Does the No Fly list supercede the Constitution, i.e. the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter lefteye
- Start date
I've known people that found out that they were on the no-fly list for simply holding ron Paul signs in the street corner. So no the no fly list does not supersede any constitutional right because there is not any due process involved in compiling it.
Flying is not a constitutional right, do you can be banned from doing so for most any reason
Flying is not a constitutional right, do you can be banned from doing so for most any reason
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I had a family member who was on the no fly list. David Williamson. It wasn't really an error as there was in fact a David Williamson who apparently warranted being on the list, but that person was not related to me. That was the entry. No SS #, no address, no license number. Not even a state of residence. Simply "David Williamson". Do you have any idea how many David Williamsons there are in the world? There may only be 70,000 names, but they are names carried by millions of people.
Maybe I should approach this more directly.
emoody007:
Why should a person be denied the right to keep and bear arms as provided in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution simply because that person (or another person with the same name) is on the secret no fly list?
Consider this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...ma-background-checks-not-include-no-fly-list/
And this from the CNN website:
No-fly nightmares: The program's most embarrassing mistakes
By Gregory Krieg, CNN
Updated 3:26 PM ET, Mon December 7, 2015
Story highlightsSome prominent people - who aren't terrorists - have been banned from flying
The list has once again become a political hot potato as the gun-control debate heats up
(CNN)—The twin debates over gun control and terrorism are converging at the airport.
Democrats want to use the federal government's no-fly list, meant to keep suspected terrorists grounded, as a guideline for enforcing new laws to restrict firearm purchases.
Senate Republicans blocked that effort last week, but President Barack Obama kept up his push this weekend.
"Right now, people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "That is insane." He made a similar appeal during his address to the nation on Sunday night.
The new initiative is reviving questions about the legality and efficacy of the no-fly list, which has drawn criticism and challenges in court by civil rights groups, including the ACLU.
Read More
After losing a key ruling in a recent lawsuit, the federal government in April said it would begin to proactively inform people of their status and create a more transparent system for contesting the designation — a process the ACLU once described as a "Kafkaesque bureaucracy."
While the criteria for adding individuals to the list remains murky, one thing is for sure: it's still a lot easier to get on the list than get off it. Even in clear cases of mistaken identity or clerical blundering, a name can linger in the system for years.
Here are a few of the most high-profile flying foul-ups (some of which are directly tied to the no-fly list, while others are less clear).
Cat on a leash
In 2004, a Washington-bound United Airlines flight from London was diverted to Maine after officials discovered Yusuf Islam, the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was on board. Islam was denied entry into the U.S. and made to return to the U.K.
"Celebrity or unknown, our job is to act on information that others have given us," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said at the time. "And in this instance, there was some relationship between the name and the terrorists' activity with this individual's name being on that no-fly list, and appropriate action was taken."
But there was no further formal explanation and Islam was allowed in 2006 to enter the U.S. without incident.
A famous senator
Sen. Ted Kennedy told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004 that he had been stopped and interrogated on at least five occasions as he attempted to board flights at several different airports. A Bush administration official explained to the Washington Post that Kennedy had been held up because the name "T. Kennedy" had become a popular pseudonym among terror suspects.
John Lewis's long year
On the same day Kennedy revealed his flight troubles, civil rights icon and longtime Rep. John Lewis revealed he, too, had been snarled by the watchlist dragnet. According to his office, the Georgia Democrat had over the course of a year been held up 35 to 40 times. Despite reaching out to a number of federal agencies over that period, Lewis' name had remained on a list.
Oh, baby
JUST WATCHEDNo-fly toddler? Girl removed from flight
ReplayMore Videos ...MUST WATCH
No-fly toddler? Girl removed from flight 01:50No-fly headaches aren't just for international pop stars and federal lawmakers. In 2012, Jet Blue removed an 18-month-old child from a flight before takeoff.
The girl's mother, speaking to a CNN affiliate, said she was informed by an airline employee, "Your daughter was flagged as no fly."
