Proposed Law Allows AG Holder to Block Gun Sales to Over a Million Americans

[scandal 951]

Is this the same watch list that stops certain people from using air transportation?

Most probably. There's no constitutional precedent to take away citizen's constitutional rights simply because they are suspect.

Is this the same watch list that stops certain people from using air transportation?

the no fly list is based upon the same data. difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to fly.

Exactly.

So just to be clear here Steve, the 2nd Amendment provides for an INDIVIDUAL (not a collective, militia) right to bear arms? :whistle:

(Waits for the cacophony of responses ....)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A bad idea. I think the Supreme Court would strike it down.

you forget that this administration rides a pink unicorn. established constitutional law is a non-issue to those singing about hope and change.

Apply that to the Bush Administration and see how that fits.

[john & jean 37]

here we go again.....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is this the same watch list that stops certain people from using air transportation?

Most probably. There's no constitutional precedent to take away citizen's constitutional rights simply because they are suspect.

Is this the same watch list that stops certain people from using air transportation?

the no fly list is based upon the same data. difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to fly.

Exactly.

So just to be clear here Steve, the 2nd Amendment provides for an INDIVIDUAL (not a collective, militia) right to bear arms?

From what I've read about it, it provides both.

here we go again.....

Sorry...I felt that one shouldn't go unanswered.

[rebeccajo 14]

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

why do you hate the constitution?

U R so dim.

you're the one zeroing in on gun owners, not me.

Well yeah - since that's what the topic is about, right?

I'm just saying that it's hilarious that we violate the rights of aliens and USC's by putting their names on "lists"; by making them go through "background checks" to get jobs; etc. but if somebody talks about applying the same principals to people who might own a gun, there is outrage.

You all want preferential status or something from the same things the rest of the population have to go through?

Seems like a double standard to me.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

why do you hate the constitution?

U R so dim.

you're the one zeroing in on gun owners, not me.

Well yeah - since that's what the topic is about, right?

I'm just saying that it's hilarious that we violate the rights of aliens and USC's by putting their names on "lists"; by making them go through "background checks" to get jobs; etc. but if somebody talks about applying the same principals to people who might own a gun, there is outrage.

You all want preferential status or something from the same things the rest of the population have to go through?

Seems like a double standard to me.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

[justashooter 430]

Is this the same watch list that stops certain people from using air transportation?

Most probably. There's no constitutional precedent to take away citizen's constitutional rights simply because they are suspect.

Is this the same watch list that stops certain people from using air transportation?

the no fly list is based upon the same data. difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to fly.

Exactly.

So just to be clear here Steve, the 2nd Amendment provides for an INDIVIDUAL (not a collective, militia) right to bear arms? :whistle:

(Waits for the cacophony of responses ....)

heller found that the 2nd is an individual right, and invalidated cruishank based logic. read the text.

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

difference is that foreign born applicants do not have constitutional rights. it's what makes America better than any other country on this rock. put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

[rebeccajo 14]

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

difference is that foreign born applicants do not have constitutional rights. it's what makes America better than any other country on this rock. put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

Just so we are clear, I certainly understand what rights a foreign born person has and what they don't.

That doesn't make it any less relevant that if a person (foreign born or USC) does happen to be a terrorist, they shouldn't have a weapon. Point being, if you want to howl about something, don't howl about how awful it is that Big Brother might infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Howl about how Big Brother compiles that information; how accurate it is; and how well the information is managed.

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

why do you hate the constitution?

U R so dim.

you're the one zeroing in on gun owners, not me.

Well yeah - since that's what the topic is about, right?

I'm just saying that it's hilarious that we violate the rights of aliens and USC's by putting their names on "lists"; by making them go through "background checks" to get jobs; etc. but if somebody talks about applying the same principals to people who might own a gun, there is outrage.

You all want preferential status or something from the same things the rest of the population have to go through?

Seems like a double standard to me.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

That doesn't even make sense.

[rebeccajo 14]

Is this the same watch list that stops certain people from using air transportation?

the no fly list is based upon the same data. difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to fly.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."75 U.S. 168 (1868) However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[21][22]

In United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler had a significant impact in other ways. For many years, the roots of the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause had only vaguely been determined.[23] In 1823, the circuit court in Corfield had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) which the clause could cover.[24][25] The Wheeler court dramatically changed this. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[26] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[27]

But the Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler's reasoning within a few short years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.[21][22][28]

In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) (overruled by Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222, reh'g denied, 469 U.S. 912 (1984)),[2] the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport to an American citizen based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism. Although the Court did not reach the question of constitutionality in this case, Justice William O. Douglas held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process:

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."

Six years later, the Court struck down a federal ban restricting travel by communists (Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964)). But the court struggled to find a way to protect legitimate government interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions. Just a year after Aptheker, the Supreme Court fashioned the rational relationship test for constitutionality in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965), as a way of reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the state.[29]

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause).

