Should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? Yes.

[hack89]

One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

How certain is it that the people on the two lists are dangerous? Well, we don't really know, because the no-fly-list and the broader watch list are government secrets. People are not notified when they are put on, nor why, and they usually don't discover they have been branded suspected terrorists until they try to travel somewhere.

What's more, it's not clear how much impact Feinstein's law would have. The broader watch list, which is actually a database maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, apparently had about 480,000 names on it in 2011, according to the FBI, and it has since swelled to about 1.1 million names, according to the ACLU. Of those, the vast majority are noncitizens living overseas; the number of American citizens on the list is believed to be fewer than 10,000 people.

That's important because federal law already bars gun sales to most people who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or holders of valid visas, which means the vast majority of the people on the suspected terror list would already be barred from buying a firearm in the U.S. even without Feinstein's law. That leaves us with about 10,000 American citizens (and some legal residents) who, under the proposed law, would be barred from exercising a constitutional right. That gives us pause.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-watch-list-20151207-story.html

The LA Times is strongly pro-gun control. They also understand the importance of civil liberties.

[yeoman6987]

1. I'd be ok with this if we knew the list was 100 percent accurate.

I guess 81 people working at homeland security are on the list. Hoe does that happen?

[hack89]

3. So you are fine with no due process?

A secret list is ok as long as it is accurate?

[yeoman6987]

5. I don't endnote know the requirements for getting on the list

Do you? I would imagine the legitimate ones are pretty bad.

[hack89]

6. If they are that bad they should be in the criminal justice system

don't you think?

Why can't there be due process? What is wrong with an open and transparent process?

[GGJohn]

8. One of the ways of getting on those lists is having either the same name, or a similiar name.

That's what happened to Sen. Ted Kennedy, but being a powerful Senator, he was able to call the DHS director, Tom Ridge, and get his name removed, but the ordinary citizen has no such recourse.

[beltanefauve]

14. True

My brother in-law has the same name and birth date as a known IRA member. The birth years, however, differ by over 20 years. BIL still has trouble getting on planes.

[ileus]

2. What other rights should we strip away at the same time???

That's how the question should be asked.

[GGJohn]

4. It never ceases to amaze me that some progressives are wholly against the Bush era secret govt lists

until it comes to firearms, then they're all for them.
Talk about rank hypocrisy.

[Dr. Strange]

15. Hypocrisy? More like evil brilliance.

How do you get progressives on board with secret lists and ignorance of due process? Put it under the guise of gun control. All of a sudden, Bush's tactics have bipartisan support. Hooray!

[tularetom]

7. Finally some common sense from the media on this topic

Opposing any law proposed by Feinstein is pretty much a vote for personal freedom.

[safeinOhio]

9. No it does not make any sense, just

like saying the first 10 words of the 2nd Amendment don't mean what they say.

[hack89]

10. Another person in need of a civics class and the role of the judiciary. nt

[zipplewrath]

11. A conundrum

This issue is a real conundrum for progressives. Typically, the no fly list isn't very popular. It's an extra-legal process that takes away a persons freedom, and really to some extent without notice or explanation. The process for getting off is very long and difficult. And there's a real "guilty until proven innocent".

The conundrum for progressives is that the right wing is real fond of the list, right up until someone wants to talk about restricting weapons access with it. Then it is the most horrible thing in the world.

Progressives can't help but have a touch of fun with that, but in the end we tend to realize that its the list that is the problem, not the desire to keep guns out of the hands of the whack jobs.

[Eleanors38]

18. Like getting into a squirting contest with a skunk: You will lose.

[zipplewrath]

23. abso-effin-lutly

Yer so right it ain't funny!

[petronius]

12. I'm glad to see the Times taking this position, and I agree that we should

be very skeptical of the use/expansion of these lists. I'm also glad they pointed out the (apparent) number of citizens/residents who are on the lists: on the one hand, as they say, it's a large number of people to be arbitrarily denied a civil liberty, but on the other hand it's a very small number of people relative to the population, to firearm sales, to crime -- I have to ask (in addition to other objections) whether the tiny potential benefit maybe derived from this proposed ban is worth undermining the BoR in such a heavy-handed way...

[Johonny]

13. But why the * is the no fly list okay to begen with?

If you owned a Woolworth you can't just decide not to serve black customers because you think they're scary. We worked that out in the 1950s. But in the new America you can create a new class of people "Uppity Negro" and stick them on a secret list. They don't know they are on it until they try to eat at Woolworth. Then they get denied the same service everyone else gets to enjoy, not because they're convicted of anything but because they're on the magic secret list. We're not discriminating against people based on race or religion we're just trying to save people's lives. We all know the "Uppity Negro" is dangerous and although they might not be convicted of someone they must be on the secret list for a reason. You can complain that it appears mostly black people end up on the "Uppity Negro" list, but hey have you seen the news. Those people are being radicalized. I have no definition of radicalization, but shit I've seen them on my TV and I'm scared. Holy crap why didn't the south think of this in the 1950s. It's genius.

[AngryAmish]

16. I am on a species of the no fly list. Or I was.

Could not get a boarding pass without live check in to prove I was not the particular terrorist, who has been dead for a decade before 9/11.

List kinda sucks. Good luck getting off of it.

[ManiacJoe]

25. You are not on the list, the other guy is.

Due to your name match, and names being the only entry point for lookup, you needed to show ID.
Same thing happened to Senator Kennedy.

[951-Riverside]

17. Nothing stops someone on that list from getting firearms from someone who isnt

Its a bullshit solution to a gaping, oozing problem.

I really wish Obama and Feinstein would stop kicking the can down the road and focus on real solutions. Starting with getting rid of all private and commercial sales of semi autos.

[Darb]

19. Could you kindly link to the thread you started condemning the No Fly List itself?

I cannot seem to locate it. I am sure that you aren't just concerned with the rights of people to buy mass murder-friendly firearms. Right?

Thanks.

[hack89]

20. I would support the no fly list if it was transparent and there was real due process

I don't support secret government lists as the basis for removing civil liberties - do you?

[Darb]

21. So, your objections to the No Fly became public when it included tools of mass murder?

Seems so. As for the No Fly itself, I think there are probably some people that I would rather not be able to board a plane. As for whom should be on that list, someone has to make the call. Someone also has to define the criteria for being on it. I think it should be reviewable and I think there should be a way to get off of it if somehow you ended up on it by mistake. A legal, judicial path to getting off of the list.

I think adding No Gun to the No Fly list is a good idea quite frankly. Not being able to get a gun isn't as big a problem as some of you make it out to be and the positive from it outweighs the negative by ton. And I get the point you are trying to make with that "civil liberties" reference. It is a civil liberty only if you are a member of the militia, of which only the National Guard applies as far as I can tell. I deny the legitimacy of the judicial decision (for multiple reasons) upon which you base your view and expect that it will be over-turned in the future.

[hack89]

22. ok. nt

[Matariki]

24. Yeah, I frankly found that problematic

Listening to Obama speaking about this, the phrase "suspected" terror connections is what was used regarding the 'no fly' list. Wasn't Senator Kennedy on the no-fly list for a while?

We're heading down a very slippery slope.

[ManiacJoe]

26. If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to be out of jail.

If there is no current warrant for your arrest, you should not be on a no-fly list or any other list that removes your rights.

[Nye Bevan]

27. I would like to see the no-fly list struck down as unconstitutional. (nt)

[deathrind]

28. Nope.

I personally don't think there should be a watch list at all but in our fear after 9/11 people thought it was a good idea so if there is going to be a watch list for people who cannot be trusted to be on a plane they certainly should not be able to buy a firearm...