Poster Aquilla was right.....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Doesn't matter the timeframe. What matters is due process of American citizens are being violated.



Let me get this straight: You are all for denying constitutional due process for American Citizens, but you are against the POTUS using his constitutional powers to restrict non-citizens from entering the US? You make no sense.

What "due process" is being denied? The selectee lists aren't criminal charges. And there is a process of redress should one's name be on the list by mistake or merely on account of matching the name of another.

I have, you just don't like it. You have yet to show where in the Constitution the government is allowed to violate the due process of American citizens.

Again, what "due process" is being denied? What "due process" is being denied? The selectee lists aren't criminal charges. And there is a process of redress should one's name be on the list by mistake or merely on account of matching the name of another.

Now this is just rich. On one hand, you complain about the travel ban EO the POTUS signed, but now you say, well the feds have the power to defend us. You're also against the border wall, but in the bold above acknowledge the government has power to defend the border.

I think the travel ban doesn't ban travel to or from the very nations the terrorists that attacked us were from. So, it wouldn't have even prevented 9/11. It is like having huge gaping holes in the walls of a city. In addition, the travel ban isn't just affecting suspects on a terrorist watch list, it is effecting many upstanding citizens. Frankly, it is more Draconian than expanding background checks to include the terrorist watch lists.

I think the boarder wall that Trump plans is far too expensive. If Mexico were paying for it, I might be a bit indifferent. It won't span the entire boarder. In addition, most illegals get here through unknown tunnels, a wall will not stop them. And when Trump cut funding to medical research and Medicare to help pay for it, I moved to being solidly against it. I don't agree with paying to build a wall, by limiting medical advancements or denying seniors medication.

Yes, the POTUS does have constitutional power to restrict entry to the US. That is not a matter of debate. obama restricted entry, W restricted entry, and so on.

I'm not debating his authority to do so. I'm only saying that he doesn't have the stones to enforce a travel ban against the very nation's that (if memory serves me correctly) 15 of the 19 9/11 attackers came from.

However, neither the POTUS nor the feds have the constitutional power to violate due process and restrict due process rights.

Again, what due process is denied?

You want to pretend this is just about boarding airplanes of private companies and how it's not a constitutional right to fly. I'm not arguing whether airlines can decide who boards or not. That's not the issue and you know it.

I'm simply saying you don't have a constitutional right to fly. And if you are on a suspected threat list, they have the right to keep you off any plane they desire.

Furthermore, you're wanting to use this unconstitutional list to restrict the 2A constitutional rights of American citizens.

You do know that there are plenty of gun owners who don't want assault weapons in the hands of terrorists don't you? There are gun owners who have no issue with expanding a background check to include the terrorist watch lists. After all, what good is a background check if it looking to address a growing threat to American citizens???

For the third time -- Where in the Constitution is power given to the feds to violate due process rights of US Citizens and restricting their 2A rights?

You've failed to present a due process being denied.

NICS gathers info from the NICS database, the Interstate Identification Index and the NCIC. There are several reasons a buyer may be restricted from purchasing a weapon:

• Convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years
• Fugitive from Justice
• Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Conviction
• Unlawful User/Addicted to a Controlled Substance
• State Prohibitor
• Protection/Restraining Order for Domestic Violence
• Under Indictment/Information
• Adjudicated Mental Health
• Illegal/Unlawful Alien
• Federally Denied Persons File
• Dishonorable Discharge
• Renounced U.S. Citizenship

As US citizens, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. We have due process rights, as citizens. You want to go beyond this list and restrict the 2A constitutional right of citizens who haven't committed a crime!

If you are on a watch list, you're suspect. If it is a clerical error, there is a process that clears your name. One need not even go to court to get off the list. At the very worst, it only delays the purchase of an "assault rifle" for a couple weeks. It doesn't delay the purchase of a handgun or hunting rifle. At best, it prevents a mass casualty terrorist attack.

Assuming the worst case scenario, you wouldn't be willing to delay the purchase of an assault weapon a couple weeks for the sake of the safety of your countrymen?

I've got an idea, why don't gun owners who think like you offer special discounts for those who can prove they are on the watch list. LOL

Didn't you claim to be libertarian at one point?

I graduated.

So now I'm a terrorist? God bless you, Aquila.

Ummm... you're basically advocating that we allow suspected terrorists to freely purchase assault weapons. Isn't that aiding the enemy?

That's not what the House bill was about. The No Fly No Buy bill was an amendment added to a spending bill. It did NOT single out assault rifles only. It was a ban on firearms. Period.

I'm for singling out assault weapons. I feel that is a decent political compromise. However, I'd entertain the notion of covering all gun purchases.

After all is said and done....you'd ban travel to and from a group of nations with active and hostile terrorist groups....but, should anyone traveling from one of these nations successfully get here, you fully support the suspected terrorists among them the right to purchase assault weapons???

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What "due process" is being denied? The selectee lists aren't criminal charges. And there is a process of redress should one's name be on the list by mistake or merely on account of matching the name of another.

Again, what "due process" is being denied? What "due process" is being denied? The selectee lists aren't criminal charges. And there is a process of redress should one's name be on the list by mistake or merely on account of matching the name of another.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent!

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the travel ban doesn't ban travel to or from the very nations the terrorists that attacked us were from. So, it wouldn't have even prevented 9/11. It is like having huge gaping holes in the walls of a city. In addition, the travel ban isn't just affecting suspects on a terrorist watch list, it is effecting many upstanding citizens. Frankly, it is more Draconian than expanding background checks to include the terrorist watch lists.

Draconian? It's not US citizens that are being blocked entry. The issue is that those countries have little to no proper screening of individuals.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the boarder (sic) wall that Trump plans is far too expensive. If Mexico were paying for it, I might be a bit indifferent. It won't span the entire boarder (sic). In addition, most illegals get here through unknown tunnels, a wall will not stop them. And when Trump cut funding to medical research and Medicare to help pay for it, I moved to being solidly against it. I don't agree with paying to build a wall, by limiting medical advancements or denying seniors medication.

I thought you were against corporate subsidies? What do you think that "medical research" funding is? It's a corporate subsidy. If you're going to be against something, be consistent or you just look like a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not debating his authority to do so. I'm only saying that he doesn't have the stones to enforce a travel ban against the very nation's that (if memory serves me correctly) 15 of the 19 9/11 attackers came from.

No argument from me. I'd certainly like to see it expanded further.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, what due process is denied?

There is NO due process for ending up on those lists, yet you want to use those lists to take away our Constitutionally protected rights? Let's look at this from another angle, what if they were proposing that anyone on the no-fly list shouldn't be allowed to use their right to freedom of speech? Would you be so nonchalant about it? I think not.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm simply saying you don't have a constitutional right to fly. And if you are on a suspected threat list, they have the right to keep you off any plane they desire.

No one here is arguing against the no-fly list. We could have that argument, but we're not. We're discussing whether it should be used to deny American Citizens their Constitutional rights!

Originally Posted by Aquila

You do know that there are plenty of gun owners who don't want assault weapons in the hands of terrorists don't you? There are gun owners who have no issue with expanding a background check to include the terrorist watch lists. After all, what good is a background check if it looking to address a growing threat to American citizens???

There are idiots everywhere, what's your point?

Originally Posted by Aquila

You've failed to present a due process being denied.

No, you've just failed to grasp it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you are on a watch list, you're suspect. If it is a clerical error, there is a process that clears your name. One need not even go to court to get off the list. At the very worst, it only delays the purchase of an "assault rifle" for a couple weeks. It doesn't delay the purchase of a handgun or hunting rifle. At best, it prevents a mass casualty terrorist attack.

Again, guilty until proven innocent. That's not how our system of government is meant to operate.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Assuming the worst case scenario, you wouldn't be willing to delay the purchase of an assault weapon a couple weeks for the sake of the safety of your countrymen?

The ban wasn't a delay, it was a BAN!

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've got an idea, why don't gun owners who think like you offer special discounts for those who can prove they are on the watch list. LOL

Now you're just being retarded.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I graduated.

Yes, to fascism.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummm... you're basically advocating that we allow suspected terrorists to freely purchase assault weapons. Isn't that aiding the enemy?

No, we're arguing against removing Constitutional rights without due process.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm for singling out assault weapons. I feel that is a decent political compromise. However, I'd entertain the notion of covering all gun purchases.

What constitutes an "assault weapon"? Fully automatic rifles are already completely banned.

Originally Posted by Aquila

After all is said and done....you'd ban travel to and from a group of nations with active and hostile terrorist groups....but, should anyone traveling from one of these nations successfully get here, you fully support the suspected terrorists among them the right to purchase assault weapons???

We're talking about the Constitutional rights of CITIZENS.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What "due process" is being denied?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, what "due process" is being denied? What "due process" is being denied?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, what due process is denied?

Originally Posted by Aquila

You've failed to present a due process being denied.

I've already posted this, but I'll repost and add more information to try and help you out.

"the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify, or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you."

"The government has an official policy of refusing to confirm or to deny whether anyone is on the list even after people are publicly prevented from boarding"

"In yesterday's ruling, the court agreed with us that the redress procedure "falls far short of satisfying the requirements of due process," and is "wholly ineffective." The court warned that "without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, an individual could be doomed to indefinite placement on the No-Fly List"

"The court ultimately concluded that the lack of any meaningful opportunity to contest their placement on the No Fly List violates our clients' constitutional due process rights."

IE - By 1) not informing you of placement on the list; 2) not allowing any hearing to testify or question witnesses; and 3) not proving any criminal wrongdoing, the no fly list violates our due process rights.

Do you understand now?

Originally Posted by Aquila

The selectee lists aren't criminal charges. And there is a process of redress should one's name be on the list by mistake or merely on account of matching the name of another.

You make it sound so simple. I honestly question your claim that you were on a No Fly list. Perhaps another list, but I do not believe you were on the No Fly list. Every case I've read about people who found themselves on the list was that they were not notified, unlike your claim that you were told you were on the list; even the lawsuit and court stated that the government has official policy to neither confirm nor deny existence on the list. So, I don't buy your claim, sorry.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The selectee lists aren't criminal charges. And there is a process of redress should one's name be on the list by mistake or merely on account of matching the name of another.

You're right, there's no proof of any criminal wrongdoing, much less actual charges. You're proving my point for me. The "process" you talk about, from all cases I've read, is very difficult and takes a long time. Which is why the ACLU has sued the government on behalf of individuals who have tried and failed to get off the list.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the travel ban doesn't ban travel to or from the very nations the terrorists that attacked us were from. So, it wouldn't have even prevented 9/11. It is like having huge gaping holes in the walls of a city. In addition, the travel ban isn't just affecting suspects on a terrorist watch list, it is effecting many upstanding citizens. Frankly, it is more Draconian than expanding background checks to include the terrorist watch lists.

I think the boarder wall that Trump plans is far too expensive. If Mexico were paying for it, I might be a bit indifferent. It won't span the entire boarder. In addition, most illegals get here through unknown tunnels, a wall will not stop them. And when Trump cut funding to medical research and Medicare to help pay for it, I moved to being solidly against it. I don't agree with paying to build a wall, by limiting medical advancements or denying seniors medication.

It's not affecting US Citizens. That's completely false. It targets those with visas. I do agree that not enough has been done to punish Saudi Arabia. I don't know why we continue to coddle them and pacify them, when their Madrasa's spew hatred and breed terrorism. I would be much in favor of sanctions against SA. We shouldn't be selling arms to them, nor should they be considered an ally.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not debating his authority to do so. I'm only saying that he doesn't have the stones to enforce a travel ban against the very nation's that (if memory serves me correctly) 15 of the 19 9/11 attackers came from.

No POTUS has. Neither have any members of Congress from either party. Libs and cons have coddled and enabled the terrorists from SA.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm simply saying you don't have a constitutional right to fly. And if you are on a suspected threat list, they have the right to keep you off any plane they desire.

Again, that isn't the point. The point is the government shouldn't be compiling a list without due process rights. And the government especially should not be allowed to use such a list to deny our 2A rights.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You do know that there are plenty of gun owners who don't want assault weapons in the hands of terrorists don't you? There are gun owners who have no issue with expanding a background check to include the terrorist watch lists. After all, what good is a background check if it looking to address a growing threat to American citizens???

Who, you? I live in AZ where people wear guns pretty much everywhere. I don't know one individual who supports using the No Fly list on gun purchases. Not one. And we have gun shows every couple of months. The only support I've found is for the so-called gun show loophole.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you are on a watch list, you're suspect. If it is a clerical error, there is a process that clears your name. One need not even go to court to get off the list. At the very worst, it only delays the purchase of an "assault rifle" for a couple weeks. It doesn't delay the purchase of a handgun or hunting rifle. At best, it prevents a mass casualty terrorist attack.

Again, the way you talk about this leads me to believe you have never been on the list. "A couple weeks?" Apparently the ACLU and other organizations against the No Fly list are lying by saying their clients have fought months to get off the list, and then only after suing the government.

And again, the No Fly No Buy bill which was defeated in the House last year was for all firearms, not just assault rifles. And it was for a complete ban, not just a simple "couple weeks" delay.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Assuming the worst case scenario, you wouldn't be willing to delay the purchase of an assault weapon a couple weeks for the sake of the safety of your countrymen?

1) your timeframe is completely wrong; 2) until we become Minority Report and are able to see the future and the intent of the person purchasing the gun -- if they have no criminal record, no mental health issues, then NO I'm not willing to violate due process rights of American citizens nor their 2A rights.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I graduated.

I wouldn't call it that.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummm... you're basically advocating that we allow suspected terrorists to freely purchase assault weapons. Isn't that aiding the enemy?

Well, that's false. I never advocated any such thing. What I have been arguing is that the government not violate due process rights of American citizens.

It's sad to read your posts lately. You call anyone who isn't liberal like you a terrorist. Conservative Christians are terrorists. Trump supporters are terrorists. Non Trump supporters who are against entitlements and free healthcare are terrorists.

If only I was a progressive, affirming, free everything for everyone, ban the automatic machine guns and clips, one world, love wins liberal.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm for singling out assault weapons. I feel that is a decent political compromise. However, I'd entertain the notion of covering all gun purchases.

Of course you would! Which is why conservatives will fight to make sure you don't get the No Fly No Buy. Because once that happens ... bye bye 2A.

Originally Posted by Aquila

After all is said and done....you'd ban travel to and from a group of nations with active and hostile terrorist groups....but, should anyone traveling from one of these nations successfully get here, you fully support the suspected terrorists among them the right to purchase assault weapons???

Actually, a refugee would not be able to legally purchase a weapon, per ATF.

""An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, certain official representatives of a foreign government, or a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business.""

""A nonimmigrant alien is an alien in the United States in a nonimmigrant classification as defined by section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15). Generally, "nonimmigrant aliens" are tourists, students, business travelers, and temporary workers who enter the U.S. for fixed periods of time; they are lawfully admitted aliens who are not lawful permanent residents.""

""It is a class C felony for any person who is not a citizen of the United States to carry or possess any firearm, unless the person: 1) Is a lawful permanent resident; 2) has obtained a valid alien firearm license pursuant to RCW 9.41.173; or 3) meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.175.""

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

In other words, guilty until proven innocent!

It isn't a criminal charge.

Draconian? It's not US citizens that are being blocked entry. The issue is that those countries have little to no proper screening of individuals.

But you're against screening and no fly lists. lol

I thought you were against corporate subsidies? What do you think that "medical research" funding is? It's a corporate subsidy. If you're going to be against something, be consistent or you just look like a hypocrite.

Subsidies allocated to projects to come up with cures and vaccines is far different from subsidies that go towards corporations like Wal-Mart or Exxon Mobile.

There is NO due process for ending up on those lists, yet you want to use those lists to take away our Constitutionally protected rights? Let's look at this from another angle, what if they were proposing that anyone on the no-fly list shouldn't be allowed to use their right to freedom of speech? Would you be so nonchalant about it? I think not.

You do not have a Constitutional right to fly on a plane. And if added to the background check of gun purchases, you would still have opportunity to redress, have the issue cleared, and to purchase your "assault weapon". Remember, I think it should only be for assault weapons.

No one here is arguing against the no-fly list. We could have that argument, but we're not. We're discussing whether it should be used to deny American Citizens their Constitutional rights!

It's not denying your rights. If there were an error, you could file a redress to correct it and purchase your weapon. If you chose not to file a redress and accept the denial, that's on you.

Again, guilty until proven innocent. That's not how our system of government is meant to operate.

Limitations come with being a "suspect" of a crime or terrorism.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I've already posted this, but I'll repost and add more information to try and help you out.

"the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify, or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you."

"The government has an official policy of refusing to confirm or to deny whether anyone is on the list even after people are publicly prevented from boarding"

"In yesterday's ruling, the court agreed with us that the redress procedure "falls far short of satisfying the requirements of due process," and is "wholly ineffective." The court warned that "without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, an individual could be doomed to indefinite placement on the No-Fly List"

"The court ultimately concluded that the lack of any meaningful opportunity to contest their placement on the No Fly List violates our clients' constitutional due process rights."

IE - By 1) not informing you of placement on the list; 2) not allowing any hearing to testify or question witnesses; and 3) not proving any criminal wrongdoing, the no fly list violates our due process rights.

Do you understand now?

I believe your information is outdated.

You make it sound so simple. I honestly question your claim that you were on a No Fly list. Perhaps another list, but I do not believe you were on the No Fly list. Every case I've read about people who found themselves on the list was that they were not notified, unlike your claim that you were told you were on the list; even the lawsuit and court stated that the government has official policy to neither confirm nor deny existence on the list. So, I don't buy your claim, sorry.

I was applying for the position of Security Access Coordinator at a local airport. My role was to run CHRCs and STAs for all internals needing electronic access media and to set up their electronic credentials. My job entailed working with the No-Fly, Selectee, and Stop lists daily. They come in a nice little Excel spread sheet and contain known information on each name on the list. So, as a result of my STA being cleared based on my birthday and actual whereabouts, I was made privy to the reason behind the delay in my processing. And as I said, it wasn't "me" who was on the No-Fly list. It was a British citizen using the same name I was born with as an alias in Egypt. My name flagged the system. But I was easily cleared by birthdate and military record.

You're right, there's no proof of any criminal wrongdoing, much less actual charges. You're proving my point for me. The "process" you talk about, from all cases I've read, is very difficult and takes a long time. Which is why the ACLU has sued the government on behalf of individuals who have tried and failed to get off the list.

You're right. It can take a long time. However, the DHS has done it's best to speed up the process.

It's not affecting US Citizens. That's completely false. It targets those with visas. I do agree that not enough has been done to punish Saudi Arabia. I don't know why we continue to coddle them and pacify them, when their Madrasa's spew hatred and breed terrorism. I would be much in favor of sanctions against SA. We shouldn't be selling arms to them, nor should they be considered an ally.

Former Alexandria deputy police chief says he was detained at JFK Airport because of his name
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.dd5162788384

No POTUS has. Neither have any members of Congress from either party. Libs and cons have coddled and enabled the terrorists from SA.

Bingo, so if he didn't want to be like the other idiots, why didn't he ban travel from those countries?

