Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

jtx

(68 posts)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 07:30 PM Jun 2016

ACLU's Most Recent Statement on No Fly No Buy Lists. [View all]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america


UPDATE: On June 22nd, the ACLU sent this letter to the Senate opposing Sen. Collins’ (R-Maine) proposed legislation. We had hoped that the Collins Amendment would correct the problems with the earlier Cornyn and Feinstein amendments, but as we describe in the letter, the Collins Amendment would instead cause even more serious problems.

In the wake of the attack on LGBTQ Americans in Orlando, gun control is again at the forefront of the national conversation. It is also the subject of proposed legislation in Congress. We at the ACLU, like many other Americans, are appalled by the Orlando tragedy. We have deep concerns, however, about legislative efforts to regulate the use of guns by relying on our nation’s error-prone and unfair watchlisting system.

That’s why we sent a letter today to the Senate, opposing legislation from Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas), which uses the watchlisting system as a predicate for gun regulation, and also opposing a proposal by Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.), which does not rely on mere presence on watchlists, but nevertheless raises issues of fundamental fairness.

The letter explained to senators the ACLU’s position on gun control:

We believe that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy.

And we explained why we oppose Sen. Cornyn’s legislation, which uses the watchlist system as a starting point for regulating guns. It may sound appealing to regulate firearms by using the government’s blacklisting system for what it calls “known or suspected terrorists,” but we have long experience analyzing the myriad problems with that system, and based on what we know, it needs major overhaul. As we told the senators:

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.

That’s why we have argued that if the government chooses to blacklist people, the standards it uses must be appropriately narrow, the information it relies on must be accurate and credible, and its use of watchlists must be consistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. This is not what the government is doing, though. Instead, as we explained to the Senate using the No Fly List as an example:

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

It is unsurprising that a system like this is not just bloated, but applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

By relying on the broken watchlist system, Sen. Cornyn’s proposal would further entrench it. Sen. Feinstein’s gun control proposal, on the other hand, has moved away from a previous version that expressly relied on watchlisting standards. Her new proposal does not rely on the mere presence of an individual on a watchlist as a basis for denial of a firearm permit. Still, her new proposal uses vague and overbroad criteria and does not contain necessary due process protections. It also includes a new notification requirement that could result in a “watchlist” that is even broader than any that currently exists — so broad that it would include even people long ago cleared of any wrongdoing by law enforcement.

You should read the full letter for yourself. And then we ask you to call your senators to oppose these proposals. Congress can pass effective gun control laws without relying on unfair and discriminatory watchlists or failing to provide meaningful due process.
75 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So the ACLU puts rights above safety scscholar Jun 2016 #1
I really really hope this is sarcasm. tritsofme Jun 2016 #3
Except they don't REP Jun 2016 #7
They admit in their quote that "freedom from unlawful searches" and "due process..." scscholar Jun 2016 #9
Still hoping this is sarcasm n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #10
Do you know latin? sarisataka Jun 2016 #11
Sorry, but that's the wave of the future. Igel Jun 2016 #40
Or knee jerk reaction that if it's a ferin language it must be bad greiner3 Jun 2016 #73
Fine. You can let LEO search your home without a warrant. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #29
I already do have to allow random, warrantless searches. scscholar Jun 2016 #36
That's untrue. They must give 24 hours notice before entering except in cases of emergency. REP Jun 2016 #37
Pesky facts again Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #41
I know. I'm such an ass for dragging those into the discussion! REP Jun 2016 #42
Laughable. The landlord inspecting his property is *not* the government. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #55
It is *not* the landlord doing the inspection scscholar Jun 2016 #58
Building inspections are not "Unreasonable" searches under law. They aren't even a search. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #66
So, a government employee searching your home is not a search? scscholar Jun 2016 #71
I see now, you are being deliberately obtuse. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #72
Guess you're not from the "give me liberty or give me death" crowd? thesquanderer Jun 2016 #39
if this isn't sarcasm you have truly went off the deep end AntiBank Jun 2016 #50
There was a place called East Germany, had a police force called the Stasi. They operated jtuck004 Jun 2016 #53
A compromise hardluck Jun 2016 #74
So did everyone that signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #22
No that's what democracy is all about. Innocent until proven guilty. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #30
Maybe "Safety at all costs!" works for you. Not for me. cheapdate Jun 2016 #34
It seems that suspending due process is fine as long as it only applies to certain people REP Jun 2016 #38
Let me tell you something then! Dustlawyer Jun 2016 #59
Much as they did with Citizens United. LanternWaste Jun 2016 #68
As it should. nt LWolf Jun 2016 #69
I side with the ACLU Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #2
Right on JackInGreen Jun 2016 #4
ACLU's letter to Senators - full text jtx Jun 2016 #5
K&R n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #6
I am very very pro gun control choie Jun 2016 #8
The watchlisting system is no more accurate Downwinder Jun 2016 #12
B... but, GUNZ!! Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #13
Plenty of liberals own guns n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #14
Me included. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #17
My bad SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #19
Not at all. A due reminder. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #25
Yes of course, lol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #21
The requirements of prohibition are bashing the Constitution. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #23
That's how I think of it. Igel Jun 2016 #43
When did everyone embrace the no fly list? TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #15
Some of us citizens is getting randomly killed. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #20
Your response is nonsensical. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #27
This is about preserving the 2nd Amendment unimpeded. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #31
There are hundreds of things we could do that don't violate the 5th Amendment, or the 4th, etc NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #32
The known or suspected terrorists on the 'no fly list'... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #35
So you think that this super-secret government list TeddyR Jun 2016 #45
The Collins amendment. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #47
Apologies TeddyR Jun 2016 #49
'Known or suspected terrorists'... like Senator Edward Kennedy? John Poet Jun 2016 #64
When Obama took office. When Bush crapped on the Constitution, BAD! Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #24
It really gives lie to their claim of principles, doesn't it? X_Digger Jun 2016 #33
It's infuriating. These people are calling themselves Democrats. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #54
It has to start with something IronLionZion Jun 2016 #52
ACLU- sarisataka Jun 2016 #16
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. baldguy Jun 2016 #18
How 'bout that Cornyn (R)? Why, I never knew. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #26
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #28
The city of Chicago TeddyR Jun 2016 #46
Piss on due process...lock those fuckers up now! jmg257 Jun 2016 #48
And this "trial by jury" nonsense LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #56
Not being able to buy a gun **IS NOT** equivalent to being put in prison. baldguy Jun 2016 #63
So supporting due process TeddyR Jun 2016 #67
. baldguy Jun 2016 #70
There right UnFettered Jun 2016 #44
I bet a lot of people forgot about the no fly list issues IronLionZion Jun 2016 #51
I have to agree with the ACLU bluestateguy Jun 2016 #57
weren't these the guys blowing money on suing an elementary school for MisterP Jun 2016 #60
ACLU wants to protect civil liberties Democat Jun 2016 #61
Yeah, I'm an old Democrat, but new to DU, LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #75
Yet more sabotage dickthegrouch Jun 2016 #62
Shills for the NRA...don't they realize rights are overrated? ileus Jun 2016 #65
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»ACLU's Most Recent Statem...