New anti-firearms bill - Page 4

New anti-firearms bill

This is a discussion on New anti-firearms bill within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This probably has little chance of becoming law, but we must be vigilant. Any secret, arbitrary list without due process runs counter to the constitution. ...

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 239

Thread: New anti-firearms bill

  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    home office
    Posts
    2,355
    This probably has little chance of becoming law, but we must be vigilant. Any secret, arbitrary list without due process runs counter to the constitution. The US has not been immune from civil rights violations, from Salem, to the Trail of Tears, the Japanese internments, and McCarthyism. Those of us who sit idly, while millions of names accumulate on a black list and our ability to defend ourselves is incrementally stripped away, may wake up too late in a FEMA resort via Amtrack. If the minutemen and Sons of Liberty had had tinfoil in their day, the Tories, who trusted King George, would have laughed at their hats, too.
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95


  2. #47
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by nasal View Post
    SelfDefense, there is no due process associated with this bill. The potential for abuse is astounding. Remember, Lautenberg is the same guy who pushed through the Lautenberg Amendment on the 1968 Gun Control Act, which revokes the the RKBA from anyone merely accused of domestic violence. Sure, in theory it might sound good but in the end it is just an attack on gun owners. Now losing your guns is a standard risk for men undergoing a divorce.
    Lautenberg hates gun owners (he's from NJ). We are all terrorists to him. And, according to the recent release from the Department of Homeland Security, members of the current administration feel the same way. The "Terrorist Watch List" uses an arbitrary, classifed criteria to populate a secret blacklist that strangely enough contains many prominent political dissentors. Not to mention incidents where several people ended up on the "No-Fly" list because they share the same name. If revoking basic civil rights from people based on some secret list that cannot be challenged in court, without any other evidence of wrongdoing, doesn't disturb you, you might want to re-read the Bill of Rights.

    ETA: Seriously, this bill is full of "buzzwords" and reeks of fear-based legislation. That alone sets off alarm bells.
    +1, nicely said!
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,467
    In matters such as these, all I have are my ability to vote, and my voice.
    I write my legislators, identify the Bill by number and ask them to or not to support it.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  4. #49
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Yes, many people hate the United States government and demonstrate disdain for the Constitution.
    Just wondering - do you think those two necessarily go together? Or can you accept the possibility that one can hate the government yet love the constitution? Or perhaps even that one might hate the government DUE TO love and respect for the constitution?

  5. #50
    Member Array njeske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    359
    The scariest thing about this bill for me is how lately the "leaders" in Washington D.C. have been calling the people attending tea parties and protesting healthcare reform things such as "political terrorists." A bill like this could give the AG broad powers to deny guns and permits to all of us "right-wing extremists."

  6. #51
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    You can not deny an American Citizen basic Human Rights without due process, the way "Self Defense" advocates. The Attorney General has no power to force you to allow soldiers to live in your home or concoct some disgusting punishment for a crime and he can NOT deny you the ability to purchase a firearm any more than he can tell you that you may not have a jury trial "this time".
    Certainly not without due process.
    Definitely not in the United States.
    It would never even be considered if we didn't allow things to get this bad.

    You can prove that a person is a terrorist by the actions they have taken in a court of law, you do not need the AG to take this "responsibility" it is un-Constitutional and un-American.

    Supporting such a measure shows a gross mis-understanding of our Constitution and of the Founder's intent when it was written.

    Please stop your support for installing the "Attorney General" as some sort of Law Czar, it's disgusting and it's an obamanation.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  7. #52
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by nasal View Post
    SelfDefense, there is no due process associated with this bill.
    Of course there is. Every law that is passed has implicit due process. If you get arrested for violating the law and you receive a jury trial.

    I have not read the bill in full yet but EVERY tool to help law enforcement identify and prosecute terrorists is welcome. Do you want terrorists to be able transfer amrs?


    The potential for abuse is astounding.
    The potential for abuse is there for every law. Remember how the libertarians and liberals were foaming at the mouth concerning the Patriot Act? As it turns ut not a single innocent person has been harmed and the legislation has thwarted terrorist attacks and broken up terrorist cell in the United States.

    Remember, Lautenberg is the same guy who pushed through the Lautenberg Amendment on the 1968 Gun Control Act, which revokes the the RKBA from anyone merely accused of domestic violence.
    You need to focus on this particular legislation. Other bills are irrelevant.
    We are all terrorists to him.
    Hyperbole might generate an emotional response, which we see here very frequently, but it is uslss as an argument tool.


