There’s only a difference if you misunderstand the nature of our rights under the Constitution. Our government is one of limited rights, which means that the Constitution only allows the government to do those things that are enumerated in the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights was added after the original drafting of the Constitution as an added measure to make sure there were no misunderstandings about certain of the more critical topics, but it wasn’t by accident that at the end of the Bill of Rights, they made sure to add, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So if you think that the only “constitutionally protected rights” that we have as U.S. citizens are those that are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, you’ve already missed the point. We have a constitutionally-protected right to do anything that we want free of federal interference, except where the Constitution specifically provides otherwise.
So, the Constitution does not provide the federal government with the ability to restrict our travel, nor restrict the sale and possession of firearms, except in both cases, in certain limited and clearly defined instances. I’d call both the no-fly list and a no-purchase list “limited and clearly defined instances”.
“So if you think that the only “constitutionally protected rights” that we have as U.S. citizens are those that are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, you’ve already missed the point.”
If you think the government respects any rights NOT specifically enumerated in the Constitution, you haven’t been paying attention.
“clearly defined”
You mean like if your name is Robert Johnson you get hassled at the airport because you are on the no-fly list? Or you posted something on Tweeter (or perhaps Free Republic) once? Or some Fed checked the wrong box on a form?
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list.html