H.R.2401 - No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009

To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Official: To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 45 total comments.

okwolffcub 02/03/2012 10:05pm
in reply to daw8it Aug 07, 2009 6:57am

How so?
Post 9/11, the majority of TSA agents working at the Dallas/Ft. Worth international airport, ARE Islamic! What exactly IS your definition of “nut jobs”?!

okwolffcub 02/03/2012 10:03pm

Just put Janet Napolitano to work doing what it is she’s SUPPOSE to be doing, which includes the job functions this bill is being proposed for!
Here you have the “secretary of homeland security” policing the Super Bowl this year over counterfiet merchandice, which was inclusive of SOPA and PIPA, in which were BOTH shot down by congress over the pure stupidity of the proposal of the bills (and yet here we have this douche from NY trying to push through even MORE redundant laws, which Homeland Security’s already suppose to be enforcing).
It’s hard to enforce something like this anyway, when you have Hillary Clinton running around in full burka with Obama smooching the hands of the enemy, vowing the U.S.‘s support to be submissive to their causes.
Stop wasting tax-payer/voter dollars already, and start WORKING FOR the people, like you’ve been elected to do! That don’t include brown-nosing the very people who continue to vow to kill us and take our freedoms.. There has to be a point.

dragonspeace 12/20/2009 11:50pm
in reply to Constitutionalist1 Oct 25, 2009 12:11pm

which is why i support hr 17.—|———

dragonspeace 12/20/2009 11:22pm
in reply to callagan Jun 02, 2009 1:08pm

the right of “habeus corpus” wasn’t being argued by republicans when innocent americans were being put on the list in the first place. NO ONE should be put on the damn thing without due process, as i’ve seen argued here. but, because civil liberties often seem to be justifiably suspended, according to conservative view points, when “national security” is trumping it, legislation creating “no fly” lists without due process are borne. argue the basic principle, support it, and the only people on the no fly list who would be affected by this “civil liberty violation” will be those who’ve been “proven” to have “terroristic” tendencies or ties. then argue why they are in the u.s. in the first place.—|———

Constitutionalist1 10/25/2009 12:11pm

If you let the 2nd Amendment work as it should, there would be no reason for a proposal like this. A criminal is less likely to commit a crime when his victim is potentially carrying a weapon. Criminals are cowards, they prey on the weak and defenseless. This bill is junk.

LibertarianLady 09/06/2009 8:07pm

Hmmm, a secret list with no oversight, no remedy for removing the innocent, potential political motivation for inclusion on the list, potential racial profiling motivations, and many known mistakes being used to prevent people from exercising Constitutionally protected rights with not a speck of due process and no fix for false positives?

I think not. Vote McCarthy and her three co-sponsors out. Let them know that you won’t stand for your rights being trampled without due process.

oderintdummetuant 08/18/2009 3:14pm

Does the illusion of safety appeal to people to such an extent that this is really thought of as a good idea? This kinda garbage is just another brick in the Revolutionary Road. The construction of which can be attributed to those who want to take from my hard work and give to those who aren’t working, to those who think the Second Amendment can be regulated by states (limiting my right to a means to protect myself from anyone wanting to do me harm, government agents or backwoods burglars), those who think I should sacrifice for the benefit of anyone but myself or the people of my choosing. How can they still be getting elected when they are this brain dead?

AlmostFreeAmerican 08/16/2009 7:48pm
in reply to daw8it Aug 07, 2009 6:57am

Please, read the comments above. If you truly support an idiotic bill like this then you’ve been watching mainstream news way too long.

AlmostFreeAmerican 08/16/2009 7:45pm
in reply to Ocyris May 30, 2009 2:57pm

Wow – I couldn’t have said it any better myself! Good post, Ocyris!

AlmostFreeAmerican 08/16/2009 7:43pm
in reply to newradish Jun 06, 2009 12:42pm

Luke 22:36 “Then said he (Christ) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

It was the Constitution and the Bible that understands a human’s right to defend himself. In the days of Christ it was a sword, today it is a firearm.

freeme 08/13/2009 9:51am
in reply to newradish Jun 06, 2009 12:40pm

There are many people with last names Smith, Jones, Brown, Johnson, Mohamed etc. who make it on this list. Often there are hundreds of other people with similar names who have to go through hoops to get on the plane. Even though their middle initial/name is different, they are routinely troubled.

So those innocent people would now be denied gun purchases as well? That doesn’t go along with the American concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Meanwhile the real terrorist is making a bomb, not buying a pistol.

daw8it 08/07/2009 6:57am
Link Reply
+ -1

good Bill , keeps the nut jobs of our airplanes

xaajjaax 08/01/2009 11:38am

Rep. McCarthy, did you draw inspiration from a certain senator who shared your name?

This bill is essentially a second amendment blacklist. You can be put on the no fly list without due process; we don’t know the exact criteria — they are secret! — but it is essentially an arbitrary blacklist. She wants to make this blacklist apply to American citizens’ constitutional rights! This is inexcusable. Let this be her last term, as this bill should be the end of her political career.

