Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

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.

The way it works now is you go to the airport and then they say lol, you can't fly. we want to ask you some questions btw!

then after they ask you questions, you might ask, hey, can I fly now?

they say naw, you have to send us mail saying why you think you're not a terrorist.

then you do, and they send a letter back saying we're not changing the list. thanks for asking though!

 

[Netherscourge]

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.

Anything that limits guns sales to anyone is a great idea.

 

[Mudcrab]

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.

You and every Civil Liberties group. We don't even know how people get on the list in the first place. You could be on it or me.

 

[ColdPizza]

I would hope at the very least some alert would pop up when a terror suspect does buy a firearm. I really have ZERO insight as to what databases are cross-linked when registering to buy a gun.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

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.

I would think any challenges would be from 5th amendment grounds, not 2nd. Unless you were meaning 2nd was never incorporated and therefore it doesn't have to be recognized as a right at the state level? Even then background checks are at the federal level or handled by a federal processor, IIRC. And ultimately, state laws don't trump the constitution.

 

[Bornstellar]

Anything that limits guns sales to anyone is a great idea.

"Anything that prevents terrorism is a great idea." /s

 

[Metaphoreus]

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.

This is such a misguided smear. Only gun sales to those same "innocent brown people" will be affected. It isn't as if this move is being coupled with a proposal to expand the lists to include more people.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Many case of federal level over riding state law if permitted. Gay marriage was basically allowed to all the states because of supreme court, regardless of states having their own bans or legalization of it.

Same would apply to abortion. If states could ban abortion, there would be about 30 states right now that would have it banned.

In all of these cases, it was because the supreme court ultimately found it constitutional. If a state ourright banned fire arms, it would be taken to the SCOTUS and ultimately be revoked. However, states are allowed to have their own control measurs like background checks, dictating where guns can be, concealed permits, etc.

 

[timetokill]

Anything that limits guns sales to anyone is a great idea.

The ends justifies the means for you, huh? Well, at least you can admit you're a fascist.

 

[antonz]

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.

It swings both ways. It is bad enough that the list system in place now is as badly flawed as it is and allowed to stand. It should have been ruled unconstitutional from the get go and forced to develop a system that does not violate rights

The fact a list can be drawn up in this fashion and its ok should concern everyone because it could easily be abused.

 

[eznark]

Many case of federal level over riding state law if permitted. Gay marriage was basically allowed to all the states because of supreme court, regardless of states having their own bans or legalization of it.

Same would apply to abortion. If states could ban abortion, there would be about 30 states right now that would have it banned.

In all of these cases, it was because the supreme court ultimately found it constitutional. If a state ourright banned fire arms, it would be taken to the SCOTUS and ultimately be revoked. However, states are allowed to have their own control measurs like background checks, dictating where guns can be, concealed permits, etc.

2nd Amendment is sort of incidental to the legal challenge. It'll be based on the 5th, the fact that the state is using a list which allows for a complete lack of due process to strop someones rights.

 

[superdeluxe]

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.

City of Seattle got smacked down by the State supreme court because they tried to ban guns at parks and preempt the State constitution re guns.

 

[timetokill]

This is such a misguided smear. Only gun sales to those same "innocent brown people" will be affected. It isn't as if this move is being coupled with a proposal to expand the lists to include more people.

Seriously.

Anybody supporting this needs to unpack their racism and willingness to take the rights of innocent people just so they feel safer.

You know, the very thing they accuse the GOP of doing.So

Liberals championing this are such hypocrites.

 

[SummitAve]

A reasonable effort based on total ignorance. I don't know how you can interprate federal law, and end up with this solution. Shows a total lack of consideration.

 

[Metaphoreus]

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

I would think any challenges would be from 5th amendment grounds, not 2nd. Unless you were meaning 2nd was never incorporated and therefore it doesn't have to be recognized as a right at the state level? Even then background checks are at the federal level or handled by a federal processor, IIRC. And ultimately, state laws don't trump the constitution.

2nd Amendment is sort of incidental to the legal challenge. It'll be based on the 5th, the fact that the state is using a list which allows for a complete lack of due process to strop someones rights.

14th, not 5th. (The 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause only applies to the federal government, not to the states; the DPC of the 14th Amendment applies to the states.) But a challenge will allege both procedural and substantive Due Process Clause violations--i.e., (1) this infringes my right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (as incorporated against the states through the 14th), and (2) it does so without sufficient procedural safeguards.

 

[Flo_Evans]

lol I just got this email.

Interesting language, now its another "loophole" like private sales. "loophole" has to be one of my favorite political words. Anytime someone talks about "closing loopholes" you know you are about to get fucked.

I find it reaaaallly hard to believe Obama, a constitutional lawyer, cannot possibly think of an argument against this. They have to know if this is passed it will be overturned by the supreme court?

Here is an idea: How about all the suspected terrorists you either charge them with something or clear them?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

14th, not 5th. (The 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause only applies to the federal government, not to the states; the DPC of the 14th Amendment applies to the states.) But a challenge will allege both procedural and substantive Due Process Clause violations--i.e., (1) this infringes my right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (as incorporated against the states through the 14th), and (2) it does so without sufficient procedural safeguards.

Yeah, makes sense.

 

[reckless]

Seems like the courts will almost certainly strike it down for being unconstitutional...

 

[davepoobond]

Liberals championing this are such hypocrites.

yes, i agree. i would say that i'm mostly a liberal, but i still know the forest for the trees.

there's a right way to do it, and that's how we should do it if that is something that is seriously wanted

lol I just got this email.

Interesting language, now its another "loophole" like private sales. "loophole" has to be one of my favorite political words. Anytime someone talks about "closing loopholes" you know you are about to get fucked.

I find it reaaaallly hard to believe Obama, a constitutional lawyer, cannot possibly think of an argument against this. They have to know if this is passed it will be overturned by the supreme court?

Here is an idea: How about all the suspected terrorists you either charge them with something or clear them?

this is a political tactic.

its supposed to make the GOP look bad here. most people dont understand the constitution.

 

[eznark]

Seems like the courts will almost certainly strike it down for being unconstitutional...

Ideally the ACLU will keep chipping away and the entire bullshit list will get eliminated.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

lol I just got this email.

Interesting language, now its another "loophole" like private sales. "loophole" has to be one of my favorite political words. Anytime someone talks about "closing loopholes" you know you are about to get fucked.

I find it reaaaallly hard to believe Obama, a constitutional lawyer, cannot possibly think of an argument against this. They have to know if this is passed it will be overturned by the supreme court?

Here is an idea: How about all the suspected terrorists you either charge them with something or clear them?

Yeah. I'm actually surprised he's pushing for this so much, because he must know that it can't work.

14th, not 5th. (The 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause only applies to the federal government, not to the states; the DPC of the 14th Amendment applies to the states.) But a challenge will allege both procedural and substantive Due Process Clause violations--i.e., (1) this infringes my right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (as incorporated against the states through the 14th), and (2) it does so without sufficient procedural safeguards.

Thanks for this.

 

[Bornstellar]

lol I just got this email.

Interesting language, now its another "loophole" like private sales. "loophole" has to be one of my favorite political words. Anytime someone talks about "closing loopholes" you know you are about to get fucked.

I find it reaaaallly hard to believe Obama, a constitutional lawyer, cannot possibly think of an argument against this. They have to know if this is passed it will be overturned by the supreme court?

Here is an idea: How about all the suspected terrorists you either charge them with something or clear them?

Wow. Doubling down on this garbage? SMH.

 

[ivysaur12]

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.

Exactly. There is a HUGE due process issue here.

 

[kame-sennin]

Largely toothless, considering people can just cross state lines.

There's still the federal background check system. You need an ID for that. If you have a Connecticut ID and you're buying a gun in Vermont, I would imagine that would raise a red flag.

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.

This is amazing. The gun rates rise as the restrictions decrease. I don't understand why we can't compromise on reasonable regulations (mainly checks and waiting periods).

 

[Htown]

This is one of those restrictions that sounds good until you look at it more closely.

 

[ivysaur12]

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

That's a pretty fantastic graph just to see a snapshot of a relationship between restrictions and death.

 

[AndyD]

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.
...
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.

Is that correct? What are the criteria to get on there?

