What if you are a US citizen, and it has recently been discovered you have been secretly dealing arms to Russia against current sanctions. And while authorities do not currently know your location they suspect you will be flying to/from Russia very soon?

Should they let you know not to book a flight?

That's totally different - indictments are usually sealed before arrests in the kind of case you're talking about and there is longstanding precedent for that to prevent flight from prosecution. They would arrest you for ITAR and IEEPA violations before you board. That kind of thing happened long before the no fly list. That is different than an opaque list with a million people on it most of which have never been accused of anything and where there is an expensive appeals process and the government is allowed to use secret evidence.

Why do you think they put people on the no fly list?

It's very well documented, no point in speculating.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/passenger-support/travel-redress-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

> The No Fly List is a small subset of the U.S. government Terrorist Screening Database (also known as the terrorist watchlist) that contains the identity information of known or suspected terrorists.

The TSA comment above is pretty straight forward but to be fair the wiki article is filled with instances of speculation.

The way people end up on this list is super opaque, but it's certainly not used to catch wanted criminals.

In fact, the US doesn't have super reliable systems to stop fugitives at airports except on entry.

Why does your citizenship status matter? The right to domestic travel within the United States is enjoyed equally by everyone within the US.

Are you sure of that? Rights attributed generally to "the people" in the constitution can be limited from being enjoyed based on immigration.

For instance, "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms but god help you if you're here irregularly or on a tourist visa and do not meet one of the exemptions. Sure non-immigrants are persons but federal law doesn't give a fuck.

The second amendment is one of the few exceptions rather than the rule. It is difficult to argue for inclusion in "the people" who have the right to bear arms when excluded from selective service and from the definition of the unorganized militia.

By your logic women unaffiliated with service are excluded then. The unorganized militia, by US code, is (you can look up the code but this is pretty close) basically able bodied military age male citizens.

Throwing in all these constraint when the constitution clearly say "the people" without qualification which magically means basically everyone one place but not most everyone somewhere else seems kind of arbitrary to me, but then again the courts seem to have held up visitors aren't people so hey. This is why I'm not a lawyer because really such fuckery makes my brain melt. If I were the sole sitting justice of the supreme court I'd say the qualification is a person is one unit of people and thus they have the rights of the people. IMO if you're one of "the people" then when the constitution uses "the people" unqualified elsewhere that's you -- which by symmetry means if you can't own a gun you're not a person and have none of the other rights of the people.

State law in the state where I live defines the unorganized militia without regard to sex.

At least the 7th circuit agrees with you, (United States v. Meza-Rodriguez) even if there are other federal appeals circuits that don't. So this is something that will likely go to the Supreme Court eventually.

FWIW the courts have ruled in favor of non-citizens challenging states denying them the right to own firearms before, e.g.:

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-ibrahim

Granted, this is a Washington State court ruling on the basis of the WA state constitution (which has a stronger RKBA provision than the federal one). But there were similar rulings in other states, and if I remember correctly, at least one of them cited the federal constitution.

As far as the "exemptions" go, it might simply be that nobody ever challenged them before - I mean, as a non-immigrant alien who can get kicked out quite easily in any case, why would you go and antagonize the feds if you can just buy an Alaska hunting license online for $60 and make them happy that the requisite checkbox has a mark in it? But also, until Bruen, the courts tended to defer to various onerous licensing restrictions and requirements even for citizens.

That's a constitutional right, and rights belong to citizens, not persons...

The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens in its text. It says that rights belong to people, not exclusively to citizens of the several States.

The Equal Protection clause protects citizens and non-citizens alike, e.g. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)

The first amendment protects aliens once they are admitted to the US, Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)

There is a right to travel that is an extension of the first amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression.

Thank you, I was not aware; I implicitly thought rights were only for citizens or naturalized persons.