CowboyRick 07/19/2009 2:50am

Well, McCarthy is at it again, now she is out to close the “LOOPHOLE in the GUNSHOW ACT”, unknown about the Bill’s name or number-just read about it in the Ft.Worth Star Telegram!

callagan 07/15/2009 8:55pm

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

Now there’s a guy who understood liberty.

callagan 07/15/2009 8:47pm

Fifth Amendment: No person deprived of rights (2nd Amendment), liberty or property (firearms) without due process. 2401 would suspend those rights if you appear on the NO FLY list, which is not the result of any due process legal action, but is instead put together by some admin person who has no judicial authority. Example due process: You are sent legal notice that you have violated some law that would place you on the “no-fly” list, given a chance in court to confront the accuser, given right to legal defence, given your day in court, have the right to appeal, and then and only then would you be denied the “right” to move freely in society, by aircraft. I think the whole “no fly” is unconstitutional, and could be challenged. Not a lawyer, not a dummy.

obamasucks1 07/15/2009 8:01am

We should include a no liquid over three oz, and a no wear shoes act for the no-fly list folks. This just another garbage anti-gun law. I also agree with callagan. The no-fly list as a gun ban is suspect as to what criteria would be used to get your name on the “list”.

msclaudia 07/07/2009 9:05am
in reply to unclejessie Jun 29, 2009 5:46pm

EXACTLY! Those lists are only as good as the people who make them up and we have seen how well that works! People get put on all kinds of lists by the gov’t with no concrete reasoning. This bill could mean that ANYONE who attended a Tea Party or wrote a letter opposing the presidents policies could be put on that list as an extremist and someone to watch. It’s a huge pile of stink!

SignOfTheDollar 07/02/2009 12:12pm

The “No Fly” list is notorious for its errors. Are there not enough checks in place regarding gun purchases?

unclejessie 06/29/2009 5:46pm
in reply to newradish Jun 06, 2009 12:40pm

I’m sure the 400,000+ people on the no fly list are all terrorists. Nobody knows what the “guidelines” are that get you on this list. By being on the list you haven’t necessarily broken any laws. They are “suspects”. That’s it. That’s not due process to the degree you can take away an individual’s constitutional right to own a gun. Sorry.

AlphaOmega 06/16/2009 2:37am
in reply to newradish Jun 06, 2009 12:45pm

If I’m ignoring anything it would be you. You don’t understand the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and then you want to comment on a governmental system that calls, “The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.” The destruction of the middle class and then all that remains are proletarians who are nothing more then slaves to the party (oligharchy). No you don’t understand God given natural born UNALIENABLE RIGHTS! So why would you understand Communism?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

ocet 06/10/2009 10:20am
in reply to newradish Jun 06, 2009 12:42pm

wrong, wrong, wrong.

The rights were considered natural, inalienable. The bill of rights was argued hotly because it was felt that these rights should not have to be recorded, since these rights were natural and if any were recorded, then by implication, those that were not recorded would not be reserved to the people. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Arguments_against_the_Bill_of_Rights

we have these rights by nature of the fact that we are humans. The Bill of Rights was put in place to restrict the Federal government from infringing on these rights, NOT TO GRANT THEM.

if the Bill of Rights granted them, then another amendment could take them away. thus the argument that they shouldn’t have been written in the first place. These cannot be taken away. Any government that tries has overstepped.

newradish 06/06/2009 12:45pm
in reply to AlphaOmega May 18, 2009 1:25pm

You’re ignoring key distinctions between an idealistic but likely impossible form of government and past broken implementations of that impossible form of government.

Similarly, Marx was a sociologist writing about people. You can like Marx the sociologist and socialist (and his ideals) and dislike Marxists for being idiots.

newradish 06/06/2009 12:42pm
in reply to thatemailname May 16, 2009 1:04pm

God didn’t give you the right to bear arms, nor was it the Constitution. The Bill of Rights did.

newradish 06/06/2009 12:40pm
in reply to thorvaldr May 15, 2009 3:07pm

So do you disagree with the no-fly list, or forbidding terrorists from having guns? I think there’s a good argument for the former, but none for the latter.

newradish 06/06/2009 12:40pm
in reply to Curly May 15, 2009 10:30am

Wouldn’t this just be a way of enforcing the laws we have? It’s for people on the no-fly list.

newradish 06/06/2009 12:39pm
in reply to AlphaOmega May 15, 2009 10:02am

This from someone who thinks she’s god.

callagan 06/02/2009 1:08pm

Game Plan Obama:
Place their name on the No-Fly List, deprive them of gun rights, make it so they can’t travel around, waste their time and money trying to get off the list, as they become more “anti government (anti-Obama)” then declare they are terrorists, use HR 2401, introduced this month, to suspend their right of habeus corpus, and lock them up without charges. You saw it here first. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp By that right wing paper the NY Times no less.

Ocyris 05/30/2009 2:57pm

Anything that’s said to be done for “Your Safety” or “The Children” isn’t.

AlphaOmega 05/27/2009 6:43pm

Here read it and weep…
“Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American “Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights."


Vote on This Bill

8% Users Support Bill

44 in favor / 529 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments