Yeah, the left party will try anything for more power and control over the Constitution.
This is a discussion on Another attack on our rights !!! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Foxnews.com: A bill designed to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists is drawing fire from gun rights advocates who say it could infringe ...
A bill designed to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists is drawing fire from gun rights advocates who say it could infringe upon regular citizens' constitutional right to bear arms.
The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 would authorize Attorney General Eric Holder to deny the sale or transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists -- a list that could extend beyond groups such as radical Islamists and other groups connected to international terror organizations.
Critics say the names of suspected terrorists could be drawn from existing government watch lists that cover such broad categories as animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists and anti-technology extremists.
"It doesn't say anything about trials and due process," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come along in some time. It's basically saying, 'I suspect you, so your rights are toast.'"
Terrorist watch lists came under fire last month after a Department of Homeland Security report warned that right wing extremist groups may be expanding their membership in the midst of current economic upheaval. While the report stated that such groups were not believed to be planning any terrorist attacks, it went on to state they might do so in the name of issues like abortion, immigration and gun control.
The report sparked outrage from conservative groups and politicians, including Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, who called it "political profiling."
A similar DHS report on left wing terrorist groups, such as Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, was released in January.
The proposed gun control bill, which was introduced by Rep. Peter King, R-NY, last week and has bipartisan support, is currently before the House Judiciary Committee.
A spokesman from King's office said his decision to propose the bill had nothing to do with either DHS report. This is at least the second time the congressman has pushed a bill designed to restrict gun sales to suspected terrorists.
But, while nobody wants domestic terrorists to have easy access to guns -- King called the bill a "no-brainer" in a statement released by his office Tuesday -- some critics say it could be treading a thin line constitutionally.
Taking away an individual's constitutional right without giving him the opportunity to stand trial would likely open the federal government to legal challenges, said Robert Cottrol, a law professor at George Washington University.
"There is a Second Amendment right to hold and bear arms," he said. "That right is not absolute, for instance with convicted criminals. But there would have to be an individualized determination, as in a trial, to prove someone is guilty of something before they are deprived of such a right."
Under the proposed law, those denied access to firearms would have the right to challenge the government's ruling in federal court.
"Common-sense laws that protect us from terrorism must be put in place," King said in his statement. "Our role in Congress is to create laws that protect the American people, not to uphold those that give terrorists the right to bear arms."
The National Rifle Association, the nation's largest pro-gun lobby, said it was still reviewing King's bill, but a spokesman said the organization had opposed similar efforts "in the past due to the serious inaccuracies within the terror lists that affect the rights of law abiding citizens."
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, the U.S. government has undertaken a number of domestic security programs in the name of national security. But those programs have at times invited criticisms that the government was intruding on citizens' rights.
"You have to exercise very strong judgment through the courts," said Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "The big question is, can the U.S. protect itself and maintain the its civil liberties?"
Some conservative bloggers see a clear connection between the DHS reports and the gun control bill, fearing that citizens' Second Amendment rights could be infringed upon due to their political leanings. But otherwise, the bill has raised little protest.
The American Legion, the largest veterans group in the country, harshly criticized DHS officials last month after they reported that veterans would be likely recruits for right wing groups looking for "combat skills and experience."
But when contacted Tuesday, a Legion spokesman said the group had no intention of fighting King's gun control bill.
"I don't see anything in the bill we'd be concerned about. It all seems pretty logical," the spokesman said.
Since the outset of the 2008 campaign, President Obama has stated that he will push for greater gun control measures. And while it doesn't appear the president will be taking on the controversial Clinton-era ban on assault weapons anytime soon (the ban expired in 2004) gun rights advocates are concerned, Pratt said.
"This is a very dangerous time. The president has a voting record in the Illinois Senate of voting for gun bans," he said. "Hopefully, he's not going to have the votes."
Last year the Supreme Court upheld an individual's right to bear arms when it struck down a decades-old ban on firearms in Washington, D.C. The decision was the Court's first Second Amendment ruling in over 70 years, Cottrol said.
"We had this vacuum where the lower courts discussed it, but the Supreme Court remained silent," he said. "The jurisprudence on (gun control) is very much in its infancy."
Last edited by jfl; May 17th, 2009 at 05:17 PM. Reason: spelling
The first rule of a gunfight: "Don't be there !"
The second rule: "Bring enough gun"
jfl (NRA Life Member/Instructor - GOA - IDPA - GSSF - ex-IHMSA)
Yeah, the left party will try anything for more power and control over the Constitution.
“Monsters are real and so are ghosts. They live inside of us, and sometimes they win.”
