Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Don't stay in bed, unless you can make money in bed. - George Burns

NO gun for you!
by HARLEY

Slithering though congress is another anti-terrorist bill, this one which has the stated purpose of giving the attorney general of the united states, the power to deny the transfer of firearms or explosives to a known or suspected terrorist.
Now on the surface this sounds very reasonable, however, once you dig in to it the meat of it, one begins to worry.

The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’;

first off one would thing that being a terrorist would automatically make you ineligible for buying a firearm at the local gunstore, or buying explosives, for that matter. I belvie there are already Laws on the books for this situation, so why is this needed?

I don’t know about you, but this seems to be a very loose definition, and could easily be adapted to fit many other groups that the government is not fond of.
What bothers me is that it gives the AG a new broad set of powers, which can and will be abused, to what extent we can only imagine, till we see it in the news.
but then again, like many bills , this one despite it bipartisan support, may not go much further. but then again it is a democrat controlled congress, and given what has happened in the last few months...............
I begin to worry.

Posted by HARLEY on 05/28/09 at 06:24 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 05/28/09 at 08:02 PM from Canada

If second amendment rights can be removed in this manner what about other rights? Could your first amendment right of free speech be revoked because you might be using it to conspire with others to commit acts of terrorism? Could your fourth amendment right to privacy be taken because you might have something dangerous on your person or your property? (Oh wait, ship has sailed on that one...)

Posted by HARLEY on 05/28/09 at 08:09 PM from United States

the dangers of government Hazy,
you know its for your own good, don’t worry the government knows best.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 08:16 PM from Canada

Well to be honest, in my experience government works pretty well. This is based on my limited contact with police, fire and rescue, court systems, freeways, contract law, power distribution, water and sewer systems, and safe access to food and medicine to name a few.

I think in this case it’s not “the guvmint” that is the problem. It’s a few idiot congress-critters… I see one of the usual suspects on the co-sponsor list (Rangel).

Posted by HARLEY on 05/28/09 at 08:41 PM from United States

I have no problems with thew policemen or firefighters, it is the elected officials and their appointed goons that i have a problem with.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 09:01 PM from United States

If second amendment rights can be removed in this manner what about other rights? Could your first amendment right of free speech be revoked because you might be using it to conspire with others to commit acts of terrorism? Could your fourth amendment right to privacy be taken because you might have something dangerous on your person or your property? (Oh wait, ship has sailed on that one...)

I can’t tell if this is a genuine question or not, but what the heck.

First, the scope of the Second Amendment right really isn’t clear yet. So that’s a really tricky question.

But in any event, constitutional rights can certainly be taken away or restricted.

You mention First Amendment rights. The government can’t take away your FUTURE right to speak based on what you said in the past, but it could obviously punish you for speech you’ve actually made, and that would include “terrorism” speech, assuming such “terrorism” speech met one of the First Amendment exceptions (most likely incitement to violence).

In this vein, it’s interesting to note that there are parallels between terrorism today and the “Communist cells” that cases such as Dennis v. United States. If you look at the logic in those cases--which relaxed the “incitement” rule and thus allowed the government to punish speech more liberally than the usual rules permitted--it’s arguable that terrorist cells pose such a grave threat to the country that the government should have more power to punish speech advocating terrorism. Dennis was never formally overruled, and most people think it’s no longer good law, but if another incident like 9/11 happens, who knows?

Posted by salinger on 05/28/09 at 09:32 PM from United States

"Slithering though congress is another anti-terrorist bill...”

good image.

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 06:51 AM from United States

I think they are saying is that if a person is on the same list or same kind of list as the “no-fly” list, they can’t buy a gun.  It is almost funny that if this were not the case, the government would prohibit a suspected terrorist from flying but allow them to buy a gun???  Strange huh?

The real bad thing here is the “no fly” list where your freedoms (air travel or buying a guy) can be limited based on nothing with no process for finding out why you are on the list or challenging it.

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 08:47 AM from United States

I love these posts here.  They always make me laugh.  The Government is not coming for your guns, folks...no matter how much you wish they would.  They have bigger fish to fry.

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 10:02 AM from United States

Step 1) Come up with a legal document defining “terrorist” so vaguely that anyone who disagrees with the president could be considered a terrorist suspect.

Step 2) come up with seemingly rational laws to strip “terrorists” of their rights. 

Step 3) Combine step 1 with step 2.

Step 4) peace, happiness, unicorns, hope and change.

So basically all the stuff Bush was accused of wanting to do (using the war on terror to strip people of their rights under false pretenses) Obama has set up the machinery to actually do, in less than a year at that. 

All the more reason to cling to your guns.

Posted by InsipiD on 05/29/09 at 10:55 AM from United States

So basically all the stuff Bush was accused of wanting to do (using the war on terror to strip people of their rights under false pretenses) Obama has set up the machinery to actually do, in less than a year at that.

Only instead of using it against “Skerry Browns” as everyone liked to say about Bush, the Democrats’ intent would be to use it on me and Harley.  Now which is scarier?

This was a reason to oppose the Patriot act all along.  Sooner or later, you should’ve known that the power behind the laws would fall into the wrong hands.

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 11:55 AM from United States

Come up with a legal document defining “terrorist” so vaguely that anyone who disagrees with the president could be considered a terrorist suspect.

I guess you are referring to:

to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’

That just doesn’t sound very vague to me. The NRA doesnt seem to fit the bill of “terrorism”, does it?

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 12:59 PM from United States

mike:

I was referring to the DHS document that came out not too long ago defining what the government would now be considering terrorism, or relating to terrorist activity.

Basically veterans, gun rights advocates, states rights advocates, any who disagree with how obama has handled the economy, immigration, or national defense can legitimately be labeled as terrorists now.

Which coincidentally happens to be just about everyone who voted against our current president.

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 02:46 PM from United States

Basically veterans, gun rights advocates, states rights advocates, any who disagree with how obama has handled the economy, immigration, or national defense can legitimately be labeled as terrorists now

Thats not exactly what it said.  It said that rigth wing groups may attempt to radicalize some returning veterans and recruit them.  I dontthink there is a paragraph in there that says ALL the groups you named are now considered terrorists.

Posted by HARLEY on 05/29/09 at 06:29 PM from United States

The NRA doesnt seem to fit the bill of “terrorism”, does it?

Oh give it some time, when they oppose some “critical peice of legislation”, or organize a very large public protest, scaring someone…

Posted by on 06/01/09 at 10:38 AM from United States

Mike: it listed those groups as individuals to be watched.  It’s not a huge leap.

<< Back to main