Would you support a bill that prevents people on the "no fly" list from being able to purchase firearms?

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:00:37 -0400

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 16 at 2016 10:01 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:01:55 -0400

This is the Topic du Jour today with congress tied up in knots on this issue and Trump meeting with the NRA to convince them to go along with it

I think I will go for it and for those on the No Fly list who think they don't belong on it and want to buy a gun then you have to do some work to resolve your problems.

I'm for anything that will keep just one gun out of the hands of someone who may want to shoot up a school, sporting event or other gathering.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 10:14 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:14:10 -0400

Sure. I am good with that.......BUT.....since neither one work individually, then I doubt they would work in conjunction.

Response by PO1 Tracy Dreyer made Jun 16 at 2016 10:20 AM

PO1 Tracy Dreyer — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:20:03 -0400

As long as the no fly list is accurate. Not full of people that should not be on there, but are due to bureaucratic BS.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 10:23 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:23:28 -0400

I would vote no.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 16 at 2016 10:27 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:27:50 -0400

I would vote no to this.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 10:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:30:43 -0400

No, not until someone on the No fly list can force the government to justify their name being on the no fly list in court. IMO the No fly list itself is an affront to American values. We can ague that no one has a constitutional right to fly, however that argument doesn't hold water when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jun 16 at 2016 10:45 AM

SFC Pete Kain — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:45:47 -0400

Vote no, Since the Govt. has proven itself to be a freaking mess.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Jun 16 at 2016 10:52 AM

SSG Richard Reilly — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:52:23 -0400

Yes!

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 16 at 2016 11:07 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:07:55 -0400

I also don't think the AR-15 was meant to be in the hands of civilians...It just has too much firepower

Response by Cadet 3rd Class Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 11:10 AM

Cadet 3rd Class Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:37 -0400

The No FLy List doesn't require due process. Voting for this legislation is a vote against 2 constitutional rights.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jun 16 at 2016 11:16 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:16:44 -0400

Sgt Tom Cunnally Are you referencing the ban proposal itself? Or a specific politischen that is proposing it?

What is it your looking to discuss?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 11:25 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:25:42 -0400

Yes. However, I would want to ensure that they are on the no fly list for a good reason. I feel the same way about megans law. You can be put on there by getting drunk and taking a leak in public. it has to be a good reason

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 16 at 2016 11:25 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:25:54 -0400

I'd consider it if there was a time limited process to resolve both, i.e. the Government has one month, or some other limited time, to remove or charge a crime with the No Fly List. If they need more time, they have to get it from a judge and the person on the list can challenge. The burden must be on the Government to show cause. An administrative hold can be placed on the firearm purchase. One thing that will be a problem is the FFL store has to be allowed to cancel the purchase so they're not holding the bag on revenue loss.

That said, this could open another unintended bag of worms. Let's say the subject is part of an overall long term investigation involving coconspirators. Then they'd have to drop the subject from the list, allow a firearms purchase, and the citizens are subjected to an increased risk or otherwise blow the whole operation.

There is no good solution that will fit from all angles. One thing for sure is if the laws and courts ties the hands of our varied law enforcement agencies, their ability to protect us is diminished greatly.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Jun 16 at 2016 11:31 AM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:31:18 -0400

I would as long as there was a relatively easy way to be taken off the list if one was placed there erroneously, which has occurred very often!

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Jun 16 at 2016 11:44 AM

LTC Thomas Tennant — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:44:54 -0400

Hell No.... And Mitch McConnell's and Rand Paul's local offices just got an earful with a follow up email. You should be calling your congressional representatives to voice your opposition of this "No Fly No Buy" bill.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 11:57 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:57:01 -0400

While it is a start, i don't believe it would have stopped the last 10 or so shooters from purchasing a gun. I am unsure about the California shooters though.

My sense is that even no flyers would still be able to get a gun through other means if they wanted to

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jun 16 at 2016 12:00 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:00:52 -0400

No way in hell that would get my support.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jun 16 at 2016 12:04 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:04:42 -0400

The "no fly" list is only one of several lists. The ACLU (which is definitely not right wing) says the total is over a million. https://www.aclu.org/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus

Terror Watch List Counter: A Million Plus

Why are there so many names on the U.S. government's terrorist list?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 16 at 2016 12:36 PM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:36:54 -0400

I've stated my opinion on this in other threads.
Basically, these no-fly and terror watch lists have to be made public. When a US citizen is placed on these lists that person must be informed and also told WHY they're being placed on the list. The citizen must then have the right to have their name easily removed (no months or years of court battles) if they are on them unjustly.

BUT... people are also being placed on these lists without due process and that would need to change as well.

Response by 1SG Margarita Brunke made Jun 16 at 2016 12:41 PM

1SG Margarita Brunke — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:41:53 -0400

No, I don't think that the no fly is accurate enough to do this

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Jun 16 at 2016 1:11 PM

CPO Frank Coluccio — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:11:16 -0400

The "No-Fly" list violates the 6th and 14th Amendments and should be abolished or the process for placing people (US Citizens) on it modified to provide "Due Process" to each individual.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jun 16 at 2016 1:12 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:12:47 -0400

I would not. Primarily because it is a poorly managed, secret list with little objective criteria, and no oversight that had erroneously included infants, veterans, and members of Congress, and the press. In America, were not supposed to be violating people's civil liberties without due process... a secret list is not due process.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 16 at 2016 1:13 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:13:00 -0400

I would rather folks who have red flags in their investigation be barred. That may or may not mean that they are on the no-fly list. Which means whoever is doing the investigating needs TO DO THEIR JOB.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 1:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:44:37 -0400

As a 2nd amendment supporter I agree 100% with this. If you are not trustworthy enough to hop in a plane and fly, your not trustworthy enough to have a weapon of ANY kind.

Response by SGT Brian Watkins made Jun 16 at 2016 2:00 PM

SGT Brian Watkins — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:00:16 -0400

Here is a better question, what are some ideas to prevent weapons getting into the wrong hands? I am a licensed carrier and member of the NRA, but I have always believed in some sort of reform. What say you all?

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 16 at 2016 4:30 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:30:38 -0400

No-Fly List

Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said she is seeking bipartisan support for her own gun-control amendment, which she will try to offer next week, that would try to carve out a middle ground. She declined to say who has signed on so far, but said she took suggestions from Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida.

Instead of using the wider terror watch list, she said her proposal would ban gun sales to those on the much narrower "no-fly" list and the “selectee” list. That second list consists of individuals who are subjected to more extensive airport screening because there is reason to believe they may be engaged in terrorism, but not enough evidence to bar them from flying.

“In both cases, these lists are small subsets of the far-larger terrorist screening database, which has over a million records and tens of thousands of Americans on it,” Collins said. “So this is a much-smaller list. The problem with using the broader database is that it contains unverified” allegations, she said.

If someone is on the no-fly or the selectee list, they would not be able to purchase a gun under the proposal, but could appeal the decision to an appellate court, she said. If they win, the government must pay attorneys fees for the plaintiff.

In addition, if someone is no longer on either of these lists, but they were at any time during the previous five years, a gun purchase can take place but the FBI is notified.

“That would undoubtedly, in most cases, result in putting you back on the list and under investigation,” Collins said.

The shooter in the Orlando case, Omar Mateen, was never on the no-fly list and does not appear have to been on the selectee list either. He had been on the broader terror watch list for part of 2013 and 2014, but was removed after an FBI investigation turned up no evidence that he was a threat. Source:msn.com

Response by LTC Martin Metz made Jun 16 at 2016 5:40 PM

LTC Martin Metz — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:40:10 -0400

Where do we draw the line? How 'bout a diagnosis of PTSD revoking someone's 2d Amendment rights or rumors from a reliable (but unnamed) source, or just because some bureaucrat doesn't like what you say? We're still America and have Constitutional rights. When the faceless, nameless can steal our rights, we all end up the losers. It would be better to have some kind of a link up between the background check system and the no fly system to require a deeper security check than to deny rights.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jun 17 at 2016 10:11 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:11:34 -0400

No. People can end up on the no fly list simply because of an argument with a flight attendant. I've heard plenty of stories of people ending up on the no fly list for stupid reasons. Flying is a privilege, firearms are a right.

Response by PFC Amthony Murray made Jun 17 at 2016 2:43 PM

PFC Amthony Murray — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:43:35 -0400

No. That list is worthless.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 17 at 2016 4:23 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:32 -0400

A host of retired senior military brass has allied with astronaut Capt. Mark Kelly and former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords to form the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.

The stated goals of the new group are to urge “elected leaders to enact responsible change that respects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, helps keep guns out of the wrong hands, and saves lives.”

Giffords and Kelly announced the national organization at a press conference Friday in Washington, D.C.

While similar state-focused gun control coalitions have been founded by the duo in New Hampshire last December, Oregon and Minnesota in February, and Delaware and Virginia in March – all sharing the same “common sense” moniker – the latest will be national and veteran-centric.

“As service members, each of us swore an oath to protect our Constitution and the homeland. Now we’re asking our leaders to do more to protect our rights and save lives,” Kelly said in a statement.

http://www.guns.com/2016/06/13/generals-mcchrystal-petraeus-clark-join-new-giffords-gun-control-group/

Generals Clark, McChrystal, Petraeus join new Giffords gun control group

A host of retired senior military brass has allied with astronaut Capt. Mark Kelly and former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords to form the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 5:35 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:35:10 -0400

In a word, NO. A person can be placed on the no-fly list for any number of reasons. There have even been reports of persons as young a 2 being on the list. There is no due process for those on the list as you don't know you are on the list until you try to fly. Do you want to be the next person on the list to be denied a right when you have done nothing wrong? If being on the list is a disqualifying factor to purchasing a firearm, then some one on the list, with no knowledge of being on the list, becomes a criminal the minute they submit the 4473 to purchase a firearm.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 18 at 2016 2:49 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:49:41 -0400

No. It is too easy to get on the list in error and too difficult to get off of it.

"I believe I got on the list because I took a trip to Turkey with my wife - a one-way flight into Istanbul. And then we flew out of Athens a couple weeks later. And I believe they're flagging people who are flying in and out of Turkey - Americans, in particular - because it's the main transit point for potential jihadists going to Syria."

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352290026/how-a-journalist-ended-up-on-a-terror-watch-list

How A Journalist Ended Up On A Terror Watch List

Conservative journalist Stephen F. Hayes recently discovered that he had been placed on a terror watch-list. Hayes tells NPR's Arun Rath that he suspects this is the result of a trip to Turkey.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 21 at 2016 7:27 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:27:03 -0400

Gun control is a dead as a doornail and the "No Fly" list is about as worthless as a piece of used toilet paper

Response by TSgt Daniel Wareham made Jun 21 at 2016 7:31 AM

TSgt Daniel Wareham — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:31:35 -0400

Not only no, but Hell NO! Where is the due Process. Regardless of what the FBI does or doesn't find, you simply can not strip an American Citizen's rights away without due process. Remember, ted Kennedy was on the "No Fly" list. Just as a reminder, there are two people who have spent 8 and 9 years in court trying to get their names OFF the no fly list. They have never been arrested or charged let alone convicted of a crime.

Response by CW3 Susan Burkholder made Jun 21 at 2016 7:44 AM

CW3 Susan Burkholder — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:44:09 -0400

Yes

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Jun 21 at 2016 7:54 AM

1SG Harold Piet — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:54:52 -0400

Only if the person is notified and has an opportunity to defend his right first. If the person is notified (Certifiable) and has a quick ( 72 Hours) method of defending his right to own, before being placed on the list. No American should be on the no fly list or the FBI watch list and not be notified they are being put there. They are being denied due process. We cannot trust our government agencies with that much power.

Response by SPC Keelan Southerland made Jun 21 at 2016 7:56 AM

SPC Keelan Southerland — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:56:30 -0400

I would not support such a bill ever. The main reason is due to the denial of of Due Process. Do some of you remember back in 08-09 when all returning vets were going to be put on the Terrorist Watch List, because of our knowledge base and skill set? Many of the guys in my Company and I, had long talks about what the problem with that and what we were going to do when we got home. I got home before they did so I called up our Congress Representative and talked in depth for 3 hours over the period of two days. The summation of the conversation was, do you really want 5000 guys who just came back from Iraq upset about denying our rights, especially the 2A?

What process is afforded to innocent people who get put on this list? How does an innocent person get off of the list? How does the same innocent "get his rights back?" Why on earth should we even be debating letting the government have more power?

The ahole who shot up the night club was investigated TWICE by the FBI and they cleared him. So in light of their failure everyone must pay.

One last thought. Can anyone think of a single amendment that is "toyed with" more than the Second?

Response by SGT James Hammons made Jun 21 at 2016 8:43 AM

SGT James Hammons — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:43:52 -0400

If I could trust the government to run a list that was accurate. The problem with this is that if the government decides you are a domestic terrorist because you are a conservative they throw you on the no fly list. There have been American children put on the list.

