Posted on 05/01/2007 12:47:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
BELLEVUE, WA – Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ troubling support of legislation that would allow him and future attorneys general the arbitrary power to block firearms purchases without due process is cause for him to step down as the nation’s highest ranking law enforcement officer, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
The bill, S. 1237, was introduced last week at the Justice Department’s request by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), one of the most extreme anti-gunners in Congress. Called the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007,” this legislation would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny the purchase of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm license or permit because of some vague suspicion that an American citizen may be up to no good.
“This bill,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “raises serious concerns about how someone becomes a ‘suspected terrorist.’ Nobody has explained how one gets their name on such a list, and worse, nobody knows how to get one’s name off such a list.
“The process by which someone may appeal the Attorney General’s arbitrary denial seems weak at best,” Gottlieb suggested, “and there is a greater concern. When did we decide as a nation that it is a good idea to give a cabinet member the power to deny someone’s constitutional right simply on suspicion, without a trial or anything approaching due process?
“We’re not surprised that General Gonzales has found an agreeable sponsor in Frank Lautenberg,” Gottlieb observed. “The senator from New Jersey has never seen a restrictive gun control scheme he did not immediately embrace, and S. 1237 is loaded with red flags. It would allow an appointed bureaucrat the authority to suspend or cancel someone’s Second Amendment right without even being charged with a crime.
“Attorney General Gonzales has no business asking for that kind of power over any tenet in the Bill of Rights,” Gottlieb said. “He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not trample it. Perhaps it is time for him to go.”
Oh I get it alright . So we should all pay the price by allowing anti-gun AG’s to determine who should be “allowed” to buy a gun ?
Nice try . It’s obvious you are espousing Brady / HCI propaganda .
Sorta related.
Did you see ex CIA Chief Tennant on Fox O’Reiley last night?
He said: there was Al Quada in Iraq prior to Storm 2. He said, you couldn’t be sure there was an ‘official’ gov’t link with Saddam. O’Reily replied; and who got to go to Iraq without Saddams permision? Answere NOBODY.
Tennant was not exactly tap dancing, but he didn’t want to be pinned down with his intel. No hint of any of “the buck stops with me at the CIA” responsiblity from him.....
Thanks for posting that, EdReform. I had looked it up yesterday on govtrack, but apparently it just became available today.
EGGZACKARY...........
It's amazing we have made it this long.
No, it's BY THE GRACE OF GOD!
MCain- Fiengold, is UnConstitutional, what’s happend about that under Bush?
why is it that pubbie appointees,
a good example is the u.s. supreme court,
go liberally-wobbly?
Can any of you answer these questions:
1. Why is a Republican appointee (Gonzales) asking a Democrap senator from NJ (and a gun-hating over the top liberal one at that) to introduce legislation that attacks the Bill of Rights?
2. Why is G. Bush behind this? (He must be - the AG doesn’t fart without administration knowledge.)
3. Are you, if you are a gun owner, ready, willing, and able to resist the confiscation of your firearms, even if it measn a firefight with authorities and even your possible death?
1. I never claimed the President "didn't know about it", but your assertion that unless I can prove otherwise, the President orchestrates every action the Justice Dept. takes is ludicrous.
2. You posted the article, not me, and you've made it clear with the slam about Bush & the constitution you were not able to back up that you're more interested in throwing mud at the President than presenting evidence to support your claims.
EdReform - not you - has now posted a link to the text of the bill. Though someone with a good working knowledge of the US Code needs to analyze it, as it is primarily an amendment(s) to Title 18, and also section 101 of the immigration and naturalization act, my initial reaction is that it's too broad and gives too much discretion to one individual.
It does provide for appeals, but it is not clear to me after a quick scan that the court, employer or the defendent would be at any time be able to view the evidence being used against them by the AG as described on page 8 & 9 and other similar paragraphs.
It does not describe a specific loophole, as Lautenburg claims in his press release.
I don't know why the mandatory background checks and waiting periods currently in place are not sufficient for keeping terrorists from legally buying guns, and nothing in this bill suggests the current system's failings, so I don't see the need for this bill.
OK, I'll bite.
Because most conservatives are too cheap to make sure our government stays bought by the right people, so the RINOcrat party goes to the globalist corporations with a fascist agenda.
2. Why is G. Bush behind this? (He must be - the AG doesn’t fart without administration knowledge.)
See above.
3. Are you, if you are a gun owner, ready, willing, and able to resist the confiscation of your firearms, even if it measn a firefight with authorities and even your possible death?
Why yes I am a gun owner. As to the second answer, I'm going to keep them guessing. Best the people organize to both intimidate the thugs and pick their time and place rather than fall one by one. It's plain stupid to fall by yourself.
Strawman by extension. First, this is too big and has gone on too long to go un-noticed by the White House. Second, you said that there was NOTHING other than this letter and the reference to Lautenberg's site as if you were unable to look yourself. Now that you've had that flushed you back off and throw up a strawman.
2. You posted the article, not me, and you've made it clear with the slam about Bush & the constitution you were not able to back up that you're more interested in throwing mud at the President than presenting evidence to support your claims.
If you noticed some of the long gaps in my posting times, you'd realize that some of us have other work to do than just run a thread and answer the incoherent blathering of the likes of you. As to my intent to throw mud, it was you who brought up that, "just a piece of paper," line, not me. I just corroborated it. I don't give a rats patootie what you think of CapitolHillBlue, they've got a long established reputation as a reliable source of inside information here at FR, that is, if you'd been here long enough to know. When Clinton was in power they dug dirt on Clinton. Now that Bush is in power he's the target. It's what they do.
Methinks you've sniffed too much bottom paint.
Contrary to more rumors being spread here, I'm not aware of any actions instigated by President Bush to deny us our 2nd amendment rights during either term or when he was governor
Really, then what do you consider the above to be?
If one was pro 2nd amendment, why appoint someone that is clearly a threat to it?
At this point in time, I'd call that an unsubstantiated rumor.
You're clearly avoiding the above questions.
Go ahead, give them a shot.
Nope. That's not a question, it's a challenge to guess.
There are two questions above, my questions to you, and you've failed to answer them twice now.
I can understand why you wish to avoid them. No problem.
You're lying. Read your own post #64, responding to microgood, not me that you "remember when Bush said it" and "that someone needs to tell him it's parchment". Your source for corroboration was 100 miles left of Rosie.
You're asking me to give an opinion on something that I don't know to be fact, and I'm not going to bite.
I find it wildly ironic that the same posters who are screaming at the concept of terrorists having their rights infringed on suspicion alone, won't hesitate to declare intent and guilt on the President with nothing more than a rumor to go on.
Easy: White Christian males with a job/business. They’ll start by securing the NRA’s membership rolls.
So you are implying or suggesting Bush had no idea about who he was appointing as Attorney General of the United States?
Anyone who sides with Frank Lautenberg on gun control, fer crissakes, has GOT TO GO!
No, like Harriet Miers and Gonzales.
You DO remember Harriet, don't you?
Do you REALLY want a recitation of Bush's goofball nominees for important offices?
Should we even bring up his Homeland Security chief during Katrina?
No, he's from other Central American nonentity with no history of civil liberties and only a vague concept of human rights.
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.