In the debate over whether persons whose names are on the "no-fly list" should be denied their constitutional right to purchase a gun, one quite predictable thing has happened. Now that President Barack Obama has come out in favor of such a move in a nationally televised speech — to the point of wondering "What could possibly be the argument?" for opposing him — The ACLU, which 5 years ago strongly opposed it in official congressional testimony, is now trying to appear noncommittal while paying lip service to due-process rights.
That was to be expected, as the ACLU is largely funded by wealthy leftist donors who strongly support curtailing Second Amendment rights, due process be damned. What has literally come out of far-left field as a pigs-must-be-flying surprise is an editorial in the Los Angeles Times which opposes Obama on this issue.
Don't expect too much here. The paper's editorial board still believes that "no one should be allowed to buy assault rifles or other military-style firearms," and that "the country would be better off with much stronger gun control laws." The board also "disagrees with the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own a gun."
(Aside: The term "assault rifles" is obviously inflammatory and, as has been noted for years, an "inappropriate association that is deliberately being made to 'demonize'" such weapons.)
That said, the Times at least recognized that citizens have due-process rights, and that pre-emptive denial of the right to purchase a gun based on one's name being present on a virtually secret list or lists is wrong (bolds are mine throughout this post):
Should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? Yes.
... One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
How certain is it that the people on the two lists are dangerous? Well, we don't really know, because the no-fly-list and the broader watch list are government secrets. People are not notified when they are put on, nor why, and they usually don't discover they have been branded suspected terrorists until they try to travel somewhere.
But serious flaws in the list have been identified. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the government over the no-fly list, the two lists include thousands of names that have been added in error, as well as the names of family members of suspected terrorists. The no-fly list has also been used to deny boarding passes to people who only share a name with a suspected terrorist. Former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was famously questioned at airports in 2004 because a terror suspect had used the alias "T. Kennedy." It took the senator's office three weeks to get his name cleared.
... It is worth noting that the terrorist-list proposal would not have affected the San Bernardino attackers because neither of them was on the watch list, at least as far as has been reported. And although backers of the measure cite Government Accountability Office data that show more than 2,000 people on the list bought firearms from 2004 to 2014, there's no available information on whether any of those weapons have been used in a crime, let alone an act of terrorism.
Ending gun violence is critically important, but so is protecting basic civil liberties. Although we agree to the ends here, we object to the means.
Meanwhile, the ACLU, the self-described champions of said "basic civil liberties," has so mishandled this matter in recent days that renaming it the Waffle House would be appropriate. Since that name has been taken, the American Convoluted Logic Union would suffice.
The group appears to be reversing its previously expressed strong opposition to "no-fly list" gun denial legislation and trying to extricate itself from the discussion:
The American Civil Liberties Union is taking no position on legislation that would bar people from buying guns if they are on the federal government’s no-fly list — a list that the ACLU has spent the past five years arguing is unconstitutional.
... “We don’t have a position on the legislation in question, but … have many criticisms of the overall watchlisting system as it currently operates,” ACLU’s media strategist Josh Bell told BuzzFeed News.
“There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU National Security Project.
Shamsi made the comment despite the group’s ongoing lawsuit against the list — which she argued can have a “devastating” effect on those who find themselves on it.
A short time later, clearly trying to have it both ways, Shamsi tweeted:
No Fly List criteria are vague and it violates due process. Without fix, don't use it to restrict freedoms.
This should mean that the ACLU opposes such legislation, right? At this point, who knows?
The group can point to its official pronouncement to placate its donors and claim that it's not standing in the way of Dear Leader, and point to its tweet and related blog post to assert that it still supports basic civil liberties.
That's quite an obvious example of political cowardice. I wonder if anyone in the establishment press will cover the "controversy" which must certainly be "roiling" the organization, as it would if a center-right group issued such obviously contradictory statements? Maybe "ACLU in disarray"? Likelihood: virtually zero.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
