Again, the usual suspects...
These statists have yet to find a right that they don't love to trample on.
Posted on 05/19/2009 12:50:16 PM PDT by neverdem
NY Rep introduces bill to turn "No Fly" list into "no gun" list
Notorious Anti-gunner Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy has introduced a bill that would takes name from the so-called "no fly list" and place them in the National Instant Criminal Background Check system as ineligible to purchase a firearm.
H.R. 2401, the so-called "No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009" uses provisions of the Patriot Act and the Brady Bill to attack the Second Amendment rights of American travelers.
It should be no surprise that McCarthy, an anti-gun leader extraordinaire, would introduce such a bill. In recent years, such legislation by McCarthy wouldn't have stood much a chance of passage, but with Barack Obama in the White House and Nancy Pelosi banging the gun control gong in the House, this legislation has real support.
While this may seem like an innocuous bill to some, the so-called "No Fly" list is a highly inaccurate collection of names of suspected terrorists and completely innocent citizens.
A simple Google search brings up a myriad of instances where innocent Americans' names were placed on the so-called "No Fly List." Worse yet, the software used by Homeland Security is ancient and does not communicate well with the software used by airlines to track reservations.
A five year old Seattle boy was detained and kept from his mother, because his name was on the the "no fly list."
An Iraqi War Veteran and decorated United States Marine was prevent from flying because his name was also on the no fly list.
Even Members of Congress have found their names on the no fly list. Senator Ted Kennedy found his name on the list and despite his position of privileged, it took him weeks of direct personal appeals to get his name removed.
Even as recently as last fall, the Maryland State Police put 53 non-violent political activist on the "no fly" list simply because of their political views. This should certainly cause gun owners to squirm after the Department of Homeland Security has already made it acceptable for state and local law enforcement agencies to classify gun owners and gun rights activists as "domestic terrorists."
Some estimate that there are thousands of innocent names on the list which now has now grown to over 1 million names.
Additionally, many experts believe that keeping the list and corresponding software has cost the U.S. government over $1 billion, with not clear return on investment.
With all the of problems associated with the "no fly" list, passage of H.R. 2401 could be a huge problem for gun owners. With virtually no due process or real legal recourse for getting your name off the list, McCarthy has opened the door for a bureaucratic denial of firearm rights.
Rep Peter King Plots Terrorist Act (Allegations Sufficient For Punishment)
Unrelated:
I didn’t know that flying was a Constitutional right.
It may eventually exist in some form, but there will have to be some sort of due process added in order to make it pass legal muster.
Rights don’t come from the Constitution.
ping
To hell with these damn laws, I'll follow my conscience.
Wrong way to look at this. What clause in the Constitution gives the FedGov this power? I can’t think of one...
Hey Steni, have you seen this?
I thought we were supposed to have defeated the leftists on new gun legislation.
Dumb dumb...
This is evil.
There’s no way literally short of an act of Congress, to get off the no-fly list.
This is just.
Keep looking up, Christians. Any day now.
Sorry congresswoman. The people on the list already have guns or can get them anytime they want whether this got passed or not.
It isn't, but you have the cart before the horse. This is where the Brady NICS check goes wrong. People can be denied their rights recognized by the Second Amendment denied without due process.
Neither does flying ... But I think you know what I meant.
The difference between and enumerated Constitutional Right and flying on an airplane is quite distinct.
Well that cinches it. We definitely don't want him having a gun...
Kennedy is proof you don't need a gun to kill someone.
Once the enumerated threshold was crossed in Heller, the bar went way up.
We need more lawyers willing to pursue
If the pilot or his company allows you to fly for whatever price, and you agree, then certainly you do have a right to fly. Where is the federal government allowed to prevent 2 parties from exchanging goods and services?
Kennedy should be on the list. Hell, all the booze on the flight would disappear if he were on my flight and I would be pissed.
California has the fruits and we in NY have the nuts.
Uhh, that would be a contract, not a right. Rights come from God.
The liberals have tried mightly to change the language regarding rights, healthcare, marriage rights and so on, and only partially succeeded. It worked with liberal though.
And do you not have a right to contract?
Does the federal government have the Constitutional power to prevent you from making contracts with other parties?
Fyi—in case you missed this...
What was the phrase from Rahm Emanuel: 'You never want to waste a good crisis.'
Clearly the duplicitous Demoncraps will use any means to implement their agenda and Ignore any REAL threat.
Not to mention that little old concept of Due Process.
Terrorists aren't a "real" threat to the Fascists expanding their power in America. You and I are.
once accomplished, start adding the following names to the list...
John Smith
Joe Brown
Ed Farmer
Jim Carpenter
etc. etc. etc.
Perfect example of why some Founding Fathers didn't want a Bill of Rights in the first place: that many would construe an enumeration of rights as a disavowal of other non-enumerated rights.
That flying is not an enumerated right does not mean it's not a Constitutionally-recognized right (see 9th & 10th Amendments). The Constitution GRANTS the government powers; there is no power granted to the government to prevent you from engaging in transport-for-hire (regardless of altitude). If the airline is willing to sell you a ticket to fly, you have a right to do so - and the government is not granted any power to deny you that right (so long as no crime is involved), and the Constitution goes so far as to explicitly prohibit the government from searching you and your bags without articulable specific cause, and from requiring you show your papers without articulable specific cause. The whole TSA thing is an enormous 4th Amendment SCOTUS case waiting to happen (unfortunately, judges are swayed by emotion instead of Constitutional law).
It actually is. Interstate Commerce Clause which strengthens us a United States and not a league of nations.
Someone get Carolyn McCarthy a copy of the Bill of Rights.
She should read it.
and then...anyone who listens to Rush or Levin...or voted anything other than Democrat in any of the last 4 election cycles is immediately put on the “no fly” list.
This, of course, has nothing to do with flying.
One’s name appears on the no-fly list due to real or alleged non-flying activities.
Eventually overturned by the courts?
When most of the judges are Clinton and O appointed, we may be lucky if “eventually” is within our lifetime.
“Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.”-Alexander Hope, from the novel “Hope” by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman
It's a bit long, but it makes the point, no matter HOW they try to take our guns...
Although I agree with the concept, I think it's a distraction in this case.
A moot point, since if a right is mentioned in the Constitution, then there's no room for argument.
That was me that “used” to post that quote.
I still do.
C'mon, be reasonable.
If Government officials have all been required never to use the word "terrorist," it only follows that terrorism no longer exists.
So the WOT provisions are totally violations of Constitutional Rights under color of authority. Illegal.
Yes, members of Congress (both houses) haven't the faintest clue what the Constitution says. Nor, apparently, do they care.
I hadn't seen it in a while and thought that it was worth posting again.
I would rather he not be allowed to drive.
Oh boy, you know...NY really has a winner there...
Specifically, enumerated rights have higher thresholds for government to infringe. Yes I know, it hasn't worked out that way, has it. Well a lot of the blame is on the NRA, for using the Second Amendment as a fund raising tool, rather than defend it as it should have been. We definitely have some ground to make up.
So yes flying might be construed a right, or it might be a contract. You can have the right to fly, just not the right to get on anybody's plane whenever you want. I don't know if it has ever come up that you have a right to get on a private plane and fly somewhere. How would that be, since the right would depend on others to get you there, which is then a contract.
Rights, I think of like atoms, you have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... But no one has to make and give you a gun to defend your life -- for instance.
Agree though that the Constitution gives government certain limited powers ... Regulating Intrastate commerce so one State can't fleece another. But that does include where you might go -- For instance if you wanted to walk around in a nuclear power station, not so fast. So the implicit rules of society are established by government and the legislative process. But rights are not and cannot be taken away.
And yes the TSA thing does appear to go to far, but the arguments that were made before the court was that no one has to fly -- If you want to then these are the rules, papers and bags please, and now strip for the camera.
Just my 2 cents.
Republican congressmen should not have voted nearly unanimously in favor of the Democrat domestic violence witches for the VAWA (”Violence Against Women Act” violates Second Amendment rights of the falsely accused and other non-felons, see case of Dr. Emerson). ...could’ve had millions of more supporters.
Certainly the no drive list.
Tell me about it !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right to travel when you have no convictions is a right.
A million times....
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2401
#
Note: The following text is a quote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2401
Text of H.R. 2401: No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009
Show this version:
Download PDF
Full Text on THOMAS
Go to Bill Status
Compare to this version:
Show changes:
Side-by-side
Highlighted
Expand all sections
Collapse all sections
Link to this view
This version: Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.
HR 2401 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2401
To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 13, 2009
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself and Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE PREVENTED FROM BOARDING AN AIRCRAFT IN THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
(a) In General- Section 103(f) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by inserting ‘, notwithstanding any regulation prescribed under section 40119(b) of title 49, United States Code’ before the period.
(b) Transfer or Other Disposition of Firearm to Such Persons- Section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (8);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting ‘; or’; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
‘(10) is an individual who is required, under regulations prescribed under section 114(h) of title 49, United States Code, to be prevented from boarding an aircraft.’.
(c) Shipment, Transport, Possession, or Receipt of Firearm by Such Persons- Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (8);
(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting ‘; or’; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
‘(10) who is an individual who is required, under regulations prescribed under section 114(h) of title 49, United States Code, to be prevented from boarding an aircraft,’.
Yes, you have that liberty to freely travel.
Again, the usual suspects...
These statists have yet to find a right that they don't love to trample on.
Why is this person not being tried RIGHT NOW?
At minimum, you have a right to fly insofar as the government is not granted any power to stop you from doing so. To the contrary, the federal government is explicitly forbidden from engaging in activities central to "no-fly lists" and TSA bag-checks. The airline surely is not obligated to sell you a ticket, but if they do the feds have no Constitutional power to stop you (short of a warrant, which is an entirely different issue) - ergo, a right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.