The TSA, which usually remains mum on these matters, categorically denied that young Riyanna had been flagged. JetBlue later apologized, blaming the incident on a computer "glitch." There are multiple reports of children, at least two under the age of 10, being delayed because of similar errors.
The adventures of Ozzie and Harriet's son
The post-9/11 skies have not been so friendly to an assortment of David Nelsons, most notably the late actor and producer who starred as child on ABC's "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." In 2002, a ticket agent in Los Angeles stopped him from boarding a Salt Lake City-bound flight after his name popped up on a watch list. He was eventually allowed to board, but many others with similar names were not so lucky.
Caught up in the story
Two journalists, CNN's own Drew Griffin and Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, have also been tangled up in the messy system. Hayes learned he had been added to a terror database. Why? Hayes told NPR last year he doesn't know for sure, but says a TSA agent told him trips to Turkey, including a one-way flight into Istanbul, probably did the trick.
In 2008, soon after filing a report on the federal air marshals program, Griffin discovered his name was on a no-fly list. Responding to a call for an investigation by House Democrats, then Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said it was "not my understanding" the reporter was placed on the list, but conceded, "We do have circumstances where we have name mismatches."
emoody007:
Why should a person be denied the right to keep and bear arms as provided in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution simply because that person (or another person with the same name) is on the secret no fly list?
Consider this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...ma-background-checks-not-include-no-fly-list/
And this from the CNN website:
No-fly nightmares: The program's most embarrassing mistakes
By Gregory Krieg, CNN
Updated 3:26 PM ET, Mon December 7, 2015
Story highlightsSome prominent people - who aren't terrorists - have been banned from flying
The list has once again become a political hot potato as the gun-control debate heats up
(CNN)—The twin debates over gun control and terrorism are converging at the airport.
Democrats want to use the federal government's no-fly list, meant to keep suspected terrorists grounded, as a guideline for enforcing new laws to restrict firearm purchases.
Senate Republicans blocked that effort last week, but President Barack Obama kept up his push this weekend.
"Right now, people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "That is insane." He made a similar appeal during his address to the nation on Sunday night.
The new initiative is reviving questions about the legality and efficacy of the no-fly list, which has drawn criticism and challenges in court by civil rights groups, including the ACLU.
Read More
After losing a key ruling in a recent lawsuit, the federal government in April said it would begin to proactively inform people of their status and create a more transparent system for contesting the designation — a process the ACLU once described as a "Kafkaesque bureaucracy."
While the criteria for adding individuals to the list remains murky, one thing is for sure: it's still a lot easier to get on the list than get off it. Even in clear cases of mistaken identity or clerical blundering, a name can linger in the system for years.
Here are a few of the most high-profile flying foul-ups (some of which are directly tied to the no-fly list, while others are less clear).
Cat on a leash
In 2004, a Washington-bound United Airlines flight from London was diverted to Maine after officials discovered Yusuf Islam, the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was on board. Islam was denied entry into the U.S. and made to return to the U.K.
"Celebrity or unknown, our job is to act on information that others have given us," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said at the time. "And in this instance, there was some relationship between the name and the terrorists' activity with this individual's name being on that no-fly list, and appropriate action was taken."
But there was no further formal explanation and Islam was allowed in 2006 to enter the U.S. without incident.
A famous senator
Sen. Ted Kennedy told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004 that he had been stopped and interrogated on at least five occasions as he attempted to board flights at several different airports. A Bush administration official explained to the Washington Post that Kennedy had been held up because the name "T. Kennedy" had become a popular pseudonym among terror suspects.
John Lewis's long year
On the same day Kennedy revealed his flight troubles, civil rights icon and longtime Rep. John Lewis revealed he, too, had been snarled by the watchlist dragnet. According to his office, the Georgia Democrat had over the course of a year been held up 35 to 40 times. Despite reaching out to a number of federal agencies over that period, Lewis' name had remained on a list.
Oh, baby
JUST WATCHEDNo-fly toddler? Girl removed from flight
ReplayMore Videos ...MUST WATCH
No-fly toddler? Girl removed from flight 01:50No-fly headaches aren't just for international pop stars and federal lawmakers. In 2012, Jet Blue removed an 18-month-old child from a flight before takeoff.
