck on the list because their dumbass 12 year old son posts something from the IP address their parents pays for. Especially in a system with this complete lack of transparency.

I'm not certain that you read my post before replying, I specifically said there needs to be more transparency. And in an earlier post stated that in some cases the no fly list has been completed wrong.

 

[woolybug25]

It cracks me up that the same people that want to ban all Muslims from immigrating to the US are the same people that see no problem with people on the no fly list buying guns. lol

 

[GoIrish41]

Only five?

As for the main part, because it is unconstitutional.

Here is a secret list with secret criteria. Even the ACLU doesn't like it. You can't make a hidden naughty list and put people on double super-secret probation and then take away rights and privileges arbitrarily.

Due process is a right. We can't let emotions override our basic freedom.

If someone has done something to be on the naughty list, they shouldn't clear a background check anyways.

Perhaps this law is meant to be a constitutional challenge to the second amendment from a states rights point of view.

 

[Irish YJ]

Sounds like we need to fix the no fly list criteria. Seems simpler. Then we can begin on the weapons purge.

Needing to fix the list in the first place is embarrassing... People need to do their F'ing jobs. Good lord.

No fucking way

I'm sure there are many countries that he'd be happier in.