No Fly Lists for gun owners
What is reasonable when it comes to gun laws? I explain what it takes to be compliant with a few gun laws so that readers can decide how reasonable these laws are. Now I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, so don't take this as legal advice. But these are just a small sampling of the 20,000: local, state and national gun control laws that every owner must know and comply with, under the legal concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of the law is no excuse). The penalty for infraction is often a felony conviction, ruination and loss of gun rights by hyper-aggressive DA's who hate guns or want to get elected to higher office on the fraud that they're helping public safety. Or worse, the laws aren't enforced and teach both sides contempt for them. If any of these laws seem silly, annoying, or ineffective, you will begin to understand why gun-advocates mock and resist “reasonable gun control” and the legislators who create them.
| No Fly Lists for gun owners
|The left demands that we close the “insane” loophole that allows people on the No Fly List to buy guns. Which begs the question, who gets on that list, and how do you get off it, if you're on it by mistake?||What we know is there's thousands of people that shouldn't be on the no fly list that are on it. Theres's no known way for them to get off it. And no mass shooter has ever been on it. Sounds like a good enough reason to ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th amendment and assume your guilt and take away your rights, to a gun-controller.|
Why doesn't this bother the more informed? Because there’s never, ever, been a mass shooter that was on the no fly list before. But there could be... in theory. Yet, in America we don't take away people's Constitutional rights based on what could be, or "just in case". Doing what Democrats or the left's wants would violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution -- all to encroach on their 2nd Amendment rights. But other than that, it's a good idea.
Who is on the list?
Of course that begs the question who else is on the no-fly list that shouldn't have their rights seized without due-process? Folks like Ted Kennedy, the singer Cat Stevens for the contravercial songs as Cat’s in the Cradle and Peace Train, David Nelson the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, and 48,000 other people. But since you only need to have a name similar to someone else on the list, it's much, much broader than that.
The problem is that is just the list of INTENDED folks on the list. When Ted Kennedy was snagged it was because he and 7,000 other Americans had names with some variant of T Kennedy. The most popular names in America such as: Gary Smith, John Williams or Robert Johnson, are on the list, along with everyone that shares those names (guilty or not). There are 72 people that work for the department of homeland security that are on the watchlist. That’s not counting many corpses, who are long dead, and will stay on the list for decades. Woe be to some poor sod who shares a name with a terrorists or someone that the government doesn’t like. There have been 10’s of thousands of false positives on the list, and the ACLU has been suing because of the complete lack of due process to have your rights to free travel stolen from you, as well as the bureaucratic hurdles to get your rights restored.
How do you get on the list?Ways to get on the list include:
- Be suspected of something
- Travel to the wrong country
- Someone thinks you said something suspicious
- Have a name similar to someone on the no-fly list
- Refuse to become an informant (FBI pressured some people with this)
- Clerical error
- Open Warrants completely unrelated to terrorism
- Controversial Tweets.
But not to worry, they can change those rules at any time: trust me, I’m from the government, and I'm here to help.
Do all those reasons (plus whatever new ones that strike our imperious leaders' fancy) sound like good reasons to steal a constitutionally recognized and guaranteed natural right to self defense, without any due process?
If you want to see Democrats lose their nut, just propose that the same secret panel of oligarchs (that can take your rights to own a gun away), could also be used to take away your right to vote, to collect social services/welfare/food stamps, or to have/oppose a gay marriage! They’d have a stroke at the mere suggestion. Which shows they know how wrong they are, and they don't care.
There’s over 1 billion people in India that need to show ID to vote, but if you suggest that in America, they scream about voter suppression — but if they’re just randomly suppressing the rights of some random Gun Owner, they’re fine with it. After all, that law abiding citizen deserves to lose their rights because they have a name similar to someone the government suspects of writing bad folk music.
This is why the ACLU challenged no-fly lists in court and won, and in a big way. They’re blazingly unconstitutional for something as simple as air-travel (with often many alternative forms of travel to skirt them), but for a Constitutional protected natural right like gun ownership, it’d be far worse.
Dear IRS, I want to unsubscribe
How do you get off the list? Nobody knows. There's no process for appeal. Basically, you just have to be connected, and talk to the right politician to force your way through it. The little guy would get screwed. So not only are you guilty-until proven innocent, they don't have a process to appeal that guilt.
Just the start?
And you know this is just the start. If they can harass the millions of innocent Americans that have names similar to folks that Lois Lerner or Democrats don’t like, then why wouldn’t they take it to the next obvious step: the Terrorist Watch List? That’s a separate list of over 1,000,000 people that the Government is just watching for suspected ties to terrorism… not counting all those with a similar name to them.
If they started this program, gun owners would have to adopt the 60’s black tradition of tacking random syllables and mishmashing names to try to increase their kids odds of someday being guaranteed their constitutional liberties, by virtue of having a name completely dissimilar to everyone else. No need to thank me little Koolaidria, thank Obamaniqua.