Does the No Fly list supercede the Constitution, i.e. the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter lefteye
- Start date
kilimanjaro
New member
If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous to board a bus, or walk the streets. Either arrest everyone one the list or be honest that it's meaningless.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We had a recent discussion on this. The consensus here seems to be that, since the "no fly" list (or terrorist watch list) is compiled without any semblance oif due process, it should not trump the Constitution.
However, our current president seems to have left his copy of the Constitution with his lecture notes back in Chicago when he was elected president.
However, our current president seems to have left his copy of the Constitution with his lecture notes back in Chicago when he was elected president.
That's missing the point. The Federal government has to be "seen as doing something", doesn't matter what, but something. The no fly list is one of "those things" that's visible to the public, so their government is "doing something".
One (of the hundreds) of fallacies is that there have been multiple demonstrated ways to get (something) on an aircraft to take control or bring it down.
You could sue the Feds, point out the real issues or expose fraud waste and abuse on their part, but they're just using your money against you, and you'll probably get audited and harassed for the rest of your life.
One (of the hundreds) of fallacies is that there have been multiple demonstrated ways to get (something) on an aircraft to take control or bring it down.
You could sue the Feds, point out the real issues or expose fraud waste and abuse on their part, but they're just using your money against you, and you'll probably get audited and harassed for the rest of your life.
]
yes and no.
The existence of the list is common knowledge.
Who is ON the list is not.
What the specific criteria are to be put on the list, are not, either.
We are left to assume, or infer, that it is the "bad guys" who get on the list, but unfortunately, without some kind of oversight, we don't KNOW.
As far as I know, we don't have any PROOF of ANYTHING other than there is a list, and if you are on it, you can't get on an airplane in the US.
We hear, once in a while, of children, the extreme aged, and other innocent people being on the list, and its always explained away as a "mistake". Similar name, or something like that.
I can see SOME logic in having a list of known terrorists, and keeping an eye on them. A "secret" list?, one we don't know what it takes to be put on, with no clear method for legal challenge if you are put on the list "by mistake"?
I have never thought that to be the best of ideas.
As for the no fly list having precedence over the US Constitution? Not in any normal legal sense as far as I can see. US LAWS, passed by Congress and signed by the President DO NOT supersede the Constitution. NO Agency regulation supersedes the Constitution. Certainly no administrative LIST should be considered superior to the supreme law of the land.
I feel confident that is what the courts would rule. However, individuals in the Executive branch might feel differently, and do as they please, until the matter is resolved in court, and they are ordered to do otherwise.
We don't have a perfect system.
62coltnavy
New member
There are three types of people on the list: 1. US citizens; 2. resident aliens; and 3. foreign nationals who are not resident aliens. The third category is by far the largest. Frank will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that only the first two categories are legally allowed to buy firearms from or through an FFL. And that is all we are really talking about, since private sales in the states that allow them (and all illegal sales for that matter), do not require background checks, and thus the screening system of NCIS would necessarily fail.
So what we are left with is persons legally residing in the US who, of most critical importance, have no disqualifying misdemeanors or any felonies, nor have been accused and are under indictment for a disqualifying offense. As far as the law (and the Constitution) is concerned, these people are, by definition, innocent of any crime (at least until arrested, tried and convicted)., yet this proposed law would bar them from the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. To deprive persons from the exercise of any right, i.e., to deprive them of life, liberty or property (meaning a second amendment right to keep and bear arms), without due process of law (meaning a conviction) is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any such law would be therefore facially unconstitutional.
To add to the illegality, the government refuses to divulge what it takes to get on the list, and for years refused to allow anyone on the list any remedy to allow them to get off. According to tweets in response to the President's message, 72 TSA employees are on the list, as was, famously, Senator Ted Kennedy. There have been estimates that 40% of the people denied boarding are on the list in error (e.g. children and the aged), have the same (or most egregiously similar) name to someone on the list, have been added to the list based on unfounded accusations or suspicions, or because of their religious affiliation, travel, or business activities abroad, despite no evidence at all of illegal conduct.
To make it simple, if you don't have enough evidence to arrest someone for a criminal act (in legalese, have probable cause to arrest) then you have no authority, moral or legal, to deprive them of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
So what we are left with is persons legally residing in the US who, of most critical importance, have no disqualifying misdemeanors or any felonies, nor have been accused and are under indictment for a disqualifying offense. As far as the law (and the Constitution) is concerned, these people are, by definition, innocent of any crime (at least until arrested, tried and convicted)., yet this proposed law would bar them from the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. To deprive persons from the exercise of any right, i.e., to deprive them of life, liberty or property (meaning a second amendment right to keep and bear arms), without due process of law (meaning a conviction) is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any such law would be therefore facially unconstitutional.
To add to the illegality, the government refuses to divulge what it takes to get on the list, and for years refused to allow anyone on the list any remedy to allow them to get off. According to tweets in response to the President's message, 72 TSA employees are on the list, as was, famously, Senator Ted Kennedy. There have been estimates that 40% of the people denied boarding are on the list in error (e.g. children and the aged), have the same (or most egregiously similar) name to someone on the list, have been added to the list based on unfounded accusations or suspicions, or because of their religious affiliation, travel, or business activities abroad, despite no evidence at all of illegal conduct.
To make it simple, if you don't have enough evidence to arrest someone for a criminal act (in legalese, have probable cause to arrest) then you have no authority, moral or legal, to deprive them of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
One of the news programs had a panel commenting on the speech. Turned out one of the panelists, a conservative journalist, was on (or had been on) the no fly list. Seems he found that out when he tried to book a flight to Turkey.
I believe I heard someone on the news say there were currently 70k names on the list. I can see that going to 700k or 7 million or 70 million names if they wanted it to.
I believe I heard someone on the news say there were currently 70k names on the list. I can see that going to 700k or 7 million or 70 million names if they wanted it to.
kilimanjaro
New member
It was just a busy morning at the listmaker's desk, Senator Kennedy was supposed to be put on the No Drive list.
I was pretty sure everyone here had quit flying since 9/11.
So, nobody really supports anything the government does to keep track of potential terrorists or other chumps? What aspect of the (federal) constitution does keeping track of suspect people prevent? Privacy? Is privacy a constitutional right? What would Trump or Cruz or any other others suggest? Trump would probably say he would deport all foreigners when he becomes dictator (except for Cruz). Don't know what Cruz would do.
The FBI did this during WWII, you know. I'm not sure if it was justified or not or if anyone really objected. After all, there was the yellow peril.
So, nobody really supports anything the government does to keep track of potential terrorists or other chumps? What aspect of the (federal) constitution does keeping track of suspect people prevent? Privacy? Is privacy a constitutional right? What would Trump or Cruz or any other others suggest? Trump would probably say he would deport all foreigners when he becomes dictator (except for Cruz). Don't know what Cruz would do.
The FBI did this during WWII, you know. I'm not sure if it was justified or not or if anyone really objected. After all, there was the yellow peril.
Just a couple days ago, I saw Hillary Clinton on TV discussing the no-fly list. She implied that people who are on the list by mistake can easily apply to get themselves off the list. Is there really such process? I can imagine that getting off the list might take months, would involve huge hassle, and probably involves paying a lawyer. Does anyone out there actually have any facts about this secret list?
I think more than a few of those "yellow people" we put in our version of concentration camps weren't happy with the idea.
only took our government about a half century to admit we were wrong to do that...
One of the issues I have with a no fly list is that it is like gun control in some aspects. It's the cheap, easy, lazy way out. Got a problem? Ban it! simple, and done!
If Mohammed Jones is on the list because we have video of him having lunch with Bin Laden, that's one thing. If he's on the list only because his name is Mohammad, that's something else entirely, and no more right that putting someone on a list because their name is Jesus.
g.willikers
New member
Has there ever been an administration or Congress that felt it had to comply with the Constitution?
It's been more popular to find loopholes in the Constitution than to abide.
If the Constitution was respected, we'd have very few laws interfering with the lives of US citizens.
Can't have that - what would all the ambitious politicians do all day?
It's been more popular to find loopholes in the Constitution than to abide.
If the Constitution was respected, we'd have very few laws interfering with the lives of US citizens.
Can't have that - what would all the ambitious politicians do all day?
dogtown tom
New member
Those "foreign nationals" who are here on a nonimmigrant visa (such as a tourist, student or temporary worker visa) most definitely CAN buy firearms. All they need to do is possess a valid hunting license. Whether they actually intend to hunt is immaterial. The Form 4473 has questions specific to those here on a nonimmigrant visa.
carguychris
New member
Furthermore, foreign visitors who are not required to have a visa may lawfully buy and possess firearms. There are numerous programs under which travelers from certain foreign countries may tour the United States without a visa provided that their stay does not exceed a certain amount of time.dogtown tom said:
Many FFLs will not do business with these folks given the difficulty of ascertaining whether or not they are indeed lawfully visiting under a no-visa program, but this does not change the fact that these transactions are technically legal.
Denying people on the list their gun rights is flat unconstitutional. It violates the 5th amendment in addition to the 2nd Amendment. There is no due process. The criteria of how you get put on the list are very arbitrary and there is no specific way to go about getting off of it if you find out you were put onto it. Nor is it a "loophole" the way the Democrats keep claiming.
Just a bit of irony..... You can actually fail a background check and not be allowed to purchase a firearm but still be allowed to fly, while at the same time be on the "no fly" list and still purchase a firearm. Seems to me if you warrant being on the no fly list that gun purchase should be off the table as well. That being said I believe the no fly list has many flaws with no way to fix the problem of being placed on the list in error. However... even a misdemeanor warrant for a traffic violation can cause a background failure because of the unknown nature of the warrant being misdemeanor or felony. I guess my main concern is failure within the systems we have in place. Doesn't seem that the government does a whole heck of a lot successfully except fight wars and they really don't do it that efficiently. They can't even get the mail right. lol....
Denying a person from flying or buying a gun based on suspicion is analogous to denying someone a drivers license because some faceless government worker has decided that, that individual or someone with a similar name, MAY someday cause a traffic accident. And there, apparently, is no way to dispute the similar name part.
Last edited: