So when it's being used to prevent (mostly) white people from buying a gun

it's the First Defense Against Terror Watch List; but when its used on a protected species it's "Kafkaesque World of the No-Fly List."

Who wants to bet that someone will claim that being on the list 'drove him into the arms of ISIS!' ?


Seems a bunch of control freaks took the unconstitutional and just plain wrong garbage in Wisconsin as  how-to list.  These people need to be shown the door.
What was the reaction of the TEC to these cases that obliterate the basis for its investigation and its attempt to force Empower Texans to disclose its donors? On April 3, 2014, at a hearing before the Ethics Commission, the director of enforcement John Moore (who is one of the participants in the secret listserve) told the eight commissioners to essentially ignore the issue of whether what they were doing was “constitutional or not.”
And from Vermont,
The attitude of other state regulators is epitomized by an Oct. 25, 2013 email from Eve Jacobs-Carnahan of the Vermont Attorney General’s Office to the listserve members. One of the holdings of the Citizens United decision and other prior precedent is that it is unconstitutional to limit independent expenditures used to engage in independent political speech. Yet in the Oct. 25 email, Jacobs-Carnahan tells the group about a “bad thing” that has happened: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction that New York’s contribution limits couldn’t be applied to a political committee that was engaged only in independent political expenditures.

Apparently, she believes that the ability of citizens to freely engage in First Amendment-protected activity is a “bad thing.” That attitude seems to be increasingly common among government bureaucrats with prosecutorial power. It’s a dangerous development.
It's a development that should result in people involved becoming unemployed.  Permanently, in the case of state agencies.