No Matter What You Think Of Gun Control, Relying On The No Fly List For Anything Is Monumentally Stupid
from the due-process dept
As you may have noticed, the attacks in San Bernadino last week quickly became seen through the lens of what political point certain people wanted to make. The Democratic party quickly attempted to push for a bizarre type of gun control, barring people on the "no fly list" from buying guns. It's one of those things that sounds good if you have no real knowledge about what's going on. But it's still being pushed because it sounds like a sensible thing at first glance: why, if someone is a potential terrorist threat, they think, they probably shouldn't be able to buy guns. Hell, here's how President Obama himself put it last night in his big speech about terrorism (and gun control) in the wake of the attacks:Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.Well, here's the problem: being on the "no fly list" does not mean you're a terrorist suspect. For the President to equate the two is not just wrong, it's disgraceful. First of all, there are two separate lists: the no fly list and the "terrorist screening database." There is overlap between the two lists, but they are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Second, there is no due process whatsoever involved in putting people on the no fly list. As we noted just last year, a court found that the lack of any legitimate way of getting off the no fly list was unconstitutional. Another case involved an FBI agent checking the wrong box, which put a woman on the no fly list, and kept her out of the country for a decade. In another case, a court had to force the DOJ to admit to people they were on the no fly list, because it refused to even let them know before. While the DOJ finally changed this policy a few months ago, the lack of due process is ridiculously concerning.
Then... there's this:
If you want to understand how incredibly wrong this proposal is, you just need to replace "buy guns" with something else, like "the right to assemble" or "the right to use the internet." It's easy to say: "What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to use the internet?" But then you remember that these aren't actual suspects -- they're just people put on a list by law enforcement with no thorough process, let alone due process to defend themselves or to get off the list. And, of course, being a "suspect" doesn't mean you're guilty. Innocent until proven guilty used to actually mean something.
Thankfully, at least some are now recognizing this with Republicans suddenly arguing that they don't like this gun control policy because the no fly list is a joke. Here's presidential candidate Marco Rubio:
“These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there’s no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they’re having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon.... The majority of the people on the no-fly list are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else who doesn’t belong on the no-fly list.... Sometimes you’re only on that list because the FBI wants to talk to you about someone you know, not because you’re a suspect."He's not wrong per se, but note that he's only concerned about the potential Second Amendment impact of this should that amendment move forward (which it won't) -- and not about the impact of all those innocent people whose lives are totally disrupted by being on the list.
And here's House Speaker Paul Ryan suddenly concerned about due process violations with the no fly list -- but again, showing no interest in actually doing anything about it, other than using it to block gun control:
“People have due process rights in this country,” Republican House speaker Paul Ryan said in explaining his party’s opposition to the vote, apparently with a straight face. He went on to say there shouldn’t be a rush to pass legislation at the risk of “infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens...”Again, sure. But if the no fly list is a due process nightmare, why is it still around? Why aren't Rubio and Ryan looking to end that? And why have both of them supported all sorts of other legislation that infringes upon the 4th Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens?
It's great that some folks are suddenly aware of the fact that the no fly list is an unconstitutional, due process nightmare -- but focusing on the whole gun control aspect of it is pretty ridiculous. The no fly list is a problem on its own. It should be done away with. If people want gun control, focus on gun control, not on expanding the mess that is the no fly list. If people don't want gun control, go ahead and make that argument. But don't suddenly point to the problems of the no fly list and not do anything about them except block the gun control measure.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: due process, gun control, marco rubio, no fly, no fly list, paul ryan, president obama, terrorist watch list
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Smart Aleces Need Not Apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that the republicans want to do the opposite just shows how messed up their thinking is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Few people gave that much of a rat's about the no-fly lists before gun control was added to the mix. Now it's getting some attention.
/tinfoil
Or perhaps El Presidente slipped up and is currently thinking "Dayyyum! Now we risk getting our no-fly lists scrutinised with due process and stuff!"
Given his record, though, I think the second scenario is more likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
secret black lists are cool UNTIL YOU ARE ON THE LIST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and they have been working hard adding millioms of law abiding citizens to that list...
and they want to unconstitutionally disarm millions of us citizens specially the ones that USG likes to flag as constitutionalist, sovereigns etc...
then this proposal is not stupid, it is a brilliant step by step CHECK MATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "People We Don't Like" List
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take two of these proscriptions and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this could be useful!
The problem is just that if you stay off the no-fly list long enough, you'll be accumulating a whole lot of guns. But those are all-American, so you could just distribute them to school children to let them learn responsible gun play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obama knows (and everybody knows HE KNOWS) such a magic argument is bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great idea!
He's been dead for about 6 years now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of slippery slope
Given that the Bernardino shooters weren't on the no-fly list, it makes you wonder where these talking points are coming from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of slippery slope
Never let a good crisis go to waste!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's what I don't get...
Plainly it sickens me what a joke our country has become that I'm working myself out of debt so that I can run for office. It's a long term plan, but it's a plan nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's what I don't get...
Watch as the "people-we-don't-want-to-fly" list becomes the "people-we-don't-want-to-buy-guns" list, and so on. Merely being a suspect is not cause enough to take away people's rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people that are exited about Y do not get to access X
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's what I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's what I don't get...
America spent the post-9/11 years kidnapping people on vague suspicions, jailing them, torturing them, and finding that the suspicions were groundless. And letting them go months, years or over a decade later with an "er, never mind."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here's what I don't get...
The argument here is that they can remove little freedoms here and there without having to show any specific reason at all. These people are not suspects, they aren't being treated as suspects, they are just people that the govt doesn't want to own guns, just in case they might be dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's what I don't get...
