• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Department sued for cross-checking gun buyers with terror lists

winston53660 said:
Read the article in the paper today. It doesn't seem like it was the right decision
Click to expand...
Especially when, if I remember correctly, they were given pre-flight approval in advance.
 
winston53660 said:
Read the article in the paper today. It doesn't seem like it was the right decision
Click to expand...
It is the bi-product of a gov agency out of control with no real system of checks or balances.
 
Chomsky said:
I was arguing the legal aspect of it, since it is a court case. I believe it will be found in general that the feds can monitor suspected terrorists.

I think what will make it constitutional, is that no guns are being denied or held-up (as far as I know).

So I think the legal concept will hold, as long as the gun buying is not infringed (i.e., the guns are always delivered).

Now in relations to this specific list, I dunno. It is a mess, very large, and seemingly arbitrary, and the courts may indeed go against it.

But I see a big difference been a 'check', and a 'refusal'.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with everything that you said here. The argument that has been made is that some people think that a person on the no fly list should not be able to buy a gun. The Governor of Conneticut is gong to do an executive order stating just that. The executive order that he wants to do will state that anyone on the no fly list will not be able to buy a gun in Connecticut. That would be unconstitutional because a person that was on the watch list would be denied the right to own a gun without due process.

It has not happened yet. They might just be working on pre-legal stuff like Bush did on the Gore recount. Get it in the courts and they turn it down without prejudice as since it happened yet there hasn't been any actual damage yet. That would still speed up the process since it would be on file. Just a shot in the dark on my part. I am not an attorney either.
 
VanceMack said:
A British Muslim and his family were just denied access to the US to go to Disneyland. His name was on the no fly list. Was that the correct call by TSA and the administration?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the only reason he was denied access into the US. He had some pro al qaeda and ISIS post on his facebook.
 
Captain America said:
Oh sure. Checking to see if the guy at Gander Mountain trying to buy an AR15 might be a terrorist is just a terrible idea. What are they thinking? [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Refusing a person the right to own a firearm because they were put on a secret list with no public or legal process for putting a person on the list is a violation of the Constitution. The problem with the whole scenario is that it a secret as to how a person's name gets on the list. When a person is put on the list they are not notified unless they try to get on a plane. If you did the same with a gun it would be restricting their rights without "due process". When a person loses this right it requires a conviction or a restraining order. Both of those actions happen in front of a judge and he makes the decision that triggers the restriction to own a fire arm. It does not take that same kind of action to put a person on the no fly list. We don't know what it takes to put a person on the list because that process is wrapped in a secret law.
 
Not to sound jaded, but it's only a matter of time before gun rights become a thing of the past, or become a lot more limited in fashion. These are instances of testing the waters. It will only take a few precedent-setting cases for the government to go the whole mile because that's how they operate.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I totally agree with everything that you said here. The argument that has been made is that some people think that a person on the no fly list should not be able to buy a gun. The Governor of Conneticut is gong to do an executive order stating just that. The executive order that he wants to do will state that anyone on the no fly list will not be able to buy a gun in Connecticut. That would be unconstitutional because a person that was on the watch list would be denied the right to own a gun without due process.

It has not happened yet. They might just be working on pre-legal stuff like Bush did on the Gore recount. Get it in the courts and they turn it down without prejudice as since it happened yet there hasn't been any actual damage yet. That would still speed up the process since it would be on file. Just a shot in the dark on my part. I am not an attorney either.
Click to expand...
I will say this: That Connecticut law would be a very dangerous thing, and could realistically start a slide down that proverbial slippery slope.

I'd also put the designation of American citizens as 'enemy combatants' in the same vein. Since when do we remove our fellow Americans' due process rights, no matter how screwed-up they are?

Which is why I'm glad the Tsamaev Bros were not designated enemy combatants. That's a helluva' slippery slope there!
 
VanceMack said:
A British Muslim and his family were just denied access to the US to go to Disneyland. His name was on the no fly list. Was that the correct call by TSA and the administration?
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
It is the bi-product of a gov agency out of control with no real system of checks or balances.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

This list was a bad idea, IMO.

It may have been useful immediately after 9/11 as a temporary interim fix, it was small & focused in scope. But it should never have become what it is. If it is ever used to block gun purchases as being proposed in Connecticut, it would be a travesty.
 
Chomsky said:
Agreed.

This list was a bad idea, IMO.

It may have been useful immediately after 9/11 as a temporary interim fix, it was small & focused in scope. But it should never have become what it is. If it is ever used to block gun purchases as being proposed in Connecticut, it would be a travesty.
Click to expand...

American Citizens who find themselves on this list and are denied anything need to sue the INDIVIDUAL who put them on the list and sue that INDIVIDUAL in his individual capacity under the "Bivens" theory of constitutional tort. then sue the INDIVIDUAL's employing agency under the theory of "respondent superior". this will put a rather serious chilling effect upon cavalierly putting people on this watch list with less than very good proof.
 
Northern Light said:
Not to sound jaded, but it's only a matter of time before gun rights become a thing of the past, or become a lot more limited in fashion. These are instances of testing the waters. It will only take a few precedent-setting cases for the government to go the whole mile because that's how they operate.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not.

I'm not as negative as you.

Why?

