Can you indicate what law empowers the government to restrict life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process?
Maybe, but these laws are a reaction to the San Bernardino shooting. And as I pointed out, they would not have changed anything. It’s just another poorly-thought-out reactionary proposal from the anti-gun crowd.
That is not demonstrated by the fact that it would not have prevented San Bernadino.
If the no-fly list were properly constituted and administered (i.e., subject to clear and appropriate burdens of proof and due process), preventing the people on the list from owning guns would be a no-brainer.
The fact that the change was inspired by an event it would not have prevented isn’t relevant to its policy merits. 9/11 inspired lots of good changes to how law enforcement and intelligence agencies operate (and lots of bad ones) that would not have prevented 9/11 but are nevertheless good ideas.
Apparently, there’s a form people can fill out to challenge their inclusion on the No-Fly list. It’s been criticized because Homeland Security takes forever to respond, when they bother to respond at all. There’s no guarantee that anybody at HS will do anything with the form other than wad it up and play trashcan basketball with it.
Want a laugh? You can search the No-Fly List. Go ahead and click a few names. All the information is listed as [REDACTED], or else it’s in cryptic stats like “Refl / Refr” or “An Po.” No wonder it has a 38% error rate. There’s nothing to match up against other than the name.
See I don’t think the No-fly list could ever incorporate due process. They would have to make a judge put you individually on the list on the presentation of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you will commit a future crime but for some reason you shouldn’t be put in jail.
Yeah there would be nothing to stop the government including the entire membership of the NRA on the list.
Due process does not necessarily imply judicial process. Procedurally, it simply means notice and the right to be heard. Whether that is in front of a judicial officer or an executive branch official depends on the nature of the liberty infringement.
What’s stopping Gun Grabber Obama (henceforth, GGO) from declaring everyone on NRA membership rolls to be insane and therefore ineligible for gun purchases under existing law?
The Heller court specifically noted that their opinion did not affect the validity of restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership by felons or the insane.
Good point, but I would much rather hear someone argue that insane people should be allowed to buy guns, otherwise GGO will declare everyone insane and deprive them of constitutional rights.
“If the insane can’t own guns, then we risk nobody being able to own guns.”
I was responding to jz. I have no idea what mechanism is used to disqualify gun buyers on mental health grounds, only that it isn’t affected by Heller.
Oh yes, I understood your comment. I’m not arguing with you.
Because their is due process for prohibited persons based on mental illness. Obama would have no direct power to do this. A person would have to be adjudicated mentally defective (BATFE term) which means an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility, or a ruling by a judge. The involuntary commitment can be challenged through…process.
One other thing to note about using various lists to disqualify people. I can’t find the article, but I believe it was from Dave Kopel who basically said that actual people on the list will be able to determine if they are on it by attempting to purchase a gun and being denied. I’m not sure I buy that as a viable argument, but it does seem to be true.
Using the list would be a terrible idea.
Well, they could also find out by trying to get on a plane.
Touché
“Insane” requires a hearing.
Mind you, Obama really is pretty low on the list of “Gun grabbers” despite all the excitement. It’s not a big issue for him, he respond mainly when there is a surge in polls and public opinion.
I totally agree. Which is why these speculative, sky-is-falling, slippery slope arguments from drewder and **doorhinge ** about Obama declaring tons of people to be terrorists to prevent ordinary Joes from getting guns is so outlandish.
Well I suppose the fact that the person must have been adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental health facility to lose your gun rights.
I’ll give up my slippery slope argument when pro-abortionists do.