The girl's mother, speaking to a CNN affiliate, said she was informed by an airline employee, "Your daughter was flagged as no fly."
The TSA, which usually remains mum on these matters, categorically denied that young Riyanna had been flagged. JetBlue later apologized, blaming the incident on a computer "glitch." There are multiple reports of children, at least two under the age of 10, being delayed because of similar errors.
The adventures of Ozzie and Harriet's son
The post-9/11 skies have not been so friendly to an assortment of David Nelsons, most notably the late actor and producer who starred as child on ABC's "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." In 2002, a ticket agent in Los Angeles stopped him from boarding a Salt Lake City-bound flight after his name popped up on a watch list. He was eventually allowed to board, but many others with similar names were not so lucky.
Caught up in the story
Two journalists, CNN's own Drew Griffin and Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, have also been tangled up in the messy system. Hayes learned he had been added to a terror database. Why? Hayes told NPR last year he doesn't know for sure, but says a TSA agent told him trips to Turkey, including a one-way flight into Istanbul, probably did the trick.
In 2008, soon after filing a report on the federal air marshals program, Griffin discovered his name was on a no-fly list. Responding to a call for an investigation by House Democrats, then Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said it was "not my understanding" the reporter was placed on the list, but conceded, "We do have circumstances where we have name mismatches."
Last edited:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-watch-list-20151207-story.html
Even the LA Times editors understand why the No Rights List is wrong.
Even the LA Times editors understand why the No Rights List is wrong.
Do you have a "right" to fly??
Some people might say so.
Others would argue that you don't.
Its a bit of a curious situation, this no fly list. Besides what has already been said (and its validity), consider this,
The government at its whim, can put you on a list forbidding commercial flight, but will prosecute the airlines, if they refuse to sell you a ticket, due to your age, sex, religion, etc.
SO, the folks that own and run airlines cannot deny you a ticket (under Federal EEO laws) but the government can deny you access to the plane (after you have paid for your ticket) due to their SUSPICIONS about you, or (as we have seen,) about someone with the same name you have.
The lack of an enumerated right in the Constitution does NOT mean the right does not exist. The 9th Amendment clearly states this.
It is generally recognized that you have the right to travel, even though it doesn't say that specifically anywhere in the Constitution. (I think travel is considered covered under the "Liberty" part..
)
Now, no right is completely absolute (your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, etc.) so there is some basis for regulating public transport.
Still, the no fly list, as it currently operates is a BAD thing.
If you can't fly, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun is a slick sound bite, but horrid policy.
Turn it around, If you can't buy a gun, you shouldn't be able to fly. Also a slick sound bite, and ALSO horrid policy. Lautenberg put tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens on the prohibited list for firearms ownership.
Does that mean every one of them should be prohibited from getting on an airplane?? (but not prohibited from buying a ticket????)
Lautenberg, at least, requires a conviction in court. The no fly list does not.
Some people might say so.
Others would argue that you don't.
Its a bit of a curious situation, this no fly list. Besides what has already been said (and its validity), consider this,
The government at its whim, can put you on a list forbidding commercial flight, but will prosecute the airlines, if they refuse to sell you a ticket, due to your age, sex, religion, etc.
SO, the folks that own and run airlines cannot deny you a ticket (under Federal EEO laws) but the government can deny you access to the plane (after you have paid for your ticket) due to their SUSPICIONS about you, or (as we have seen,) about someone with the same name you have.
The lack of an enumerated right in the Constitution does NOT mean the right does not exist. The 9th Amendment clearly states this.
It is generally recognized that you have the right to travel, even though it doesn't say that specifically anywhere in the Constitution. (I think travel is considered covered under the "Liberty" part..
)Now, no right is completely absolute (your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, etc.) so there is some basis for regulating public transport.
Still, the no fly list, as it currently operates is a BAD thing.
If you can't fly, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun is a slick sound bite, but horrid policy.
Turn it around, If you can't buy a gun, you shouldn't be able to fly. Also a slick sound bite, and ALSO horrid policy. Lautenberg put tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens on the prohibited list for firearms ownership.
Does that mean every one of them should be prohibited from getting on an airplane?? (but not prohibited from buying a ticket????
)Lautenberg, at least, requires a conviction in court. The no fly list does not.
kilimanjaro
New member
If the proposal were turned around like you suggest, 'If you can't guy a gun, you can't board a plane', the left would freak.
Let's see, felons, Lautenberg, illegal aliens, mental health issues, potheads and alcoholics, etc.
Maybe flying coach would improve a little.
Let's see, felons, Lautenberg, illegal aliens, mental health issues, potheads and alcoholics, etc.
Maybe flying coach would improve a little.
44 said:
Unless your underlying assumption us that people who aren't on the list also shouldn't be buying firearms.
On the other hand, if one believes a right is involved then his reaction would be the same if BHO's idea were:
If you can't fly because you are on a federal list, you shouldn't be permitted vote, speak publicly, publish any writing, contribute to any political campaign, travel, marry, attend any church not established by the federal government or file a habeas petition.
As noted by others, the list bears no relation to due process, but does have a level of opacity that approaches "ask us no questions and we'll tell you no lies". That isn't a standard associated with limited government.
k said:
Some might not like it, but the rationale for requiring a background check prior to boarding is no worse than the requirement prior to a gun purchase. You are letting a person onto a delicate machine a mile in the sky, and handing him an opportunity to kill thousands. Sounds like common sense airplane legislation.
Last edited:
rickyrick said:
Sounds like typical BS. How did the people that you've known find this out? Only way to appeal the no-fly list is through DHS T.R.I.P. (Traveler Redress Inquiry Program).
http://www.dhs.gov/step-1-should-i-use-dhs-trip
They aren't required to give any reason at all, and I have a very hard time believing that they would respond to anyone that that person was on the no-fly list for holding a Ron Paul sign even if it was true.
This was a relative couple of mine, they tried to book a flight and were told that they were on the no fly list, this is not bs, I'm not sure that they have ever gotten off of it.
What is a guess is to why, no one knows. Both do legally own firearms. This couple does not know why, but the Ron Paul support is the only thing that they can come up with. They had spent time protesting the federal reserve. Which is a legal activity. They were questioned by police several times while doing so.
Now some feel that protesting the Fed is subversive.
I have supported other politicians by simply holding signs on the street corner and have been harassed by police as well as receiving threats. Many occasions people are given grief for supporting certain candidates
What is a guess is to why, no one knows. Both do legally own firearms. This couple does not know why, but the Ron Paul support is the only thing that they can come up with. They had spent time protesting the federal reserve. Which is a legal activity. They were questioned by police several times while doing so.
Now some feel that protesting the Fed is subversive.
I have supported other politicians by simply holding signs on the street corner and have been harassed by police as well as receiving threats. Many occasions people are given grief for supporting certain candidates
I think we could avoid a lot of the risks if we simply required every one to fly naked (after a body cavity search) and securely manacled to their seats until the plane lands at its destination. We could even provide a courtesy "hose off" at the landing gate....(warm water at additional cost, of course...)
I know it won't happen, but I'm confident it would work!
I also know if it was implemented, it would absolutely guarantee I never fly again.
)I know it won't happen, but I'm confident it would work!
I also know if it was implemented, it would absolutely guarantee I never fly again.
The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights to citizens. It restricts the actions of government. In the case of the Second Amendment, it prohibits the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
A Constitutional right that the government can suspend at will, without a shred of due process, is no right at all.
A Constitutional right that the government can suspend at will, without a shred of due process, is no right at all.
shooterdownunder
New member
Does the OP have a crystal ball?
Conneticut is going to start using the no fly to disqualify firearm purchasers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/n...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Conneticut is going to start using the no fly to disqualify firearm purchasers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/n...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
kilimanjaro
New member
Yep, we should push for removal from public office anyone on the list. I know it's a moot point, but wasn't Ted Kennedy on the list? That certainly would have gotten some 'due process' constitutionality going.
Trey Gowdy questions DHS official on the proposed Gun Ban for those on the "list".
She didn't do so good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg
She didn't do so good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg