[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by adamz

If I were going to get worked up about this, I'd be much more inclined to be upset about the fact that people on a secret government list cant TRAVEL FREELY than about the fact that they can't buy a gun.

They can travel freely. The can travel by car, train, boat, foot. They just can't travel by plane.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Because there is a lack of due process under Malloy's proposal. Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, the state cannot deprive a person of their rights, such as the right to bear arms, without due process. Due process means that a person is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing and a neutral judge. A felon can be denied the right to own or purchase a firearm because they have been tried and convicted in a court of law. They have received due process. Not so with the watchlist, which is a secret list of people suspected of being terrorists. When a name is added to the list, there is no notice, no hearing and no judge; after all, if they did, the list would no longer be secret! Since persons on the list have not been afforded due process with respect to their presence on the list, it cannot be used as a basis to restrict or deprive them of their constitutional rights.

As an aside, its somewhat shocking to me how little most Americans know about the Constitution. Even well educated Americans seem to be unaware of the concept of due process and are embracing this measure under the guise of "common sense."

I had previously presumed that real intelligence was being used to compile these lists, but I now know that's not the case. Even then, it would be unconstitutional for the government to control a person's movements without due process (especially considering that being a citizen did not protect a person from being placed on the list). The government is not permitted to control a citizen's movements unless it actually charges them with a crime.

[adamz]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

They can travel freely. The can travel by car, train, boat, foot. They just can't travel by plane.

Remind me what "infringed" means again?

[mlassoff]

I am writing this on an airplane at this very moment, ironically.

Let me ask this: Which is better-- To allow suspected terrorists to fly freely knowing the history/risks or to violate the rights of some who are on the list mistakenly?

There is no good answer here. I am not for trading liberty for safety in general. It seems someone is always willing to trade someone else's rights for safety-- as long as their rights wont' be effected. ("Let's ban Muslims!")

It's a tough question with no good answer unless the list is fixed. It would be imperfect, but, then again, even due process doesn't guarantee perfect outcomes.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by adamz

Remind me what "infringed" means again?

Infringed? I'd say its more like inconvenienced. They can travel, just not by air.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by adamz

Remind me what "infringed" means again?

Infringed: First graders being shot at an elementary school becase the failure of our systems to detect severly dangerous mentally distrubed people and allowing them unfettered access to military style weapons.

[adamz]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Infringed? I'd say its more like inconvenienced. They can travel, just not by air.

I'd say having to wait to buy a gun is being inconvenienced. I'd say having to get a license or pass a background check is being inconvenienced.

Ardent gun rights supporters would say that those are infringements, and they claim they are unconstitutional.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by adamz

I'd say having to wait to buy a gun is being inconvenienced. I'd say having to get a license or pass a background check is being inconvenienced.

Ardent gun rights supporters would say that those are infringements, and they claim they are unconstitutional.

I agree. These are reasonable restrictions to ensure that people who cannot purchase firearms don't. They may be an inconvenience, but they don't prevent the lawful purchase of a firearm.

[JayCT]

Please do not get off topic. JayCT, Moderator

[atlaw]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I do not agree that this is a constitutional issue. The government restricts gun sales to convicted felons, why not to suspected terrorists. Jay

The key is "suspected". What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Scariest idea I've heard in a long time especially given the secret list with no way to appeal. Jeez, Ted Kennedy was on it!