Should No Fly List Bar Weapons Purchase?

Either you know the truth and you're attempting to mislead people, or you just don't understand how the lists work.

I'm glad you brought it up though, because this is one of the problems of the "no fly" list.

You don't have to be the actual individual on the "no fly" list to be prevented from flying. All that is required is for you to share the same name as a person placed on the "no fly" list.

This continues to happen to large numbers of people, including children, who share the same name with someone placed on the list.

So, the list itself doesn't identify an actual person, it only lists a name.

Everyone who shares that name is then prevented from flying. That means if Bob Smith gets on the list, you want all Bob Smiths in the country to not be able to purchase a gun, not the Bob Smith actually under investigation.

Wouldn't that be convenient for those looking to take away our rights?

Senator Kennedy was only permitted to fly because, with his clout, he was able to talk to the airport supervisor and get on the flight.

He STILL had to get help from the DHS Secretary to clear up the matter, and it took as much as two months to clear the matter.

Although I'm sure you didn't mean to, thanks for reminding me that it's actually worse than I initially indicated.

 

Also, you might want to read your own sources that you link.

Taken from your own source, and straight from Kennedy:

Kennedy, Aug. 19, 2004: I got on the watch list last April. I was taking a plane to Boston and I get out to the USAIR and I come up to the counter and I said I want my ticket.

They said we can’t give it to you. I say, well, wait a minute, here is a Visa. There must have been a mix-up. And the person behind the gate said, “I can’t sell it to you. You can’t buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.” I said well, why not. We just — we can’t tell you. Well, I said, let me talk to the supervisor on that. This is at five of seven. The plane is about to leave and finally, the supervisor said okay.

And I thought it was a mix-up in my office, which it wasn’t. And I got to Boston and said there’s been a mix-up on this thing to Boston. What in the world has ever happened? Is this what happened? Tried to get on the plane back to Washington. You can’t get on the plane. I went up to the desk. I said I’ve been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years and why can’t I get on the plane back to Boston — back to Washington. And they said you can’t get on the plane back to Washington.

So my administrative assistant talked to the Department of Homeland Security and they said there’s some mistake. It happened three more times and finally Secretary Ridge called to apologize on it. It happened even after he called to apologize because they couldn’t — my name was on the list at the airports and with the airlines and the Homeland Security. He couldn’t get my name off the list for a period of weeks.

Now, if they had that kind of difficulty for a member of Congress, they’d have it — my office has a number of instances where we’ve had the leader of a distinguished medical school in New England and the list goes on. How in the world are average Americans who are going to get caught up in this kind of thing, how are they going to be able to get treated fairly and not have their rights abused?

 

the FBI conducted THREE interviews during TWO investigations, and deemed him not a threat... so why would he be on a no fly list if the FBI determined he wasn't a threat? what laws did he break since those investigations that would warrant him being on a no fly list? what conduct that was suspicious did he commit prior that should have put him on the no fly list? you see your problem, you don't have any evidence he was a threat or risk, all you have is emotional dribble after the fact...

HE PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK WHEN HE PURCHASED THE WEAPONS... what more do you want? if anyone had listed him as a threat, he wouldn't have gotten the weapons... if the FBI felt he was a threat after their investigations, the fault is with the FBI for declaring him not a threat, its not the fault of the no fly list, its not the fault of the background check he passed, its not the fault of republicans, its not the fault of anyone... he was cleared, he was presumed harmless...

if you're angry with anyone in this process, it should be the FBI... but don't blame republicans, don't blame background checks, don't blame guns, don't blame the no fly list...

unless like I said in another thread, do you now want people to lose their civil liberties merely because of things they say? is that the new measurement you want? you want people to lose rights because of their words? you realize how dangerous a slope that is for all americans who can now become victims of political retribution???

you tell me, WHAT LAW would have prevented this guy from committing this crime... he passed two FBI investigations, he passed a background check, he had close to 100 hours of gun training to get his special licenses in florida... he passed EVERYTHING democrats want and claim will prevent events like this, but he still did it... despite passing...

 

Cmon man. You can read better than that.

It has been reported many times that Kennedy had trouble boarding planes several times in 2004 allegedly because he was on a no-fly list. But the TSA in 2008 said the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts was “NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists.” Kennedy was “misidentified” as someone on the “selectee list.” Those on the selectee list “must undergo additional security screening before being permitted to board.” Kennedy ultimately boarded his flights and didn’t miss any flights.

He wasn't on the NFL and all that happened was that he had to undergo extra security like pat downs.

and Further

It’s worth noting that at the time Kennedy was stopped the responsibility for vetting potential terrorists fell to the airlines, not the government. The New York Times in an Aug. 20, 2004, article on Kennedy’s travel problems noted that “the current system is ineffective because the government does not provide the airlines with a comprehensive set of watch lists, in part because some of that information is classified.”

But that has since changed. The TSA is responsible for identifying and stopping would-be terrorists.


So gun nuts would give up our safety just because the NRA wants EVERYONE to have guns?

 

Stop and frisk is also unconstitutional but you'll defend that.

And there is no jail time here...just precautions. Sensible ones it seems to me considering the danger.

 

Considering his past associations with actual terrorists...he SHOULD have been on the No Fly List and that SHOULD have prevented him from buying this gun.

 

Because the NFL is a joke. One of my father's Marine buddies found himself on it while he had a TS clearance and was on active duty. It was explained as being a clerical error.