Response by MSgt D Edmonson made Jun 21 at 2016 8:58 AM

MSgt D Edmonson — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:58:59 -0400

Never in this lifetime. My understanding is the No Fly List is very inaccurate. Heck you might even be on the list. They really need to give up trying to enforce gun control. If you want a gun of any type you can get one. You might want to be able to provide for your own defense, because the government is not going to cover you. Folks, you're on your own. If they should be able to limit guns then we will have knife attacks like in Israel.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 9:11 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:11:50 -0400

No. What is the due process for a person to be put on and (more importantly) removed from the list? Without a legal process the list itself is illegal.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 9:13 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:13:57 -0400

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by LTC William Bridgeman made Jun 21 at 2016 9:18 AM

LTC William Bridgeman — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:18:09 -0400

There's that small matter of the Constitution which requires "due process". If the Rule of Law is to be tossed aside the nation becomes just another totalitarian banana republic governed at the whim of the country's leadership.

Response by CAPT Charles Weishar made Jun 21 at 2016 9:20 AM

CAPT Charles Weishar — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:20:07 -0400

Absolutely. And that should be but a beginning with more individuals on similar such lists included in the ban.

Response by MAJ John Adams made Jun 21 at 2016 9:25 AM

MAJ John Adams — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:25:34 -0400

Not until persons placed on the lists are notified of their listing and given the reason(s) for listing, and there is a process to have your name removed from them. Which, by the way, pretty much makes the list useless.

Response by SPC Alejandro Martinez made Jun 21 at 2016 9:28 AM

SPC Alejandro Martinez — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:28:29 -0400

No. Now, that I've read the comments below, I have acquired information and wisdom that I hadn't possessed before visiting RallyPoint today. I had placed a No Facebook self-ban for this week but I may have to get the word out on it so people call their representatives to stop it. The "No Fly No Buy" bill is supported by Trump. I always knew he was a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is too easy to get on this list and too hard to get off of it without time and money, something the average guy does not have. We should not be too quick to add provisions to take away our 2nd amendment rights. The TSA needs to be left out of this. People, call your senators. http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ . Call your representatives. http://www.house.gov/representatives/ . Contact the Whitehouse and tell our president that you do not, cannot support this infringement on our right to own and use a firearm. https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact .

U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress

Senators of the 114th Congress

Response by SSG Dale London made Jun 21 at 2016 9:39 AM

SSG Dale London — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:39:17 -0400

Not under the present legislation. There is presently no appeals process and there are loads of mistakes on the list (two-year old toddlers, eight-year old cub scouts, etc).
As for the "Terror Watch List"... that is a different kettle of fish. If the FBI or other law enforcement organisation has good reason to think you're up to no good - and can convince a judge - sorry, no gun!

Response by CPL James Zielinski made Jun 21 at 2016 9:44 AM

CPL James Zielinski — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:44:11 -0400

absolutely not. While the idea seems solid from the outside, the fact is that the list is random, bypasses due process and has no appeals protocol. Even Sen Ted Kennedy, (while I may disagree with his politics, I doubt that he was a terrorist threat) was unable to get his name off the "No Fly List" for 6 months. The average person would never be able to do it. This would be a blatant violation of the Constitution in multiple ways. Life is not free of risk, and absolute security is a illusion for the weak minded.

Response by 1stSgt Edward Jackson made Jun 21 at 2016 9:51 AM

1stSgt Edward Jackson — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:51:34 -0400

no, I would not support any bill in Congress to deny the Second Amendment rights of people on the "no fly" list. In the most recent 7 years it has become a political hit list, the government can put anyone it wants to on the list, with no evidence at all and no notification to the people it puts on the list.
Additionally the government can simply place every gun owner, people who it thinks may want to buy a gun, or gun dealer on the list that it wants to. That would effectively gut the Second Amendment.
Once your name is on the list, it is very difficult and very expensive to get your name taken off the list.
The "No Fly List" is a clear violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. It takes away freedom of speech, self incrimination (you must confess as part of the removal from the list process), and due process.

Response by SPC Ken Sawyer made Jun 21 at 2016 9:56 AM

SPC Ken Sawyer — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:56:14 -0400

No it's as simple as that there is a silly things NGOs that's called the US Constitution and the 2nd amendment which says no law shall infringe those few words mean a lot. Now let's say your on it and you shouldn't be can you afford to hire a lawyer to fight it? If you win does the government pay your legal costs hell no they don't. There is no right to fly the government does have the right to regulate "freight" under the commerce clause and yes you are the freight that the airlines charges for space.

Response by SrA Bruce Kersman made Jun 21 at 2016 10:00 AM

SrA Bruce Kersman — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:00:03 -0400

ABSOLUTELY; our systems are all shutting down... I can't even purchase a weapon without all the BS and I am a trained marksman!!! The question is not if there will be another terrorist attack on out humanity; IT IS WHEN !!!!?????

Response by CMDCM Richard Moon made Jun 21 at 2016 10:09 AM

CMDCM Richard Moon — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:03 -0400

We are either a nation of laws or we are not the country I swore an oath to defend. Two words must apply: due process. Until a person is able to go to court before their rights are diminished....no.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Jun 21 at 2016 10:19 AM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:19:29 -0400

Sgt Tom Cunnally not just no, but hell no. Who decides whom is to be 'blackballed' and using what criteria? A court of law? Will this list be appropriated for political purposes, i.e., IRS targeting conservatives? Hitler's Nazis were fanatical when it came to making lists. What recourses do you have to get off the list should you be placed on it accidentally given the ease and prevalence of identity theft?

Response by Cpl John King made Jun 21 at 2016 10:21 AM

Cpl John King — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:21:04 -0400

Short answer is no. It sounds great on the news though, or on the campaign trail. It's a constitutional right, and that shouldn't be able to be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat somewhere without so much as a trial. People don't actually get a trial to get on the no fly list...

Response by MSgt Roger Hoyle made Jun 21 at 2016 10:24 AM

MSgt Roger Hoyle — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:24:22 -0400

Sure would. If you're on any list like no fly list or a felony you definitely should have to be followed up on. Only good American citizens need to have guns.

Response by SGT Jeff Bush made Jun 21 at 2016 10:32 AM

SGT Jeff Bush — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:32:17 -0400

Absolutely not. Due process is guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments. DC v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago are SCOTUS precedents on 2nd amendment. Trey Gowdy put it best: Can you think of another Constitutional right that is suspended until someone can prove that they deserve to have it by petitioning the government? Every single senator that supports this garbage has violated their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and if any military personnel support it, they have violated their oath of enlistment or commission.

Response by SSgt Robert Dant made Jun 21 at 2016 10:35 AM

SSgt Robert Dant — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:35:49 -0400

I am a hide supporter of 2 amendment. However, we do need to be sensible about that right today and what does it really mean.

