Support NeoGAF

[GK86]

Link. Didn't see a thread.

With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he would sign an executive order that would bar people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.

Mr. Malloy said Connecticut would become the first state in the nation to have such a measure.

“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” said Mr. Malloy, a Democrat. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America — and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.”

Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including measures enacted in 2013 after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012. In that attack, a gunman killed 20 schoolchildren and six staff members before killing himself.

On the federal level, mass shootings have failed to prompt any action on guns.

On Sunday, President Obama, in a televised address to the nation on the threat of terrorism, called for federal regulations that would bar those on the federal no-fly list from buying guns.

“What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?” Mr. Obama said. “This is a matter of national security.”

But support for such a measure has split largely along party lines.

Last week, a measure that would have expanded background checks for people who wanted to buy guns was defeated in the Senate.. All four Republican senators who are running for president — Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio — voted against it.

It remains unclear whether and how the state would gain access to the names on the federal watch lists.

Devon Puglia, a spokesman for Mr. Malloy, said the governor’s office was “working with the federal government to use federal watch lists for this specific purpose.”

In his announcement, Mr. Malloy said that across the nation, people on terrorism watch lists tried to buy guns and explosives 2,233 times between 2004 and 2014, according to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They succeeded 2,043 times.

“I have previously written to Congress on this matter,” he said. “But inaction is not an option. So here in Connecticut, we are acting.”

 

[Funky Papa]

How the hell this was not even a thing?

Edit: As explained later in the thread, terror lists are terrible and this would mess with due process. You can stop quoting this post.

 

[Bornstellar]

I imagine It'll be overturned in court because it violates due process.

How the hell this was not even a thing?

There is no judicial oversight on the creation of these lists.

+

Outside of any gun politics, ya'll do remember how fucked up these lists can be right.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Largely toothless, considering people can just cross state lines. Let's see which law Republicans look to address first, the broken "no fly" list, or the gun control measure based on the list. You'd think you'd want to fix the former and let the latter sort itself out.

 

[Icefire1424]

So this implies that individuals currently on a federal terrorism watch list can buy guns in this country?

Man, that's pretty scary.

 

[donkey show]

 

[MathUser]

This sure makes sense. No sarcasm intended. You'd think these people wouldn't be able to buy a gun in US tho.

 

[Mudcrab]

Outside of any gun politics, ya'll do remember how fucked up these lists can be right? Wasn't an 8 year old on a terrorist watch list at one point?

Spoiler

Don't sell him a gun either.

 

[backflip10019]

Dan Malloy finally did a smart thing.

 

[entremet]

How the hell this was not even a thing?

The second amendment if they are citizens makes it tricky.

Pretty sure it could be challenged via court under those pretenses too.

 

[kabel]

In other states they can.....ehhh, what?

First the "shootings in your area" thread and now this....


I would never go out of my house if I lived in the US.

 

[cwmartin]

Stay away from the CT subreddit. YIKES emberassed for my fellow Connecticut brethren.

As said above, likely won't hold legal weight due to violating due process as these lists have no oversight.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Wait this wasn't already a thing?

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

The main reason conservatives disagree with this is because they are afraid that if they hold anti-government/right wing values, the government could label them as potential domestic terrorist, and they would be denied guns or have their guns taken.

 

[Mollymauk]

I dunno. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

 

[User 479360]

This is a joke, right? Why would this be allowed in the first place?

Silly America

 

[Bornstellar]

ITT, people demonstrate profound ignorance of what due process is and why it is important to preserve.

The main reason conservatives disagree with this is because they are afraid that if they hold anti-government/right wing values, the government could label them as potential domestic terrorist, and they would be denied guns or have their guns taken.

Everyone should be against this since if enforced it furthers the ability of the government to strip you of your rights without trial with a jury of your peers.

You guys are advocating allowing the government to convict you for a crime you have not committed.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

So this implies that individuals currently on a federal terrorism watch list can buy guns in this country?

Man, that's pretty scary.

Well, given that these lists are bullshit and completely innocent people end up on them, I'd be hesitant about using them as the basis for measures like this.

Of course it's funny that conservatives only give a shit now that gun sales will be affected. Not so much when innocent brown people have their lives affected.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

So this implies that individuals currently on a federal terrorism watch list can buy guns in this country?

Man, that's pretty scary.

Well, as someone else stated, there is no oversight, due process, or ability to review and appeal these lists. Nobody has been convicted. It would be a violation of due process rights to deny someone when they have no conviction preventing it.

Laws and rights in the US are complicated. And while something does sound great on paper and a no-brainer, there are legal considerations to be made.

That being said, I'm sure Connecticut has looked into this stuff. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a government has had a law thrown out on constitutional grounds.

