Posted on 06/21/2016 9:44:07 AM PDT by milton23
If the news reports are correct, the latest “gun control” proposal being put forward by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is a “measure that would block people on the Transportation Security Administration’s no–fly list from buying firearms,” according to ABC News.
There is one major problem with that proposal: It is potentially unconstitutional since it would take away a constitutional right—your Second Amendment right to bear arms—at the discretion of a government official in a secret, nontransparent process that has no adequate due process protections.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysign.al ...
Things do change. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but wild-assed conjecture and passing a law to ban marijuana.
If you are not notified that you’ve been placed on any list, and if you don’t have an appeals process that is timely and by a jury of your peers, then you are being railroaded.
It’s that simple.
Vote no to ‘watch lists’ and ‘fly lists’.
The question I want answered that I never hear a reporter bother asking: If you know who the terrorists are, and quite possibly where they are, why are they still there? Why aren’t they arrested? The average American inadvertently commits felonies each and every day. Surely some sort of charges could be trumped up?
Or is this ‘no fly’ list a random conglomeration of names that you might or might not investigate as time and information warrants?
Please do not reply with voodoo statements like ‘we don’t know.’ Because if you don’t know, why are their names on the list? Isn’t unrestricted travel one of the most basic of human rights, so basic that no one ever imagined that it needed to be put into the constitution?
Obama: "Oh, we can't do THAT! That would violate their due-process!"
Let’s get it straight.
Government self-interest is opposed to the Constitution and individual freedom.
State and individual self-interest - embodied in the Constitution and state and individual freedom - is opposed to government self-interest.
By its very nature the central government is against the interests of the states and the people. That is why we have a Constitution, to keep this potential monster in its constitutional cage.
Again, let’s get it straight. Political government basically does only one thing well: coerce and kill. Government is VERY GOOD at coercion and killing. A good government, limited by the rule of law, will kill threatening enemies without and coerce wrongdoers within. A bad government, unhinged from the rule of law, is tyranny and will coerce and kill mostly its own citizens in its unquenchable quest for money and power.
You just have to ask yourself one question: which side are you on?
The government can infringe on our rights but they cannot take them away.
I’, confused here. Where does in say to Constitution protects illegal aliens and terrorist plants?
The same clause that protects parents’ God-given right to murder their unborn children.
And prevents ownership of big, bad, mean-looking {fire}arms.
All veterans, anti-abortion foes, liberty loving, gun & religion clinging patriots and conspiracy theorists’ names will soon appear on the swelling no-fly list...
All Rights Reserved*
(*except where prohibited by law)
All such things are always aimed at the law-abiding, patriotic majority: It is always about control of the masses. They have no intention of stopping terrorists, nor of making this nation safer.
From a related thread…
Patriots, please note the following concerning constitutional gun rights.
In addition to the issue of personal rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, the federal government has only those powers which the states have delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution.
In fact, a previous generaton of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified in broad language that powers that the states have not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate civilian-related arms in this example, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
And regarding so-called civilian-related federal gun laws, the federal government’s big constitutional problem is that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly delegate the specific power to regulate such arms to the feds.
In fact, it is disturbing that federal gun laws which regulate civilian arms don’t seem to have appeared in the books until the time of the FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at the time infamous for making laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Insights, corrections welcome.
+1
Make sure your congressmen, senators, and presidential candidate all understand this.
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.