Somin doubles as a faggy-looking .gov taxtick at George Mason University:
Law professor; author of Democracy and Political Ignorance; & The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain; Volokh Conspiracy blogger.
Posted on 09/27/2016 6:30:20 PM PDT by Innovative
At last night’s presidential debate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton made all kinds of attacks on each other. But on one notable issue, they were in complete agreement: they both think people on the federal government’s “no fly list” should be categorically denied their right buy guns under the Second Amendment. Both candidates have repeatedly said so for months. Trump’s stance on this issue should be deeply troubling to those who care about gun rights – and also to people concerned about constitutional rights generally, even if they don’t care much about this one.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So -- who do you think will protect your 2nd Amendment rights -- Trump or Hillary?
Conservatives need to make sure to get out and vote for Trump.
The REAL issue is who the candidates think should be ON the “No-Fly List”.
Can pretty much guarantee they’re MILES apart on that.
She’s already stated her position on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, over and over again through the years.
Wow. REALLY appreciate the Washington ComPost’s sudden interest in gun rights - NOT!!!
What if they can put all Christians or Republicans on the “No Fly List with a simple tick mark in a DHS database?
“The REAL issue is who the candidates think should be ON the “No-Fly List”.”
Yes! And beyond that, a process for rapid “vetting” if you find yourself on such a list that would guarantee you get off in a specified short period of time unless the govenment goes into open court and presents evidence that would keep you on it for good reason.
Spot on, vette
Because of where I live (Guam) I am probably the most obsequious airline passenger around. I really don’t want to get put on a no fly list. Not many boats come here
In the debate, Trump said he administration would work to get a person off the no-fly list if they didn’t belong on it.
LOL! Those toads down at the WaPo will say anything to trash Trump. I can’t wait until he trashes their bionic princess in November.
Ilya Somin is not part of the regular WaPo crowd. He is a very libertarian law professor and blogger.
I am somewhat bothered by the no fly list issue.
On balance trump is still way better due to the judges he’s stated he will name to the scotus. Easy choice.
I don't like dealing with bureaucracies. So many government employees (in particular, minorities) are just so lazy, don't follow through, and don't seem to care about doing their jobs with any pride.
The way I see it Trump has never had to think about a bunch of topics that are near & dear to our hearts. He’s been suitably insulated from the street level things that you and I encounter. He could be a gun aficionado for all I know, but he doesn’t need to worry a lot about personal protection - he has people to attend to that.
I believe his instincts to be good and he is a quick study.
I’m not concerned.
Somin doubles as a faggy-looking .gov taxtick at George Mason University:
Law professor; author of Democracy and Political Ignorance; & The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain; Volokh Conspiracy blogger.
Frankly, people on the terror watch list should be in jail. Though Obama is still trying to get them naturalized so they can vote.
The huge difference is that Trump thinks: if you’re on the list, you should have a way of knowing and getting OFF the list.
That alone will lead to the list itself being deemed a violation of due process and duly eliminated - at which point the RKBA issue is moot.
Understand that a candidate can only battle so many issues at once on the campaign trail, and fighting this issue now is a waste of opportunity. Opposing “no fly = no buy” _will_ be spun as “Trump wants to let terrorists buy guns” which is absolutely a losing battle, which could cost him the election. Now is NOT the time to fight this; put the energy into “Hillary wants to take your guns”, win the election, _then_ move onto fringe RKBA issues.
Demanding absolute perfection, when expediency is vital, can get you killed politically and literally (if Herself wins, we face civil war over RKBA).
I don't think that depriving someone on a no-fly list of their Second Amendment Rights falls within the Constitutional requirement for due process of Law.
In addition to "no fly" lists, this is true also for things such as restraining orders, IMHO.
You can't be deprived of fundamental Rights without due process of Law, and to deprive any person (at least a citizen) of such Rights would requires compelling cause.
Basically, anything short of probable cause that would justify a judicial order, etc., there's no way we can start allowing bureaucrats to decide Peoples' Second Amendment rights, and depriving People of it via arbitrarily adding them to a list.
It's just not Constitutional, IMHO, and I believe that if tested, that will prove to be the case. And I also trust that everyone reading this is aware that due process concerns are of critical importance to Second Amendment supporters.
What I'm basically saying is that if Trump appoints the kind of Supreme Court judges he says he's going to, we should have nothing to be concerned about regarding the Constitutionality of such silly shortcuts. They will be (b!itch) slapped down for the hysterical measures they appear to be.
Anyone who would advocate for this "shortcut" really hasn't thought it out, and strikes me a s an advocate of big government. Without a judge's order based on probable cause, I just can't see it as kosher.
Let's just say that I hope that Donald Trump will rethink and then clarify his remarks on this issue, providing nuance that I haven't heard yet, because he's coming off as a bit too reactionary or "PC", if you will, on this issue.
This might be a good example of a Constitutional nuance that perhaps Ted Cruz could help tighten Donald up on.
Has Cruz said anything about his opinion on this "Terror Watch List" hysteria?
And, boy, talk about fact-checking! What a perfect opportunity it would have been for a real journalist to raise the issue of, say, Constitutional due process when discussing such things!
To me, that's the kind of point (for at least someone to interject in the interests of due diligence) that would actually serve the interests of the People, but of course nobody even mentioned it. It's a yuuuge consideration, IMHO, and I can't believe GOA or the (NRA) would feel any different, if they're really the 2A defenders they claim to be.
The Revolution is ON!
Vote Trump! (but totally hold his feet to the fire!)
“Understand that a candidate can only battle so many issues at once on the campaign trail, and fighting this issue now is a waste of opportunity. ... Now is NOT the time to fight this; put the energy into “Hillary wants to take your guns”, win the election, _then_ move onto fringe RKBA issues.”
Excellent points.
Note my new tagline -- which I changed today after venturing into New York City for the first time in almost three months.
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.