 

[Bloomers]

The coming from a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation btw

 

[Funky Papa]

Outside of any gun politics, ya'll do remember how fucked up these lists can be right? Wasn't an 8 year old on a terrorist watch list at one point? [spolier]Don't sell him a gun either.[/spoiler]

Regardless of terror list being a fucky thing in America, you'd think that preventing the purchase of firearms would be one of their priorities.

Granted, I'm not really that versed on American laws, but this seems like such a "no shit" subject to me. Loopholes of this caliber should have been closed a long ass time ago.

Edit: Then again, given that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, I guess that it would be hard to implement measures similar to those in other countries without messing with due process. It looks like a terrible situation all around.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I imagine It'll be overturned in court because it violates due process.



There is no judicial oversight on the creation of these lists.

+

Yeah, this is my thinking. This is an idea that sounds obvious on first blush, but the no-fly list and its ilk raise constitutional issues if you try to apply them to guns, I think. I'm no constitutional lawyer, though.

 

[Saucy_XL]

This is a joke, right? Why would this be allowed in the first place?

Silly America

No due process to get on the list, and having a right taken a way usually requires at least that.

Edit: I do believe states have enough power to make laws like this though, it'd be a much bigger issue at the federal level though.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The second amendment if they are citizens makes it tricky.

Pretty sure it could be challenged via court under those pretenses too.

I'd think this is more a 5th amendment issue, not 2nd.

 

[codhand]

Dan Malloy finally did a smart thing.

he decriminalized pot you twit.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

Outside of any gun politics, ya'll do remember how fucked up these lists can be right? Wasn't an 8 year old on a terrorist watch list at one point?

Spoiler

Don't sell him a gun either.

Yeah, the idea sounds good but in practise there are big flaws.
Could it be struck down as unconstitutional due to the right to bear arms and the lack of judicial process when constructing the lists?
I'm from the UK so forgive me if i'm wrong.

edit: those points have already been raised i see.

 

[ColdPizza]

Regardless of terror list being a fucky thing in America, you'd think that preventing the purchase of firearms would be one of their priorities.

Granted, I'm not really that versed on American laws, but this seems like such a "no shit" subject to me. Loopholes of this caliber should have been closed a long ass time ago.

The US Federal government doesn't share the criteria or the proof that causes someone go to on that list, so you can imagine why there are some who don't want this measure to pass. Several other posts have mentioned due process here already.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Yeah, the idea sounds good but in practise there are big flaws.
Could it be struck down as unconstitutional due to the right to bear arms and the lack of judicial process when constructing the lists?
I'm from the UK so forgive me if i'm wrong.

Exactly. Wouldn't even be a second amendment argument. It'd be a fifth amendment argument.

 

[entremet]

ITT, people demonstrate profound ignorance of what due process is and why it is important to preserve.



Everyone should be against this since if enforced it furthers the ability of the government to strip you of your rights without trial with a jury of your peers.

Good post.

And I'm not into guns.

This may go to SCOTUS.

 

[Savitar]

It blows my mind you could be on a terrorist list and get a gun.

I mean, yeah, nice protection job there.

How could these things ever keep happening, oh wait.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

ITT, people demonstrate profound ignorance of what due process is and why it is important to preserve.



Everyone should be against this since if enforced it furthers the ability of the government to strip you of your rights without trial with a jury of your peers.

I could go either way on it. I wasn't posting the reason as a way to make a poke at the argument, its just something that the GOP leaders/president candidates won't say out loud.

 

[davepoobond]

i mean, people need to realize what a constitutional right entails. it cannot be taken away without due process. any procedure that does is considered unconstitutional.

having a gun, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, they are all protected by the same processes.


it is interesting that a state is enacting this, i have no idea how they expect to enforce it without access to something on the federal level. a state has much more leniency to passing gun laws.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Now we just classify everyone as terrorists and effectively ban guns.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

Outside of any gun politics, ya'll do remember how fucked up these lists can be right? Wasn't an 8 year old on a terrorist watch list at one point?

Spoiler

Don't sell him a gun either.

Given what has been going on in the United States over the past 15 years, you'd think people would put a little more thought into this issue than "Guns bad, so this good".

Yes guys, lets all celebrate an extrajudicial process whereby a seemingly arbitrary,admittedly faulty list can be used to determine which rights and privileges you are and aren't entitled to. This isn't the slippery slope: it's the busy intersection at the bottom.

 

[KingBroly]

Good post.

And I'm not into guns.

This may go to SCOTUS.

It'd go to SCOTUS, regardless of what happens along the way because the people wanting it to pass would want the power to do so (Unless they want to show why they can't do this, which would be really stupid). It'd probably get thrown out at District Court of Appeals, if not State Supreme Court.

