Placating the anti-gun crowd

The Washington Times ^ | May 10, 2007 | Bob Barr

[Gritty]

The relationship between the Bush administration and the pro-Second Amendment community has been lukewarm, at best...

*snip*

At issue is whether this or future administrations would have the statutory power to deny the sale of a firearm to a person otherwise lawfully entitled to buy a gun, based on mere suspicion the prospective purchaser is somehow connected with acts of international or domestic "terrorism." At first blush, this might seem a no-brainer; with common sense telling us "of course we don't want terrorists being able to purchase firearms." The Senate sponsor of the administration proposal, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg, even put out a news release announcing introduction of the bill to "close the terror gap."

*snip*

Think for a moment. If someone is a "dangerous terrorist" wouldn't the government already be prosecuting them, or shouldn't they already be in jail?...

The legal and policy deficiencies with the Gonzales-Lautenberg bill continue downward...

*snip*

Simply put, this legislation is patently unnecessary and deeply troubling, and the NRA and others are right in strongly opposing it....

*snip*

[claudiustg]

-—The relationship between the Bush administration and the pro-Second Amendment community has been lukewarm, at best...-—

Huh?

[Still Thinking]

Yeah, if past history is any guide, pretty soon the deinition of “terror”, the bait they use to sell the concept, will be expanded to include “hate crimes”, surfing FR, not paying your taxes, etc. And this wouldn’t stop a terrorist intent on purchasing a weapon, anyway.

[Still Thinking]

How about Bean? The lower courts restored his rights, no one would have appealed, and the Bush administration appealed to SCOTUS and ‘won’, setting a horrible precedent in the process. (Using what for standing, I don’t know)

[ANGGAPO]

Sounds like a back door gun grab. Again we have to fight to protect our constitution.

[claudiustg]

But the issue was that the federal courts were granting action that the Congress had denied to the ATF. The Bean decision limits the power of the judiciary. That would overall seem to be a good thing.

[mr_hammer]

Here is the money line.

“For an attorney general desperately looking for friends in all the wrong places,...”

[gcruse]

” pretty soon the deinition of “terror”, ... will include “hate crimes”

Your cynicism is well-placed. Using the Commerce Clause to federalize the crime of growing and smoking your own pot is precedence for defining words to mean anything you like. The Patriot Act paves the way.

[NorthFlaRebel]

Think for a moment. If someone is a "dangerous terrorist" wouldn't the government already be prosecuting them, or shouldn't they already be in jail?...

Possibly, but I can assure you that if a person is "suspected" by the government of being a "dangerous terrorist", they have already been flagged within NCIC and would be declined the gun purchase. Its unlikely that many "suspected terrorists" are legally buying guns from licensed dealers within the United States.

[Disambiguator]

How about Bean?

There are some people who really shouldn't have guns.

[kas2591]

This bill if passed will allow for the widest future interpretration of what a “dangerous organization” is by the government. Maybe the Marine Corps League? The VFW? The Catholic Church? If you think that could never happen more fool you. This is one you want to contact your representatives about.

I would point out one more thing: without a Second Amendment, you have no individual protection against losing the First Amendment.

Semper Fi

[quietolong]

See how Easily you to can become a terrorist.

Barney Blasts Gay Marriage Foes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549566/posts

>>> “Basically, they’re the disturbers of the civic peace,” <<<<

[philman_36]

And even if the court hearing a challenge to a denial demanded to inspect the true reasons, the legislation -- in yet another unprecedented provision -- explicitly prohibits the judge from relying on that information for his or her ruling for or against the government.

I'm at a complete loss of words!

[quietolong]

Look what they tried to do in WI under the name of “Anti-Terrorism Legislative Package”

WCCA alert: Doyle/Baumgart bill gets worse (99% banned)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/614867/posts

Baumgart, Doyle Propose Gun Ban
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/612231/posts

Doyle urges fight against gun lobbyists
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3896049f7e88.htm

[Still Thinking]

So if the administration’s position is that Bean was getting administratively screwed but the fix is not to let the judiciary fix it, how many man hours have they spent and how many public appeals have they made to get some funding allocated for restoration of rights? The situation as it stands is intolerable. I can understand so-called conservatives being reticent to increase funding for a useless agency, but with one as out of control as BATFE, surely Congress could direct that some specified amount of their funding, presently squandered persecuting their employers, MUST be used to rule on cases like this, and to require that all cases be decided withing 90 days or so, so that even if a persons application is rejected, he now has an avenue to pursue.

[Still Thinking]

So then the government, by denying the judge anything to work with, deserves to lose the case in the same way that ambiguities in contracts are construed against whichever party drafted the contract.