Last month, hysterical right-wing governors went on a states’ rights tear, arguing that they could ban Syrian refugees from their states. South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard only requested that the feds better scrutinize applicants for refuge, recognizing that states like Texas that try to override federal authority on immigration will be knocked down by the courts.
But how will right-wingers feel about states’ rights when left-wingers take up that banner for their version of anti-terror action? Enter Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy and his new no-fly-no-buy policy:
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced Thursday that he will sign an executive order blocking anyone on federal government terrorism watch lists from obtaining a gun permit.
Malloy said he is working with the White House to gain access to the databases, which include people who are suspected of having connections to terrorist groups. President Barack Obama has called for banning gun sales to those on the federal “no-fly” list, but a similar measure failed to clear Congress last week.
“If Congress will not act, we in the states will,” Malloy told reporters gathered outside his office. “The [National Rifle Association] and their supporters have stood in the way time and time again as we have fought for sensible gun violence prevention … these are measures that will save lives” [Daniela Altimari, “State to Deny Gun Sales to Individuals on Federal Terrorism Watch List,” Hartford Courant, 2015.12.10].
The NRA and Mike Rounds fret that we aren’t supposed to take away fundamental rights without due process. But if the federal government doesn’t trust certain people with the slim possibility of weaponizing an airplane, is it not logical for a state government to see even more risk in the definite prospect of those people placing their fingers on the triggers of firearms?
Ohio Governor and GOP Presidential candidate John Kasich thinks linking the no-fly list and restrictions on gun sales makes sense, although he and the FBI don’t want a broader ban on gun sales to terror suspects to alert those potential terrorists to the fact that the government is watching them. The ACLU says the no-fly list’s criteria are unconstitutionally vague and cannot be used to restrict other freedoms.
Governor Daugaard, if you take seriously the things you’ve said about your duty to ensure the safety and wellbeing of your citizens, you have two choices: follow the states’ rights lead of Governor Malloy and declare your own no-fly-no-buy policy, or call on the President to repeal the no-fly list as an unconstitutional infringement of the right to travel… and follow Justin Trudeau’s lead and welcome Syrian refugees at the airport.
If the feds want to do what they are supposed to do, then these people would not be in this country in the first place. Now that these people are here, we are suppose to risk the possibility that the feds can put any one of us on that list in order the deal with them? This is what we get because Obama insists on turning America into an Islamic nation.
Hysterical Mr. Sibson, what is the difference between your fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism? Nothing…Both are a creeping danger to civilization and should be removed root and branch as both serve no purpose whatsoever.
South Dakota has its own work to do on Sibsonista racism:
http://www.moodycountyenterprise.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&story_id=6412&page=73
Xenophobia is the American Way:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-09/long-anxiety-about-muslims-americans-feared-yellow-peril-chinese-immigration
Obama hasn’t done anything radical and has kept the status quo, as was intended. Where is the liberalism that this President was supposed to have? Legalizing gay marriage?
Wall Street is performing as good as ever for the one percent. Capitalism….err, I mean corporate welfare is going strong.
Cry all you want about Muslims, that’s what the rich boys want.
Ah, shoot, I thought Sibson had retired! :-(
Even the liberal ACLU is against the No Fly/No Buy gun bill as a violation of the Constitution’s 5th and 14th Amendment’s Due Process clauses and Connecticut’s Constitution Due Process clause (Art 1, Sec 8) and Connecticut’s explicit right to bear arms (Art1, Sec 15): “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
The no-fly list is the mother of all messed up lists with over 700,000 names replete with persons having no connection to terrorists/terrorism. The Governor of the “Constitution State” by his executive action eviscerates Constitutional checks and balances reducing it to a mere “parchment barrier”.
ACLU is not a liberal anything.
Don, can we see your source on the nature of the “No Fly” list?
No doubt Town Hall is coyote’s source but here it is straight from the horse’s mouth:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
Accuracy of no-fly list – From 2006 CBS 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unlikely-terrorists-on-no-fly-list/
From RT in 2012 – 18-month baby on no-fly list: https://www.rt.com/usa/list-tsa-jetblue-riyannas-950/
Here’s the Wikipedia entry, which includes a section on “false positives”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
Thanks for your conjecture Larry but nope, you’re wrong …. yet again. Only time I find myself at Townhall is to look at Lisa Benson’s cartoons.
From the Dept of When Pigs Fly, the LA Times has come out against the No Fly/No Buy law:
“One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn’t generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-watch-list-20151207-story.html
SDGOP believes TSA is infallible while doubting whether Syrian refugees are vetted well enough: priceless.
This action by CT doesn’t seem to be a constitutional issue since SCOTUS refused to hear the assault weapons ban in suburban Chicago, just this week. Does your precious NRA have the courage to spend your gun-hugger dues to fight this CT action? Appears to be the “camel’s nose” moment of the Obama administration.
Thanks Larry and Coyote, both are good links and good arguments, difficult to refute.
why i love twitter:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/will-trump-be-using-jeffersons-quran?CMP=edit_2221
Two words: due process. Friedman v. City of Highland Park has nothing to do with due process. Apples and oranges.
