mass shooting in orlando

[Elerond]

 

 

If they really want to keep legal guns out of hands of dangerous people, they need to forget all these vague-criteria lists and pass a law that the government can go to court and prove by preponderance of evidence someone is a risk for violence and get a court order that he not be allowed to buy guns. That would at least arguably be due process and might be ruled Constitutional.

 

The NRA would never let that get through.  They don't even let the CDC do research on anything related to gun violence.

 

NRA said they're for keeping guns from possible terrorists, what that means in practice I don't know. I do know that all the Democrat proposals involve complete violations of due process. So now Dems are against the fifth amendment, is there any provision in the bill of rights the Dems are still in favor of?

 

 

Wouldn't that mean that no flight lists themselves are violation of due process? 

[Hurlshort]

The no fly list is a complete violation of due process.  It's a major problem.

[Elerond]

The no fly list is a complete violation of due process.  It's a major problem.

 

In that case I would say that issue isn't that much about people on no fly list not being able to buy a gun, but process how people those end up those lists, which should be on top priority list of things to be fixed if it is currently against constitution. 

[Zoraptor]

I may be thinking of a different organization but CDC = Centers for Disease Control? What is their correlation to gun violence?

 

Epidemiology (basically medical population statistics) requires examination of gun data to do properly and gun injuries is also a health issue. CDC is responsible for both epidemiology and more general "health threats" (direct quote) than just 'disease', and despite its name. Theoretically at least good statistical analysis leads to unbiased information and hence informed decision making; theoretically.

 

In most other countries that sort of public research would be done by the Ministry of Health or similar, which is more appropriately/ less narrowly named.

[Gfted1]

I can buy that. And the NRA has successfully blocked them from receiving some data? If that question was answered in Elerond's link, I bounced off a paywall.

[Elerond]

I can buy that. And the NRA has successfully blocked them from receiving some data? If that question was answered in Elerond's link, I bounced off a paywall.

 

Here some other other sources

Business Insider  Congress quietly renewed a ban on gun-violence research - http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

Self Congress Won’t Let The CDC Study Gun Violence, And That Needs To End Now http://www.self.com/trending/2016/06/congress-wont-let-the-cdc-study-gun-violence-and-that-needs-to-end-now/

PRI Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

LA Times The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years. Let's end its stranglehold on science. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

ABC News Why the CDC Hasn't Launched a Comprehensive Gun Study in 15 Years http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

Washington Post Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

The Huffington Post Doctors Condemn The NRA-Fueled Ban On Gun Violence Research  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-violence-research-ban_us_56606201e4b072e9d1c4eaaa

American Psychological Association Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

Edited June 22, 2016 by Elerond

[Gfted1]

Thanks for the links.

 

I read the LA Times link, very interesting. I had no idea and Im surprised its survived since 1996.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

If they really want to keep legal guns out of hands of dangerous people, they need to forget all these vague-criteria lists and pass a law that the government can go to court and prove by preponderance of evidence someone is a risk for violence and get a court order that he not be allowed to buy guns. That would at least arguably be due process and might be ruled Constitutional.

 

The NRA would never let that get through.  They don't even let the CDC do research on anything related to gun violence.

 

NRA said they're for keeping guns from possible terrorists, what that means in practice I don't know. I do know that all the Democrat proposals involve complete violations of due process. So now Dems are against the fifth amendment, is there any provision in the bill of rights the Dems are still in favor of?

 

 

Wouldn't that mean that no flight lists themselves are violation of due process?

 

There's no constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

If they really want to keep legal guns out of hands of dangerous people, they need to forget all these vague-criteria lists and pass a law that the government can go to court and prove by preponderance of evidence someone is a risk for violence and get a court order that he not be allowed to buy guns. That would at least arguably be due process and might be ruled Constitutional.

 

The NRA would never let that get through.  They don't even let the CDC do research on anything related to gun violence.

 

NRA said they're for keeping guns from possible terrorists, what that means in practice I don't know. I do know that all the Democrat proposals involve complete violations of due process. So now Dems are against the fifth amendment, is there any provision in the bill of rights the Dems are still in favor of?

 

 

Wouldn't that mean that no flight lists themselves are violation of due process?

 

There's no constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

 

 

But there is constitutional rights for due process and freedom of movement in my understanding

[Wrath of Dagon]

You can move, but not on an airplane. Due process is for being deprived of life, liberty, or property, not in the abstract. At least so far the courts haven't said the no-fly list is a violation of due process.

[Guard Dog]

You can move, but not on an airplane. Due process is for being deprived of life, liberty, or property, not in the abstract. At least so far the courts haven't said the no-fly list is a violation of due process.

No but when it becomes a tool for denying a right  it becomes that very thing. I'm not saying using terror watchlists to block firearm purchases is a bad thing all together, but before it becomes real there has to be some major changes to what terror watchlists are, who is on them, why, and how to get off.

