NRA Now Backing "No Fly, No Buy..."?

[vito]

Its a complicated issue, but the reality that for most Americans they want a simple and easy answer. Getting into a discussion of "due process" and possible government abuses of power causes most non-gun folks' eyes to glaze over. The appeal of saying something like "lets not allow people on a government watch list from buying guns" is politically appealing in its simplicity.

Personally I take a dim view of "government lists" in general. Several years ago I went to the airport and tried to get my boarding pass from the kiosk at the airline for which I had purchased my ticket. The machine would not allow me to get the pass, but stated that I had to check with airline officials. Going to the desk (after waiting on a lengthy line with the folks checking luggage or actually buying a ticket) I finally reached the airline representative, who after plunking my name into the computer, told me to wait while he went for some TSA officials. These officials then asked me to go to a room where they asked me various questions about myself, and directly refused to answer my questions about what it is they were concerned about. For what its worth, I'm a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, who had carried a Top Secret security clearance while on active duty. I have never been arrested, let alone charged with a crime. After several minutes of questioning I was given my boarding pass. The same thing occurred the very next time I was flying commercially. Fortunately a friend who had been a travel agent informed me of a website where I could download a request form to send to the TSA. I completed the form and a few months later received a letter from the TSA giving me what they call a TSA Redress Number. The letter never says whether or not they have suspicions about me or what list if any I am on, let alone if I have been taken off said list. This was several years ago. Recently I returned from my first overseas trip in 35 years, and when attempting to go through the U.S. Customs/Border Security station in the airport, after completing the questions on the computer that I was directed to, my "receipt", which normally allows a U.S. citizen to quickly go through the security to re-enter the country, came out with a big "X" on it and I was directed to the line for NON-citizens entering the country. Eventually I was "cleared" and allowed to re-enter the U.S. I still have no clue as to why I am subject to this extra scrutiny and harassment. Also FWIW, I asked for assistance on this from my Congressman and was told that he could do nothing about this for me. So forgive me if I am not as trusting of the government as some seem to be and not so willing to see my 2nd Amendment rights possibly withheld because some government bureaucrat incorrectly added me to some government watch list.

[Obambulate]

It's tyrannical. It's thought crime.

Even the "no-fly" list makes absolutely no sense. Why does it even matter who you are? What matters is WHAT YOU BRING ON THE PLANE. Bin Laden could board a flight but how is he gonna hijack a plane, with his toothbrush?

What happens to the person put on a no-gun list? We know he can't buy a gun, but what else? Does his home get SWATted, his firearms collection taken with no compensation?

One example Obama gave as a reason to put someone on these lists is, "visiting an ISIL website". Really? What if you are a journalist writing a story about the ISIL threat? What if you are a citizen who wants to know more about our enemy so he can possibly spot ISIL members here in the U.S.? What if you click on a CNN video of an ISIL beheading? What if you innocently click a link and it redirects you to a "bad" website? Where is the list of websites that will get you on the no-gun list so we can avoid those? What words in emails will get you on the list?

Completely tyrannical.

[Lohman446]

I get the feeling that the gun lobby has been entirely politically outmaneuvered on this one and we have, as a whole, sat back while it happened.

Pretty hard to object to these secret lists with moral authority only when they target you and yet it seems we have allowed just that to happen.

[Nathan]

I thought I posted the list criteria here already:
1) have you had a NICS check for an ar15 within the last 5 years
2) have you ordered ammo online in the last year
3) do you belong to a religious terrorist group (mosque, Catholic Church, Moose Lodge, kkk, etc)<- those are all the same right?
4) do you belong to a gun or religious web forum
5) does your Facebook feed contain posts from hate groups....even when Facebook puts them there
6) have you bought a NICS check this year
7) have you required extra check at the airport in the last 2 years
8) did more than 10% of your last web searches contain "hate" speech: God, Jesus, AR15, job, work, black, white, gun, Allah, CCW, etc.
9) have you made or receive more than 1 overseas phone call in the last month.
10) have you posted a negative comment about the president in the last month


3 or more gets you on the list.
5 or more gets you a 5 yr membership

[pete2]

So, all they gotta do is put your name on the no fly list. I bet you can't get it removed. They just keep chipping away. The guy in Florida was reported to the FBI, they didn't even check him out.

[Lohman446]

They just keep chipping away. The guy in Florida was reported to the FBI, they didn't even check him out.

Probably would have been profiling and we just can't have that now can we?

[JohnKSa]

Mateen was investigated by the FBI for 10 months and on two occasions. That was in addition to whatever background checks he needed to be a security guard at a juvenile detention center. It's likely that he also had a CCW which would have entailed another background check.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-up-empty.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-buildings.php

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/20...cense-florida/

[johnwilliamson062]

The 'no fly' and watch lists need to be attacked by us and others as a start. If their current use is legal new laws need to be written up to make them illegal without due process and some transparency. I don't believe they are truly anywhere close to legal with the current system. In time it will be viewed just as the lists of "Reds" in the middle of the last century. Eventually the abuses of the list and absurd number of clerical errors will come out.
Unlikely to happen though.

[cjwils]

On one of the Sunday morning political talk shows on TV today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that 99.5% of people on the no fly list are foreigners; as if that made it ok. But the list is secret, so can we know if that percentage is true?

[kilimanjaro]

I've heard the percentage of foreigners on the lists are more like half to two-thirds, nothing like 99.5%.

