No fly list...

dans2992

dans2992

En-Route
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
4,016
Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
If you are on the "no-fly" list and are a US Citizen, can you obtain a pilot certificate?
 
The no fly list is a joke anyways. It's grown so large and been used so many times out of its original scope that it needs to go away NOW.
 
Last night in a Fox News round table after the President's speech, one of the participants had found themselves on the no-fly list for travel to and from a certain country as a reporter.

After the IRS abuses, it's not a reach to think the list could be abused. Someone with ties to groups with "freedom" or "patriot" or "tea party" in their names or mentioned in emails could find themselves there, and not even know why.

Without due process, the whole idea is troubling.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Last night in a Fox News round table after the President's speech, one of the participants had found themselves on the no-fly list for travel to and from a certain country as a reporter.

After the IRS abuses, it's not a reach to think the list could be abused. Someone with ties to groups with "freedom" or "patriot" or "tea party" could find themselves there, and not even know why.

Without due process, the whole idea is troubling.
Click to expand...

Who needs "due process" anyway? It's a good time to get rid of it anyway. Magna Carta turned 500 this year, so "due process" has had a good run, time to just let it go.

We already have the AG saying we need to prosecute people for rhetoric that she doesn't like.
 
FastEddieB said:
Last night in a Fox News round table after the President's speech, one of the participants had found themselves on the no-fly list for travel to and from a certain country as a reporter.

After the IRS abuses, it's not a reach to think the list could be abused. Someone with ties to groups with "freedom" or "patriot" or "tea party" could find themselves there, and not even know why.

Without due process, the whole idea is troubling.
Click to expand...

The other problem is that "watch lists" may be constitutional strictly in terms of authorizing surveillance, assuming that there is sufficient probable cause to justify watching a person; but the bar should be much higher when it comes to actually depriving a person of any right or privilege.

This is also one of the three big problems with the President's and others' calls to prevent citizens on watch lists from buying guns. Being watched may be justified by suspicion alone, but suspicion alone is not sufficient cause to deprive a person of their rights.

The other two problems are:

Firstly, that preventing possible terrorists or sympathizers from buying guns forces the government to tip its hand by providing a simple way for these people to find out whether they're being watched. All they have to do is attempt to purchase a cheap varmint rifle, preferably one chambered for the .223 Remington cartridge (which can also be fired in M-16 / AR-15 rifles chambered for the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge).

If the person is able to buy the rifle, they would know they're not on a watch list. They could then obtain a hunting license and buy hunting-related paraphernalia, thus creating a plausible reason for purchasing ammunition, which they could then stockpile.

If the person is unable to buy the rifle, however, they would know that their cover had been blown, and whatever intelligence might otherwise have been gained from surveilling them would be lost.

Secondly, the fact that a person of interest is allowed to purchase a firearm is presently reported to ATF and DHS, who presumably intensify their surveillance accordingly. This could lead to additional intelligence with regard to associates, plans, and so forth that would be lost if the individuals had been turned away.

Rich
 
A way to get on the list is to be in a group that is under suspicion. Since Liar Clinton has called the NRA a terrorist group then when she is President she will include the NRA in the watch list. She will also restrict gun ownership for those on the list and no one in the NRA will be allowed to own a gun. QED.
 
RJM62 said:
The other problem is that "watch lists" may be constitutional strictly in terms of authorizing surveillance, assuming that there is sufficient probable cause to justify watching a person; but the bar should be much higher when it comes to actually depriving a person of any right or privilege.

This is also one of the three big problems with the President's and others' calls to prevent citizens on watch lists from buying guns. Being watched may be justified by suspicion alone, but suspicion alone is not sufficient cause to deprive a person of their rights.

The other two problems are:

Firstly, that preventing possible terrorists or sympathizers from buying guns forces the government to tip its hand by providing a simple way for these people to find out whether they're being watched. All they have to do is attempt to purchase a cheap varmint rifle, preferably one chambered for the .223 Remington cartridge (which can also be fired in M-16 / AR-15 rifles chambered for the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge).

If the person is able to buy the rifle, they would know they're not on a watch list. They could then obtain a hunting license and buy hunting-related paraphernalia, thus creating a plausible reason for purchasing ammunition, which they could then stockpile.

If the person is unable to buy the rifle, however, they would know that their cover had been blown, and whatever intelligence might otherwise have been gained from surveilling them would be lost.

Secondly, the fact that a person of interest is allowed to purchase a firearm is presently reported to ATF and DHS, who presumably intensify their surveillance accordingly. This could lead to additional intelligence with regard to associates, plans, and so forth that would be lost if the individuals had been turned away.

