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; Originally Posted by DaveH It is "appropriate" at the Attorney General Discretion. Hardly due process. I think one of the problems is that you do ...

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 239

Thread: New anti-firearms bill

  1. #61
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    It is "appropriate" at the Attorney General Discretion. Hardly due process.
    I think one of the problems is that you do not understand 'due process.'

    Due process means that legal proceedings are carried out fairly using established rules. It means that someone is not treated differently than someone else.

    In this case, all terrorists are treated the same.

    Blacklist: A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.
    So, you are suggesting that the roster of inmates at San Quentin are blacklisted. Do you think that is appropriate?

    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"
    Would it make yo feel better in the NCIS check were modified to include known terrorists?

    Exactly why do you want to protect terrorists? I still haven't figured out the answer to that basic question.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    In this case, all terrorists are treated the same.
    Under this bill it is not just actual terrorists -- but also those "suspected", which by definition will include some who not guilty of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    So, you are suggesting that the roster of inmates at San Quentin are blacklisted. Do you think that is appropriate?
    Absolutely appropriate for convicted criminals! They have had due process and have been adjudicated in a court of law as guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    Exactly why do you want to protect terrorists?
    I don't. Only those innocents swept up in suspicions and the Attorney General Discretionary Denial. Not unlike the internment camp of WWII.
    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

  4. #63
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    SD -- My issue with this is that it's a secret list. There's no trial to get on it, no way to know you're on it, and (most importantly) no way to get off of it if you're innocent. Furthermore, there is no, one standard, agreed-upon definition for terrorism. I've seen references made to protests like the Tea Parties and town hall meetings as "low-level terrorism." Do the protestors get put on this list? Does anybody who disagrees with the President (any President) get put on it? You're putting A LOT of faith in the government to not screw this up.

    It's a strawman argument to say that if you don't support this bill, you support terrorism. I don't think anybody on this site wants to support terrorism.
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  5. #64
    Senior Member Array Divebum47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    763
    I have not read the entirety of the bill but the concept is one we should all support. Often, terrorists are not prosecuted properly because we do not have the appropriate tools in place.
    I think not. I am a combat Veteran, a Conservative, a supporter of the Second Amendment, a gun owner, a concealed carry permit holder and a Shooting Sports Instructor. As long as Janet Napolitano considers me a potential terrorist I would not support such a bill.

    .......if the Attorney General: (1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be engaged in terrorism or has provided material support or resources for terrorism; and (2) has a reasonable belief that the transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.
    As we encourage and welcome terrorists in the US because of the planned closing of Guantanamo, we should definitely apply every legislative tool to prosecute the enemy rather than extend them rights reserved for Americans
    The operative word should be "enemy".
    "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

  6. #65
    Senior Member Array Divebum47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    763
    I trust our elected officials.
    Hmmm. Interesting. I trust my guy, I just don't trust yours or anyone else's.
    "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

  7. #66
    Member Array nasal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    96
    Double post, sorry.

  8. #67
    Member Array nasal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    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.


    And on top of everything you admit you haven't read the bill.


  9. #68
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Divebum47 View Post
    Hmmm. Interesting. I trust my guy, I just don't trust yours or anyone else's.
    OTOH, I often find myself voting for the lesser of two evils -- hence, as my guy never made it to the general ellection, I don't....



    What I do trust (albeit mistakes are made) is the checks and balances of our republic -- with different functions assigned to each branch.

    What I don't trust is any of the three separate branches assuming a function of the other two -- whether it be the courts legislating, or the administration adjudicating, etc
    Last edited by DaveH; August 18th, 2009 at 01:50 PM.
    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

  10. #69
    Senior Member Array Divebum47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    763
    OTOH, I often find myself voting for the lesser of two evils -- hence, as my guy never made it to the general ellection.I don't....
    Pretty much agree. My statement was made with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. Although, I know my Congressional Rep very well, and I do trust him. He is a CCW holder, a member of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, his kids are both accomplished marksmen (non-gender specific since both are girls), and his eldest will be accompanying me to a 4-H Shooting Sports training. He also shares many of my political views, but still asks his constituents their opinions and represents us all quite well. He is part of our community, and has, so far, not adopted the typical DC inside the beltway arrogance. But I am also represented in the Senate by Sharrod Brown, who makes Pelosi look like a moderate, and Voinovich, who is a RINO/CINO. And I sure as hell don't trust either of them.
    "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

  11. #70
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I have advocated no such thing.
    You continue to defend a bill that would circumvent the ENTIRE LEGAL PROCESS and stick it in the hands of the Attorney General. You have posted 12 replies advocating this stupidity. Please stop.

    Do you need to be reminded who that clown is? Stop trying to make him into the "Law Czar" it's disgusting.

    I suspect that you are a rapist. If I were the AG you would be in jail under YOUR logic.

    The intent of the law is not to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists it is to take guns away from EVERYBODY. That is what the AG, the President and his chief of staff want, they have advocated that EXACT move in the recent past.