And they did mention multiple lists. I'd be OK with them using it provided it was relatively transparent way to get on/off there. If it's an unsupervised free-for-all, then both the list and this proposal need to go away.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't think people would have issues with them using the "FBI most wanted list" even though some of those people are not convicted yet either, so I don't see a prior conviction as a minimum step. Or a "dangerous due to mental health" type list.

 

[Ri'Orius]

This is such a misguided smear. Only gun sales to those same "innocent brown people" will be affected. It isn't as if this move is being coupled with a proposal to expand the lists to include more people.

The reason people are outraged isn't because they think they personally will be denied a gun based on this law. They're outraged because they see any attempt at gun regulation as a step closer to a fascist dystopia.

Being allowed to board an airplane should, by any reasonable person, be considered a more fundamental right in modern society than owning a firearm. Unfortunately we've got a lot of people who don't see that. Hopefully by trying to link the no-fly list with gun control we'll get enough outrage to kill the list entirely.

But the fact that so many people were totally fine with barring people from flying without due process but go apeshit over the same list when applied to guns is insane.

 

[appaws]

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

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

+

Ideally the ACLU will keep chipping away and the entire bullshit list will get eliminated.

Yep. These lists are a vile joke. There is a big problem with people of middle-eastern descent who are not even suspected of anything being on the list because of their name having some resemblance to a person who is, with super common names like the Arabic version of "John Smith" to a westerner.

People who do nothing except make a few phone calls home to relatives in the middle-east end up on the list.

One example cited by the ACLU is that people who refuse to become FBI informants have been put on the list as retribution.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Is that correct? What are the criteria to get on there?

And they did mention multiple lists. I'd be OK with them using it provided it was relatively transparent way to get on/off there. As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't think people would have issues with them using the "FBI most wanted list" even though some of those people are not convicted yet either, so I don't see a prior conviction as a minimum step.

Its a secret to everybody. https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/watchlists

 

[Balphon]

Is that correct? What are the criteria to get on there?

The only criterion is that the FBI or another federal agency wants you on the list.

If there are any objective factors being used the FBI has never and likely will never publicly disclose them. The only way for an individual to discover the basis for their placement on the list is to send a petition to the FBI asking for it.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

This is a shitty idea, and the kind of thing gun nuts will cling to as a reason to arm themselves.

 

[commedieu]

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

There are a lot of precog advocates on gaf.

 

[zelas]

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.

Names that shouldn't be on the list is a mistake that can be rectified. Erasing the deadly aftermath of a possible alternative can't be.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Names that shouldn't be on the list is a mistake that can be rectified. Erasing the deadly aftermath of a possible alternative can't be.

trampling on people's rights in a selective and likely bigoted manner is not a way to prevent tragedies.

 

[Scrooged]

How many gun crimes are committed by people on terrorist watch lists?

 

[Mudcrab]

Names that shouldn't be on the list is a mistake that can be rectified. Erasing the deadly aftermath of a possible alternative can't be.

Yeah dude just explain that to the ACLU and every other civil liberties group still dealing with everyone who's had their lives affected by being on one of these lists.

 

[LProtag]

At least my state is making some sort of gun control law?

Yay?

 

[massoluk]

I can't believe NRA and GOP decided to draw a line on this of all things. Why the fuck would you let people on the list buy gun?

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

I can't believe NRA and GOP decided to draw a line on this of all things. Why the fuck would you let people on the list buy gun?

Your name is similar to the known alias of a Boko Haram operative so you've been placed on a list that rescinds your 4th amendment rights without you knowing. Enjoy your next traffic stop.

The most unrealistic portion of the example is the fact that I gave you reasoning for being added to the list.

 

[davepoobond]

I can't believe NRA and GOP decided to draw a line on this of all things. Why the fuck would you let people on the list buy gun?

because the requirements to be on list essentially amount to:

"Massoluk might be a terrorist because we know a Massoluka who is one"

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I can't believe NRA and GOP decided to draw a line on this of all things. Why the fuck would you let people on the list buy gun?

The burden should be on the government to prove that you are a terrorist before they take your rights away, not for you to prove to them that you're not. I can't believe that's a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[zelas]

Yeah dude just explain that to the ACLU and every other civil liberties group still dealing with everyone who's had their lives affected by being on one of these lists.

