The No-Fly List and the US Constitution.

Great Debates
1

I could be wrong, but it seems you can be put on the “No-Fly” list almost on a whim. Some are even put there by mistake. And certain groups, like Muslims, are more likely than others to be targeted, in any event.

I guess my question is, Why doesn’t the US Constitution come into play, when it comes to flying? Is flying an airplane a right? Or is it apparently just a privilege? Like driving?

My question may seem naïve. But I couldn’t be the first to wonder, I am sure. And they sure don’t teach you anything about it in the media, in any event.

:):):slight_smile:

2

I would not consider flying on commercial airlines a right. In some cases it may even be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

3

Apparently the ACLU has some info. If you are a US citizen or a US green card holder and you are out of the county and are denied boarding because you have been added to the no fly list, the US government has an obligation to allow you to fly home. The procedures outlined by the ACLU to get home are as follows:

4

You don’t have a right to drive on public roads much less fly in public airspace.

5

Aside from whether flying is s right or not (it’s not), the OP identifies a real problem. Namely, that if one os put on it incorrectly, it is way to difficult to rectify. This has been known to be a problem since its inception, but little has been done to fix things. It a gnarly problem in that the government doesn’t want to share all the criteria that can place one on the list, for fear that they tip their hand to terrorists and future terrorists, many of whom might be under investigation unbeknownst to them.

I talked about this in one of the gun control threads, and linked to (I think it was) a HuffPo article describing how people may fond themselves on the list. And for me, this is a big problem in linking the the disallowance of guns to people on the No-Fly List. If the people on the list are their because the government has identified them as someone who might cause violence on a plane (Islamic Extremist, ugly drunk or other variety), I think preventing people on such a list from buying guns makes good sense. But as it is now, someone who is not a threat in any way can be denied their right to own a gun because of a mistake…a mistake that can be very difficult to remedy.

6

I have no problem with a no-fly list for foreigners, since no foreigner has the right to come to the US. But American citizens should have due process before being put on any list that carries penalties of any sort.

7

The problem is that there is no oversight or due process, and no transparency in how the decision is made. You are making the decision on the basis of mere suspicion. If you have evidence that a person is a terrorist, then you should obtain a warrant and arrest them… That is to say, give them their due process to determine whether there is, in fact, good cause for sanctions. As it is, these decisions are being made on the basis of mere suspicion and the requirement for evidence (if it even exists) is unknown to the public.

Imagine if someone took away your car because they thought you might do something wrong. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to deny someone a driver’s license. If someone is a drunk driver, that is an excellent reason to deny them a license. But that has to be proven in a court of law first. The No Fly list skips this step and goes straight to prohibition. Likewise, there are already a number of things that disqualify a person from owning a gun, such as the Lautenberg Amendment, but these are likewise subject to due process.

This permits all manner of abuse. Imagine someone in the TSA who plugs in the name of the guy who slept with his girlfriend, or the names of political activists who disagree with their political ideas. There are already claims that people have been placed on the No Fly list merely because they publicly disagreed with the President.

8

The no-fly list does make sense for foreigners, since we can’t just get arrest warrants for people in terrorist training camps. But yeah, for Americans, there should either be evidence to arrest or nothing.

9

Actually with regards to airspace, there is a public right of transit through airspace, just not necessarily on a commercial aircraft. See 49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace. It is connected to the Freedom of Movement within the US which is part of the privileges and immunities clause.

10

You certainly have the Freedom of Movement.

What’s needed here is Judicial overview, just like when a Judge issues a warrant.

11

I think we should trust that the No-Fly List is properly put together so that we can use it to prevent people from buying guns. I’d be fine tying the gun purchase ban list to other lists as well

12

Trust the government!- without any oversight at all. Suuuuure. What country are* you *living in, pal?

13

It’s already been shown that it’s not.

14

What other rights would you be ok with stripping from the people on the government’s secret list? Right to vote? Free speech? Religious freedom? Association? Would you be ok imprisoning everyone on the list, say at Guantanamo Bay?

15

I think that reasoning here is that “GUNS ARE TEH EVIL!”, thus anything which prevents them from being bought by anyone is a Good Thing. Who gives a rats-ass about Civil Liberties as longs as it’s guns being prohibited.

Of course ISIL recruits on the Internet. So, let us say you can be banned from using the Internet if you’re on that list. Or attending a place of worship.

Would that be OK?

16

I think some mistakes here and there doesn’t mean that people being put on the list weren’t generally properly vetted. To me its a matter of consistency in law enforcement and efficiency. If we’re saying these people are suspicious enough to ban them from a type of traveling that they typically have the right to, then it should follow that they should also be banned from owning arms. I’d tie the No Fly list and the gun restriction list together and then fix what needs to be fixed. Sadly, too many people think that by nitpicking every line of any rule and regulation prevents only gun regulation, when in fact it can be used to prevent any law enforcement actions from occurring. Its like those people who continuously file frivolous lawsuits. The court system allows them to do that, but it doesn’t mean what they do isn’t needlessly disruptive and an abuse of the system. If you’re on any kind of suspicious government list, whether it be a No Fly one, or a terrorist watch list, or probation, or mental health, or whatever, that can affect your desire to use a gun for violence, then you should be prevented from getting a gun. Get yourself off that list and then you can have a gun

You’re trying to use a pointless non-sequitor to squash debate. There is no right-to-vote list (there are lists in some states where current and former felons can’t vote, but I’m sure you didn’t mean that or you would have said it), there is no “free speech” list. And even if there were, those don’t point to violent or potentially violent crimes that would be magnified if a person would be allowed to buy a gun. A No Fly list is a legitimate list where people on it have triggered valid concerns with law enforcement that they feel warrant the government to legally deny them a right to travel. Other lists like I’ve mentioned above are perfectly valid. Nobody’s equating imprisonment to being on a list except YOU, and you’re doing it because you want to exaggerate the fears of any type of valid gun control because you value your ability to cause violence more than actually stopping it

17

I think we should trust that the No-Fly List is properly put together so that we can use it to prevent people from voting. I’d be fine tying the voting ban list to other lists as well

18

Notable cases of mistaken denials. Note these are not every single one.

The problem is there is just a list of names, no other identifying information is included.
And getting off is near impossible even if anyone tells you you’re on it.

19

[QUOTE=YogSothoth;19422431 If we’re saying these people are suspicious enough to ban them from a type of traveling that they typically have the right to, then it should follow that they should also be banned from owning arms… If you’re on any kind of suspicious government list, whether it be a No Fly one, or a terrorist watch list, or probation, or mental health, or whatever, that can affect your desire to use a gun for violence, then you should be prevented from getting a gun.
… A No Fly list is a legitimate list where people on it have triggered valid concerns with law enforcement that they feel warrant the government to legally deny them a right to travel. [/QUOTE]

We’re not saying that, the lists are invalid for both purposes and a violation of human rights.

Not unless that list is subject to Due Process. J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy had “lists” too of “commies and pinkos and other undesirables” including anti-war protesters and civil rights leaders . In fact some of the same social justice protesters have shown up on the NoFly list.

A No Fly list is a illegitimate list where people on it have triggered valid and very not-so-valid concerns with law enforcement, with no oversight and where people can be put on the list* for any reason at all. *

20

I think tying extending the no-fly list to make it so people can’t buy guns to be a great idea.

I 100% agree the no due-process part is a real problem for the no-fly list which is why I think it is great to link it to gun ownership. If it was it would force the government to bring due-process procedures to the no-fly list for US citizens.

It also has the bonus that is it hard for congresscritters to explain how it is they will keep a terrorist off a plane but totally let them go buy guns legally to carry out their attacks.