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

With the current political climate of "Do whatever you can to accomplish whatever you want, until someone stops you" going on at the Federal level, is anyone surprised that state governments are getting in on the act?

..... The financial system and Federal budgets are operated by fiat, why not everything else?

This will not end well.
 
"...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."
And God help you if this gets discovered on the return flight. Similarly, under the proposed system, I assume that if you ever get declined by NICS, the proper response is to run screaming from the store back to your house, and dispense your weapons/dog to family/friends before the authorities arrive to confiscate/shoot everything.

TCB
 
And politicians love to publicly make "gestures." Folks remember the gesture but don't realize that nothing came of it.
Click to expand...

North Carolina's Attorney General (and prospective gubernatorial candidate) made a similar call to use the watch list to prohibit gun sales.

I suspect this campaign is intended to generate campaign fodder as much as anything. I have already seem some politicians saying 'I voted to stop TERRORISTS from buying guns, but X voted to let TERRORISTS legally buy guns.' That will probably be a popular sound bite in the 2016 election campaigns.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL the things that LEGALLY prohibit a person from buying / possessing a firearm a matter of public record????

Court records etc.?? I realize the details might be private, but aren't the fact that there was a court action, and what the final outcome was, aren't these a matter of public record???

Perhaps not easily obtainable for the general citizen, but still a matter of public record??

SO, IF they are going to use the No-Fly list as justification, should it not ALSO be a matter of Public Record????

PUBLISH THE LIST, and THEN we'll talk about whether or not the people on it deserve to have their CONSTUTIONAL RIGHTS denied, Without DUE PROCESS!
 
SO, IF they are going to use the No-Fly list as justification, should it not ALSO be a matter of Public Record????
Click to expand...

If they let us figure out exactly how they are doing what they are doing, they lose much of their power, just as a magician does when you undertand the trick ...... so long as they can appear to do amazing things on a whim, they are deemed powerful.....when really, the only thing going for them is that the crowd wants to believe...... for me, at least, it's getting damn hard .....
 
44 AMP said:
PUBLISH THE LIST, and THEN we'll talk about whether or not the people on it deserve to have their CONSTUTIONAL RIGHTS denied, Without DUE PROCESS!
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree.

Yes, I'd like to see the list published. However, published list or no, NOBODY's Constitutional rights should be denied or curtailed without due process.

I'm sure the official response would be that "There is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane, so the list is legal." Well, I ain't so sure. I can see a potential argument that not being allowed to fly is a restriction on the freedom to assemble (First Amendment) and also a seizure (Fourth Amendment). It might also be considered a punishment and/or a "taking" (Fifth Amendment). That's just to fly on an airplane. Extend that prohibition to the right to keep and bear arms (because, after all, if you're prohibited from buying you're also prohibited from possessing or carrying), and you're now curtailing a constitutional right without due process.

I can't see that possibly surviving a legal challenge, but a lot of potentially innocent people could be severely impacted before it gets tested and settled in court.

And to what purpose? The impetus for this was San Bernardino, and we already know that the AR-15s used by the terrorists were obtained through straw purchase ... which means this prohibition would not have made any difference even IF the guy had been on the watch list -- and most likely he wasn't.
 
Last edited:
The late Senator Kennedy was not on either the no fly or watch list - but he did share a name with someone who was.
Click to expand...
Actually, even that is not quite correct. "T. Kennedy" was on the list, not "Ted Kenedy" or "Theodore Kennedy." Think about how broad that classification is even with just citizens. How many people have a first initial T and last name Kennedy? These lists must be next to useless with 70,000+ "names" that are so general.

Good luck getting it published since it is claimed clasified information and processes are used to compile it.
 
johnwilliamson062
Good luck getting it published since it is claimed clasified information and processes are used to compile it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, not to mention that the definitions of 'threat" or "terrorist" are subject to change.

I admit that I really didn't pay much attention to all of this until the mid-late 90s. There was a period one summer where an anti-abortion group was effectively shutting down a Kansas town in protest of the local clinic. This wasn't too long after the Waco standoff fiasco. There was talk about the Clinton administration classifying several anti-abortion groups as terrorist groups. No details about how aggro of a stance one needed to have to make the list in the articles I read. Aside: don't ask me to quote the article, please. I've no idea where it's gone in my many residence changes since then. Anyhow, I thought about it for a few seconds and came to the conclusion that "Wait, I volunteer regularly at the local church office AND our church is against abortion. Uh, oh. I'm very possibly within 6 degrees of whatever Kevin Bacon the gov't is going to put on that list" And it is their choice whom to classify as a terrorist.