 

[Funky Papa]

The US Federal government doesn't share the criteria or the proof that causes someone go to on that list, so you can imagine why there are some who don't want this measure to pass. Several other posts have mentioned due process here already.

I had no idea about the bolded.

I guess that not only gun ownership needs to be properly regulated, but also the protocols used to run such lists. Obscurity should not be tolerated, specially since it may prevent useful measures such as the one listed at the OP from happening.

What a mess.

 

[Mudcrab]

It blows my mind you could be on a terrorist list and get a gun.

I mean, yeah, nice protection job there.

How could these things ever keep happening, oh wait.

Due process is a thing dude. Some people are on these lists because they have the wrong last name, or some government employee thought their skin color was dark enough for them to be put on the list.

Basing any kind of law on these lists is fucked up.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I know many on GAF hates guns and all, but a lot of people are ignoring the larger legal issues here. Essentially all you have to look at is it is a government taking away a right from someone (assuming they're citizens), without their ability to answer to any charges or be convicted of anything. That is not a good thing.

Then again, I shouldn't be shocked at some of the responses given the default reaction to mass surveillance isn't "My rights are being shit on, it has to stop now," it's "I have nothing to hide so I don't care if the government shits on the 4th amendment."

 

[dreamlongdead]

How the hell this was not even a thing?

LOL. Connecticut has some of the strongest gun control policies, too. I found this chart online. The picture was to large to render, so I kept it as a link.

https://content.njdc.com/media/media/2015/12/04/guns-mainchart-1203.png

 

[davepoobond]

I had no idea about the bolded.

I guess that not only gun ownership needs to be properly regulated, but also the protocols used to run such lists. Obscurity should not be tolerated, specially since it may prevent useful measures such as the one listed at the OP from happening.

What a mess.

they werent really built with that in mind. besides, the proper way to take away/curb someone's rights is already established -- its called the court system (and the legislative system)

 

[timetokill]

How the hell this was not even a thing?

So this implies that individuals currently on a federal terrorism watch list can buy guns in this country?

Man, that's pretty scary.

This sure makes sense. No sarcasm intended. You'd think these people wouldn't be able to buy a gun in US tho.

In other states they can.....ehhh, what?

First the "shootings in your area" thread and now this....


I would never go out of my house if I lived in the US.

Wait this wasn't already a thing?

This is a joke, right? Why would this be allowed in the first place?

Silly America

It blows my mind you could be on a terrorist list and get a gun.

I mean, yeah, nice protection job there.

How could these things ever keep happening, oh wait.

Some of us think we actually have a right to due process.

But hey, naw, let's just give in to fear and fascism. A secret government list with no accountability or oversight should definitely determine whether we have rights or not!

Great idea, guys.

 

[eznark]

What a fun way for Connecticut taxpayers to lose a bunch of money fighting this in court.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So how does this work in reality? Like...I assume people aren't supposed to know that they are on a federal watch list, right? I'd like to know what the process will be for those who are on the list that keeps them from being alerted.

 

[OverBlood 3]

"you're only allowed 5 grenades you naughty terrorist'

 

[Yaboosh]

The second amendment was never incorporated was it?

State laws can contradict the 2nd Amendment I believe.


Never mind, i see that it did happen fairly recently.

 

[Funky Papa]

Some of us think we actually have a right to due process.

But hey, naw, let's just give in to fear and fascism. A secret government list with no accountability or oversight should definitely determine whether we have rights or not!

Great idea, guys.

Let's not get that ahead. I wasn't even aware of the challenges of something like this. I'm not American neither privy to your peculiarities when it comes to due process and gun ownership. I get it now.

The situation remains toxic as fuck, but I get it.

 

[Mifune]

And what about the people who are not on terrorism watch lists? You know, the ones who perpetrate most of the mass shootings in this country?

Another terrible band-aid approach that will do nothing except make legislators think that they've done something.

 

[Balphon]

The second amendment was never incorporated was it?

State laws can contradict the 2nd Amendment I believe.

It was, in 2010.

I don't know what's worse: the obvious civil rights issue or the fact that the policy behind this is nonsensical and bound to be ineffective at addressing the issue it purports to target.

 

[RDreamer]

How the hell this was not even a thing?

Because, unfortunately, we define gun ownership as a right. We also don't take away rights if you're suspected of something without any real trial to prove your guilt. The watch lists are suspects and can be pretty flimsy. We can't take away their constitutional rights simply because they're on a watch list.

That said, gun ownership shouldn't be a fucking right, but here we are.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

So how does this work in reality? Like...I assume people aren't supposed to know that they are on a federal watch list, right? I'd like to know what the process will be for those who are on the list that keeps them from being alerted.

Good point, could people go to Connecticut, try to buy a gun, get refused and assume they're on a list? I assume there's a lot of reasons to decline a gun sale though so they could just use one of those reasons instead?