Stripping someone of their rights based on mere suspicion is just not OK. It's not American. It's the kind of crap we're supposed to be fighting against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even being a suspect is no reason to strip someone of their rights.
How is it that seizing people’s money and houses and so on raises barely a murmur, yet suggest taking away their guns and suddenly you face such an uproar? Why is one right so much more sacred than all the others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even being a suspect is no reason to strip someone of their rights.
It doesn't matter that Obama is demonstrably pro-gun compared to say, Ronald Reagan and Bush I. Regardless of what the NRA used to be, its sole purpose today is to scream that the Democrats - and only the Democrats - and every Democrat in the future - are gonna take away everyone's guns.
Asset forfeiture hasn't developed into an issue associated with one party or the other, so there's no election-level effort to crusade over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Probem With The Idea...
So what happens when someone buys a semi-automatic rifle at a gun show - no background check - not knowing that they're on the no-fly list? Have they committed a crime?
What if they inherit a shotgun or receive an AR-15 as a wedding present? Is the person they received it from now also a criminal? The closest thing to a way around this is to make the no-fly list searchable by ANYONE.
Since this could tip off the few real terrorists on the list, there would inevitably be a second, still secret no-fly list. The original one would be used only for guns.
Er, not just guns. It would treated as part of any criminal background check by potential employers, landlords, government services, and whatnot. Regardless of how you got on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
If you buy a (non-NFA) firearm (using the federal definition) at a booth in a gun show, you are in almost every case buying from someone with a FFL, and you WILL have a background check (form 4473) run.
Why not call it the parking lot loophole or Larry's house loophole? At least it would be less disingenuous (but still untrue; it isn't a loophole).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
Yes, many people selling at gun shows are federally licensed dealers. That still leaves 10 to 40 percent (depending on whose figures you use) of firearms purchased via private sellers. Often at gun shows and often online, even with, as the NRA points out, no loophole.
My point stands. A lot of people will be obtaining guns without knowing that they're on the list, unless the list is made public. And making the list public will create many problems of its own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another Probem With The Idea...
Your point is valid: "A lot of people will be obtaining guns without knowing that they're on the list, unless the list is made public. And making the list public will create many problems of its own."
... But i would take it even further. Not only will they buy without knowing, they wouldn't really care, and even if they did it would be trivial to get around it even without gun shows and background checks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gun control idiocy...
As far as gun control... that's a bigger laugh. We have completely porous borders. As long as that's the case and as long as criminals want guns, they'll get them.
Funny thing about criminals... they don't really care about the laws... and that includes gun laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gun control idiocy...
WHOT?! we have to share this information with Obama ASAP!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gun control idiocy...
Unless you're talking about interstate borders, I'm not sure that's relevant. There are already so many guns in the US, any criminal can get some without bothering to import more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In The US Of A ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In The US Of A ...
Guilty before proven innocent, unfortunately, has come to us in all sorts of new shapes and sizes. Apparently it's now OK to curtail the natural rights of "suspects", among others. So much for what I thought law and order was supposed to mean. "All men are created equal" except for when my bird can take out your wedding party and.. "I do"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
Almost all airport security in the US is handled by the TSA, and as far as I know the rest of it is managed by airports, not airlines. If someone keeps you from getting on a plane, it won't be the airline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
The US courts have upheld the concept of freedom of movement; I haven't heard it described as a right.
The method however can be deemed a priviledge. Even without the security checkpoints an airline, train, taxi service, or bus operator can deny you access using the same principle that merchants reserve the right to deny service to anybody for any reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
Now you've heard it described as a ”right”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In The US Of A ...
There is no movement without method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think it's a natural right. Movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think it's a natural right. Movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
——Mr Madison, 1 Annals of Congress 456 (1789).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to keep us safe
If terrorists are allowed to talk to each other, they can plan to hurt us. If they are allowed to speak publicly, they might recruit followers. Therefore, terrorists cannot be permitted to speak.
But of course we cannot easily determine who might be a terrorist, so we must err on the side of caution.
No one should be permitted to communicate in any form -- spoken, written, semaphore, etc. -- without first being vetted. A simple screening process can determine each person's level of access to the various methods of self-expression.
If it saves just one American life it will be worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too guilty to fly, not guilty enough to arrest.
At the end of the day, it's just an official list of people someone in the government doesn't like, or that someone in the government negligently added to.
It's just the more widely used version of Gitmo.
Another artifact of the;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too guilty to fly, not guilty enough to arrest.
Historical perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too guilty to fly, not guilty enough to arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all,t here's a lot of evidence that says that a lot of those same people had forewarning of events such as Paris happening...and instead chose to do nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Half RIght
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Half RIght
there is plenty of evidence
San Bernardino and Boston Maraton are false flag operations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't we just put everyone on the no fly list?
Think of all the new train engines that GE and EMD will have to make to haul the new traffic? Or all the new cars that will be made to handle the increased load!
Think of all the land we'll save from big empty airports than can be used for better purposes, like landfill! Think of how safe the american people will be without all those terrorist bombs-to-be going by overhead! Think of all the noise pollution saved from those darn airplanes taking off over my house that I just moved into two years ago. How dare they have a 50 year old airport fly over my house!
Think of finally getting Peter Pan and Greyhound back into competition, the prices will drop, bus travel will be glorious again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fatal flaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they will get themselves out with a phonecall
but we will keep putting them in over and over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already see pro-privacy politicians being blamed for supporting robust encryption. We see pro-gun politicians blamed for every shooting.
It is also the same with the TSA security theater, or closing Gitmo. We're one major terrorist attack away from blaming every civil libertarian for allowing the attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WEAK ENCRYPTION™: backdoor so stupid everybody in the whole planet can hack it
YMMV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where to start?
Fuck all slippery about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]