    If revoking basic civil rights from people based on some secret list that cannot be challenged in court, without any other evidence of wrongdoing, doesn't disturb you, you might want to re-read the Bill of Rights.
    This has nothing to do with the Bill f Rights. Again, hyperbole is unimaginative and doesn;t help your argument. The fact is no one's civil rights are being violated. And it is no one's business but our intelligence agencies as to the classified information that is necessary to function as a nation.

    ETA: Seriously, this bill is full of "buzzwords" and reeks of fear-based legislation. That alone sets off alarm bells.
    It appears that you are the one that fears the legislation. I support every ool that can help identify terrorists and prevent them from killing Americans. Some don't care as much about that issue.

  8. #53
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    How do you justify/accept this type of "Star-Chamber" process -- regardless of the political leanings of the administration in charge of the particular "Star-Chamber."
    What 'star-chamber?' We currently have intelligence agencies that monitor terrorist activities. Are you suggesting we abandon our defensive resources because you think you should be involved in the details of national security?

    Do you approve of the Second Red Scare blacklisting of 1940s & 1950s with the same vigor as you do this proposed potential for abuse?
    Red scare? Are you familiar with the history of the era? Soviet spies had infiltrated every level of government. McCarthy was an American hero as his effors exposed many of the enemies of the United States in high positions of government. Not a SINGLE person he accused was innocent. I suggest you review the recently declassified Venona papers.

    I, for one, don't care who is in control of such blacklisting (right, left, or in-between) -- the non-due-process underpinnings are counter to one of the basic tenants of our republic, IMHO.
    What blacklisting? You mean you think terrorists should be able to transfer arms?

  9. #54
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Random View Post
    Just wondering - do you think those two necessarily go together? Or can you accept the possibility that one can hate the government yet love the constitution? Or perhaps even that one might hate the government DUE TO love and respect for the constitution?
    The two are inextricably linked. The United States of America is DEFINED by our Constitutional government. They are not separable.

    If you hate the government then you obviously hate the Constitutional process that brought our elected representatives to power.

    And if you hate the government because you claim to love the Constitution then you are operating under a delusion.

    We are a government of the People and by the People. If you do not like the elected officials then we have elections every two years. The Constitution mandates it and our elections have continued, uninterrupted for over two hundred years.

  10. #55
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by M203Sniper View Post
    You can not deny an American Citizen basic Human Rights without due process, the way "Self Defense" advocates.
    I have advocated no such thing.

  11. #56
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Are you suggesting we abandon our defensive resources because you think you should be involved in the details of national security?
    Are you suggesting that our entire system defensive resources are contingent on this administrative branch blacklist tool?

    Are you suggesting that our entire system defensive resources are incompetent now, because they lack this tool to deny the RKBA?


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    What blacklisting? You mean you think terrorists should be able to transfer arms?
    First, we are talking about within our borders, within the reach of our laws. Clearly, around much of the world terrorists are able to transfer arms.

    However, when looking here at home, "Do I think those convicted of being terrorists being able to transfer arms?" No! And the laws exist to deal with that.

    OTOH, here at home, "Do I think those that some bureaucrat "suspects" of being terrorists being able to transfer arms?" Yes, until these "suspensions" are raised to the point of judicial confirmation of probable cause -- not just suspicion.

    (By definition suspicion is an cognition of mistrust in which a person doubts the honesty of another person or believes another person to be guilty of some type of wrongdoing or crime, but without proof;to surmise to be true or probable; to imagine.)

    Read the court cases on Terry stops and reasonable suspicion v. probable cause. And remember that probable cause is weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction.

    Remember the WMD? Remember the WWII interment camps of US citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Of course there is. Every law that is passed has implicit due process. If you get arrested for violating the law and you receive a jury trial.
    Not true of prior restraint.

    If this blacklist were to become law, where is the implicit due process for the citizen denied the purchase?

    The dealer could risk arrest for violating the law by selling and receive a jury trial. However, where is the arrest and jury trial for the citizen who was turned away?


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I have not read the bill in full yet but EVERY tool to help law enforcement identify and prosecute terrorists is welcome. Do you want terrorists to be able transfer amrs?
    Here is where we part company -- irreconcilability I suspect.

    As I have said, I reject the concept "That the ends justify the means."

    I have lived through enough history and read enough history to know where that leads.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  12. #57
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Are you suggesting that our entire system defensive resources are contingent on this administrative branch blacklist tool?
    There is no blacklist tool so your argument is specious.

    Are you suggesting that our entire system defensive resources are incompetent now, because they lack this tool to deny the RKBA?
    No one is denying the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. This legislation certainly does not.