 

so the fault is not with anything but the FBI you're saying... and simply having connections to terrorists doesn't automatically put one on the no fly list... there are a large number of people on the FBI's watch list, that are not on the no fly list, because putting them on the no fly list, would alert them to being on the FBI's watch list... back when the FBI was investigating him, if he had tried to purchase a gun, the background check would have rejected his purchase without giving him a reason, but since they concluded the investigation and closed the file, they were not alerted to his gun purchase, because the FBI declared him not a threat...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

P.S. since you seem to be a person who only likes or accepts links from the huffington post... see the above, and how easy it is to get on the list... merely by a facebook posting... in fact they seem a little turned off at the no fly list, suggesting people get put on it for the wrong reasons... and they even point out what a nightmare it is to get taken off that list you were unfairly placed on... like the other poster was trying to convince you of but you rejected, no doubt a huffington post link is irrefutable right?

 

Ignoring all the constitutional and legal aspects for a moment, wouldn’t it make more practical sense to have a “No fly” list and a “No guns” list? I’m sure there’d be plenty of overlap but it wouldn’t necessarily be entirely the case given the threats an individual might pose in each case could be quite different. This proposal sounds to me like some lazy knee-jerking and does pose the risk that once someone has been placed on a particular list, indefinitely and with little or no scope for appeal, it could easily be used to filter in to all sorts of aspects of life.

If government is going to deny an individual a particular right or freedom, they should at least have to apply it as a specific right or freedom for specific reasons.

 

You're talking in circles. First you claim that few are on the NFL (you're right...there are only 6500) and then you say a random Facebook posting will get you on it.

 

are you confusing me with another poster, I never cited how many are on the no fly list... and I cited the huffington post article, which claimed a facebook posting could get you on it... so don't try to spin my words because you're upset people are posting relevant data to dismiss your hyperbole...

P.S. out of curiosity where did you get the number of 6500 people on the no fly list, some websites showing the databases have close to 100,000 names...

 

Since you asked so politely

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/ted-kennedy-and-the-no-fly-list-myth/

 

ahhh now I understand why SO many of your "facts" are always so wrong... you're citing a 2014 press statement... rather than current data... although if you read your own link, it says 6400 not 6500, so you couldn't even get that right... this seems to be a common problem with a lot of your postings, you constantly twist words and stories and claim people said things they did not, like you just did a second ago claiming I cited a number... now I'm beginning to think your memory is just shot and you simply can't remember things well at all... this would confirm that... it would also confirm why you gave such a LOW number, you're using old data that only includes people inside america, see the no fly list, includes a LOT of people who are not american citizens or authorized residents, many who never have even set foot on american soil... you are aware there are people who are not american on the no fly list right?

 

As there is no known standards for being placed on a no fly list and no court appeals the no fly list by itself is a problem let alone adding a weapons ban to the no fly list.

A fast google search will turn up many cases of outstanding citizens being placed on such lists for no known reason.

War vets and others seeming outstanding US citizens had found themselves unable to fly back into the country and needed to get to Mexico or canada one way or another to be able to walk across the border.

 

A few things:the 14th amendment only allows rights (such as the right to bear arms) to be taken away by due process. The no-fly list is not due process, as you are not informed you are being put on the list, and you have no opportunity to fight the charges; you are suggesting that we change the view of rights in this country from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty when charged, you must prove yourself innocent." Finally, that wouldn't have stopped Mateen from getting a gun. He was not on the "no-fly" list or the larger Terrorist Watch list.

At this point, you can get put on the "no-fly" list for something as simple as questioning the government. Do you think that's a high enough standard?

 

By the way the existence of the no fly list is in itself chilling as far as the willingness to exercise constitutional rights is concern.

I remember years ago I desire to see for myself an example of an English language terrorists magazine that the news media at the time was full of reports of.

But was concern about some government fool placing me on the no fly list for doing so.

As a lawful US citizen I should not had needed to take precautions such as using the tor network in order to feel comfortable exercising my constitutional rights to look at the damn magazine directly for fear I would find myself on a no fly list for doing so.

The no fly list even without a weapon ban is chilling.

 

But he wasn't on the NFL--he had been on the TWL (Terrorist Watch List) a few years ago, but was taken off for lack of evidence. So even, your supposed cure for this shooting wouldn't have stopped it. The problem is that the TWL and NFL are very arbitrary, and most importantly, do not allow due process for the accused. That's fundamentally authoritarian and against the basic principles of U.S. jurisprudence and liberty. Many, you liberals love the authoritarian rule--as much as the Trumpkins do.

 

You appear to want the use of a 'secret' list to label people and do away with due process. Guilty until proven innocent should be your new motto.

 

The no fly list is a civil liberties disaster especially when applied to fundamental constitutional rights protected by the strict scrutiny standard.

How ridiculous.

 

You can arbitrarily be put in the list without even knowing you are on there, they don't have to tell you why you are on it, and it can take months of legal wrangling and lawyer's fees to correct.

 

There isn't even a charge, in this case. It's "guilty by suspicion of bureaucrats."

 

Yes, the No Fly list is basically an unAmerican black list in which people are restricted from travel due to sometimes vague evidence and no due process. You could be on the "No fly list" and not know it. I have a former friend who works in the TSA hierarchy. Our wives had a falling out, and things got pretty bad. I will admit, until I actually got on a plane, I was worried that I was on the "No Fly list" based on what he might have done arbitrarily, without due process and with no accountability. The No Fly list should be eliminated as such. It should be changed to a "must check their luggage and person carefully" list.

 

That's a pretty dangerous way of looking at things. If you want people on watch lists, and no fly lists not being able to purchase firearms, I'm fine with that, as long as the government proves its case before a judge.
If you're implying that people should be indefinitely detained because they're on a no fly list, that's just dumb, and unconstitutional.

 

So you are anti-due process.