This is YOUR government

[Glockster]

Trey Gowdy's point is well taken and I think I understand the argument... 2A is the only right that the Feds seem to be able to infringe (via no-fly list, etc) without due process, with no provision in the constitution for doing such. And there is nothing to stop them from arbitrarily adding someone to a list which would deny an individual to exercise that right.

So my question is, what do folks on the forum envision due process looking like, in this instance, that would also protect the citizens from say a terrorist attack, and that could do so in a timely enough manner to prevent an attack?

I would imagine that based on due process that someone would first be notified that an action was pending, and that a hearing would then be held, and during that hearing you would be afforded all legal protections granted for anything else, and you'd have the right to appeal. Seems like that would be pretty standard stuff.

[mojo84]

Jim Jordan did a good job also.

[rbwhatever1]

According to a fox article they say we have 8 ways we might end up on the no fly list. I wonder if going on the website to look for yourself would trigger an investigation? Think I'll pass...

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/0 ... -fly-list/

"The government maintains that the secrecy about the no-fly list is necessary for national security. A potential terrorist can be tipped off that the government is watching him, the logic goes, if he gets a letter saying he’s now on a government blacklist. “I think it’s like any high security process,” says Mann. “You don’t want to reveal sources and methods because knowledge of those sources and methods permit nefarious individuals to compromise them.”

Despite the secrecy, various court cases, news reports and leaked documents have shed some light on the process behind the no-fly list. Here are eight possible ways one can end up on it.


1. Being suspected of direct terrorist activity
2. Travel to certain countries
3. Something you said in the past
4. Have a similar name to someone on the no-fly list
5. Not becoming an informant
6. Clerical error
7. Law enforcement issues
8. Controversial Tweets

[sjfcontrol]

3. Something you said in the past

Uh oh!

[VMI77]

Trey Gowdy's point is well taken and I think I understand the argument... 2A is the only right that the Feds seem to be able to infringe (via no-fly list, etc) without due process, with no provision in the constitution for doing such. And there is nothing to stop them from arbitrarily adding someone to a list which would deny an individual to exercise that right.

So my question is, what do folks on the forum envision due process looking like, in this instance, that would also protect the citizens from say a terrorist attack, and that could do so in a timely enough manner to prevent an attack?

No, it's not...they regularly violate the 4th too when they take property, including cash without ever even charging the person with a crime, much less convicting them. In fact, there is virtually no part of the Bill of Rights that the Feds, and other government entities, don't violate.

The government can't protect citizens from a terrorist attack. Some could be stopped by things they refuse to do, like closing the border, limiting legal immigration, and actually using our intelligence capability against the people most likely to commit terrorist acts, instead of grandmas in wheelchairs. But some attacks are going to get through and the single most effective thing...actually allowing people to defend themselves by being armed....that's not going to happen in the liberal utopias. There is a very large segment of the population that wants people to be defenseless...they're called liberals. Government dependency advances their agenda.

As far due process and being on a list that prohibits you from owning guns? It's called presenting evidence in a court of law that you are either mentally ill to the point of being dangerous.....which requires actual medical and behaviorial evidence, not mere assertions by government employees; or showing that you've been convicted of a crime that prohibits you from owning a gun.

If these people they want to put on a ban list are so dangerous then they should be arrested and evidence should be presented in court....present the proper evidence and convict them before a jury and send them to prison. You don't need to legally buy a gun to kill lots of other people....this ban list garbage is nothing more than a ploy to open the door on backdoor gun bans and punishing political opponents. There is nothing the left hates more than their political opposition....liberals hate Americans who disagree with them more than they hate actual terrorists.

Oh, and the likelihood the ban will apply to actual terrorists...nil. This administration has shut down investigations of Muslims including one that would have looked at the Mosque the San Berdoo couple attended and their affiliations. They weren't on the no fly list. Even if there was any real intention of including the most likely terrorists on the list, they'll be waived, since putting them on the list will warn them they are being monitored.