Rich
Click to expand...


Someone being on a no-fly list being able to purchase guns sounds bad, I agree. But when you dig into it, as Rich has done for us, there are many reasons why it does not make sense to put this into law.

#1 is that it would go to the supreme court, and it (should) not be upheld. As there is no due process for being placed on a no-fly list, and you can't be deprived of rights without due process.

#2 The watch lists seem poorly managed anyway.

#3 If someone really is a threat, is living here and the only thing they can't do is buy guns legally, we are still in a world of trouble. IED's and suicide bombs are a favorite. Not to mention, the availability of illegal guns. Look at the paris attacks, those guys had grenades, suicide vests, AK47's...
 
Last edited:
Rich hit the main points pretty well. I would also add that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country already, if not the strictest, and this attack still happened.
 
Last edited:
The "no fly list" doesn't fall under criminal law, but under administrative law. As such it has no effect other than keeping you off commercial airplanes.
 
bullwinkle said:
The "no fly list" doesn't fall under criminal law, but under administrative law. As such it has no effect other than keeping you off commercial airplanes.
Click to expand...
It sure would be nice for those who are on the list to be able to prove their innocence and be removed from the list. It's certainly understandable, and needed, for certain people to be watched closer but we're all humans and we make mistakes and as such the wrong people end up on that list. Or in some cases, are probably placed on there on purpose out of retribution (that reporter is a potential example though I don't know why he was placed on there).

bullwinkle said:
If we are allowed due process, the terrorists win.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this?
 
Last edited:
LevelWing said:
It sure would be nice for those who are on the list to be able to prove their innocence and be removed from the list.
Click to expand...

"be able to prove their innocence"

I think the terrorists have already won if that's a mainstream attitude. Used to be people were innocent until they were proven guilty, but I guess that's no longer the case, one must now prove their innocence.
 
JeffDG said:
"be able to prove their innocence"

I think the terrorists have already won if that's a mainstream attitude. Used to be people were innocent until they were proven guilty, but I guess that's no longer the case, one must now prove their innocence.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, thanks for pointing that out. I edited my post and lined through it. I'm surprised I even typed that; I didn't proof read it well enough I guess.
 
Since I took the time to write this for posting in another forum...

(responding to a post implying it was better to deny a non-terrorist a gun than to allow a terrorist access to one.)



I am glad I'm on a forum like this to give my internet excursions "balance".

I think I've parsed the meaning of the above correctly. The position being its fine if innocent people are placed on no-fly lists - and hence denied constitutional rights to purchase lawful firearms - without knowing why, so long as the end result justifies it.

It just seems to me that position is indicative of either a lack of imagination, a lack of empathy, or both.

I've read both "The Trial" and "1984". I can imagine going to the airport and being denied getting on a plane with the only justification being, "You're on a list". Or going to buy some ammo or a gun and being told the same thing. All without recourse to confronting my accuser or any sort of due process.

The nexus to being placed on such a list could just be an algorithm that looked for key word in posts or emails. Or not - who knows? But in any case, how many of us might be swept up in an overly wide net that looked for keywords like "Allah" or "Muslim" or "Terrorist" or "AR15" or even "no-fly list".

Or it could be something as banal as a petty bureaucrat with a grudge or a simple clerical error.

Oh, and in addition to the books mentioned above, I've also listened to Frank Zappa's "Freak Out". And yes, Suzy Creamcheese, it CAN happen here!
 
Reminds me of Joe McCarthy and being on a blacklist.
 
LevelWing said:
Can you explain this?
Click to expand...

Sure:

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing; More
 
To "prove innocence" a charge must be made. The no fly list neatly encapsulates what the Constitution was designed to prevent: capricious government action to restrict individuals' freedom not based on proof of any wrongdoing, but merely the vague sense that a person MIGHT be up to no good, based on...well, whatever they decide to base it on. We're not allowed to know why. You know, to protect us.
 
bullwinkle said:
Sure:

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing; More
Click to expand...

Or...

sar·chasm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun

The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
 
Innocent until proven guilty is going the way of the doh doh bird

I feel sorry for all the men and women we have overseas getting shot at all for the illusion of protecting America, frankly our country is loosing the war and it ain't from some isis idiot with a AK, it's senators and media using fear mongering to strip the constitution.
 
Being on the watch list should not preclude you frrom flying either. It should at most be a reason for someone and their luggage to be subject to additional search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top