Or consider the Bush administration's brush off of the NSA scooping up all American phone records as "We're just looking for patterns." Huh? A pattern has to start with some single point and a relationship; if the gov't chooses the right point and a indefinite enough relationship algorithm, you, or I, or the Dalai Lama himself will be in that pattern.
 
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
PUBLISH THE LIST, and THEN we'll talk about whether or not the people on it deserve to have their CONSTUTIONAL RIGHTS denied, Without DUE PROCESS!

I respectfully disagree.

Yes, I'd like to see the list published. However, published list or no, NOBODY's Constitutional rights should be denied or curtailed without due process.
Click to expand...

I do actually agree, no one's rights should be denied or curtailed without due process.

Please note that IF they publish the list, I would agree to TALK about it. I never promised to agree with their viewpoint, or change mine at all.

What is, I wonder the TRUE purpose of the secret list? Sure, the stated purpose is to list those people they want to keep from getting on airplanes, because they are under suspicion, right??

Why do they want that? To keep us safer, right?

Now, how does a secret list keep us safer??
I've heard that if the list is public, it would be ineffective? How can that be? IF the object is to keep us safer, how does the bad guy's being able to see they are being watched make us LESS SAFE??

Because they will be sneakier, somehow, and our security forces won't be able to catch them? Maybe, but what about the other side, Maybe, if they know they are on the list, they won't bother with airplanes (too risky) and wouldn't we be safer if that happens??

Why is the FBI's Ten Most Wanted not a secret list, too?? Perhaps because they would like help catching them? People who are actually "charged" with crimes (wanted, formal charges when they are caught)?? Are the people on the no fly list wanted for specific crime(s)??

We don't know.

Are they charged with crimes?

We don't know. Because simply the powers that created the list won't talk to us. For our own safety, they say...
 
I think it bears noting in this conversation just who is considered a "terrorist" by the current administration, returning vets, those who believe in the Constitution, gun owners, Bible believing Christians; you know, the true domestic terrorists. As noted before, even some of us on this forum may be on the no-fly list. No one truly knows just how large it has grown. I doubt very seriously if such a list will be allowed to become public knowledge as it could become a serious political liability.
 
From some news reports the list contains about 200,000 names, with about a third to half of them being foreigners outside of the US, intent is to deny them ability to travel here. The rest is supposed to be about half foreign-born residing in the US, and the remainder US citizens.

So disregarding foreigners for a moment, seems we have perhaps 50,000 Americans living here who are so dangerous they cannot board a plane, yet we never hear of any of them being arrested for anything at all, even driving without insurance or something like that. Seems like we'd want to get them off the streets for any reason at all, right? With the government taking credit for eliminating a terror threat, of course.

I kind of want to see just who these Americans are and what got them on the list.
 
If there is a list that denies you legal rights, you need to be informed that you are on it.

It's very simple.
Click to expand...

This and a way to get off of it that is free and very easy. If those conditions were met I would have no problem with it.
 
and what stops him from putting the names of the opposing political party members on the list?

Nothing.

Think about the possible consequences of that kind of power, and the honesty and ethics of those who wield it.
 
44 AMP said:
and what stops him from putting the names of the opposing political party members on the list?

Nothing.

Think about the possible consequences of that kind of power, and the honest and ethics of those who wield it.
Click to expand...
That was sarcasm, right?

I know people who refer to Connecticut as "Corrupticut." IIRC, within the past decade the mayors of two major Connecticut cities have gone to prison, as has a former governor of Connecticut and more than a few state legislators.

Ethics, indeed. We don't need no steenkin' ethics.
 
Last edited:
Think about the possible consequences of that kind of power, and the honesty and ethics of those who wield it.
Click to expand...

I did not intend this as sarcasm, its a serious matter, and serious thought should be given to it.

However, I do see where, applied to what actually goes on in some places, it becomes sarcasm, because the people there clearly chose what they got.

The government is allowed to restrict sale of certain items during emergencies. But they kind of need a real, not an imagined emergency to justify it. AND they have to DECLARE it. Also the restrictions have to apply to all, not just a select few.

This is NOT what I see in this case.

Despite the fact that the CT legislature writes and passes anti gun laws, it might be worthwhile to point out to them that the proposed ban by the GOV is not just a ban on guns for private citizens but is also an attack on their legislative authority. The Governor is not just thumbing his nose (figuratively if not literally) at the rights of the people, he is also do it at the authority of the Legislature. (their power is at risk here, not just our rights!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top