If the Problem Is the List, Is it Feasible to Fix the List.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Haakon

Isn't it funny how democrats were all against the 'no fly list' and argued that it violated peoples rights BEFORE they started wanting to use it to block people from buying firearms.

Of course there's always their role model of hypocrisy the ACLU: ACLU Opposes No-Fly List But Favors Using It to Ban Guns
LA Times Editorial Opposes 'No Fly List' Gun Purchase Ban As ACLU Waffles

Where is the hypocrisy? The ACLU is saying that the no-fly list as it stands needs done away with. They are fighting to do that. They argue that there can be a list but only if it is like many here have argued. Done through due process. If the courts rule there is a valid problem that problem could extend to owning a gun.

I have no idea what those problems can be but through the ACLU's efforts hopefully we will have changes here. If they win and any changes are unworkable the gun portion becomes moot.

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Where is the hypocrisy? The ACLU is saying that the no-fly list as it stands needs done away with. They are fighting to do that. They argue that there can be a list but only if it is like many here have argued. Done through due process. If the courts rule there is a valid problem that problem could extend to owning a gun.

I have no idea what those problems can be but through the ACLU's efforts hopefully we will have changes here. If they win and any changes are unworkable the gun portion becomes moot.

Only if that list meets the requirements of 6A. At which point the person on that no-fly list is not merely a suspected terrorist sympathizer but a person convicted of a crime. Which person is already precluded from buying a gun legally under current laws.

If all they do is create some intermediate status - the person is not convicted of any crime but is put on some sort of suspected terrorist list that can be challenged in court - then I am absolutely against using this list to deny that person any of their Constitutional rights, including 2A rights. If the Gov't can't get conviction, they shouldn't get rights denial. As simple as that. "Accused" does not equal "a convicted criminal". And the Gov't shouldn't be able to deny people rights based on mere accusations if they can't prove them.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

Only if that list meets the requirements of 6A. At which point the person on that no-fly list is not merely a suspected terrorist sympathizer but a person convicted of a crime. Which person is already precluded from buying a gun legally under current laws.

If all they do is create some intermediate status - the person is not convicted of any crime but is put on some sort of suspected terrorist list that can be challenged in court - then I am absolutely against using this list to deny that person any of their Constitutional rights, including 2A rights. If the Gov't can't get conviction, they shouldn't get rights denial. As simple as that. "Accused" does not equal "a convicted criminal". And the Gov't shouldn't be able to deny people rights based on mere accusations if they can't prove them.

The ACLU is arguing that the list must be Constitutional or thrown out completely. If it's ruled unconstitutional the gun argument becomes moot.