Mayors Against Illegal Guns Wants to use a Secret List To Keep You from Buying Guns

Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
235
Likes
16
Location
North East
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Source ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2009/11/24/mayors-against-illegal-guns-wants-to-a-secret-list-to-keep-you-from-buying-guns/

New York, NY - -(AmmoLand.com)- The gun banning front group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, came out with a full page ad in the Washington Post recommending that the Federal Government now link the secret No Fly list to National Instant Background Check System (NICS) and use this to prevent gun owners on the list from buying guns.

And just last week, Attorney General Eric Holder endorsed this legislation on behalf of the Obama Administration. Fortunately for US gun owners, Congress has failed to act and that is why Bloomberg’s MAIG is now pushing to connect the two.

According to the Government Accountability Office, over the past five years people on the terrorist watch list, also called the No Fly List bought guns more than 850 times. This is a Secret List kept by the federal government that has no rhyme or reason as to who gets on it and no known way to get off it. Remember, this is the same secret list that the late Senator Kennedy was listed on for a period of time, preventing him from flying on commercial airlines.

In addition to the No Fly list MAIG is also calling for closure of the imaginary Gun Show Loop Hole and a repeal of Tiahrt Amendments which require the FBI to destroy records of approved background checks performed on gun purchasers within 24 hours.

ACTION 1: Check the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website and see what Mayors belonging to MAIG live in your state and call them and demand they resign from a group that’s mission is banning legal gun ownership and infringing on your second amendment rights. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/

ACTION 2: Write your congressman and demand that they Vote down any attempts by the Obama Administration and MAIG to introduce any bills that would allow the secret government No Fly list to be linked with the National Instant Background Check System.
 
Old news and there is a host of dupe threads around here somewhere. Short version is that it will never happen. A) This would force them to publish the list or allow people to petition to remove themselves from the list. B) This would put way too much sunlight on that list and people could simply go down to buy a gun to figure out if they are on that list.

.gov wants neither of that. And if they do succeed, then good because it would destroy a list that is unconstitutional and abusive of the citizens of this country. When in America has it ever been OK to deny anything to otherwise lawful citizens based on a secret list known only to the security apparatus of our federal government? Where that individual had no due process or redress against the government?
 
The only issue I see with your logic is what happens when they do link them, you find you are on the list and when you sue to get removed from it they tell you tough sh-t?
 
The only issue I see with your logic is what happens when they do link them, you find you are on the list and when you sue to get removed from it they tell you tough sh-t?

You kidding me? That case gets fast tracked to the SCOTUS.
 
Sorry, worded that badly. What if SCOTUS decides that the government's stake in having a secret list you cant get off of somehow doesn't violate your rights and they tell you to pound sand. Then you are even worse off than before, and so is everyone else.
 
If they did that, then the bill of rights would be violated and the people would have to have tea in the harbour again. Thankfully, the SCOTUS would never support it.
 
The only issue I see with your logic is what happens when they do link them, you find you are on the list and when you sue to get removed from it they tell you tough sh-t?

To expand a little bit, the terrorist watch list has been relatively free from public scrutiny for one very big reason. There have never been any clear harms from being placed on it. If one is on the no fly list, they have some recourse to get their name removed but usually one just gets extra screening, but there is no enumerated individual right to fly or travel. While the increased screening is a PITA, you can most of the time actually fly, despite it being named the "no fly" list. It was court processes that made these "improvements" in the system.

The terrorist watch list is a different beast altogether. It prevents entry into the country by foreign nationals, that we pretty much know, but the harm it does to citizens or legal residents of the US is not well known. So there is no one documented as having been harmed by it. No one can point to losing a .gov job because of it, etc. Foreign nationals have no right to enter so if they are turned away, they can't claim harm.

If you get denied an enumerated right as a result of that list, now you have standing to sue the government. I can't go down to the court house and say this list is harming me. If I did, the judge would ask what was the harm that provides you standing? My response would be to shrug and say I don't know and his next move would be to dismiss the case. If I can't buy a gun and the ATF points to the FBI and said "they said so" you now have a documented and verifiable harm. The due process clause of the constitution requires a process for redress. No court would sanely deny that. If they do, one above them would overrule.
 
Sorry, worded that badly. What if SCOTUS decides that the government's stake in having a secret list you cant get off of somehow doesn't violate your rights and they tell you to pound sand. Then you are even worse off than before, and so is everyone else.

So you don't challenge an unconstitutional and un American law because you might lose? Might as well bend over then.

I would be shocked if the SCOTUS ruled that way. If they did, there's a reset button that may need pushing.
 
If they did that, then the bill of rights would be violated and the people would have to have tea in the harbour again. Thankfully, the SCOTUS would never support it.

Agreed. The current court (DC circuit, appellate as well as scotus) has been dealing with gitmo and thus far their inclination has been that even foreigners detained in a foreign land during a military conflict and who remain detained in another foreign land by the US still deserve some sort of due process simply because the US is detaining them. There are people here who think that position is absurd but this application of the terrorist watch list to firearms purchases is a great example of why the current SCOTUS seems to believe that even gitmo detainees warrant due process.
 
I am by no means saying dont challenge a bad law. I was saying it was a bad plan to suggest that this law go into effect simply to challenge the list. I would prefer we not have the list, but dont think that is the best way to go about it. It may be the only way to gain standing as terraformer said, but It still seems like a bad idea to support a bad law just to get it overturned later.
 
I am by no means saying dont challenge a bad law. I was saying it was a bad plan to suggest that this law go into effect simply to challenge the list. I would prefer we not have the list, but dont think that is the best way to go about it. It may be the only way to gain standing as terraformer said, but It still seems like a bad idea to support a bad law just to get it overturned later.

I wasn't suggesting supporting the law. The NRA is doing the right thing here. What I was suggesting is there is little downside to this. Either way something good will come of it and it will be neutered. It is bradyites bloviating and looking for a wedge issue. If we spend two years back and forth on this, then we are winning because that list apparently only has thousands of people on it (so the FBI says) and while it sucks for them, there is very little exposure to the general population by that law. If they were actively pushing another AWB, etc then our risk exposure is so much higher.
 
IF the government only put bad guys on the Don't Fly list. (already proven wrong due to Kennedy snafu)

IF we knew who was on the Don't Fly list. (I can't understand why a list of "bad guys" isn't made public. FBI has a Ten Most Wanted list - shouldn't this be handled the same way?)

IF we had a way to get off the list if we were put on it in error. (can't be done currently)

IF all of the above were true I still would oppose this law because of the lack of due process.
 
IF the government only put bad guys on the Don't Fly list. (already proven wrong due to Kennedy snafu)

IF we knew who was on the Don't Fly list. (I can't understand why a list of "bad guys" isn't made public. FBI has a Ten Most Wanted list - shouldn't this be handled the same way?)

IF we had a way to get off the list if we were put on it in error. (can't be done currently)

IF all of the above were true I still would oppose this law because of the lack of due process.

Two things. 1. Ted Kennedy was a bad guy(Murderer). 2. Who gets to define bad? The .gov?
 
Two things. 1. Ted Kennedy was a bad guy(Murderer). 2. Who gets to define bad? The .gov? __________________

1. Agreed
2. I was thinking along the lines of wanted fugitves, escaped felons, people in the country illegally, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom