Thus the Republic falls to applause: No Fly list and gun control

[Armonica_Templar]

Loretta Lynch Slaps FBI: No-Fly List Can Be Used to Ban Gun Buyers

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has overruled FBI Director James Comey on a key issue involving guns and terrorist watch lists — a move that two unlikely allies, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Rifle Association, oppose.

Lynch says the Obama administration supports banning the sale of firearms to people on terrorist watch lists — a declaration that flies in the face of Comey's belief that denying those sales could hinder investigations of potential terrorists.

The Washington Times reports that in a statement issued Thursday, the Justice Department said it wants Congress to pass the so-called "no-fly, no-buy" plan Democratic lawmakers are pushing.

"The amendment gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department's operational and investigative sensitivities," Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said.

Latest News Update

Get Newsmax TV At Home »

[/url]





But WND.com reports that the ACLU and NRA don't agree.
Special:
"Restrictions like bans on gun purchases by people on 'watch lists' are ineffective, unconstitutional, or both," the NRA said this week.

And in an ACLU position paper titled, "Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn't Be Used to Restrict People's Freedoms," the group's National Security Project Director wrote:

"[T]he standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating."

Lynch's recommendation comes just days after an Islamic State sympathizer killed 49 people and injured 53 at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Democrats believe the bloodbath may have avoided with a ban on gun sales to people on government watch lists.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said this week he will meet with the NRA to discuss how to keep guns away from people on those lists — an announcement that took some GOP lawmakers by surprise.




Related Stories:

• Sen. Murphy: NRA Will Never Support Gun Control Measures
  
• Ted Cruz Rips Democrats For 15-Hour Filibuster to Get Gun Vote
  

© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

I read this article and had to sit down for a few moments

As I reread it I was shaking my head as the words FOOLS came to my mind

This is the situation as I see it..

It sets a very dangerous precedent in the argument of liberty versus security

The republic's principles are being siezed upon in the name of security

1) a right be restricted on the basis of what equates to a Bill of Attainder

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person'scivil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder were passed in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.

The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavor due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the separation of powers, the right to due process, and the precept that a law should address a particular form of behavior rather than a specific individual or group. For these reasons, bills of attainder are expressly banned by Article I, section 9, of the United States Constitution (1787) as well as by the constitutions of all 50 US states.

United States[edit]


Bills of attainder were used through the 18th century in England, and were applied to British colonies as well. Some colonists were inspired to the American Revolution because of anger at the injustice of attainder. Although at least one American state used a bill of attainder to confiscate the property of a British loyalist (called Tories) during the war (New York, in the 1779 case of Parker Wickham),[citation needed] American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws resulted in their being prohibited in the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1789.
Constitutional bans[edit]

Excerpt from Article One, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, prohibiting the passing of bills of attainder

The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution]United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder under Article I, Section 9. The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder, Article I, Section 10, reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue.

Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial or executive functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was partially reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

The constitution of every state also expressly forbids bills of attainder.[citation needed] For example, Wisconsin's constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Contrast this with the Texas version: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made". It is unclear whether a contract that calls for heirs to be deprived of their estate is allowed under this law.

The question then becomes much more deadly when an equal standard is applied to the rest of the constitution

I could always go the classic route and argue that does this mean those on a government list, with no way to get a hearing to argue their way off of it, can also be banned from speaking freely..Or perhaps forced to a specific church

No I have a much deadlier question

Can the people on the no fly list be held as slaves?

It does set the precedent that this writ of attainder by passes constitutional rights.. If someone kidnapped someone on the no fly list, can they legally be sold to another human being..

Note it bypasses local rules and federal court decisions..

As long as you pay taxes on the purchase it appears that this is legal..

13th Amendment

Text

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]