CT Governor to Ban Gun Sales to People on Government Watch Lists

I don't see this as surviving a court challenge (although that will be long in coming). The Heller decision granted "individual" right status to the 2A. In order to deny a constitutional right, there has to be due process and there is no due process at all with the no fly list.
 
I was at the range this afternoon and the shop TV had a news clip running about this. Apparently the governor thinks there is due process, because he claims there's an appeal process for a denial of a gun purchase (is that so in Connecticut? Dunno) and he claims there's an appeal process for getting your name off the list.

Never mind that there's no law prohibiting someone who hasn't been charged with a crime, indicted, or convicted from buying a gun. It looks like Connecticut's governor is even more rabidly anti0-gun than El Presidente.
 
Doyle:

I don't see this as surviving a court challenge (although that will be long in coming). The Heller decision granted "individual" right status to the 2A. In order to deny a constitutional right, there has to be due process and there is no due process at all with the no fly list.
Click to expand...

The Heller decision did not "grant" any right - it acknowledged a right confirmed in the 2nd Amendment. There is a difference!
 
pnac said:
Doyle, I believe Heller said that local bans are OK.
Click to expand...
No, it did not.

In the majority decision, Justice Scalia wrote something about not addressing existing, "presumptively" legal regulations. That doesn't say that any other anti-gun law was legal, only that they were not part of the case under consideration and therefore would be "presumed" to be legal ... until challenged in their own cases. He certainly wasn't blessing future bans that didn't exist when he was writing and that would be carried out by executive fiat rather than acts of the legislative process.
 
Aside from denying a Constitutional right without due process, I see an equal protection issue here as well.

Does anyone else see the irony in that the persons most likely to appear on a terrorist watch list or a no fly list in disproportionate numbers are the same people we are told that we should not profile or show any added discretion?
 
Does CT law enforcement even have access to the No-Fly or Terrorism Watch Lists?

Also, suggest changing the CT state nickname and the license plate design:

THE CONSTITUTION* STATE
*Except the 2nd and 5th amendments

;):rolleyes:
 
The NY Times story on this issue says that Gov. Malloy is asking for access to the appropriate list. So it is a gesture until it is granted.

It will be interesting to see if the list is now send around to states. One might think if it were so wonderful, state agencies should have had access.

But if it is baloney and full of flaws, they might not want to send it around.
 
..carried out by executive fiat rather than acts of the legislative process.
Click to expand...

This attitude is the greater risk to our liberty than the specific thing being restricted, today. The prohibition of the ability to buy arms, OR get on a plane, applied to someone neither convicted or even charged with ANY crime is horrid.

But the belief in the Executive that they can do this, simply because they want to is even worse in the long run.

Even bad leadership comes from the top down, and our top leadership has for some time been bragging about doing things without having to "wait for Congress to act"....

When the Governor becomes the Lord Governor, and Lord Protector, sole autocrat for the region under Crown rule, are we not back where we were in the 1700s, but for 21st century titles and technology???
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
The NY Times story on this issue says that Gov. Malloy is asking for access to the appropriate list. So it is a gesture until it is granted....
Click to expand...
And politicians love to publicly make "gestures." Folks remember the gesture but don't realize that nothing came of it.
 
GlennEMiller
The NY Times story on this issue says that Gov. Malloy is asking for access to the appropriate list. So it is a gesture until it is granted.
Click to expand...
I was wondering how a state agency had access to a data base kept by a national LEe entity.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
The NY Times story on this issue says that Gov. Malloy is asking for access to the appropriate list... It will be interesting to see if the list is now send around to states. One might think if it were so wonderful, state agencies should have had access.
Click to expand...
It occurs to me that as the number of people who can look at these lists increases, the usefulness of the lists decreases with respect to their original intended purpose.
 
Folks remember the gesture but don't realize that nothing came of it.
Click to expand...
...or that it made things worse. Any of us could be on the no-fly list. We may not even know. There's no recourse since you can't find out who put you on the list in the first place.

(Heck, even Ted Kennedy ended up on it for some reason.)

TimSr is correct on the due process issue. Going on a super-secret list that restricts travel without a hearing, or even notification, is blatantly unacceptable. Prohibiting enumerated rights to people on such a list is even more troubling.

If it was anything but guns being at issue, the civil liberties folks would be crying foul.
 
From carguy:

"It occurs to me that as the number of people who can look at these lists increases, the usefulness of the lists decreases with respect to their original intended purpose."

And the potential for unauthorized use and misuse increases as well.
 
I wonder if the idiot governor is aware his state might have perhaps 3 people on the list?

Would be nice to see a count publicized before he pulls his political stunt.
 
(Heck, even Ted Kennedy ended up on it for some reason.)
Click to expand...

Actually, The late Senator Kennedy was not on either the no fly or watch list - but he did share a name with someone who was. And that's the danger for most of us, if we simply share a name or a known alias of someone who is on the list we can be denied a purchase. We have a friend who shares a name with a person on the no fly list, they have to arrive an additional two hours early for every flight just to get clearance to fly. There's no way an innocent person can appeal to have the "real" terrorist's name removed from the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top