Susan Collins Unveils a Gun-Control Compromise : No-Fly-No-Buy

Thanks for proving my point. They are not charged with anything but have to go to court to prove they are innocent. You would support banning those on the watch list from buying food? Evidently you don't realize that commerce is trade of one good for another so you support not allowing people to use their own property as they wish under a free society.

 

Let me make that clearer for you: No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

It does not say "No Person, once arbitrarily deprived, shall have due process of law to restore their liberty." You are a Constitutional Contortionist.

 

I anticipate NRA opposition which means it won't pass in the current Republican controlled Congress. In fact it's doubtful to even make it to the floor of either the House or Senate because Republicans control the committees.

That could dramatically change next year because it's assumed Democrats are going to re-take control of the Senate and win the presidency so at least one house of Congress and the president is likely to support it.

- - - Updated - - -

They're not being arrested so they're not deprived of liberty.

 

The RKBA is an enumerated individual right, thus what is meant by "liberty".
See 5th amendment's due process clause which mentions none may be deprived of liberty without due process.
The no fly list lacks the basic indicia of due process, notice and the right to be heard before consequences set in.
Using the no fly list to deny RKBA is a denial of liberty without due process in direct violation of the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution.

Protip: When the synthesis of the legal argument against the policy can be generally explained in 4 simply sentences, the other side has got a serious problem.

To be very clear: What is being denied is LIBERTY, the LIBERTY of the RKBA which INCLUDES PURCHASE AND SALE without due process of law (per recent SCOTUS case explicitly and commonsense implicitly) not property that they do not yet possess.

 

Incorrect, deprivation of a constitutional right is by definition a deprivation of liberty. That's direct language from a SCOTUS case. Would you like me to cite it proper for you?

 

I do not support this. The list is arbitrary, and the criteria for being put on the list is arbitrary.

And its not like they are exactly stopping attacks with the info they say they can get.

Enough.

 

The ACLU have been addressing the No Fly lists for quite some time based upon Constitutional arguments and has had some limited success.

https://www.aclu.org/infographic/grounded-life-no-fly-list

So yes there remain serious problems with the No Fly list and the ACLU's actions in addressing those Constitutional issues requires the support of us all. It's sort of strange but this is a good reason for "pro-gun" advocates to actually send donations to the ACLU which works tirelessly in protecting our Constitutional Rights.

Here's the key though. If the Constitutional issues related to the No Fly list are resolved so that the person is notified that they're on the No Fly list, provided with the basis for those reasons, and given the opportunity for a hearing before a neutral decision-maker, then according to the ACLU's statement the Constitutional requirements are fulfilled.

If the Constitutional requirements for due process are fulfilled for the No Fly list then the same Constitutional requirements for the No Buy list are also fulfilled.

In principle then the No Fly-No Buy list should be acceptable to everyone if the government makes the changes necessary to protect the Constitutional rights of the person. If it doesn't make those changes, that the ACLU is fighting for in court, then neither the No Fly or the No Buy lists should be acceptable to the American people.

 

I don't believe there's any evidence that the criteria is arbitrary and that doesn't seem to be the problem that the ACLU is addressing. Instead the problem is that the government has yet to inform those placed on the No Fly list of what specific criteria the government used to put them on the list.

In short the criteria can be very valid but if those affected are not expressly informed of the specifics of the criteria used to place them on the list and/or they're not provided with the opportunity to address the specific criteria (because they don't know what it is) then their Constitutional rights to due process are being violated. A person, under the Constitution, is entitled to know what evidence that the government has against them and the government's denial of providing that information violates their Constitutional rights.

 

Except elevating the standard to probable cause with notice and disclosure would not only allow them to simply file a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing arrest warrant and a search warrant and have done, but would also require disclosure of witnesses and inciting incidents etc.

If you "fix it" you don't NEED it anymore because it will be entirely superfluous because you would have enough evidence to arrest them.

 

Apparently they were using credit scores to place people on the list.