Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Sorry, you still don't understand due process, and most importantly, substantive due process or the courts review process in either. As I stated, there is not infringement on a fundamental right, and a judicial rational or intermediate basis review supports this. This allows the government to use restrictions by means of legislation to achieve a specific goal as reasonable and need not be tested. The rational or intermediate basis test then places burden of proof on a challenger. When the government is attempting to further interest such as public safety, of which gun control and flight access restrictions fall, are protected from challenge by intermediate scrutiny. This challenge was upheld in District of Columbia v. Heller, and confirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but applied a caveat that the 2nd amendment does not define a right to keep or carry a weapon in any manner whatsoever. Restriction lists pertaining to public safety routinely pass the intermediate scrutiny muster making them law of the land and difficult to challenge on constitutional basis.
|
That is all fine and dandy. No problem with a no fly list existing if it isn't abused. We all know it is and no judicial rule or 3rd party is being allowed to help the people that are on the list for no reason.
Therefore it is unconstitutional.
Similar to gun ownership. I'm fine with someone owning a firearm. Also fine with someone being banned from owning one. But there has to be a way for someone to prove that hey, I got my problems looked after and I'm ready to own a gun.