Posted on 05/17/2009 8:57:24 AM PDT by Delacon
Rumor was enough to get you burned as a witch in Salem, Massachusetts. It was enough to get you shot in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It's enough to get your head chopped off in parts of Iraq infested with madmen claiming to carry out Allah's will.
And if U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has his way, it may be enough to prohibit you from acquiring a firearm or federal firearm license, especially if the Attorney General is as opposed to gun ownership as Janet Reno was during the Clinton Administration, and as Eric Holder is today.
Fresh on the heels of a disturbing paper from the Department of Homeland Security, characterizing gun owners as rightwing extremists, on April 29 King introduced H.R. 2159, which he calls the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009."
King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, describes himself as "a strong supporter of the war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad," so without reading the bill one might assume that H.R. 2159 is a legitimate effort to clamp down on genuine terrorists. However, King and his bill's co-sponsors-Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)1-are extreme gun control supporters, and his bill is intended only to give the Executive Branch arbitrary, unaccountable power to stop loyal Americans from acquiring firearms. Here's how:
H.R. 2159 would give "the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . 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."
H.R. 2159 does not, however, impose any requirements or limits on the information the Attorney General could use to make a determination, and it proposes that "any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."
In stark contrast to the scheme proposed in H.R. 2159, federal law establishes guidelines for the nine categories of persons currently prohibited from possessing firearms, and it protects the right of a person to be told why he is prohibited. The latter is important because a person who is not prohibited can be mistaken for someone who is, due to incomplete or incorrect records in the FBI's database of prohibited persons, or due to being mistaken for a prohibited person on the basis of a similar name or other personal information. The trash bin of history is full of politically-motivated, authoritarian abuses of peoples' rights. As King and his bill's co-sponsors have shown, however, the concept behind the evil yet remains.
Since when does an individual (the AG) suspend the Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of individuals without due process? Doesn’t sound like it would withstand judicial scrutiny.
What a great republican is Peter King, how he inspires me to support session, if this were in the onion it’d be sorta funny. He should join Spectre
Depends on who appointed the judge.
“Since when does an individual (the AG) suspend the Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of individuals without due process? Doesn’t sound like it would withstand judicial scrutiny.”
Since when ...
In family court the constitution is thrown out the window. The libs got away with that so why not this.
When they came for the fathers (family court) nobody did anything because it was always someone else, not them.
“All government, of course, is against liberty.”
H L Mencken
U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.)
Steele needs to oust this scumbag from the party
But but but NINE-ELEVENS and teh terrists are trying to destroy American freedoms! Only in the pre-9/11 mindset can we go back to being a nation in which our fundamental rights and liberties come before the neocon/hopey-non-changey homoland “security” apparatus.
Hmm. He was a reliable water carrier for Sinn Fein and the IRA back in the days of the Troubles. Has he changed his tune since Sep. 11?
Wait for the "empathetic" judiciary. It won't just be the Supremes, but every Federal nominee.
"Steele needs to oust this scumbag from the party."This is the sort of thinking that will destroy the Republican Party and relegate Conservatism to 2nd class status. The advocacy of ideological purity is as dangerous coming from the Right as it is coming from the Left.
Yo DTogo—Where’ve you been? What do you think DUI checkpoints do? Under the cover of doing random stops, they allow police to stop you without “probable cause”. This erosion of our Constitutional protections had been going on for years.
Overall, I think you’re correct. Kirk, who is identified as a D, is also a moderate-right Republican. In convesations I had with him, he has as much knowledge about the global situation as anyone I know. He also seems like a person who can be brought around to our way of thinking on the 2nd Amendment. His problem is that much of his distrct, once reliably Republican, has grown to be nearly 50% Dem; in order to politically survive, he needs to play to the other side. The guy Kirk recently defeated (just barely) sounded like a Marxist. For a lefty and former GE marketing guy to get that many votes in Kirk’s district was scary.
Well, even though I am not hindered by a single issue in my interests in government and politics in general...
You could not be more wrong...
You can have a whole library full of accolades and atta-boys...But in this case it is that one oh-sh!t that should really be the defining last hurrah of any politician in this country...
If a person who is elected to office anywhere in this country that does not understand and respect the meaning of this Amendment, and does things to infringe or destroy the intent thereof, I have absolutely no use for you...
It really is a simple concept...And it is something that doesn’t require a teeth-nashing opinion or position...It was desined to take care of itself, and those that want to ignore it, or do things to destroy it, just because, that is a path that is starting to irritate the citizens of this country that do understand it’s meaning and purpose...
A politician that is even associated with my political party, and one that I am a constituent of who pulls things like this does not get my support at all regardless of their atta-boys...
Your 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure and your 5th amendment right to receive just compensation for seized property was stripped from you 20 years ago when they decided that SUSPICION that you MIGHT be somehow connected to the illegal drug trade was enough to allow the police to steal your money and property. It was a slippery slope that only got slipperier.
It was inevitable that they use the same logic to strip your other rights away.
Do any of you NOW see why I think that drug usage should be legalized?
Since all three branches of the government came under control of the Big Brother party.
They have no idea what they are messing with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.