Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Fly List might become "No Gun" List
nationalgunrights.org ^ | 5/19/2009 | NA

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; carolynmccarthy; donttreadonme; hr2401; lping; mccarthy; noflylist; rapeofliberty; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
This is as bad as Pete King. Where's the due process? I'm sorry, but if they can't be trusted, then they can be incarcerated, exiled or executed. I'm tired of these half steps. Either you have the rights of full citizenship with the right to self defense, or you don't. Is there something in Long Island's water?

Rep Peter King Plots Terrorist Act (Allegations Sufficient For Punishment)

Unrelated:

Gun Stocks Rally: NRA and 'Babes with Bullets' Convene

1 posted on 05/19/2009 12:50:16 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I didn’t know that flying was a Constitutional right.


2 posted on 05/19/2009 12:52:53 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Senator Ted Kennedy found his name on the list..."

Well that cinches it. We definitely don't want him having a gun...
3 posted on 05/19/2009 12:53:36 PM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (The emperor has no pedigree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If this passes, courts will eventually strike it down. Because the second amendment to the constitution has been held to protect an individual right to bear arms, McCarthy's bill would represent a prior restraint of 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.

4 posted on 05/19/2009 12:54:09 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

Rights don’t come from the Constitution.


5 posted on 05/19/2009 12:56:21 PM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

ping


6 posted on 05/19/2009 12:56:38 PM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

To hell with these damn laws, I'll follow my conscience.

7 posted on 05/19/2009 12:59:08 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We either Free America ourselves, or it is midnight for humanity for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

Wrong way to look at this. What clause in the Constitution gives the FedGov this power? I can’t think of one...


8 posted on 05/19/2009 12:59:59 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hey Steni, have you seen this?

I thought we were supposed to have defeated the leftists on new gun legislation.

Dumb dumb...


9 posted on 05/19/2009 1:00:07 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama is mentally a child of ten. Just remember that when he makes statements and issues policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


10 posted on 05/19/2009 1:00:12 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sorry congresswoman. The people on the list already have guns or can get them anytime they want whether this got passed or not.


11 posted on 05/19/2009 1:00:45 PM PDT by SeanOGuano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
I didn’t know that flying was a Constitutional right.

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.

12 posted on 05/19/2009 1:01:04 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

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.


13 posted on 05/19/2009 1:02:10 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket
"Senator Ted Kennedy found his name on the list..."

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.

14 posted on 05/19/2009 1:03:05 PM PDT by Texican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Ripe territory for a suit ... Once the SC recognized the Second Amendment defined an individual right, the boundaries need to be litigated for determination.

Once the enumerated threshold was crossed in Heller, the bar went way up.

We need more lawyers willing to pursue

15 posted on 05/19/2009 1:05:08 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

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?


16 posted on 05/19/2009 1:06:44 PM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


17 posted on 05/19/2009 1:07:30 PM PDT by b4its2late (There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

California has the fruits and we in NY have the nuts.


18 posted on 05/19/2009 1:08:44 PM PDT by b4its2late (There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

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.


19 posted on 05/19/2009 1:10:07 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

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?


20 posted on 05/19/2009 1:13:01 PM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
The right of a lawful resident of the US to travel freely within the US has been established long since, by not less than 5 USSC decisions. There may be (probably are) more such, but that's all that come to mind just now.
21 posted on 05/19/2009 1:13:33 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Fyi—in case you missed this...


22 posted on 05/19/2009 1:14:40 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I'm confused [rhetorically speaking] – there isn't anymore WOT, there is no more threat of terrorism, why do we suddenly need 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.

23 posted on 05/19/2009 1:15:19 PM PDT by GYL2 (Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GYL2
Ignore any REAL threat

Terrorists aren't a "real" threat to the Fascists expanding their power in America. You and I are.

24 posted on 05/19/2009 1:16:21 PM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

once accomplished, start adding the following names to the list...

John Smith
Joe Brown
Ed Farmer
Jim Carpenter

etc. etc. etc.


25 posted on 05/19/2009 1:21:58 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Some estimate that there are thousands of innocent names on the list which now has now grown to over 1 million names.
 
Studies show that may or may not be true and it could be more.

26 posted on 05/19/2009 1:22:34 PM PDT by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
I didn’t know that flying was a Constitutional right.

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).

27 posted on 05/19/2009 1:23:58 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (John Galt was exiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

It actually is. Interstate Commerce Clause which strengthens us a United States and not a league of nations.


28 posted on 05/19/2009 1:28:46 PM PDT by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Someone get Carolyn McCarthy a copy of the Bill of Rights.
She should read it.


29 posted on 05/19/2009 1:35:12 PM PDT by astyanax (Had enough Hope and Change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


30 posted on 05/19/2009 1:36:58 PM PDT by trtdenver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djsherin; Tarpon

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.


31 posted on 05/19/2009 1:41:10 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Socialism is inconsistent with the Constitution and is one of the "domestic enemies".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Someone else used to post this Quote:
“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...

32 posted on 05/19/2009 1:41:41 PM PDT by GYL2 (Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
Rights don’t come from the Constitution.

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.

33 posted on 05/19/2009 1:44:31 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
Of course an immediate suit is not only justified but absolutely necessary.
The only thing necessary for stupid (and illegal) laws to be entrenched forever, is merely to allow them to exist unchallenged for a few years.
34 posted on 05/19/2009 1:49:38 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GYL2

That was me that “used” to post that quote.
I still do.


35 posted on 05/19/2009 1:50:43 PM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Terrorists aren't a "real" threat to the Fascists expanding their power in America. You and I are.

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.

36 posted on 05/19/2009 1:54:16 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Well thank you for doing that.

I hadn't seen it in a while and thought that it was worth posting again.

37 posted on 05/19/2009 2:04:55 PM PDT by GYL2 (Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket

I would rather he not be allowed to drive.


38 posted on 05/19/2009 2:05:51 PM PDT by Sigurdrifta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh boy, you know...NY really has a winner there...


39 posted on 05/19/2009 3:46:27 PM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
If you read the Heller decision, you see the court has special reverence for enumerated rights. Other rights can be construed to be part and parcel of the main but they need to be adjudicated by the court to be defined. The infamous Roe v Wade for instance, they say is derived from the right to privacy.

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.

40 posted on 05/19/2009 4:05:13 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


41 posted on 05/19/2009 5:18:15 PM PDT by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket

Certainly the no drive list.


42 posted on 05/19/2009 7:27:33 PM PDT by Redcitizen (December 21, 2012; there's change for ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Some estimate that there are thousands of innocent names on the list which now has now grown to over 1 million names.

Tell me about it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

43 posted on 05/19/2009 8:05:48 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

Right to travel when you have no convictions is a right.


44 posted on 05/19/2009 8:17:36 PM PDT by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

A million times....


45 posted on 05/19/2009 8:21:58 PM PDT by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: All

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,’.


46 posted on 05/19/2009 11:39:11 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King

Yes, you have that liberty to freely travel.


47 posted on 05/20/2009 4:10:16 AM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
"Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy"

Again, the usual suspects...

These statists have yet to find a right that they don't love to trample on.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

48 posted on 05/20/2009 5:27:06 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
We need to file charges against these people. McCarthy is in clear violation of USC Title 18, sections 241 and 242.

Why is this person not being tried RIGHT NOW?

49 posted on 05/20/2009 5:40:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
How would that be

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.

50 posted on 05/20/2009 6:06:40 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (John Galt was exiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson