Second Amendment: Suspended?

Well, his gun control sails lost wind when the recent shooting was labeled as a terrorist activity. I think he's finally figuring out that his insidious plans will be better served by slowly tightening the noose, rather than just kinking the stool out from under the 2nd amendment. There are thousands of law abiding, innocent Americans on the no fly list and to steal their civil liberties would be an atrocious act.

There are a not insignificant number of DHS folks on the list. That's why the gun rights folks are so negative on it. It's a flawed system with little recorse for those Improperly added to it.

There are TWO separate lists: the no-fly list, and the terror watch list.
The No-Fly List is something like 50,000 people IIRC, and it's mostly foreigners. These are largely folks where there is a strong suspicion they may carry out an attack.
The Terror Watch List is something like 1,000,000 people, mostly US citizens (I think) and growing! And this is the one Ted Kennedy was on. Just having a name similar to an alias a serious terrorist suspect lands you on the list.

I'm not sure which one they are trying to ban - I have seen "reputable" news sources (e.g. The Washington Post) refer to different lists in different articles.

Problems abound with both lists - huge, alarming, Constitutional problems - secret lists, no due process for getting on the lists, NO reliable way off the list (and you can just get put right back on).
No hyperbole - these lists are flat out nightmarish.

"I'm not sure which one they are trying to ban - I have seen "reputable" news sources (e.g. The Washington Post) refer to different lists in different articles."
Does it matter? If they get the no-fly list and it stands, they'll demand everyone on the "Terror Watchlist" next, and then the ability for undisclosed lists to be included, as well. Precedent is dangerous.

I suspect the only real danger here, is that attempting to use the list to so directly strip a freeman of his rights without due process would get the whole 'watchlist' scheme thrown out in its entirety in the courts. You'd need some truly Ginsberg-ian mental wrangling to find constitutional justification for the president & his officers being the arbiters of who gets to buy (or own, or possess, or transfer, or whatever) a firearm. And I don't think we're quite there, yet. Pure supposition, though, much like the threatened legislation/executive action.

TCB

The no fly list can easily be used to subvert your constitutional rights. What's next, a 4th waiver?

I already sent my rep an email. You should do the same:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

'Merica.

alex jones is on to something and I stay tuned to him!

midland man said:

alex jones is on to something and I stay tuned to him!

Click to expand...

Please elaborate.

Get some popcorn and soda. It's purely political theater.

In 2016, you'll hear the Dems rage about how the Reps allowed people on whatever list to still purchase firearms.

Low information voters are abundant, and that is their target demographic.

The chances of such a thing becoming law and/or standing constitutional scrutiny are somewhere between slim and none, and slim has left the building.

The problem the Dems have is that when there is an incident like San Bernardino, a lot of people decide that they need a firearm. The polling on gun control attitudes has been steadily moving our way for a couple of decades. Now, a majority of the people do not favor stricter gun laws.

denton said:

Get some popcorn and soda. It's purely political theater.

In 2016, you'll hear the Dems rage about how the Reps allowed people on whatever list to still purchase firearms.

Low information voters are abundant, and that is their target demographic.

The chances of such a thing becoming law and/or standing constitutional scrutiny are somewhere between slim and none, and slim has left the building.

The problem the Dems have is that when there is an incident like San Bernardino, a lot of people decide that they need a firearm. The polling on gun control attitudes has been steadily moving our way for a couple of decades. Now, a majority of the people do not favor stricter gun laws.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it takes someone who has been actually harmed by the law to file suit to try and get the law overturned. During that process, how many people will be harmed by stupid laws.

OK, which list is supposed to have a 40% false positive match?

Also such lists are supposed to be used as a heads up to agents to do further investigation before taking action.

The Prez wants to take immediate action based on a flawed list.

The murdering terrorists in San Bernadino were not on the list: that is the fatal flaw in trusting lists: there are 40% false positives on one, and I suspect a 95% false negative on all of them.

This issue has really bothered me since the media first started talking about it. I genuinely would like to know the following:

1. Who maintains these lists?

2. What criteria gets you on the list? Can you be put on one of these just for sending an angry letter to the White house (non-threatening of course)?

3. Why can't your average citizen see these lists? Who IS authorized to see them?

4. If you do find out that you are on one of these lists (usually by being denied a boarding pass at the airport), how do you go about getting your name OFF of the list?


Since it has been proposed that these "lists" be used to deny folks constitutional rights, these questions MUST be answered! This is a terrifyingly slippery slope IMHO.

The question I gotta ask Obama is, if someone is too dangerous to let fly on a plane (or take a train or all the other "related" activities they use those lists for), why are they walking around on our streets in the first place?

I think I know the answer...because it's a political list that anyone can be added to for any reason, with no recourse or appeal.

Feb 2015,

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=e0e0dab0-d7d7-4dca-83da-7b68f5be2b47

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...nt-terrorists-from-buying-firearms-explosives

Nov 2015,

The leading advocate of the measure is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence panel.

She wants to prevent anyone on the terror watchlist from buying a firearm or an explosive while traveling in the United States. It’s an effort she picked up from the late New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D), who introduced the measure multiple times while in the Senate.

“They don’t have to bring it with them, they can buy it once they get here,” Feinstein declared. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...re-gun-control-for-those-on-terror-watchlist/

Feinstein has been pushing for this for quite some time. Now that Hillary is campaigning on Gun Control it's time to bring it back to life and see what kind of traction it gets.

"I think I know the answer...because it's a political list that anyone can be added to for any reason, with no recourse or appeal."
I'm sure there's also suspected terrorists with un-actionable evidence against them in there, too. It's a big list, plenty of room for every one.

"1. Who maintains these lists?

2. What criteria gets you on the list? Can you be put on one of these just for sending an angry letter to the White house (non-threatening of course)?

3. Why can't your average citizen see these lists? Who IS authorized to see them?

4. If you do find out that you are on one of these lists (usually by being denied a boarding pass at the airport), how do you go about getting your name OFF of the list?"
1) I believe it's a joint thing by the various conglomerated fourth-branch bureaucracies ('agencies') that make up Homeland, and probably part of the reason it's so hard to appeal your place on the list
2) I'll have to try and find where someone posted it here recently, but back in 2005 or so there was a big, long document that purported to publicly disclose the criteria for the Suspected Terrorist Watch List, oversight, appeals process, people responsible, etc. Bear in mind the list had operated with this information completely classified from the public for two years prior, so forgive me for rolling my eyes when the feds claim that they are stridently adhering to what is in the publicly-available document without independent oversight or secret procedures. I do know the document clearly stated that a person whose terrorism charges have been dismissed will be added; guilty until proven innocent, guilty if proven innocent
3) Federal law enforcement bureaucrats, is my understanding (I'm sure local law enforcement can ping the list through federal contacts, but my understanding is they can't 'browse through it' so to speak)
4) Your only recourse is pleading with the same faceless bureaucracy that put you on the list in the first place. No formal court-based proceeding was mentioned in the 'appeals' process I skimmed through, just making toothless requests through agency contacts (probably starting with your local Homeland or LEO folks and working upward, apparently over the course of several years if reports from those who successfully got removed are to be believed). Why bother, though; you'll just end up on some even more secret list of people who managed to get off the Watch List (it's probably called the "Watch Closely List")

Just a variation on the old cringeworthy pro-gun bumpersticker;
"I remember this one movie where the government kept lists; it was called Schindler's List"


TCB

And the president now thinks those on the list should have their firearms confiscated.

Ash said:

And the president now thinks those on the list should have their firearms confiscated.

Click to expand...

Best go after the estate of Teddy Kennedy first!

Aren't there a few kids under 10 on the no fly list?

I think you basically just have to act "terroristy" and/or hand out with someone who might also look "terroristy". You have to go through all sorts of paperwork hurdles and redtape to even get to the point where you can try and get your name removed.

Nothing like getting placed on a list without due process and that list being used to remove your rights as an American citizen.

This is the latest attempt, IMHO, by the anti 2Aers, led by Bloomberg and supported by POTUS, to try another "reasonable sounding" approach to start confiscation.

Initially they tried "universal background checks" and still continue to bring them up, but people are wise now to the fact that UBC is just a path to registration of all firearms (because how will government KNOW a background check is done on every sale, if they don't know that the sale actually took place. And to know that a sale took place, you need to know who owned the firearm at he start of the sale. )

At present, for your constitutionally protected RKBA to be taken away, you need to be a CONVCTED FELON, who has had due process, protected by US law.

Taking away RKBA from someone on the "terrorism" watch list or ANY kind of scarily named list seems like a "reasonable" approach.
However, it is a HUGE change in the status quo, because if passed, it will allow the constitutionally protected RKBA to be taken away from someone simply if they were named by a bureaucrat, without the due processes afforded to a convicted felon.

Once such an act is made legal and precedent is set, all sorts of lists could be created with scary names: "mentally dangerous and threat to others" list, or ""dissenter and inciter" list. All of these could be used to take away RKBA. Along with UBC, this is another prong in the anti-RKBA-ers approach to disarm the USA.

The only thing that stops bad people with weapons is good people with weapons.

And consider the IRS shenanigans with certain groups, getting on a list could very easily be a political decision.

I have heartburn about any Gov't lists that is created behind closed doors, contributed by multiple agencies, the "target" does not know they are on the list until consequences manifest, no due process to get on the list, no due process for removal from the list - it is a prime opportunity for abuse. Not to mention, sometimes your name only has to be similar to someone suspected.

Earning placement on the watch list is at least partly based upon association with extreme radical groups - fair enough... But who determines when a group meets the definition of "radical"?

It is also worth remembering that the U.S. has first hand experience from secret blacklists from the 50's & 60's...

BTW, if you disagree with my views, I will take personal offense and have to go to my safe zone to recover from the trauma inflicted by dissenting views.

Schwing said:

This issue has really bothered me since the media first started talking about it. I genuinely would like to know the following:

1. Who maintains these lists?

2. What criteria gets you on the list? Can you be put on one of these just for sending an angry letter to the White house (non-threatening of course)?

3. Why can't your average citizen see these lists? Who IS authorized to see them?

4. If you do find out that you are on one of these lists (usually by being denied a boarding pass at the airport), how do you go about getting your name OFF of the list?


Since it has been proposed that these "lists" be used to deny folks constitutional rights, these questions MUST be answered! This is a terrifyingly slippery slope IMHO.

Click to expand...

I was on the TWL for awhile. I'm not sure if I'm still on it because I gave up trying to fly anywhere about 3 years ago, just too many delays and too much hassle. My wife had to board a few times without me and I never knew if I was going to make a flight. The interesting part is I don't have any trouble at border crossings coming back into the US with a passport or passport card. I've done that a few times.

At the time I was told several things by TSA. I could fill out some paperwork to appeal the fact by one source. They didn't say anything more about it. Another source who I talked to personally said that lots of people appeal but nobody ever gets off of it. I never appealed it since I knew what I was up against.

Here's some info. Don't know anything about this source, credible or otherwise.

https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

My strong suspicion is that the proponents of this bill know it is illegal, and that it will never pass......and they are only doing it so when the election comes around, they can point back to it to show "how evil the Republicans are" and how much "they are a slave to the NRA"......pretty much using it as political propaganda, not because they expect it to become law........although im sure they would be pleased if it passed.

M-Cameron said:

My strong suspicion is that the proponents of this bill know it is illegal, and that it will never pass......and they are only doing it so when the election comes around, they can point back to it to show "how evil the Republicans are" and how much "they are a slave to the NRA"......pretty much using it as political propaganda, not because they expect it to become law........although im sure they would be pleased if it passed.

Click to expand...

Accurate or not, time will tell, but this is a very fair point. (and one I'm inclined to think will bear out ).