Carry on.
Mr Sibson,
You could save yourself some typing and just go with, “Thanks Obama”.
Sibson, I believe the No Fly List was the creation of President Bush, was he too trying to turn America into Islamic state?
But I thought conservatives absolutely, definitely, hated the ACLU. How could any conservative oppose using the no fly list for gun control if the ACLU opposes it? Isn’t the ACLU always wrong, according to conservative mantra?
Roger, Obama clearly was pro-Islamic Sunday night, and anti-American. Bush help create an Islamic nation in Iraq after he blew the hell out of it. Typical crony capitalist, destroy so you can make money rebuilding.
BAT, nobody is wrong 100% of the time, nor right 100% of the time. Sad too many on the blogosphere and in politics think you are either right 100% or wrong 100% based solely on voting registration status.
Mr. Wyland, I believe Governor Malloy is making a good choice to prohibit that 18-month old baby from buying guns. ;-)
America is anti-American, anti-democracy and anti-education. When only 15% turn out for elections that’s pretty much evidence of a protest vote.
@bcb: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
how original, coyote. bill buckley makes you look well-oiled.
even unctuous.
Well that 18 month old couldn’t buy a gun anyway. What it does is reveal just how fallible that no-fly list can be.
But what about all the people who’re on that list – wrongfully – without any recourse? If they don’t even know, then when they fail their background check when they try to buy a firearm, then they’re at risk of a felony charge for applying to buy a gun they legally couldn’t buy (even though they had no idea!).
A secret list without judicial oversight or appeals process is NOT the way to restrict civil / constitutional rights.
I get you don’t like guns. I get you want fewer people to have guns. But the 14th amendment is a really nice amendment, don’t you agree? We need due process before the government restrict what we can or cannot do.
So if you want no-fly-no-buy, then we gotta make that list public so people realize they cannot legally buy a firearm (and thus avoid committing a felony by trying to buy a gun), and/or we gotta create a formal appeals process.
So it sounds like we could get agreement that the no-fly list and the Patriot Act, in their denial of rights without due process, are unconstitutional and should be repealed?
Absolutely, Cory!
Here is the no-fly list being used as intended.- http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/tmdwa151207.gif
Coyote-former Texas guv and indicted nutjob Rick Perry disagrees. He says a stopped clock is right once a day. Down south time moves in mysterious ways.
And the United States doesn’t generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case,
Does Gitmo,black jets,waterboarding,extraordinary renditions,torture in friendly Allied nations (Black Sites),Abu Gharib, the Phoenix Program during Vietnam, etc,etc,etc , ring any bells?
@mia: Sure, go ahead and make a hash of the argument of the denial of due process in the no fly/no buy law. However you’re engaging in a tu quoque fallacy in your attempt to discredit the validity of the argument by pointing out the lack of consistency in the past situations you listed. The Law of Parsimony (Occam’s Razor) seems relevant here when it states “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”.
.
Cory, absolutely! Get rid of both. We’re not safer with them, and our civil rights have been further eroded by their existence.
I’ll take that trade, Wayne B. If we have reason to suspect an individual of terrorism, it makes more sense to ban that person from access to guns and explosives than to ban that person from access to airplanes. But if the list is faulty (hey, was Darren Kyle Zafft on the no-fly list?), then let’s get rid of it.
Of course, that still leaves open the debate about whether we should ask everyone to wait longer to buy guns.
I agree in principle, Cory. I don’t want potential terrorists to have access to weapons and explosives either. But we have to be pretty darn sure we know what we’re talking about before we start restricting civil rights. And if we do, then we need to make darn sure we’re granting due process.
I’m interested in a discussion on waiting periods. But always let evidence – not emotion – be our guide.
For instance, the fact that at most 5% of all homicides involving firearms were committed with rifles (scary black ones included) means a waiting period is likely to have little impact. Same with shotguns.
Handguns might benefit from a 3-5 day waiting period to stop someone who is depressed or hot-headed from doing something impulsive, but what does the data say? I know homicides have fallen steadily with or without waiting periods. I haven’t read any literature demonstrating a statistically significant impact from waiting periods.
Would data linking waiting periods to lower suicide rates be enough to motivate action, Wayne?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/27/van-wanggaard/no-evidence-waiting-period-handgun-purchases-reduc/
From that Ludwig and Cook publication, it looks like the only real benefits to handgun waiting periods in reducing suicide rates is for adults age 55 and above. So do we tailor our law to get 1 fewer suicide per 100,000 Americans aged 55+ or do we make a blanket ban so we’re not discriminating based on age (and therefore dilute the impact of the law while increasing the burden upon the populace)?
The benefit doesn’t seem that tangible, especially when there is so much to be gained from focusing our suicide prevention efforts on actually creating an integrated behavioral health system.
Thanks for the article, though; it does demonstrate waiting lists really aren’t effective at preventing violence. That’s kinda a shame, since it seemed like a pretty intuitive and minimally burdensome strategy. Of course, it wouldn’t stop the people who blot the Columbines or Sandy Hooks of the world, but might stop a domestic violence case from escalating into far worse.
Now the data says my intuition was unfounded. Shucks.