If the number is indeed 99.5%, then the Democrats would lose their anti-gun argument the instant the US public found out it involved only foreigners.

Unless of course, they intend on adding US citizens to the list in wholesale quantities.

[gc70]

The Democrats have waged a pretty good publicity campaign on this issue.

They talk about "No Fly, No Buy" to "keep guns out of the hands of terrorists." The terrorism watch list is not mentioned nearly as frequently as the no-fly list. And the media does not bother with the actual provisions of Feinstein's proposal, which is even broader.

The first reaction of most Americans would be to keep real terrorists from getting guns, which is what the Democrats are claiming loudly to the public. Most Americans would be far less receptive to the idea of suspending constitutional rights without due process, but the Democrats avoid that discussion and the Republicans have failed badly in finding a way to get that idea out to the public.

[1spottedpony]

The Democrats have waged a pretty good publicity campaign on this issue.

They talk about "No Fly, No Buy" to "keep guns out of the hands of terrorists." The terrorism watch list is not mentioned nearly as frequently as the no-fly list. And the media does not bother with the actual provisions of Feinstein's proposal, which is even broader.

The first reaction of most Americans would be to keep real terrorists from getting guns, which is what the Democrats are claiming loudly to the public. Most Americans would be far less receptive to the idea of suspending constitutional rights without due process, but the Democrats avoid that discussion and the Republicans have failed badly in finding a way to get that idea out to the public.

To add a different thought:
What’s to stop the "no fly no buy" scenario from becoming a way to stop gun purchases, in that when anyone attempts a firearms purchase, that attempt automatically puts their name on the no fly list? What better way for the anti-gun faction to stop all gun purchases?
What better way for the anti's in our government to achieve their agenda.
Another (scary) thought that crossed my mind, while slim, is it possible the same faction that wants to take our guns away, actually contracted the shooting in Orlando as a tool to further an eventual complete ban on gun's agenda? Another benefit of having this a hot public issue is it draws attention away from a current investigation into the “secure server” email issue Dems are trying to contain.
That makes it a democratic win/win.

[Slamfire]

Expect in time that every know gun owner, NRA member, shooter, competitor to be added to the Terrorist Watch list. The process of adding people to the Terrorist Watch list is arbitrary and capricious and it will obliterate your Constitutional right to own a firearm.

[natman]

Expect in time that every know gun owner, NRA member, shooter, competitor to be added to the Terrorist Watch list.

They're way ahead of you.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2384289

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...ore-was-needed

Next it will be the Boy Scouts (a known homophobic paramilitary group).

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by 1spottedpony

Another (scary) thought that crossed my mind, while slim, is it possible the same faction that wants to take our guns away, actually contracted the shooting in Orlando as a tool to further an eventual complete ban on gun's agenda?

Belated welcome to the Firing Line, 1spotted. In case you don't know (haven't read the specific rules of this section of TFL), we have enough real world stuff going on that we simply don't have time to run through a list of conspiracy theories. That is exactly what the above is.

Conspiracy Theories are a no-no here. We just don't do them.

[TDL]

Its a complicated issue, but the reality that for most Americans they want a simple and easy answer. Getting into a discussion of "due process" and possible government abuses of power causes most non-gun folks' eyes to glaze over. The appeal of saying something like "lets not allow people on a government watch list from buying guns" is politically appealing in its simplicity.

I agree with your sentiment, but I don't care how many people's eyes glaze over, due process and limiting rights or sanctioning anyone based on what they have been proven to have done when it comes to explicit rights is the core issue.

Both mental illness and some types of restraining orders get to be very problematic when it comes to this issue. I don't mind, and in fact think it is good that many jurisdictions have very very low thresholds for issuing restraining orders. Women wo are at risk from abusive spouses are often the poorest people in the country and getting results in the legal system is often about money. But those low threshold types of orders, with all kinds of otherwise exclude evidence allowed, and low burdens of proof should not be used to limit explicit rights of others,

With mental health half the country (some estimates are 90% of humans) has some form of detectable or classifiable depression or anxiety at some point. Not only would it be an abrogation of rights to limit rights of people who have not been adjudicated, but it also may insure a heck of a lot of people who would seek counseling or professional help with mental illness, do not for fear of being on a list.

Lets face facts: The vast majority, over 95% in the highest murder rate jurisdictions (97% in Baltimore), of murder by persons with prior arrest records. This issue of 'terrorists" with guns is not even a fraction of a percent, and not one suggestion by the gun control lobby would have affected either San Bernardino or Orlando.

I sympathize with the rock and the hard place the NRA was put in here. At least the law being discussed this time around is specific to no fly whereas after San Bernadino there was an attempt to kitchen sink the bills in congress with issues outside of no fly, no buy." So I agree with NRA's DC strategy being acquiescence or support to avoid a withering attack exploiting a public that consistently is ignorant of the facts of the two attacks, and frightening ignorant of the Bill of rights. But as individuals we do need to explain to our fellow citizens why this no due process of r loss of rights scheme is abhorrent -- even if has a cost (and again it has NOT up to now).

[Cnon]

Update, the Senate gun proposals failed today!


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt2


From the article:


A series of dueling gun control measures in the Senate were defeated Monday evening in the first proposed legislation in the wake of the Orlando terror attack.

The four amendments all failed on procedural votes.

The first vote was on the amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to enhance funding for an existing gun background check system which needed 60 votes to pass. The final vote tally was 53 to 47.