Gun rights have been greatly expanded compared to several decades ago, and the Supreme Court rulings have been largely pro-gun during that time. And as of late, Congress seems to have little taste for legislating new gun regs either.
 
TurtleDude said:
American Citizens who find themselves on this list and are denied anything need to sue the INDIVIDUAL who put them on the list and sue that INDIVIDUAL in his individual capacity under the "Bivens" theory of constitutional tort. then sue the INDIVIDUAL's employing agency under the theory of "respondent superior". this will put a rather serious chilling effect upon cavalierly putting people on this watch list with less than very good proof.
Click to expand...
To me, 'good proof' would involve getting a sitting judge to agree!
 
Chomsky said:
To me, 'good proof' would involve getting a sitting judge to agree!
Click to expand...

with the target having the opportunity to be heard
 
Northern Light said:
Not to sound jaded, but it's only a matter of time before gun rights become a thing of the past, or become a lot more limited in fashion. These are instances of testing the waters. It will only take a few precedent-setting cases for the government to go the whole mile because that's how they operate.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Just plain wrong. It's your right to dream however.

New Poll Shows Major Shift in How Americans View the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

While support for gun control once reached 66 percent, it has dropped to 46 percent while support for gun rights has jumped 52 percent, the highest ever in the past 25 years.
We are at a moment when most Americans believe crime rates are rising and when most believe gun ownership – not gun control – makes people safer
Click to expand...

In a September, 2014 article, The New York Times reported that FBI statistics on violent crime show the opposite. During the period from 1993-2013, it found:

The homicide rate fell by 51 percent
Forcible rapes declined by 35 percent
Robberies decreased by 56 percent
The rate of aggravated assault fell by 45 percent

Despite the FBI statistics, Pew believes that public perception of crime rates may be due, in large part, to constant reports in the media about violent crime.

Nonetheless, Pew found that even among those who believe crime rates have declined, support for Second Amendment Rights has increased as well:
Click to expand...
 
Chomsky said:
Ah, but right away the assumption here is thought to be that a cross reference between buyers & those suspected, is done to *deny* the purchase (unconstitutionally).

But we see, no purchases seem to have been denied.

It may be the government is not standing in the way of these purchases at all, but is gauging the level of escalation of those suspected terrorists it is already monitoring. IOW, are those suspected of plotting now furthering their plot by acquiring the materials needed to commence an attack (arms, explosives, etc.)?

If so, I'm thinking this may be constitutionally legit.

But I'm no lawyer.
Click to expand...
Unless a law was passed to give the ATF that power, and that was shown to satisfy the necessary and proper clause under appeal I can't see how it would be constitutional even without a denial. This to me is assumptive spying without a warrant, while it may or may not violate the second amendment it definitely appears to slap due process and unreasonable search and seizure right in the face.
 
Captain America said:
Oh sure. Checking to see if the guy at Gander Mountain trying to buy an AR15 might be a terrorist is just a terrible idea. What are they thinking? [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
The idea itself is not terrible, the problem is that due process is completely crapped on by both parties in the name of safety while the results seem to be piss poor. The biggest issue I have is that the current configuration could be abused, a person is put on a super secret watch list sometimes without prior knowledge or warrant and not even given their day in court to disprove the suspicion.
 
TurtleDude said:
if they know he is a terrorist WTF is he on the streets? do people ever actually think things through

if someone is on a terrorist watch list and has a clean record that seems to be actionable strict liability slander/defamation to me. If you don't have any real evidence that someone is a terrorist-then he shouldn't be on the list. If he has a record that establishes that his constitutional rights should be raped, he should be at least under indictment if not being actively prosecuted
Click to expand...
That, or if agents feel the person could lead to bigger fish, the person should be under such a tight watch that every fart is documented and any move they would make could be stopped immediately.
 
Chomsky said:
Perhaps not.

I'm not as negative as you.

Why?

Gun rights have been greatly expanded compared to several decades ago, and the Supreme Court rulings have been largely pro-gun during that time. And as of late, Congress seems to have little taste for legislating new gun regs either.
Click to expand...
Congress currently is not moving in the direction of gun control, there was the "Toomey/Mancin" gun control act proposed after Sandy Hook, both the Democrat and Republican senator introduced the legislation and within a week pulled it because their constituents loudly made it clear to them that it would be the end of their careers if they brought it up for a vote. They begged and pleaded with their people to allow them to at least put it to vote and the hell no rang out even louder than the initial response. I do firmly believe that is not a two district anomaly but rather a large sentiment in our country.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Justice Department sued for cross-checking gun buyers with terror lists




This might trigger a ruling that would prohibit states from using the same list to restrict gun purchases.
Click to expand...
I look-in now, nearly 24 after the last active post, and can't help but ask:

"Did we just have a sane, calm, substantive, respectful gun control thread"?
 
Chomsky said:
I look-in now, nearly 24 after the last active post, and can't help but ask:

"Did we just have a sane, calm, substantive, respectful gun control thread"?
Click to expand...

You've done it now. Down hill it goes.:lol:
 
Chomsky said:
I look-in now, nearly 24 after the last active post, and can't help but ask:

"Did we just have a sane, calm, substantive, respectful gun control thread"?
Click to expand...

Yes we did. You are a sane it is easy to respect you. You never post without some substance. I enjoyed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom