I live in Connecticut. I don't necessarily agree with my governor.

[Atman]

After Newtown, it's pretty crazy hard to buy a gun in Connecticut. Malloy is about to make it even more difficult.

I understand the motivation, I understand the "common sense" angle. But I've also experienced it first hand. Our son, who had never flown before in his life except for being a lap-top passenger when he was six months old, was blocked from his very first ever vacation. He was on the terror watch list. He was a big boy! Got a real job with vacation time, but when he tried to use that vacation time, he was told he could not board the plane. Hotel reservations made, time taken off of work.

His offense? His named matched that of a member of the Irish Republican Army, a guy who had been dead for nearly 20 years.

My kids missed their flight and were offered no compensation, since it was, y'know, just business.

So, while I understand Governor Malloy's "common sense" argument, and my kid was not buying a gun, the no-fly list should not be a be-all and end-all. Sure, you can appeal later. But what happens when Disney World or Southwest Airlines says "sorry, you were on the no-fly list" even though you've never stepped foot on an airplane?

[CTyankee]

1. Good for you for raising a fuss about this! I understand why Malloy did this tho...

it's a sad thing when the no-fly list turns into such a horrible negative for innocent people. I am appalled...

[upaloopa]

2. Yes I thought about that too. There are so

many stories of people being on the no fly list for no good reason.
I agree with you though I support gun control

[jeff47]

3. Yes, the entire problem is tying the list to guns. The list itself is above reproach. (nt)

[virginia mountainman]

4. It's amazing to see the love for Bush-Co's list..

Among Democrats.. I have learned by watching in here, that some people are willing to ignore all the bad things in legislation if it is called "common sense" or "it's for the children".

This is some very scary stuff people, what they are saying is, if YOUR, on that secret list, you can be denied a civil liberty...

If they can do it for the 2nd Amendment, they can do it for others, for example, the 8th Amendment..

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As I have said, our president, and many in our party have absolutely no problem, using secret lists to deny civil liberties... For me this is extremely scary, and only something I would expect a Repuke to pull. This could very easily turn into a free to "torture list"....

[saturnsring]

6. what's amazing is democrats putting guns ahead of lives

[virginia mountainman]

7. So what other civil liberty are you willing to loose ...

...in the name of restricting guns?

[saturnsring]

8. which ones are we losing already?

[virginia mountainman]

11. I made a rather extensive post about it a few days ago..

in short...

At the same time, we should all acknowledge that the no-fly list is an abomination, and it’s shameful that the Democratic party is not only defending its use but trying to further legitimize and intrench it into America’s laws. On the surface, Republicans are right about one thing: the list is a due-process nightmare that is riddled with mistakes and has ensnared countless innocent people over the past decade and a half.

A federal judge recently ruled the process for finding out if you’re on the list and any attempt to get off it unconstitutional, given its Kafkaesque procedures and extreme secrecy, which make it impossible to challenge.

Much more at link, including original article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027425667

[smirkymonkey]

12. Here is what I have a problem with:

Civil liberties = Guns.

It's a damn gun. A tool to kill with. It's not like anyone in this country is under siege, no matter what their paranoid fantasies may have them believe. When people start talking about guns as "civil liberties" it just makes me want to puke.

[hack89]

13. So the Bill of Rights doesn't include civil liberties? nt

[dairydog91]

16. Guns are currently a Constitutionally protected liberty.

So people are arguing that it is OK to take away a citizen's civil liberties based on nothing more than that citizen's presence on a secret list. Or they're arguing that in spite of current Supreme Court ruling there is nevertheless no private right to own guns so the watchlist system isn't taking away any civil liberty. Then again, this second view seems to rest on the assumption that the Supreme Court is no longer the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and that the Executive Branch is constrained only by the Executive Branch's private interpretation of the Constitution. An interpretation which, based on how everything else is handled in this Bushite pigfuck, will be classified too.

[smirkymonkey]

17. It's a fucking gun.

It is a tool for killing. We are not talking about food, clothing and shelter. Only the paranoid NEED guns.

[saturnsring]

5. seems like a small sacrifice for enhanced child protections

So, while I understand Governor Malloy's "common sense" argument, and my kid was not buying a gun, the no-fly list should not be a be-all and end-all. Sure, you can appeal later. But what happens when Disney World or Southwest Airlines says "sorry, you were on the no-fly list" even though you've never stepped foot on an airplane?

this can happen even if he didn't tie it to gun purchases

[Atman]

9. Please explain.

It wasn't tied to gun purchases. That was kind of my point. My son doesn't own any guns, and had never stepped foot on an airplane. Yet, he was blocked from going on vacation because of some list.

Taken one step further, what if he actually wanted to buy a gun to protect his family? After all, we live in a very rural area with no police department. So he'd be blocked from buying a gun because his name matched that of a dead 1980's IRA member?

This if "feel good" legislation. Little different than Trump's "build a wall" or "block all Muslims" bullshit.

[virginia mountainman]

10. The problem is..

Since now it has been tied to gun restrictions, the "no fly" list is completely untouchable by reasoning with it.

For the record, I was wildly against it when it was first proposed for the same reasons your complaining about

I have learned now, upsettingly so, that some people hear the terms "common sense" and "guns" they instantly turn into zombie supporters of ANYTHING, Even if it was a product of Bush-co.

[kcr]

14. I disagree that it makes the list untouchable.

The more consequences attached to such a list, the more raising hell. I am and have always been against the list. But, if they're going to insist on such a list it should mean something. The fight against this law shows the utter hypocrisy of it all.

[dairydog91]

15. How about saying "No" to an American secret police?

Which is what the no-fly list effectively is. It's opaque, the criteria for getting on it are buried in bureaucratese, the actual process by which a person was placed on the list is "classified", and appeals, such as they are, are usually done internally in the TSA/DHS apparatus. The normal system of American law enforcement and punishment is a split and open model, in which the Legislature writes laws which are publicly published, the Executive enforces/prosecutes under these laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws and supervises trials (In which defendants normally have a right to a public trial by a jury of their peers). In the "No-Fly List" system, the Legislature provides a vague fig-leaf of a law that effectively gives the Executive so much interpretive power that it is pretty much capable of writing its own law. The Executive then controls the agents which enforce the law, AND controls most of the people hearing the appeals, AND cloaks the entire process in secrecy.

Sad how many people are so fixated on the issue-du-jour, currently "OMG GUNZ AND TERRAH," that they are now braying approval for a system of policing which is deeply antithetical to open and transparent government. Democracy isn't very effective at controlling the government when the people are legally prohibited from learning about what the government is actually doing. How many of the same people demanding Common-Sense Solutions in threads like this would support a NO TERRORISTS IN WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTERS ACT? Imagine, a law which makes it a felony for anyone on a terrorist watchlist to enter a Planned Parenthood. A few years ago, that would have meant that some nameless Bush stoolie could have effectively made it a crime for any woman to enter a clinic, and all that this woman could have done would have been to appeal her watchlist status to some other Bush stoolie, who could then claim that the entire process was classified and that it would threaten national security to openly disclose the criteria by which that woman had been watchlisted.