Read it, Know it, Live it.
Posted on 06/29/2009 12:49:38 PM PDT by neverdem
The secret government “Terrorist Watch List,” reportedly already swelled to more than 1.1 million names, will have an addendum, if gun control advocates in Congress have their way. This new addendum — also to be cloaked in secrecy — would empower the U.S. Attorney General to deny a person the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to purchase a firearm.
While it is not surprising that some members of Congress are again using fear of terrorism to implement a gun-control agenda, the openly unconstitutional legislative language proponents are employing is troubling.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is leading the effort in the Senate, while another well-known gun control advocate — Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) — is directing the House initiative. They have introduced identical bills — the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.” This proposal would give the attorney general the power to unilaterally and in secret develop a watch list of persons believed to be unworthy of possessing a firearm or any explosive.
This new “dangerous terrorist” watch list would include names based not on hard evidence of criminal activity, but on nothing more than the subjective conclusion by the attorney general that a person is “appropriately suspected” (whatever that means) of engaging in some manner of assisting or preparing for acts of domestic or international terrorism. The American people would never be privy to what criteria might be employed by the attorney general to determine whether someone is an “appropriate suspect,” and they would have no way of knowing why they might be denied the ability to purchase a firearm.
If a person were to be refused “permission” to purchase a firearm or explosive, and if they subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court to find out why, the government still could keep such information secret. In other words, the attorney general could deny a U.S. citizen the ability to own a firearm, and never have to give the reason.
For legislators like Lautenberg and King, who apparently have absolute faith in unelected government officials to make the right decisions for the right reasons at the right times (and never be required to explain those decisions), one has only to consider the checkered history of post-9/11 “terrorist” watch lists to see the folly of such perspective. Stories abound of persons denied the ability to board a commercial aircraft, or greatly delayed in being allowed on board, for no reason other than their name erroneously appeared on some “watch list.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), have been among this not-so-elite group.
A report earlier this year by the FBI’s inspector general chronicled extensive internal problems with the terrorist watch list maintained by that agency. The IG found numerous examples of inaccuracies, incomplete entries, out-of-date information and inclusion of information “unrelated to terrorism.” While the inconvenience of not being able to board an airliner for a business trip or a vacation can be a real headache, being refused the ability to purchase a firearm to protect one’s life clearly raises the stakes.
The government already has remedies already at its disposal to keep firearms out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists. Under existing federal law, there are numerous categories of persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms; including persons in violation of immigration laws, convicted felons, illicit drug users and others. And if a person truly is a known or suspected terrorist, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — as the federal law enforcement agency primarily responsible for enforcing the nation’s gun laws — certainly should be made aware of that information. We don’t need a secret, anti-Second Amendment watch list to implement effective law enforcement in America
Thanks for the ping!
Read it, Know it, Live it.
When something like that happens, do they have anything to lose?
Don’t be naive; this government will do absolutely everything they can to smash those who oppose them.
I would say the Sarah Palin thing proved that. I think we better stop pretending that they are anything but evil and get ready to fight for our lives. When they run out of welfare money, they are going to need something to eat. I have determined it will not be my family.
As far as I know, the government has NEVER been allowed to use secret evidence to convict a person of a crime or deny them their rights. I don’t even think the libtards are stupid enough to cross that line. However, I am not naive enough to believe the Rats won’t try to pass this legislation, even though I am fairly certain that the SC will overturn it.
Wake Up America!
Even if courts would demand that the government offer a reason for refusing an individual's firearm purchase, and even if courts would overrule the government's refusal if such reason were not forthcoming, how much do you think an individual would have to spend on legal fees before the court would do that, and how much of that money do you think the person could ever hope to get back?
If a baseball umpire calls "strike" on a pitch which rolls to the plate in front of a motionless batter, the pitch is a strike. Good sportsmanship would dictate that everybody accept the umpire's ruling as legitimate, even if it is clearly 'wrong'.
If an umpire were to make such rulings on nine consecutive pitches from the same team, however, good sportsmanship would no longer demand that anyone regard his rulings as legitimate. Indeed, it would demand the opposite--that all good sports should reject the umpire's rulings.
