No Fly Lists, Guns, and Rights considered Sacred
Recently the Republicans in the Senate blocked passage of a bill that would have banned sales of weapons to people on the No-Fly List. My first response was incredulity: how can they condone sales of weapons to people considered a threat to commit acts of mass murder? But an arch-right friend, Ed, thought the constitutional right superseded it. Well, apart from our difference of opinion on what constitutes the right to bear arms in a militia, though a thorough reading of the second amendment would justify owning all weapons, not just rifles and pistols, it got me thinking of the concept of rights and due process.
The no-fly list is part of the delightful assortment of laws that the Patriot Act gave us, where we gave up liberties in the pursuit of security in the aftermath of the suicide bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Benjamin Franklin was probably not pleased. A person can be placed on the list on suspicion of being a threat to others, both on domestic flights and international flights. There is no due process for this. A person is not brought before a court, with counsel, with evidence to prove their threat to others and judged by his or her peers. The government puts you on the list, based upon "intelligence." Phone calls, emails, travel, association with others--a combination of these puts someone's name on the list. The program has cost millions of dollars, from the generation and dissemination of the list by the government to the dealings of airlines with false positives (the term for errors, when for example an infant can't get on the plane because his name is the same as someone on the list).
A person on the list cannot travel by plane for work, for pleasure, for family obligations. All because of a suspicion that he/she may harm others, based upon intelligence provided by the same people that put a guy in Guantanamo for 13 years because he had the same name as someone else. The late Senator Ted Kennedy was delayed at airports because his name was on the list. Old people are denied flights because their names are on the list. Children are denied flights because their names are on the list. One only finds out he or she is on the list when screened at the airport, not when making a reservation for a flight. So freedom of movement is denied for the people on the list and anyone with similar names without due process. One can theoretically apply to appeal their placing on the list, but this flips our prevailing notion that one is innocent until proven guilty. The no fly list makes one guilty by bureaucratic fiat. The process of appealing placement on the list is cumbersome, putting the burden of proof on the innocent rather than the government. It takes 30 days to process one's application to get off the list. It's easier for a possible murderer to buy an assault rifle than it is an innocent traveler to get off the no-fly list.
So I found myself defending this arbitrary list when I thought that at least these folks suspected of wanting to commit violent acts with weapons should be denied guns, at least temporarily. But it also got me thinking about how we deal with constitutional rights of criminals. We routinely deny convicted felons the right to purchase weapons. Even the most extreme gun enthusiasts are somewhat comfortable with this practice, if for no other reason is that it has been common practice for decades.
But if the second amendment is but one of 10 basic rights as citizens, would not other rights also be restricted based upon conviction for a crime? If people are convicted of a crime, should we also deny their right to assemble? Should we forbid their right to expression, to religious faith, to a jury trial should they be arrested for another crime? Should we quarter soldiers in their homes? (the forgotten Third Amendment forbids quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime) Can they be given inhumane treatment, even tortured? It seems inconsistent to forbid purchase of firearms yet continue the other protections of the Bill of Rights.
This is not to say I support the NRA's position on the second amendment. Two hundred and thirty years ago, an infant nation very shy of the potential tyranny of a standing army chose a well-regulated militia (strange how the NRA never focuses on the "well-regulated" part of the amendment) as the principle force of defense apart from a navy. To provide the means for the militia, the second amendment allowed the possession of arms by the citizens.
Two hundred and thirty years later, in the interest of public safety, we regulate the production of automobiles, airplanes, medicines, and other products which have the potential to do harm. We also regulate and register the people to drive our cars and planes and administer medications. People are comfortable with such principles. To do the same with items meant to do harm is a logical extension of those principles. So restricting a felon's or anyone's access to firearms would fall within such principles of maintaining public safety.
(Again, I'm surprised the NRA has not pushed for the right to purchase tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and fighter-bomber jets, as they are the "arms" of our modern militia, the National Guard. Give it time, I suppose, and it will, with the generous support of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics in the same manner that Smith and Wesson, Glock, and Bushmaster support the NRA today.)
The same people that support gun rights to an extent resembling religious faith also tend to support measures to defend their security that actually infringe on their other rights and freedoms. The folk who are most vocal in demanding more restrictions on the sales of weapons (myself included) are also the most vocal critics of the restrictions put into place by the Patriot Act. Some rights are worth defending to each group, sacred principles whose opposition constitutes heresy or treason, whereas others are not worth defending, even sacrificing on altar of convenience.
The NRA is a very successful and anomalous trade association, as it is the only trade association supported financially by both producers and consumers. Can you imagine patients sending contributions to the American Medical Association or house buyers joining the National Association of Realtors? It supports the sales of guns by encouraging the belief that gun sales is a protected right and provides unusual marketing to buy more guns by fostering an atmosphere of paranoia that gun sales can be banned at any time. No other trade association made money from people having the rights covered in the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights. Well, until the Citizens United case converted corporations into people for purposes of political expression, so now money equals expression.