The Court's establishment of a strong constitutional right to freedom of movement has also had far-reaching and unintended effects. For example, the Supreme Court overturned state prohibitions on welfare payments to individuals who had not resided within the jurisdiction for at least one year as an impermissible burden on the right to travel (Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)). The Court has also struck down one-year residency requirements for voting in state elections (Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)), one-year waiting periods before receiving state-provided medical care (Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)), civil service preferences for state veterans (Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986)), and higher fishing and hunting license fees for out-of-state residents (Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)).[29][30][31]

A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit abortion rights, ban or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and enact anti-crime or consumer protection laws. It may even undermine current Court-fashioned concepts of federalism.[32][33][34][35][36]

For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots has referred to the forgotten right to travel without license as "the orphaned right."[37]

The issue of freedom of movement has received new attention in the United States as of 2004[update], particularly concerning the methods and practices of the Transportation Security Administration. On August 5, 1974, the Air Transportation Security and Anti-Hijacking Acts of 1974 (P.L. 93-366) were signed. Among many important provisions, this landmark aviation security law directed that regulations be prescribed requiring weapons-detecting screening of all passengers and carry-on property. The law is located in Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 44901 (Screening passengers and property)and 44902 (Refusal to transport passengers and property). For many decades, an airline ticket's fine print has contained an agreement by the purchaser to submit to a search for unlawful dangerous weapons, explosives or other destructive substances. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is responsible for such screening prior to departures from commercial airports within the United States since the signing of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71) on November 19, 2001. Freedom of movement is not denied unless a passenger refuses to submit to a search required by law. There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland security related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. The TSA website (www.tsa.gov) is a good source of information on these and other issues.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

why do you hate the constitution?

U R so dim.

you're the one zeroing in on gun owners, not me.

Well yeah - since that's what the topic is about, right?

I'm just saying that it's hilarious that we violate the rights of aliens and USC's by putting their names on "lists"; by making them go through "background checks" to get jobs; etc. but if somebody talks about applying the same principals to people who might own a gun, there is outrage.

You all want preferential status or something from the same things the rest of the population have to go through?

Seems like a double standard to me.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

That doesn't even make sense.

maybe not to you - but i'm sure it does to plenty of others. it's sure is fun to advocate taking away rights from another as long as you don't lose any of yours......

[justashooter 430]

Just so we are clear, I certainly understand what rights a foreign born person has and what they don't.

That doesn't make it any less relevant that if a person (foreign born or USC) does happen to be a terrorist, they shouldn't have a weapon. Point being, if you want to howl about something, don't howl about how awful it is that Big Brother might infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Howl about how Big Brother compiles that information; how accurate it is; and how well the information is managed.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

That doesn't even make sense.

just so we're clear, there is this funny little thing called due process. it's one of the things that makes America such a great place. under due process, you are innocent until proven guilty, so being on a "list" is not cause for removal of civil rights, if you have them.

as for charles' comment, well, it's the same issue, really. it's a slippery slope, and the only thing holding the tide is the 2nd.

[rebeccajo 14]

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

why do you hate the constitution?

U R so dim.

you're the one zeroing in on gun owners, not me.

Well yeah - since that's what the topic is about, right?

I'm just saying that it's hilarious that we violate the rights of aliens and USC's by putting their names on "lists"; by making them go through "background checks" to get jobs; etc. but if somebody talks about applying the same principals to people who might own a gun, there is outrage.

You all want preferential status or something from the same things the rest of the population have to go through?

Seems like a double standard to me.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

That doesn't even make sense.

maybe not to you - but i'm sure it does to plenty of others. it's sure is fun to advocate taking away rights from another as long as you don't lose any of yours......

Oh FFS, Charles, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

The problem with your argument is that it's perfectly OK to take rights away from people unless they happen to be the precious right to own a gun.

Do you not get the point that ALL rights are precious?

[john & jean 37]

Lautenberg and Obama should move to an island and create a perfect world together.

[justashooter 430]

There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland security related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. The TSA website (www.tsa.gov) is a good source of information on these and other issues.[/b]

you really should read your wiki quotes before posting them.

no, you do not have a constitutionally protected civil right to fly.

you want freedom of movement? you got feet.

[rebeccajo 14]

Just so we are clear, I certainly understand what rights a foreign born person has and what they don't.

That doesn't make it any less relevant that if a person (foreign born or USC) does happen to be a terrorist, they shouldn't have a weapon. Point being, if you want to howl about something, don't howl about how awful it is that Big Brother might infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Howl about how Big Brother compiles that information; how accurate it is; and how well the information is managed.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

That doesn't even make sense.

just so we're clear, there is this funny little thing called due process. it's one of the things that makes America such a great place. under due process, you are innocent until proven guilty, so being on a "list" is not cause for removal of civil rights, if you have them.

as for charles' comment, well, it's the same issue, really. it's a slippery slope, and the only thing holding the tide is the 2nd.

I happen to think that the Patriot Act and other little #######-ups of the "greatest nation on earth" are just as dangerous to due process as you worrying about your pistol.