Posted on 05/09/2009 10:15:02 PM PDT by markomalley
And the bill was introduced by a Republican, no less.
A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected” of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general “has a reasonable belief” that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.”
I don’t think anyone really has a problem with keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The problems arise when it comes to who gets to define who is and is not a “terrorist.” And what standards are used. Also, since when can our rights be denied us because we might commit a crime?
According to the Department of Homeland Security attending a tea party, being a federalist, having an NRA sticker on your car or being pro-life indicates that you may be a terrorist. Or may, at least, have inclinations toward extremism and violence.
Now, I doubt that even if this law passed that we’d see a crackdown on gun-owning pro-life activists. But the problem here is that this law provides such a vague definition of who may and may exercise their 2nd amendment rights that the door is left wide open to no small amount of abuse.
Vaguely-written laws like this are extremely problematic because they put the decision as to whether or not we’ve committed a crime entirely as the discretion of cops and prosecutors. And if that’s the case, the only thing keeping us from being arrested and/or prosecuted are the whims of our law enforcement agents.
The bill number is H.R. 2159
Relevant portions:
`Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm
`The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) 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.';
(2) by inserting the following new section after section 922A:
`Sec. 922B. Attorney General's discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3)
`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) 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 applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'; and
(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:
`(36) The term `terrorism' means `international terrorism' as defined in section 2331(1), and `domestic terrorism' as defined in section 2331(5).
`(37) The term `material support' means `material support or resources' within the meaning of section 2339A or 2339B.
Gee, I guess if you are identified as a right wing extremist by DHS, you might be appropriately suspected, huh?
And by the way, I know the term "reasonably suspected," but what does "appropriately suspected" mean?
And then there's this:
(h) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), 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 responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'.
So I guess that means that they don't have to tell you exactly why they are denying your application. Nice.
King should be impeached for violating his oath or tried for treason.
Terrorist: Anyone who commits a violent act for a political purpose.
Potential Terrorist: Anyone with political views.
See why this word “terrorist” is a poor word to use instead of Jihadists?
Terrorism is simply a tactic, and any psychopath can be a terrorist, but it takes a dedicated Muslim to be a Jihadist.
Weird. Any attempt to repost this and I get html gibberish.
And Peter King might also end up as the final GOP candidate for the ‘10 N.Y. U.S. Senate seat. I’m hoping that George Pataki does decide to also run for this seat, and then wins in, first, the GOP primary election and, then, the general election in ‘10. I’m not a fan of Pataki, though, but getting a true conservative to win anything major politically in N.Y. state really will be difficult to do.
I don’t think King had Obama’s list in mind.
And they wonder why conservatives are abandoning the GOP.
...With Republicans like these... ?
which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” ............................... LOL! Like its going to be hard for a terrorist to get a weapon? Its a waste, there are suppliers all over the world, they don’t need anyone in the USA to supply them. We are a country with a huge coast line and long borders, its not really difficult to bring in weapons. We haven’t stopped the drugs from coming in, how are we going to stop the evil ones from getting weapons? Rhet/
Doesn't matter.
Eric Holder, and any future Attorneys General of his ilk, would apply the law the way they wanted, not the way King had in mind.
What do these assclowns do... introduce 5 America destroying bills a day and see which ones pass?
Geez, I can’t stand any of them.
King is a RINO. The bill is a POS.
The 2nd Amendment as the rest of the Constitution means nothing to these characters.
WTF?!?!? This is incredible!
What is it in the water in Washington that gives even Republicans harebrained ideas?
Or does one become a "terrorist" while in the process of legally buying a gun, having not been a "terrorist" before?
There are no terrorists. There are only Freedom Fighters and Insurgents.
sumbuddy shoulda’ seen this one comin’— this is what they do in 3rd world countries oh yeah, right, we already are
sumbuddy shoulda’ seen this one comin’— this is what they do in 3rd world countries oh yeah, right, we already are-—and obviously Michael Savage is banned from the UK-
they get ya’ comin’ & going don’t they?
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.