If the list was a vetted list I think it would be good. But it is a slippery slope an knowing I someone is guilty or not is the problem.

the real problem is the list is driven by politicians - us veterans have been classified by some politicians as more dangerous than the terrorists.

So my vote would be no unless it could be managed without political envolment by the FBI - or some honest enforcement agency.

I think we can all agree if you truly deserves to be on this list, or mentally disturbed, or some other form of risk - we do not want these people getting arms.

On the other hand - crooks will always have the gums. Heck our government even gave them real assault weapons for free - so who is the real danger here?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 10:41 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:41:30 -0400

No fly list is to flexable to properly do this.. (w/o Shooting themselves in the foot)

Response by LTC Dan Haveman made Jun 21 at 2016 11:10 AM

LTC Dan Haveman — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:10:57 -0400

No.

Response by SGT Bruce Miller made Jun 21 at 2016 11:16 AM

SGT Bruce Miller — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:16:26 -0400

HELL YES
and our senators just screwed the pooch

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 11:22 AM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:22:52 -0400

If the buyer is suspected of terrorist affiliation or intent, the FBI already can stop the sale. Or, more sensibly, they will increase surveillance on the buyer.

Response by SSgt Sharron Nolley made Jun 21 at 2016 11:26 AM

SSgt Sharron Nolley — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:26:59 -0400

I would most deffinatly !

Response by Sgt Thomas Greer made Jun 21 at 2016 11:30 AM

Sgt Thomas Greer — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:30:33 -0400

No. "Shall not be infringed." These words were used by our founding fathers to be unmistakably clear of their intent as to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The current administration and politically elitist government is a huge reason why our 2nd Amendment rights and all other amendments should never be tampered with.

Response by LTJG Don Biscoe made Jun 21 at 2016 11:31 AM

LTJG Don Biscoe — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:31:41 -0400

I would not support any bill that would strip the constitutional rights of a US citizen. Imagine if ANYONE made a claim against you (maybe it's a disgruntled neighbor, ex, or political group?) and for that reason alone you are put on the no-fly list... If you want to dis-arm the citizen this is how it will start.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 11:33 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:33:34 -0400

No. Due process of law is required BEFORE any Americans' constitutionally protected rights can be taken away or infringed upon.

Response by Sgt Jim Weeder made Jun 21 at 2016 11:34 AM

Sgt Jim Weeder — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:34:54 -0400

Well as long as there was a faster, safer and better way to clear yourself off the list, if you were put on it unjustly.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Jun 21 at 2016 11:38 AM

SGT Steve Oakes — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:38:03 -0400

I can not support it the way the no fly list is run now. Put some judicial oversight in there and maybe.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Jun 21 at 2016 12:19 PM

PO2 Mike Vignapiano — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:19:39 -0400

The only way I would support that is if the person is on the no fly list because of a committed crime. Look at how many people have been put on it by mistake. Besides, boarding a plane is not a constitutional right. Being able to bear arms is.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 21 at 2016 12:29 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:29:30 -0400

No Fly = No Buy ...never thought getting there would be this tough

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 12:33 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:33:47 -0400

The no fly list is a good source of information to start with, but that information needs to be refined to make sure that citizens that are legal to own firearms are not on there and if someone is inadvertently put on the list they need to have a method to get removed in a timely manner

Response by SPC Thomas Hanson made Jun 21 at 2016 12:54 PM

SPC Thomas Hanson — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:54:06 -0400

If someone on the "no fly" list is not already on the list to deny firearm sales, someone is screwing up big time.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Jun 21 at 2016 12:58 PM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:58:10 -0400

In a nutshell yes; and yes, I am a gun owner.

Response by PO1 Joseph Glennon made Jun 21 at 2016 1:21 PM

PO1 Joseph Glennon — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:21:54 -0400

No. A person can show up on the no-fly list for the most arbitrary reasons, or because he shares a name with someone who *should* be on it.

There's no "due process" afforded to citizens before they're placed on the list.
There is also no defined procedure to get removed from the list, even if you've been placed on it erroneously.

As Jefferson said - I'd rather live in dangerous freedom than in safe slavery.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 1:25 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:25:56 -0400

Nope! The no fly list is "arbitrary" based on the decisions of Federal agencies with limited oversight and it does not follow due process. Basically, guilty till proven innocent. Definitely not a just standard to deny an individual their Constitutional rights.

Response by SGT Layne Jeffery made Jun 21 at 2016 1:27 PM

SGT Layne Jeffery — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:27:34 -0400

No. This list is an arbitrary list compiled by government idiots without cause or merit in most cases, and their is no judicial recourse in getting one removed from this list if falsely included. This would restrict a Constitutional right with no adequate protections.

Response by SGT Wilfred Rios made Jun 21 at 2016 1:48 PM

SGT Wilfred Rios — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:32 -0400

Definitely. As a matter of fact, they should continue to be under surveillance, not let them off after not finding "probable cause".

Response by CPO Jack De Merit made Jun 21 at 2016 1:49 PM

CPO Jack De Merit — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:49:15 -0400

No. Certain people are on the "No Fly" list for a reason. Without knowing the reason and denying them the right to purchase a firearm would be morally and legally wrong. We have the second amendment for a reason. It was the Second because of how important it was and still is. If the average citizen is not equipped to defend himself from his own government's abuse and tyranny, who is? If every city and state would prosecute gun offenses using the laws already on the books, we would not need another gun law to be passed. John Wayne once said, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." We need to work harder at identifying and getting the nut cases off the street first.

Response by CW3 Stephen Mills made Jun 21 at 2016 1:54 PM

CW3 Stephen Mills — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:54:47 -0400

Lets see, a secret Government list that you don't know you are on until you are stopped from trying to do something you should otherwise be allowed to do. Then you have to prove you shouldn't be on the list instead of the government having to prove that you should be on the list. The government shouldn't be keeping list of U.S. citizens that it thinks shouldn't have all the rights and abilities of all the rest of us U.S. citizens. Government agencies make the no fly list with no judicial oversight. Unless the government decides to notify people they are on the no fly list and give them a hearing in front of a judge where the government has to substantiate why they are putting a U.S. Citizens on a list that deprives them of their abilities or rights then it pretty much goes against the U.S. Constitutional requirement for due process. So no, I wouldn't support a bill that deprives U.S. Citizens of a constitutional right because someone wrote their name on a list. If you remember Dr Martin Luther King was on a government list as well.

Response by Sgt John Utpadel made Jun 21 at 2016 1:57 PM

Sgt John Utpadel — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:57:30 -0400

No. I will not support new gun legislation until the gov't can enforce the law already on the books. Less than 2% of reported crimes get convicted with our current laws. Whatakes anyone think that more laws will be effective against criminals, and terrorists.