Again, that isn't the point. The point is the government shouldn't be compiling a list without due process rights. And the government especially should not be allowed to use such a list to deny our 2A rights.

You're right to bear arms means that you have a right to have a weapon for self defense. However, the Constitution doesn't set guidelines on the system of purchase.

Who, you? I live in AZ where people wear guns pretty much everywhere. I don't know one individual who supports using the No Fly list on gun purchases. Not one. And we have gun shows every couple of months. The only support I've found is for the so-called gun show loophole.

I'd love to visit AZ. I hear it is really nice. I've thought of moving their after retirement.

Again, the way you talk about this leads me to believe you have never been on the list. "A couple weeks?" Apparently the ACLU and other organizations against the No Fly list are lying by saying their clients have fought months to get off the list, and then only after suing the government.

I was being cleared for an STA (Security Threat Assessment) in relation to a job in aviation security.

And again, the No Fly No Buy bill which was defeated in the House last year was for all firearms, not just assault rifles. And it was for a complete ban, not just a simple "couple weeks" delay.

I think that would be taking it too far. I'd focus on assault weapons.

1) your timeframe is completely wrong; 2) until we become Minority Report and are able to see the future and the intent of the person purchasing the gun -- if they have no criminal record, no mental health issues, then NO I'm not willing to violate due process rights of American citizens nor their 2A rights.

I respect your opinion.

Well, that's false. I never advocated any such thing. What I have been arguing is that the government not violate due process rights of American citizens.

It's sad to read your posts lately. You call anyone who isn't liberal like you a terrorist. Conservative Christians are terrorists. Trump supporters are terrorists. Non Trump supporters who are against entitlements and free healthcare are terrorists.

If only I was a progressive, affirming, free everything for everyone, ban the automatic machine guns and clips, one world, love wins liberal.

I certainly sounds like you're basically advocating that we allow suspected terrorists to freely purchase assault weapons. If you're not, what are your ideas regarding how to prevent them from coming into the United States and legally purchasing weapons that can cause mass casualties?

Of course you would! Which is why conservatives will fight to make sure you don't get the No Fly No Buy. Because once that happens ... bye bye 2A.

Oh, we didn't go as deep into my idea. I'd not only focus on high powered assault weapons, but the addition of the no-fly lists would be temporary. War time calls for adjustments.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's not denying your rights. If there were an error, you could file a redress to correct it and purchase your weapon. If you chose not to file a redress and accept the denial, that's on you.

That's denial of rights. Our rights are not granted to us by government, they are protected by the Constitution for the express purpose of keeping the government from taking them away. If we have to go to the government to get our rights restored, then they government has the authority to take them away. That's not how the Constitution was framed.

I ask again (since you completely ignored my point above), what if your right to free speech were restricted based on your ending up on the no-fly list. Would you be okay with having to go to the government to seek having your right to free speech restored?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

That's denial of rights. Our rights are not granted to us by government, they are protected by the Constitution for the express purpose of keeping the government from taking them away. If we have to go to the government to get our rights restored, then they government has the authority to take them away. That's not how the Constitution was framed.

I ask again (since you completely ignored my point above), what if your right to free speech were restricted based on your ending up on the no-fly list. Would you be okay with having to go to the government to seek having your right to free speech restored?

There are limitations on speech. I could say something threatening against the President and be put on some watch list. I had the freedom to say it. However, I must also face the responsibility for having said it. Even if a hit on the No-Fly, or Selectee List, simply flagged the FBI that someone on the list was purchasing firearms, it would be of assistance and could prevent an attack.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There are limitations on speech. I could say something threatening against the President and be put on some watch list. I had the freedom to say it. However, I must also face the responsibility for having said it. Even if a hit on the No-Fly, or Selectee List, simply flagged the FBI that someone on the list was purchasing firearms, it would be of assistance and could prevent an attack.

That's not what I asked. I asked what if you had to ask the government to give you back your right to free speech.

[Esaias]

The commies can have my guns, bullets first.

[Esaias]