~ Stephen King
This is about five steps beyond infuriating. Am I the only one that doesn't see this as planned to the nth degree? I think this one has been in the works for a long time in conjunction to the Nappy DHS watch list.
we are going to have an uphill battle with the left, I'm afraid forever. they won't go away.
Outrageous is an understatement."It doesn't say anything about trials and due process," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come along in some time. It's basically saying, 'I suspect you, so your rights are toast.'"
It's a blatant attack on our individual freedom.
"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
I think this piece of drek is about as likely to pass as a phoney $20 bill at the US reserve bank.
For one thing, the "work around" is that those who are denied are able to petition the court for permission. Since WHEN are the American people supposed to ASK FOR PERMISSION from the government when it comes to their constitutional rights?
This bill has FAIL written all over it.
This crap isn't going far...at this point, but can you imagine the stuff they would pull if we didn't have our guns?
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
The few who protested were labeled un-American or weak on terrorism.
And what is one of the fundamental facts behind power? It's that once a government gains a power, it will not give it up willingly. So now the Democrats are in power and are saying, "Boy, you say 'terrorist' and you can scare people into anything, this is great'."
Warrantless wiretapping, gutting habeas corpus, indefinite detention without charge or access to counsel, torture, hey, it's all good, we've got to stop terrorists! Oh wait, you're targeting people like me now? That's no good.
Smile America, your chickens have come home to roost.
I find it amazing that when the Right is in power, the left will bemoan any small perceived power grab (like lowering everyone's taxes and reaffirming the second amendment is an individual right is a power grab) but when the left is in power they do this kind of thing and they see nothing wrong with it.
Are they truly this deceitful or are they just this completely stupid? it is one or the other, there really isn't any other plausible explanation.
I think maybe part of the problem in America is that we keep thinking it is a right-versus-left problem, when in fact this is bigger than all of us.
If we keep just tossing it as happenstance into the "left" we miss the point. The "left" means liberals, and liberals are about positive change.
Gun control is NOT about positive change, and if we give the left the old "right-wing" fight from the rafters we are GOING TO LOSE!!! The right is already in political trouble, from which it may not recover.
This is not about right/left this is about trampling on The Constitution, and the "right" is just as guilty of this yet most gun advocates look away. The right let Bush trample on The Constitution with the "patriot act" so what do you think the liberals are to assume from that?
They can get away with it because we let them. We let the Republicans do it for their purposes, in fact they are often applauded for it. So when time comes to trample on The Constitution for the liberals, they now have the ammo to say "well you guys did it for A-B-C" so they can justify their actions.
The more we make gun about right-versus-left the more we let our cause slip through our fingers. What we should be doing is finding every gun supporting Democrat and telling then in our letters that we support them, because they are our best friends.
This issue is too important to belong to one side or the other. A logical solution is right there within our grasps but what we cannot allow is for this to be a Republican or Democratic cause. NEITHER side has the right to trample on Our Constitution, and BOTH sides need to hear it when they try. We cannot give free passes for certain things, it is NOT negotiable!
So now, anything the liberals want to pass, they know how to do it. The conservatives gave them all the ammo they will ever need forever.
What would you say if one day the government nationalized all food production and distribution? if they issued a credit card similar to the ones used for WIC and other state food assistance programs, and the reason they used for justification was to bring adequate nutrition to millions of americans who had no adequate access to food.
What if the government did the same thing to issue fuels such as diesel and gasoline? And determine everything from production quotas to the very color of your vehicle, as well as whether or not you really "need" that car or not. The reason they use here is energy conservation.
How about mandatory national curfews? they already do this in some cities, the reason they will use is to reduce crime.
How about clothing? Obviously we need to conserve this valuable resource as well.....
How about the press? They should be carefully monitored and censored to insure that the right message is getting out, after all.
My whole point here is that our government actually did this and went much further in curtailing individual liberties in the last 100 years, and there was nary a whimper from society at large, mainly because everyone understood very clearly why the government was doing it. The time? World War 2. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were investigated during the war and some were interred in camps for the duration just because of their nationality.
The patriot act was mild in comparison to what our government did in WWII, but that war was seen as a historic struggle, and the generation that fought it is hailed as Americas' greatest........
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
Never fully believe Fox News. They put major spins on things. Just be wary and keep out there. Defend your rights. I still want my right to privacy the last administration took from me.
How much Government control do we need? Maybe we should not let new immigrants be able to own weapons for a certain duration of time? Do we qualify a police state arrest as grounds to not let an individual carry if a LEO determines its an extremist act? Hmm...