    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  12. #71
    Member Array hybrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Home of little boy, NM
    Posts
    223
    history? look at south america right now. venezuela, el salvador, etc... the ongoing drama in honduras, that crazy chavez wants to make his very own russian union, he took over all thru democracy, democracy sucks bring back the republic.
    NO 3rd party disputes

    The power of imagination is the key to life.

    It helps you think ahead, consider the possibilities,and prepare you for the future.
    If you lack that ability, you're no different from livestock trapped behind a fence.

  13. #72
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Herknav View Post
    SD -- My issue with this is that it's a secret list. There's no trial to get on it, no way to know you're on it, and (most importantly) no way to get off of it if you're innocent.
    There are all sorts of lists. The ten most wanted list is compiled without a trial to get on it. Only suspected criminals make the list yet there is no over the top belief about violating someone's rights as there is here.

    There are lists of murder suspects, which are 'secret' until enough evidence is gathered to arrest and charge a suspect. This is no different.

    As to getting off it the list, it pays toread the bill:

    (b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A of this title or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B of this title, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General's determination under section 922A or 922B of this title. The court shall sustain the Attorney General's determination upon a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General's determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B, as the case may be.
    To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. Upon request of the petitioner or the court's own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General's determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.

    Furthermore, there is no, one standard, agreed-upon definition for terrorism. I've seen references made to protests like the Tea Parties and town hall meetings as "low-level terrorism." Do the protestors get put on this list? Does anybody who disagrees with the President (any President) get put on it? You're putting A LOT of faith in the government to not screw this up.
    We put faith in the government to secure our national defense. That is a power We the People have given the government.

    Do I think people who advocate armed revolution against the United States in a public forum should be considered for such a list? Absolutely.

    It's a strawman argument to say that if you don't support this bill, you support terrorism. I don't think anybody on this site wants to support terrorism.
    I didn't make that argument. That is analogous to calling liberals that want to bring the enemy to our shores and provide them with Constitutional rights to be supporting terrorism. It is a bad idea to support terrorists activities such as transferring arms but that doesn;t make one a supporter of terrorism.

    My problem here is the typical view that the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT is out to get us when that view is sheer nonsense.

    This type of law is a tool to arrest and prosecute terrorists that are already here. Let's say Abu Ahmanarse has been tracked to training camps in Saudi Arabia, has had meetings with mosque leaders in Germany and shows up in the United States. We WANT to get him off the street but have no tools. If he acquires weapons illegally then this type of law gives us the ability to arrest him and break up his plans to kill Americans.

  14. #73
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by M203Sniper View Post
    You continue to defend a bill that would circumvent the ENTIRE LEGAL PROCESS and stick it in the hands of the Attorney General. You have posted 12 replies advocating this stupidity. Please stop.
    I am not defending the bill. I am defending neccessary and important tools used to identify and capture terrorists. Your claim of circumventing the legal process is simply incorrect. And it doesn't make your point any more sound to type it in capital letters.

    Do you need to be reminded who that clown is? Stop trying to make him into the "Law Czar" it's disgusting.
    Please remind me who the 'clown' is.

    I suspect that you are a rapist. If I were the AG you would be in jail under YOUR logic.
    I think you need to read the bill or even the excerpts posted here. There is nothing in the bill that would necessitate jail for suspected terrorists. That is the point! Your argument by analogy is severely flawed.

    The intent of the law is not to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists it is to take guns away from EVERYBODY.
    Really? And how did you come up with that gem? The bill specifically addresses terrorists and terrorism. Are you aware of the Second Amendment? We have not provided the power to the government to infringe on law abiding people's rights to keep and bear arms.

    That is what the AG, the President and his chief of staff want, they have advocated that EXACT move in the recent past.
    Completely false and irrelevant to the bill under consideration.

    Tilting at windmills is unbecoming.

  15. #74
    Member Array hybrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Home of little boy, NM
    Posts
    223
    have we not been prosecuting them so far, why do we need more laws?
    NO 3rd party disputes

    The power of imagination is the key to life.

    It helps you think ahead, consider the possibilities,and prepare you for the future.
    If you lack that ability, you're no different from livestock trapped behind a fence.

  16. #75
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by hybrid View Post
    have we not been prosecuting them so far, why do we need more laws?
    That is a completely different question. I do not know whether law enforcement has been stymied by lack of tools to prosecute and prevent illegal weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists. I do know that the NICS system has been successful at both deterring buyers and identifying criminals. So much so that we now have a number of large billboards around town educating the public that it is illegal to buy a gun for someone who cannot.

    This reminds me of the lack of intelligence sharing among agencies that might have prevented 9/11. If we put the terrorist list into the database preventing gun ownership then that would definitely help. Except, of course, those that think criminals should carry guns because it is their right.

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

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, 04:55 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, 08:55 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, 03:24 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, 04:56 PM
  5. Anti lawsuit bill passes
    By rachilders in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 21st, 2005, 11:54 PM

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.