Response by LT John Stevens made Jun 21 at 2016 3:41 PM

LT John Stevens — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:41:48 -0400

I happen to be a strong proponent for honoring our Constitution and abiding by its law, most especially the protection it provides for our "God given" rights. This is especially true for the Second Amendment. To my knowledge, the Second Amendment is the only item in the Bill of Rights that is under attack by those who would take away our constitutional rights.

Generally speaking, I oppose almost all new gun control legislation. Why? because each new law is another chip off the armor that protects our Second Amendment rights and because I believe that every responsible American citizen should own and bear arms. Additionally, I oppose new gun regulation because our Government has not, does not, and will not enforce gun laws as they apply to felons who buy, sell, or possess firearms illegally and use them in the commission of crimes. It is far easier for governments to focus on law-abiding citizens, to control them, and to confiscate weapons from them, as was done in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, in Turkey with the Armenians, in China by Mao, and Cambodia by Pol Pot. Gun controls always come first, then gun Registration, next confiscation, and finally genocide. I refuse to stand by passively and allow myself to be stood at the edge of a ditch, shot in the head, and shoved into the ditch.

Now in regard to the "no fly list" in particular, I could support legislation that prevents anyone on the "No Fly List" or the "Terror Watch List" from buying, owning, or possessing firearms, so long as the law provides due process for appeal within a reasonable period of time (two weeks? four weeks?). The same is true of anyone who is prevented from purchasing firearms for other reasons -- There must be an appeals process where a US citizen can appeal any denial of rights before a court to reverse the denial or to clear a record that is no longer appropriate, such as someone who was reported for psychiatric reasons but has been successfully treated and no longer constitutes any kind of threat. The same should be true in accusations of domestic violence that do not result in criminal conviction but prevent the individual from owning firearms.

Basically, I believe that we need to do a far better job of keeping people who legitimately should not own firearms from obtaining them while better protecting the constitutional rights of all US citizens -- something we do poorly today. This is especially true of veterans who have suffered PTSD or TBI and consequently are reported by the VA to the NICS, preventing them from owning or buying firearms.

Response by SSG Bill Cooke made Jun 21 at 2016 3:56 PM

SSG Bill Cooke — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:56:45 -0400

That should be on a case by case basis. The who is on the list and their background. If a foreign born person, then a background check of where they came from and who they might be associated with. If American, a background check of the same kind. Every weapon purchase should have a background check and the data into that background check be very proper and not political. And no mentally stable veteran of the military barred at all.

Response by CPT Steve Wolszczak made Jun 21 at 2016 4:07 PM

CPT Steve Wolszczak — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:07:01 -0400

No, it would depend on the language of the bill. There is no constitutional right to fly commercial, so some bureaucrat in DC can put you on a list and you have no recourse. If they want to create a specific, "no buy" list, then do that. The listing should be able to be appealed upon refusal to sell and the Govt should have 72 hours to prove in court that they have enough factual evidence to take away your constitutional right, or the sale is granted.

Response by Cpl Stanley Richards made Jun 21 at 2016 4:11 PM

Cpl Stanley Richards — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:11:44 -0400

The no flay list has no "due process"......8 year kids have been on the list, Michael Savage was on the list for England....If the government allows due process yes..no the government does not allow the average citizen his day in court to dispute the list..Maybe for non-citizens as the list is now....But only with "due process" for citizens!

Response by PO1 Scott Cottrell made Jun 21 at 2016 4:28 PM

PO1 Scott Cottrell — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:28:12 -0400

No, They have screwed up that No Fly list many times. I personally know a 4 year old girl who is on the No Fly list because of someone else has the same name. The No Fly list does not use SSNs only names. If someone else has the same name as you and is on the No Fly list you are screwed.

Response by SFC Thomas Holcomb made Jun 21 at 2016 4:50 PM

SFC Thomas Holcomb — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:50:39 -0400

YES felony convection will keep you from owning a gun legally so someone on a no fly list should be treated the same!

Response by SFC David Szucs made Jun 21 at 2016 4:51 PM

SFC David Szucs — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:51:58 -0400

Nope. We punish people in this country after conviction in court of law. The no fly list is FUBAR from beginning to end. There is also no method to remove people placed on the list incorrectly nor is there a method of appeal. Leave secret prisons to tin pot dictators.

Response by CPO Curtiss Hill made Jun 21 at 2016 4:57 PM

CPO Curtiss Hill — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:57:08 -0400

Absolutely not, the only way you will find out if you are on the no fly list is if you try to get on a flight. There is no notification process when a person is placed on the no fly list. What this video: https://youtu.be/DNDcd1Fe5lg

Trey Gowdy Grills DHS Official on Due Process

Learn more at http://Oversight.House.Gov

Response by SPC Douglas Boekhout made Jun 21 at 2016 5:48 PM

SPC Douglas Boekhout — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:48:15 -0400

Yes, I would, isn't it just good sound logic to enact a bill like this. Yes, I might offend the person on the list but how about the other 199 on the plane that would benefit from it knowing this information

Response by CPT Ronald Scherick made Jun 21 at 2016 6:24 PM

CPT Ronald Scherick — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:24:00 -0400

NO there are close to a million people on the no fly list some are senators and congressmen and some military returning from deployment to a terrorist war zone with a one way ticket home.They even have many infants and young children on the list if their name is the same as some suspected terrorist. A friend of mine who worked on the space suits for the astronauts and had the highest security clearance some how got put on it and had a terrible time getting off.
It is too easy to get on the list and to hard to get off .

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 6:26 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:26:07 -0400

Apparently, there was a study done by the GAO that found that 2,043 people on the terror watch list bought guns from licensed gun dealers in the past decade. How many of these individuals committed acts of terror was not reported by the GAO, but if any did, it was far fewer than 2,043. As one author put it, "you could take this as proof that it's too easy for terrorists to buy guns--or as proof that it's too easy for the government to classify you as a terrorist." I tend to agree with the latter.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 6:30 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:30:31 -0400

The "No Fly" list is one of those political smoke screens, which politicians use to embarrass their opponents, and to get people arguing so they aren't paying attention to what politicians are doing. Such political arguments, like illegal immigration, paid family leave, minimum wage, gun control, and so on are the modern equivalent of "Bread and Circuses" which the Roman emperors used to keep the plebeians in line while they ran the empire to suit themselves.

What is the "no fly" list? It is a list you can be placed on by a faceless bureaucrat. No one has to justify placing you on the list. No one has to tell you that you are on the list. No one has to tell you why you are on the list, who put you on it, or how you can dispute being on it. It's a FRAUD, a political tool that criminal politicians (like Hillary, who has already said Republicans are more of an enemy than ISIS) use to stifle opposition.

