Plan B Forum

Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to ban the sale of guns to people on government watch lists under an executive order that Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said on Thursday he will sign.

The measure, which Malloy said needs federal approval, would require state police to review whether a potential gun buyer was on the federal no-fly list or on a watchlist for people suspected of ties to terrorism.

It would also revoke existing gun permits issued to people whose names were found on such a list.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-conne ... fMsAx0H.97

[[Gee, I thought I had deleted all from the looooooooooong page the first time; sorry about that]]

Geesus Meade, you want to shorten that up a little?

he was just demonstrating, thru his post, the extraordinary length of the no fly list because it is filled with names that should not be there and that the list has not been edited properly

either that or he just pulled a wes...

Heavens above. I'd rather pull LJ's finger.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to ban the sale of guns to people on government watch lists under an executive order that Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said on Thursday he will sign.

The measure, which Malloy said needs federal approval, would require state police to review whether a potential gun buyer was on the federal no-fly list or on a watchlist for people suspected of ties to terrorism.

It would also revoke existing gun permits issued to people whose names were found on such a list.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-conne ... fMsAx0H.97

[[Gee, I thought I had deleted all from the looooooooooong page the first time; sorry about that]]

This bill has to do with gun sales within their state, so why would they need federal approval?

they would need a constitutional amendment.

Obama can add you to the no fly list tomorrow

the terror watch list maybe, but the no fly list is arbitrary

this won t fly, but the lawyers will get some money out of it....

I have to agree with Wes here; the no fly list is one that any person can be placed on by the executive with no requirement for any reason being given. It can be appealed (I think) but you have no right to know why you have been placed on the list, examine any evidence, or confront anyone who has accused you of un-American activities, so it makes the right to appeal pretty silly.

When its effect was limited to a denial of being able to fly, the courts have apparently upheld/tolerated it. However, unlike flying, the right to purchase and own a gun is constitutionally protected and cannot be abrogated without due process. Somehow I doubt the courts would view the way the list is generated as remotely resembling due process, but who knows?

Someone better tell the President...

It’s a familiar story of the post-September 11 era: Democrats and Republicans are engaged in a partisan fight over the “no-fly” list created after the attacks. One party insists that the nation must take common-sense measures to protect citizens and the homeland. The other party howls that it’s an outrageous violation of due-process rules and part of a slide into lawlessness. All that’s different now is that the dominant voices in the two parties have flipped 180 degrees.

During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... cs/419172/

Absolutely, I would have thought Obama knew better, but he has his own agenda.

eta: as I recall, there have been some court challenges to the no fly list that have suggested flying is a fundamental right and have focused on the due process of the list, but I do think here we have a right mentioned in the bill of rights and interpreted by the USSC to include an individual right to own firearms, making it much harder to argue that no fundamental right is impinged.

Obama has never been a big supporter of civil rights vis a vis the war on terror and has been a big proponent on gun control, so his position doesn't surprise me. Bernie's endorsement of such a bill, however, does.

It probably won't hold technical muster either. The list is an ever changing document and to link that to the gun background checking system is well above the governments technical expertise.
More political pandering that will produce nothing.

I think they should link firearm sales to HCA - anyone who signs up for Obamacare can't buy a gun, which will save countless lives of telephone answerers at Healthcare.gov who even now are in great danger

there are reports that the admin is preparing exec. orders in line with the Connecticut guv s

the connect. guv as john the Baptist to Obama s jesus?

maybe jim s military rule isn t so bad after all, but no Dempsey, please. gen jack keane

Being prevented from travel, and barring air travel is a substantial burden on travel overall, is a bigger intrusion into civil liberties than not being able to buy a gun. Being on the no- fly list can ruin businesses because you cannot fly to customers, careers because you cannot attend (or present at) conferences, bar people from attending family events like weddings, funerals, graduations

You've got it ass-backwards. Adding gun sales is flea on the ass of the no-fly list.

Yrs,
Rubato

The right at issue here isn't the right to travel on a commercial airliner. While the right to interstate travel is a fundamental right, no citizen is guaranteed the right to a seat on an airplane on domestic flights. However, the right to international travel, because there is no real other alternative then via airplane, is constrained when someone is placed on the no-fly list. That constraint is a sufficient deprivation of a liberty interest to require fifth amendment due process. The no-fly list implicates fundamental due process/Fifth Amendment rights because no one knows they're on the list until they are barred from flying, and there is no opportunity to contest your inclusion on the list even in some type of post deprivation hearing.

yeah, what she said.

anyway rube, a very small percentage of the population actually flys. sack up, princess

and that little defense of our constitution just got you off my ignore list....

wesw wrote:and that little defense of our constitution just got you off my ignore list....

Please put me back.

And don't bother explaining how you saw what I wrote while on it. Just put me back.

You don't think in a sufficiently organised fashion for me ever to care what you write.


Yrs,

Rubato

joe?

bill nye ?

please?

oh, I took sue off too, for good measure

Guinevere wrote:The right at issue here isn't the right to travel on a commercial airliner. While the right to interstate travel is a fundamental right, no citizen is guaranteed the right to a seat on an airplane on domestic flights. However, the right to international travel, because there is no real other alternative then via airplane, is constrained when someone is placed on the no-fly list. That constraint is a sufficient deprivation of a liberty interest to require fifth amendment due process. The no-fly list implicates fundamental due process/Fifth Amendment rights because no one knows they're on the list until they are barred from flying, and there is no opportunity to contest your inclusion on the list even in some type of post deprivation hearing.

Guin--while I personally agree with your analysis, so far as I know there have been no substantial changes to the no fly law to give those on the list anything resembling due process; I haven't done a search, but are there appeals still standing or has the government just ignored the concerns?

And from what I recall, international travel is not always seen a s a fundamental right; I recall when Linus Pauling was denied a passport for purely political purposes (he has won a Nobel peace prize for his work in the area of nuclear test bans and the government refused to issue him a (or cancelled his) passport to allow him to go pick it up.