Do they still have their life or are they in a grave next to someone who didnt want anything to do with this nonsense? Do these people really think their situations are any worse than those of slain victims?

I wasn't giving a green light to Connecticut's actions, I was questioning the priorities of people who think that no list created by the government should ever be trusted because of mistakes. It's the same attitude behind not allowing syrian refugees to come to the US. The system as it is might not be perfect but we absolutely should be pushing towards a lawful way to restrict terrorists instead of saying the loss of innocent lives is an ok price to pay because the issue is too complicated or a system too imperfect.

 

[NimbusD]

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.

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

Yeah I mean, I'm 110% for gun control, but this isn't the way to do it and Obama (whom I usually defend and really like) is an idiot for suggesting this. It's going to get challenged almost immediately and struck down, possibly endangering the terrorist watch list in general (which isn't necessarily bad if it means it's overhauled to be like... you know... legal?). And the biggest harm it will deal is just to the gun control argument in general.

We have to get controls in place but, as much as it sucks, it can't just be willed into existence against current laws.

 

[davepoobond]

Yeah I mean, I'm 110% for gun control, but this isn't the way to do it and Obama (whom I usually defend and really like) is an idiot for suggesting this. It's going to get challenged almost immediately and struck down, possibly endangering the terrorist watch list in general (which isn't necessarily bad if it means it's overhauled to be like... you know... legal?). And the biggest harm it will deal is just to the gun control argument in general.

We have to get controls in place but, as much as it sucks, it can't just be willed into existence against current laws.

you have to look past the action itself. its basically a smear against Republicans saying they are so stringent on gun laws they are willing to arm terrorists


i think its a good thing to push for despite the constitutional questions. maybe it makes them do something less severe, like an extra background check process. who knows

 

[sangreal]

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

most definitely

pure politics, but hey I suppose there is a time for that

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Do they still have their life or are they in a grave next to someone who didnt want anything to do with this nonsense? Do these people really think their situations are any worse than those of slain victims?

I wasn't giving a green light to Connecticut's actions, I was questioning the priorities of people who think that no list created by the government should ever be trusted because of mistakes. It's the same attitude behind not allowing syrian refugees to come to the US. The system as it is might not be perfect but we absolutely should be pushing towards a lawful way to restrict terrorists instead of saying the loss of innocent lives is an ok price to pay because the issue is too complicated or a system too imperfect.

Who is saying that? What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is directly comparing people unjustly out on a watch list with dead victims of a mass shooting.

The fact that no mass shooters thus far have even been on one of these lists should tell you how worthlessly reactionary this potential law is. It's purely a play on people's emotions.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

Do they still have their life or are they in a grave next to someone who didnt want anything to do with this nonsense? Do these people really think their situations are any worse than those of slain victims?

I wasn't giving a green light to Connecticut's actions, I was questioning the priorities of people who think that no list created by the government should ever be trusted because of mistakes. It's the same attitude behind not allowing syrian refugees to come to the US. The system as it is might not be perfect but we absolutely should be pushing towards a lawful way to restrict terrorists instead of saying the loss of innocent lives is an ok price to pay because the issue is too complicated or a system too imperfect.

What a spurious argument. You do not know who is on this list or the criteria used as justification to put them on it therefore you cannot make the claim that banning such people from owning firearms will save anyone from anything.

You're free to argue in favor of whatever gun control you want but everyone here is equally free to call a spade a spade. In this case, that spade is authoritarianism masquerading as a protective blanket to keep us warm just as mass-surveillance programs did before it.

 

[neshcom]

I'm anti-gun, but the heightened political actions from San Bernardino really feel like Muslim-panic. Was the SB couple on any of these terrorism lists? What about the other mass-profile attacks this year that yielded absolutely no movement on mental health or actually executing the currently background check system?

Really, I feel like anything that reduces the number of guns has some merit, but the splash damage of inciting more anti-Muslim behavior is going to outweigh barely moving the needle towards more gun control. I think this is where someone more pro-gun would say terrorists that really wanted to could get a gun from illegal means.

 

[foxtrot3d]

As others have already said such a law would be immediately struck down by the courts if passed.