    First, we are talking about within our borders, within the reach of our laws. Clearly, around much of the world terrorists are able to transfer arms.
    Exactly. We should prevent terrorists from accessing arms withi our borders. They should have no safe haven, ESPECIALLY within our borders.

    However, when looking here at home, "Do I think those convicted of being terrorists being able to transfer arms?" No! And the laws exist to deal with that.
    There is no law against the label terrorist.

    OTOH, here at home, "Do I think those that some bureaucrat "suspects" of being terrorists being able to transfer arms?" Yes, until these "suspensions" are raised to the point of judicial confirmation of probable cause -- not just suspicion.
    No one is being searched and no property seized. No judicial involvement is warranted.

    (By definition suspicion is an cognition of mistrust in which a person doubts the honesty of another person or believes another person to be guilty of some type of wrongdoing or crime, but without proof;to surmise to be true or probable; to imagine.)
    Indeed. And we should never dismiss the profiling that is so successful in other countrie, Israel specifically. They have FAR MORE experience (and heartache) with terrorism and their methods help keep them safe. I will not see libertarians tear down our defenses because they are scared of boogey men.

    Read the court cases on Terry stops and reasonable suspicion v. probable cause. And remember that probable cause is weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction.
    This has NOTHING to do with Terry stops. At least try to get on the correct page.

    Remember the WMD? Remember the WWII interment camps of US citizens?
    You mean the tons of WMD that we found. We destroyed some and we shipped some to Canada. Most informed people believe that with the advanced warning we provided to the enemy that hordes of WMD ewre moved to Syria. Or are you one of the folks that believe the liberal/libertarian mantra that Iraq had no WMD?

    And I fully agree with doing EVERYTHING we can to defend America, even if it means some are inconvenienced for a short time.

    If this blacklist were to become law, where is the implicit due process for the citizen denied the purchase?
    No one is denying the purchase. It will be illegal for a terrorist to transfer weapons. You have a problem with that? You want terrorists to have unfettered access to arms?

    The dealer could risk arrest for violating the law by selling and receive a jury trial. However, where is the arrest and jury trial for the citizen who was turned away?
    Can you provide the exact paragraph of the bill that supports your interpretation of the proposed legislation?

    As I have said, I reject the concept "That the ends justify the means."
    When your daughter is blown up in a pizza parlor bombing maybe you will have a different view. I hope it does not come to that.

    I have lived through enough history and read enough history to know where that leads.
    Where does it lead in our Constitutional Republic? Please provide evidence of previous history with republics that adhered to the US Constitution.

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Attorney General’s discretion based on suspicion

    Text in question re: blacklist on suspicion

    Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm
    ‘The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General--

    ‘(1) 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 or resources for terrorism

    ....

    (b) Effect of Attorney General Discretionary Denial Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on Firearms Permits- Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--


    (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting ‘or State law, or that the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A of this title’ before the semicolon;

    [Emphasis added]
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  14. #59
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Text in question re: blacklist on suspicion

    (1) 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 or resources for terrorism


    Do you support the unfettered access to firearms for terrorists?

    Do you support the transfer of firearms to people to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism?

    You seem to have a problem with targeting terrorists with laws that will help law enforcement. Why? Do you think you will be suspected? And why do you think you would be APPROPRIATELY suspected of being a terrorist?

    By the way, I still missed the 'blacklist' paragraph.

  15. #60
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    It is "appropriate" at the Attorney General Discretion. Hardly due process.

    Blacklist: A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.

    The NCIS is a check against a list of individuals to be denied the purchase of a gun. This propose bill would add names by the "Attorney General Discretionary Denial"
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gov. Jindal vetoes anti-gun parade bill
    By ppkheat in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 2009, 05:55 PM
  2. New HR 2159 Anti-Gun Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House
    By tns0038 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 09:55 AM
  3. H.R. 2640 Military.com Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 04:24 PM
  4. The current anti-gun bill introduced in Congress
    By Ron in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 21st, 2007, 05:56 PM
  5. Anti lawsuit bill passes
    By rachilders in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2005, 12:54 AM

Search tags for this page

, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa patriot act a
,
boliva gun laws
,

david freddoso, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa

,

debate it is difficult to value human right when facing bullets in the field

,
debate topic it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field
,
it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field.
,
lautenberg amendment and divorce
,

lautenberg amendment arizona

,
libertarians do not understand
,
list of recent anti firearms legislation
,
new anti gun legislation forum
,
www. sherfen sog.
Click on a term to search for related topics.