THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms

Violation of the U. S. ConstitutionA bill that would bar citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB hereafter) list from purchasing firearms would almost certainly be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and for good reasons. Civil liberty organizations, such as the ACLU, oppose this measure due to the threat of violating the rights of innocent people. In addition to the Second Amendment on the side, there are several other rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution that will potentially be violated. Rahinah Ibrahim, an innocent Standford professor and PhD student who was improperly placed on the list. It took herSecond AmendmentThe right to bear armsFourth AmendmentRight to Life, Liberty and PropertyRight to Confront and Call WitnessesFifth AmendmentRight to a Speedy and Public TrialIn a letter to to the U. S. Senate, the ACLU wrote the following (1):"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. ""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. ""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. " Because of the secrecy of the TSDB, it is impossible to know why you are on the TSDB and defend yourself against the charges. This, in turn, shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that they are not a terrorist. Consequently, if you are a citizen that has never been convicted of a crime, you risk losing a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution without due process. In 2014, an Oregon judge ruled that the no-fly list was unconstitutional because Americans have no meaningful way to contest their inclusion (2). Judge Brown issued an opinion that stated (3): "One need not look beyond the hardships suffered by Plaintiffs to understand the significance of the deprivation of the right to travel internationally. Due to the major burden imposed by inclusion on the No-Fly List, Plaintiffs have suffered significantly including long-term separation from spouses and children; the inability to access desired medical and prenatal care; the inability to pursue an education of their choosing; the inability to participate in important religious rites; loss of employment opportunities; loss of government entitlements; the inability to visit family; and the inability to attend important personal and family events such as graduations, weddings, and funerals. The Court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society. "A measure to block the sale of firearms to those on the no-fly list would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional. The TSDB is error-proneAmong the many issues with the TSDB is the fact that is full of errors. A 2009 DOJ report found that over 1/3 of names on the TSDB were outdated (4). In one recent case, Mikey Hicks, who is only 8 years old, is on the no fly list and is unable to get off the reason he is on there is because he shares a name with someone who has set off a high level of security screening (5). In another case, Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford professor and PhD student, was placed improperly on the list and took 8 years to get off that list (6). The TSDB is also racist and disproportionately affects Arab-Americans and Muslims, even those who have no ties to any designated terrorist group (7). ConclusionIn summar, there are good reasons why civil rights organizations oppose no-fly, no buy. Using error-prone and unfair watchlists should not be used to regulate guns in America. It violates due process, shifts the burden of proof, assumes guilt before innocence, and there are far too many mistakes on the TSDB to risk violating the right of the innocent. Until the major errors that exist in the TSDB, it should not be used to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. Over to con. _______Sources1. . http://bit.ly...;2. Latif et al. v. Holder . http://bit.ly...;3. . http://n.pr...;4. . http://bit.ly...;5. . http://www.cbsnews.com...;6. . http://townhall.com...;7. . http://gawker.com...;