Note how I managed to get through this whole piece without using the current American bogeyman: terrorist. We always have to have one: Nazis, Commies, now terrorists, specifically Muslim ones.
The no-fly list is part of the delightful assortment of laws that the Patriot Act gave us, where we gave up liberties in the pursuit of security in the aftermath of the suicide bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Benjamin Franklin was probably not pleased. A person can be placed on the list on suspicion of being a threat to others, both on domestic flights and international flights. There is no due process for this. A person is not brought before a court, with counsel, with evidence to prove their threat to others and judged by his or her peers. The government puts you on the list, based upon "intelligence." Phone calls, emails, travel, association with others--a combination of these puts someone's name on the list. The program has cost millions of dollars, from the generation and dissemination of the list by the government to the dealings of airlines with false positives (the term for errors, when for example an infant can't get on the plane because his name is the same as someone on the list).
A person on the list cannot travel by plane for work, for pleasure, for family obligations. All because of a suspicion that he/she may harm others, based upon intelligence provided by the same people that put a guy in Guantanamo for 13 years because he had the same name as someone else. The late Senator Ted Kennedy was delayed at airports because his name was on the list. Old people are denied flights because their names are on the list. Children are denied flights because their names are on the list. One only finds out he or she is on the list when screened at the airport, not when making a reservation for a flight. So freedom of movement is denied for the people on the list and anyone with similar names without due process. One can theoretically apply to appeal their placing on the list, but this flips our prevailing notion that one is innocent until proven guilty. The no fly list makes one guilty by bureaucratic fiat. The process of appealing placement on the list is cumbersome, putting the burden of proof on the innocent rather than the government. It takes 30 days to process one's application to get off the list. It's easier for a possible murderer to buy an assault rifle than it is an innocent traveler to get off the no-fly list.
So I found myself defending this arbitrary list when I thought that at least these folks suspected of wanting to commit violent acts with weapons should be denied guns, at least temporarily. But it also got me thinking about how we deal with constitutional rights of criminals. We routinely deny convicted felons the right to purchase weapons. Even the most extreme gun enthusiasts are somewhat comfortable with this practice, if for no other reason is that it has been common practice for decades.
But if the second amendment is but one of 10 basic rights as citizens, would not other rights also be restricted based upon conviction for a crime? If people are convicted of a crime, should we also deny their right to assemble? Should we forbid their right to expression, to religious faith, to a jury trial should they be arrested for another crime? Should we quarter soldiers in their homes? (the forgotten Third Amendment forbids quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime) Can they be given inhumane treatment, even tortured? It seems inconsistent to forbid purchase of firearms yet continue the other protections of the Bill of Rights.
This is not to say I support the NRA's position on the second amendment. Two hundred and thirty years ago, an infant nation very shy of the potential tyranny of a standing army chose a well-regulated militia (strange how the NRA never focuses on the "well-regulated" part of the amendment) as the principle force of defense apart from a navy. To provide the means for the militia, the second amendment allowed the possession of arms by the citizens.
Two hundred and thirty years later, in the interest of public safety, we regulate the production of automobiles, airplanes, medicines, and other products which have the potential to do harm. We also regulate and register the people to drive our cars and planes and administer medications. People are comfortable with such principles. To do the same with items meant to do harm is a logical extension of those principles. So restricting a felon's or anyone's access to firearms would fall within such principles of maintaining public safety.
(Again, I'm surprised the NRA has not pushed for the right to purchase tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and fighter-bomber jets, as they are the "arms" of our modern militia, the National Guard. Give it time, I suppose, and it will, with the generous support of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics in the same manner that Smith and Wesson, Glock, and Bushmaster support the NRA today.)
The same people that support gun rights to an extent resembling religious faith also tend to support measures to defend their security that actually infringe on their other rights and freedoms. The folk who are most vocal in demanding more restrictions on the sales of weapons (myself included) are also the most vocal critics of the restrictions put into place by the Patriot Act. Some rights are worth defending to each group, sacred principles whose opposition constitutes heresy or treason, whereas others are not worth defending, even sacrificing on altar of convenience.
The NRA is a very successful and anomalous trade association, as it is the only trade association supported financially by both producers and consumers. Can you imagine patients sending contributions to the American Medical Association or house buyers joining the National Association of Realtors? It supports the sales of guns by encouraging the belief that gun sales is a protected right and provides unusual marketing to buy more guns by fostering an atmosphere of paranoia that gun sales can be banned at any time. No other trade association made money from people having the rights covered in the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights. Well, until the Citizens United case converted corporations into people for purposes of political expression, so now money equals expression.
Note how I managed to get through this whole piece without using the current American bogeyman: terrorist. We always have to have one: Nazis, Commies, now terrorists, specifically Muslim ones.
Comments
Post a Comment