[Elerond]

You can move, but not on an airplane. Due process is for being deprived of life, liberty, or property, not in the abstract. At least so far the courts haven't said the no-fly list is a violation of due process.

 

If no fly-lists aren't violation of due process then using them to put restrictions to person ability buy guns should not then be either. Meaning that if the right that those lists give officials to restrict person freedoms because they are deemed too dangerous for society to have those freedoms and way people are put on those lists are both constitutional then using those list to restrict more freedoms in name to make society safer should logically also be constitutional. 

 

Due process clause

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

 

If it is deemed that government don't break due process clause when restrict some rights from people based on those lists and how they put people on those lists then adding restrictions that they can impose with those lists don't seem anymore violation of persons constitutional rights than stripping them of those previous rights. 

 

In my personal opinion I think how people currently are put on no fly lists isn't just and terrorists watch lists seem to be even more problematic things. And I also am firm believer that people should be able to bear arms, even full military grade weapons although I think people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns before they are shown that they know how to use them and with heavier weapons being long time practitioners that have gone through military service. I personally own civil version of military assault rifle (meaning that its burst and full auto fire modes are disabled, but otherwise it is same weapon that is used in military). And I am currently supporting Finland's campaign to prevent EU regulation that would ban civilians owning such weapons.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Again, a citizen doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to fly on an airplane. He does have a constitutionally protected right to own a firearm.

[Elerond]

Again, a citizen doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to fly on an airplane. He does have a constitutionally protected right to own a firearm.

 

But they have right to travel, 

"In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport to an American citizen based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism (personal restrictions/national security). Although the Court did not reach the question of constitutionality in this case, the Court, in an opinion by Justice William O. Douglas, held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process:

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."

 

And preventing person travel with plane hinders/restricts their right to travel quite lot especially when you take account that USA has territories where travelling without plane is difficult. And if that right can be restricted by those lists without breaking due process clause then hindering person right to bear arms should also not break that clause.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It may hinder it, but it doesn't prevent it. He can take a boat. There's no right to travel in comfort and at the greatest speed possible. Also as your quote says, the question of constitutionality was not decided.

[Elerond]

It may hinder it, but it doesn't prevent it. He can take a boat. There's no right to travel in comfort and at the greatest speed possible. Also as your quote says, the question of constitutionality was not decided.

 

They didn't reach constitutionality in that case, but decided that government can't restricting traveling without due process.

 

But this is what is said about freedom of movement in USA.  

"Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right."

But of course it is hard to say what that fundamental constitutional right actually entitles. 

 

So if they let people who are on no fly list buy air pistols then they only hinder people's rights bear arms and everything is okay?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Elerond

[Wrath of Dagon]

Arms in "right to bear arms" have always been understood to be firearms, not knives and pitchforks. Btw, "“A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box." Frederick Douglass.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It may hinder it, but it doesn't prevent it. He can take a boat. There's no right to travel in comfort and at the greatest speed possible. Also as your quote says, the question of constitutionality was not decided.

 

So what you're basically saying is "it doesn't matter how murky, nebulous and ill-defined our terror watchlist is, since it merely inconveniences those who are on it for whatever murky, nebulous and ill-defined reason".

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

It may hinder it, but it doesn't prevent it. He can take a boat. There's no right to travel in comfort and at the greatest speed possible. Also as your quote says, the question of constitutionality was not decided.

 

So what you're basically saying is "it doesn't matter how murky, nebulous and ill-defined our terror watchlist is, since it merely inconveniences those who are on it for whatever murky, nebulous and ill-defined reason".

 

Ok, terror watch list and no fly list are two different things. Terror watch list is an information gathering tool, so just a suspicion is enough to get on it so that any further information that comes in can be properly evaluated. The no-fly list is when they have good reasons to believe that someone is a terror risk and is much smaller. Also few Americans are on the no-fly list, it's mostly foreign nationals. Of course there are still lots of issues of people having similar names and misunderstandings. I really don't like that the no-fly list doesn't follow due process, but it's a compromise, you really can't go to court in most cases when the evidence you have is top secret, and letting them fly is an unacceptable risk. I'm all in favor in improving the procedures of appealing for removal from the list as much possible.

[Hurlshort]

That was well said, WoD.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Al Qaeda insists future terrorist attacks be PC: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/27/al-qaeda-urges-lone-wolves-to-target-whites-to-avoid-hate-crime-label.html

[Hurlshort]

Al Qaeda insists future terrorist attacks be PC: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/27/al-qaeda-urges-lone-wolves-to-target-whites-to-avoid-hate-crime-label.html

 

It is hard to imagine that not being a headline for the Onion.

[Volourn]

Yeah that seems insane. Just as insane as the gov't doing their damnest to downplauy the extremist religion connection.

[Meshugger]

Al Qaeda insists future terrorist attacks be PC: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/27/al-qaeda-urges-lone-wolves-to-target-whites-to-avoid-hate-crime-label.html

 

Hahaha, what a time to be alive.

[Malcador]

Bad attack in Turkey. :/