More importantly, let's say there really is a suspected terrorist who should be on the "no fly" list. ... uh ... wait a minute ... a suspected TERRORIST and all we are doing about it is saying he can't fly on an airplane? Are you kidding me?

Rather we should have a MUST FLY list. If there's someone who belongs on a "no fly" list, the reasons need to be openly stated in a court of law, and if the charges are proven the suspected terrorist should be deported immediately.

Response by SGM Thomas Adderley made Jun 21 at 2016 7:16 PM

SGM Thomas Adderley — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:16:28 -0400

Yes I would. BUT, Not until the consolidated list contains confirmed individuals not someone added because of an error in the data. I also support the idea of including all personnel with psychological problems which deem them harmful to themselves or others.

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Jun 21 at 2016 7:46 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:46:24 -0400

Its never been explained of how you get on the "no fly" list, are you personally served with some type of warrant are is it a government official who thinks you are a danger to society. What violations of Federal Law justifies that you should be placed on a "no fly" list. If someone knows please explain.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 21 at 2016 7:53 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:53:17 -0400

"The White House on Tuesday blasted the Senate's "cowardice" for rejecting four separate gun control measures."

"Cowardice??"" Who says the Obama Administration has not been responsible for so much disdain aimed at it by congress ?? No wonder Washington DC is divided between the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch..

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-house-senate-gun-votes-%e2%80%98a-shameful-display-of-cowardice%e2%80%99/ar-AAho3O2?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

White House: Senate gun votes ‘a shameful display of cowardice’

"They continue to protect a loophole to allow individuals suspected of terrorism to buy a gun."

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Jun 21 at 2016 7:56 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:56:43 -0400

No.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 9:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:07:51 -0400

Liberals treat the 2A like its some rationed food in a third world country. It's incompatible with the constitution and our legal system. What if we treated other constitutional rights as something that must be justified and subject to approval. Let's apply that to speech, right to counsel, or even, my favorite, cruel and unusual punishment. See how hard we can fall on this slippery slope?

Response by PO3 Dana Christensen made Jun 21 at 2016 9:43 PM

PO3 Dana Christensen — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:43:21 -0400

No there is a slew of reasons a person can end up on the no fly list, and it is impossible to get off. If the government wants greater gun control, teach the punks and gang pukes to use two hands, hold the gun upright , secure our borders and make each state a no license open carry area.
There is no way the Florida shooting would have been so bad if the shooter walked in and saw over 100 people comfortable with most of them carrying.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 9:48 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:52 -0400

If the police cannot profile, why is the federal government allowed to do so? No American citizen should be on the no fly list unless they have been charged with an offense. If they are doing something that is dangerous to US citizens, they should be deported. I know this is off topic but kind of funny how we can infringe on people's rights when it comes to weapons but not verifying legal status to vote.

Response by A1C Gerald Jessup made Jun 21 at 2016 10:05 PM

A1C Gerald Jessup — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:05:54 -0400

no not unless there are set criteria that is public knowledge and there is a way to appeal being on the list. if we give up 1 privilege we might as well give them all up. i gave an oath to follow orders but not if they are unlawful orders

Response by SN Bryan King made Jun 21 at 2016 10:07 PM

SN Bryan King — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:07:51 -0400

No as the second amendment is pretty clear, shall not be infringed.

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Jun 21 at 2016 10:34 PM

LTC Jesse Edwards — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:34:41 -0400

I can't. I take my oath to the Constitution seriously.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 21 at 2016 10:55 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:55:27 -0400

No because I was on the No fly list while I was deployed to Afghanistan, so until they have a way of honestly removing people from the no fly list that do not belong on it.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 11:54 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:54:26 -0400

Did they receive Due Process? I've heard of children being denied a seat on a plane for nothing more than sharing the name of a person on that list.

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Jun 22 at 2016 7:30 AM

SFC Alfred Galloway — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:30:29 -0400

NO, not without due process. Want to limit my freedoms then I had better be convicted of a crime or found mentally incompetent.

Response by PO2 Isidoro Laude made Jun 22 at 2016 9:55 AM

PO2 Isidoro Laude — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:55:22 -0400

Absolutely not. There are people on the no fly list who are oblivious to their current status and do not find out until they attempt to purchase a ticket. This gives the government a method to take away your 2nd amendment right in a nefarious manner that negates the average citizen means to confront their accuser. The NDAA is already a law passed under the people's noses. We don't need to give them any more leverage.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 22 at 2016 10:00 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:00:40 -0400

Wholeheartedly! Anyone placed on either the "No-Fly" list or on a "terror-watch" list should not be able to purchase firearms, while I fully support the 2nd Amendment, this one to me is a no-brainer!

Response by SSG Randy D. made Jun 22 at 2016 10:07 AM

SSG Randy D. — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:07:11 -0400

It is really sad to see the amount of service members who swore to defend this nation, its people, its rights and the Constitution who are for gun control. You need to hang up your uniform and stop spreading your filth to others while hiding behind your rank.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 10:43 AM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:43:24 -0400

Generally I would say yes. However there are too many examples of people being put on a no fly list and either not knowing they were on it, or being put on it by some sort of mistake. If there was some sort of due process whereby you could defend your name I am all for it. In principle if you are not safe to fly you are not safe to buy, but due process is a must for my support.

Response by CAPT Charles Weishar made Jun 22 at 2016 11:04 AM

CAPT Charles Weishar — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:53 -0400

It is clear that I wrote a comment somewhat over the heads of some. I must be more careful in the future and consider the broader community. I had thought my original comment would be taken for what it is: pure satire.

Response by SP5 Michael Cates made Jun 22 at 2016 11:44 AM

SP5 Michael Cates — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:44:07 -0400

The Question is Why did the FBI take the Florida Killer MRI Terrorist off the list which allowed him to buy the weapon?

Response by MAJ Glenn Lasater made Jun 22 at 2016 12:25 PM

MAJ Glenn Lasater — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:28 -0400

Absolutely not! The No Fly List is created and maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). The TSC is a division of the National Security Branch of the FBI established by presidential directive -- NOT by Congressional legislation. The list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

Additionally, the SCOTUS has ruled that the citizen’s right to privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment which protects the citizen’s right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. The No Fly List violates this principle.

As most of the members of RallyPoint, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The No Fly List is, in and of itself, unconstitutional because it requires no probably cause and denies citizens their right to due process. To use an unconstitutional source to deny citizens their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous at best and insanity at worst.

Response by SPC Tom Walsh made Jun 22 at 2016 12:56 PM

SPC Tom Walsh — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:56:43 -0400

Only if there was a means and/or process for disputing a person's placement on that list. and the means and/or proceedures for being removed from the list if the reasons for being on that list are rectified.

Response by CPL Charles Sears made Jun 22 at 2016 1:29 PM

CPL Charles Sears — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:29:10 -0400

Absolutely. Where do I sign.
No Fly. No Carry. NO OWN

Response by CPO James Page made Jun 22 at 2016 2:02 PM

CPO James Page — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:02:01 -0400

We can talk about this until we run out of breath and we will have solved nothing. If those people who we elect to make these decisions cannot arrive at a consensus how can we who mostly have no clue. We think we know about the amendments to the constitution we are naive. None of us hold degrees in constitutional law. What I hope happens is that congress will pass a law or laws affecting the issue we speak of and eventually they will reach the SCOTUS who will decide yea or nay. In the meantime we have to deal with what we have. Of course that means we have to have faith in TSA and all those other alphabetized agencies but having faith will be problematic.

Response by SSgt Sharron Nolley made Jun 22 at 2016 2:26 PM

SSgt Sharron Nolley — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:26:15 -0400

This makes me wonder as I cant seem to locate info,
Why and when was this list started ?
Does its status change in peace time and does it tighten up depending on what out terrist alert level is ? What is our level now ?
This no fly list guy that just killed 29 and injured over a hundred was on list , was his gun registered to him ? Media hype changes info minute to minute .. Im just curious .

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 3:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:32:23 -0400

No. The "No Fly List" is a nightmare if you're mistakenly placed upon it. There's an example from a few years back of a 6YO cub scout who was placed on the list for years. SIX YEARS OLD. CUB SCOUT. His parents spent a LOT of time trying to get him removed. I'm unsure whether they ever succeeded.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 4:42 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:42:00 -0400

yes

Response by SPC Rob Robinson made Jun 22 at 2016 5:25 PM

SPC Rob Robinson — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:25:59 -0400

Yes and No.
Who's compiling the list? If the NRA likes 'em. I like 'em.

The NRA supported background checks like this during the Clinton Presidency ['90s] The deal with the NRA fell apart when the Clintons would not back of two central issues.

The NRA agreed to use the Center for Disease Control [CDC] Data base but the Clintons had to see that it was clean completely, with FBI supervision; and that the examiners could use the data for 72 hours to make a decision and then completely expunge all demographic information on those who successfully passed the background check. The Clintons wanted to keep the data on file "in perpetuity" on every swingin' twinkie that tried to purchase a weapon, clean or dirty, successful or not... in perpetuity!

So yeah, I'll play ball, but the last time we played you tried to shove the bat where the sun don't shine. First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me.

Response by SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder made Jun 22 at 2016 9:09 PM

SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:09:43 -0400

Absolutely not.
For two reasons:

1) It's seems to be made up haphazardly and filled in with random names that are written onto ping pong balls that are pulled out of a bingo roller.

2) There was no due process involved in the development of the no fly list. It in itself makes it unconstitutional. It's like making a law that bans fat people from buying spoons.

Response by 1SG Jack Crutcher made Jun 22 at 2016 9:24 PM

1SG Jack Crutcher — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:24:37 -0400

Yes, there is a reason he is on the NO FLY list.

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made Jun 23 at 2016 12:39 AM

SFC Ernest Thurston — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:39:07 -0400

Hell no!. The No Fly List is to arbitrary to be used as a criteria for determining if a person can own a weapon. The No Fly List was created to stop suspicious people from easy access to commercial airlines. There is no judicial process that gets you on that list. It is at the whim of a bureaucrat that doesn't answer to anyone. You can wind up on the No Fly List simply because you have a Arab sounding name that is similar to some ME terrorist.
Now the reverse could be true. If you are a convicted felon you might be put on the No Fly List.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 23 at 2016 11:29 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:29:48 -0400

Looks like this bill is back on the backburner until after the 4th of July holidays in congress.

But thanx to all who commented on this subject, we had some very well written arguments both Pro and Con. I think we did a better job here arguing the merits of this bill than our congress did especially our conversations about the NOFLY NOBUY......

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Jun 23 at 2016 2:50 PM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:50:38 -0400

NO too easy for the dicks in DC to put someone on the NO fly list and almost impossible to get your name off once it is on! An easy way for them to have gun control!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2016 12:55 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:55:38 -0400

No, not at all. Due process under the law should be required. I understand the argument and I am willing to be that tiny measure less safe because of it.

Response by SGT Rocky Venti made Jun 25 at 2016 1:43 PM

SGT Rocky Venti — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:43:20 -0400

Hell No! "They'(?) can put any one of us on a no-fly list and take our guns away from us. Wake up America. We need to get away from the world dominance and take our own country back. You know who I am voting for in November and it ain't a her...

Response by CPT Carlos Ribadeneira made Jun 27 at 2016 9:32 PM

CPT Carlos Ribadeneira — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:32:37 -0400

Simple answer: YES

Response by SPC Tom Walsh made Jun 28 at 2016 9:49 PM

SPC Tom Walsh — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:49:42 -0400

Only if it includes proper due process provisions. And a clear-cut and timely process for getting off the no-fly list.

Response by LTC Dan Haveman made Jun 30 at 2016 12:14 PM

LTC Dan Haveman — Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:14:30 -0400

Guilty until proven innocent is not right. All costs to 'try to' remove yourself from the list is borne by the individual. In my opinion, if you're not trusted on a plane, you're not trusted in public.

Response by PO3 Ward Isom made Jun 30 at 2016 12:40 PM

PO3 Ward Isom — Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:40:52 -0400

No. The current proposal does not have any process to get off the list if there is an error so I think we need to go with due process.

Response by Capt Joe Sylvester made Jun 30 at 2016 10:45 PM

Capt Joe Sylvester — Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:45:32 -0400

Not only no, but hell no. If there is evidence to do that to American Citizens, there is enough to charge them with an appropriate crime, and let a jury or judge decide. For non-citizens, that would be enough to grab them and deport them, with the appropriate hearing to satisfy due process.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jul 1 at 2016 3:31 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 03:31:48 -0400

The American public wants our congress to act on a No Fly No Buy Control Bill so just saying No will not help when we need strong leadership by the Obama Administration and our Congress. There are elections in a few months so why would anyone in the pocket of the NRA want to rock the boat and support a No Fly list that will prevent terrorist from purchasing firearms?? Not in you life so just vent about Due Process and Constitutional Rights and don't even think about restricting weapons that can kill or wound 30 people in a few minutes.. Instead just count the campaign donations from the NRA and Gun Lovers..Time to move on folks nothing here Gun Control is too hot to handle..

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jul 4 at 2016 6:43 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 18:43:47 -0400

Though doing this may keep the US people a little more safe...by doing this...passing this law...it's really not going to stop these folks from getting a weapon...so why bother. If someone wants a weapon, they'll find a way to get it.

Response by LT John Stevens made Jul 7 at 2016 8:04 PM

LT John Stevens — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:04:39 -0400

When we knowingly sacrifice any of our rights under the US Constitution, we in essence surrender all of our rights. I will support a bill that prevents people on the "no fly" list from purchasing or owning arms only when the issue of Due Process in accordance with the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments have been adequately resolved.

Response by Cpl John King made Jul 14 at 2016 12:21 PM

Cpl John King — Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:21:57 -0400

Seems like a no-brainer, especially when it's a quick sound bite on the news. But there is no due process involved at all, and there are a lot of people that share my name...so I am going to say no. Losing your 2nd amendment right should involve a judge and a jury.

How many people share my name? What am I scared of?? The world is a small place in my experience... I have had: Swat come to my door looking for "John King". I have purchased a car, in JAPAN from John King. I have had my bicycle on base stolen by John King (btw, when I got it back via PMO, the guy really fixed it up for me....but still, he took it.). I tried to name my company 'John King & Associates' or even 'John King & Co.', no dice, already taken. So what are the odds of my 'name' ending up on the list? Better than 50/50 given enough time.

Response by SPC Thomas Hanson made Jul 14 at 2016 5:45 PM

SPC Thomas Hanson — Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:45:27 -0400

This is an attempt to bypass a Congress unable to face the NRA, and let Homeland Security police gun issues. If you don't want Muslims to have guns, pass a law! There are 2 gun stores in the US that won't sell to Muslims anyway.
If the concept has merit then the concept deserves to be addressed in its entirety by Congress, which is itself a sham, but at least the NRA is a watchdog.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2016 10:10 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:10:16 -0400

I wouldn't support it unless they created a system that allowed due process prior to being added to the list, with a process that was clearly stated to be removed from the list if you could show you were innocent.

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Jul 28 at 2016 12:22 PM

LTC Jesse Edwards — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:22:23 -0400

I view it as unconstitutional and given I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, I am firmly opposed to having the "No-Fly List" abused in this manner. I offer the following quote:

"Both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit governmental deprivations of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment serves three distinct functions in modern constitutional doctrine: "First, it incorporates [against the States] specific protections defined in the Bill of Rights....Second, it contains a substantive component, sometimes referred to as ‘substantive due process.'...Third, it is a guarantee of fair procedure, sometimes referred to as ‘procedural due process.'..." Daniels v. Williams (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring)."

A person can be put on the No-Fly List:
- Easily
- Anonymously
- Erroneously
- Secretly

There is no simple process for being removed from the No-Fly List EVEN IN THE INSTANCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE MISTAKE.

Knowing Democrats the way they have revealed themselves, if you give them the ability to strip Second Amendment rights by way of abusing the No-Fly List, they will corrupt the process and use it simply to take away gun rights while lying about it and hiding it from FOIA requests.

Response by CPO James Page made Jul 28 at 2016 1:16 PM

CPO James Page — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:16:54 -0400

Why would someone be on the "no fly" list if they were not deemed a threat to our country and if so why should they, a threat to our country, be allowed to purchase a gun. Seems simple to me if being placed on the "no fly" list follows due process. When due process is followed it should give that person a chance to refute the charges which will place him/her on the "no fly" list.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Jul 30 at 2016 1:32 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:32:46 -0400

No. The no fly list is too subjective to be used for exceptions to our 2nd Amendment rights. Actually I find it to vague to judge who may or may not fly.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2016 11:54 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 11:54:46 -0400

Let's ask this question a different way.

Is the No-fly list an attempt to protect our citizens from terrorists, or is it a tool politicians can use to intimidate their opposition,or is it just a feel-good measure with no real meaning?

If it really is an attempt to protect us from terrorists, is getting on a list ALL that is done about the suspected terrorist? If someone is dangerous enough that they shouldn't be allowed on an aircraft, then they are dangerous enough that a police task force should be hunting them down, analysts should be mapping their contacts, and detectives should be looking for clues to whatever crime they intend to commit.

And if some idiot puts an innocent person on the list for political reasons, that idiot should face the music.

If the no-fly list is important, it's important enough to investigate the people on it. If it's not that important, then it's not important at all.

Response by SPC Thomas Hanson made Sep 22 at 2016 12:27 PM

SPC Thomas Hanson — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:27:44 -0400

Everyone is missing the point with their due process arguments.
The no fly list is about a perceived imminent threat. It's not always correct I agree, but would you put your children on a flight to Paris with a person who had the same name as an Al Qaeda trained operative? Sure, let him fly until he goes to court and we can prove who he really is because he has rights.
I don't think you would. It only takes a bomb that will fit in a shoe.

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made Oct 13 at 2016 1:14 PM

SFC Ernest Thurston — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:14:35 -0400

I don't trust the No Fly list or the people who run it. The No Fly list was initiated to keep people from flying that are known to be a threat to the safety and security of the nation . But like every law that has good intentions in the heat of the moment gets abused by politicians later. I don't trust a bureaucrat in a back room deciding whether I can fly or not and I sure don't trust them with a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment specifically states " No person shall be .....deprived of life, LIBERTY or property without due process of law." For me Liberty is the right to travel freely without hindrance from any government agency no matter how well intentioned their motive may be. Using the no fly list is just a backdoor way for gun hating Democrats to take more guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. What's to stop them from changing the rules, let's say I get a traffic ticket. Can this later be a criteria for putting me on the no fly list and then taking my guns? What is the real criteria for getting on the no-fly list? Does anyone really know? Can a foreign government put me on the no fly list and by extension restrict my freedom to travel and own a gun?

Response by PO1 John Johnson made Dec 17 at 2016 3:29 AM

PO1 John Johnson — Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:29:58 -0500

No, and here's why. About 7 years ago I ended up on the "no-fly" list because of my name (John Johnson), and I had no idea I was on it until I went through the TSA security check point at the airport prior to my flight. I was held up for 1 hour until TSA finally got the okay to let me through and thankfully I didn't miss my flight. Apparently, a bank robber in the Midwest with the same name was the person they had on the "no-fly" list. I'm still wondering why clearing me took so long, as the bank robber was an African American and as you can see from my picture I'm a Caucasian. And for the record I still support the TSA, but cannot support a bill that has the propensity to disrupt innocent people's lives, with no judicial process that puts them on the list and has no accountability ie.: the no fly list.