Note that there isn't any particularly clear line between bad calls which people should accept, and bad calls which people should reject. Nothing in the official rules of baseball would permit disregarding the umpire's strike calls under any circumstances, but if the umpire's rulings themselves, become a sufficiently gross affront to the rules of baseball, disregarding such rulings would be a smaller affront than would be letting them stand.
At some time, there is going to be a sea change, where people realize that those in government are not exercising legitimate authority. I would hope that this results in a peaceful reinstatement of the Constitution, but I'll readily admit that's wishful thinking. Many of those in power would rather destroy the country than allow themselves to be replaced by a legitimate government, and I suspect their tentacles are sufficiently deep that they could very well do it.
There is a law that allows you to recoup 100% of your legal fees when suing the government. How do you think the ACLU keeps the lights on?
You don’t think that the umpire has been calling strikes on one side and “balls” for the opposition for quite some while?
I think one could safely say that the congressional “umpires” are doing everything they want with no consideration what-so-ever for the citizens for quite some time now. The fact that they are incompetent in various (financial and business) related maters should be reason enought to cry foul and has nothing to do with politics but rather reason and something call - reality.
The umpires for the main stream media are definitely calling everything that comes across our plate as strikes and everything across the Dems plates as balls - or better yet - they just ignore them altogether.
Only if they know that you own them!
FROM:
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/01/31/another-voice-for-saving-taxpayers-from-aclu-fees/
The fees come right out of your pocket.
For almost thirty years the ACLU has rubbed its hands gleefully as it tapped the government piggy bank to cover its attacks on just about everything American. In 1976 The Civil Rights Attorneys Fee Awards Act (42 U.S.C. Section 1988) was passed by Congress and signed into law. Though it was written with the best of intentions, this legislation is another very egregious example of unintended consequences. The purpose of the law was to encourage private attorneys to take on cases to protect civil and constitutional rights. It was not intended to support an organization filing thousands upon thousands of disruptive cases. [snip]
I doubt it. The government has been illegitimate as to the 2nd amendment for decades. Even the Heller decision is an abomination of law, and the gun-rights people step up and CHEER! Hooray!
The federal courts actively FORBID a defendant from presenting the Supreme Court's Miller case to a jury. Have you even heard of the Fincher case? Hamblen? Has the NRA bemoaned this? No, it has not.
... the district court stated that it would allow Fincher to present evidence outside the presence of the jury that under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), and United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), his possession of the guns was reasonably related to a well regulated militia ...Fincher asserts that the district court erred by not allowing the jury to determine whether his possession of firearms was reasonably related to a well regulated militia and therefore protected by the Second Amendment. ...
Accordingly, under Heller, Fincher's possession of the guns is not protected by the Second Amendment. Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use. Furthermore, Fincher has not directly attacked the federal registration requirements on firearms, and we doubt that any such attack would succeed in light of Heller. Accordingly, because Fincher's possession of guns is not protected by the Second Amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing him from arguing otherwise to the jury.
US v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 870, 873-74 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1369 (2009)
All I know of this case is what you posted, but it appears that it would be more correct to say, "The Supreme Court passively forbid a defendant from presenting the Supreme Court's Miller case to a jury".
There are many factors that I am aware of and many probably that I am not aware of that determine whether the Supreme Court will accept a case. If there are complications in the case or an unsympathetic defendant (due to having committed other crimes, say) then the Court may refuse cert despite the merits of the case. The thinking might be that they shouldn't decide a case where the outcome for the defendant would be virtually unchanged.
There certainly is a lot of room for improvement yet in the handling of the Second Amendment by our courts. We got into this mess incrementally and it may be that we will get out the same way. Overall, I am quite pleased by the movement during the last year. But I live in the People's Republik of Kalifornia, so my expectations were already very low.
In my "active forbidding" characterization, I was referring to the District Court below, where the jury was. He was permitted to argue to the District Court judge, and he raised the issue of presentation to the jury on appeal, so the Courts certainly heard his argument.
I posted to you on recollection of your comment of 05/06/2009 6:30:00 AM PDT.
Me: Scalia reads the 2nd amendment as permitting the government to ban the private possession of M-16's, based directly on a dishonest construction of Miller.You: Your concern is unwarranted. ...
Fincher is the law of the 8th Circuit. Defendants in M-16 cases have no right to argue a 2nd amendment right to possess an M-16.
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.