Posted on 06/14/2016 12:10:43 PM PDT by servo1969
A New York Times editorial advocates for a new law allowing a secret court to take away citizens' right to own a gun at the discretion of the federal government.
Citing the Orlando terror attack that left 50 dead including the shooter and 53 wounded at a gay nightclub, the piece advocates for a "no-buy" list similar to "no-fly" lists. Under the law, suspected terrorists would not be able to buy a gun. In an attempt to ensure the integrity of the lists and preserve due process, the author proposes people only be added to this no-buy list after a secret court rules they are ineligible, similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court hearings where the federal government obtains permission to wiretap. Under this proposal, an American who has never been convicted of a crime could be denied their right to buy a gun simply because a secret court decided it should be that way.
The piece is written by Adam Winkler, a U.C.L.A. School of Law professor. Winkler argues the secret court is a good idea because the same kind of court is already used for government surveillance, and historically, the U.S. has committed worse rights violations such as Japanese internment camps.
"If the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go to court first and offer up evidence," Winkler writes.
Here's how it would work: When the attorney general wanted to revoke someone's Second Amendment rights, he or she would bring evidence to a court which would then determine if there is probable cause. The court proceedings would be secret and have no clear path to appeal.
This court proceeding, of course, would be secret. Although that denies the person included on the no-buy list the opportunity to rebut the attorney general's evidence, we do the same thing every day with search warrants and wiretaps for criminal suspects. Our right to bear arms is no more fundamental than our right to privacy, and treating them similarly can help keep us safer from terrorists.For maximum secrecy, Congress could assign these probable cause determinations to the jurisdiction of the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The judges on this court have a deep understanding of the nation's national security threats.
Winkler argued in a 2006 Huffington Post article that the NSA mass surveillance program was illegal because President George W. Bush abused and ignored the FISA court. The same court that was so easily abused by the administration for mass surveillance will apparently be entirely trustworthy when it comes to taking second amendment rights.
Near the end of the article, Winkler points out his plan to subject all of America to the secret court probably wouldn't stop a terrorist, anyway.
"With over 300 million guns in America and private gun sales allowed with no background check whatsoever, a determined terrorist will most likely still be able to obtain guns," he wrote. "Yet the easiest, most convenient way to buy guns -- from a gun store, with the best prices and selection, like the one where the Orlando attacker bought his guns -- wouldn't be available."
So the way to stop muslim terrorism is to take away the Second Amendment rights of US citizens
Facebook Land is brimming with just such a sentiment...
They already accept that there is no 1st amendment. They only post/print the demoncrat views. So why wouldn’t they want to abolish the 2nd?
Dems having a mini-riot over this in the House.
That is the bad thing about facebook. It allows idiots a chance to share their idiot views with other idiots.
Secret courts can begin removing folks 2A rights, but as soon as reports emerge that that is what they are doing....all bets are off.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Maybe a secret committee to take away the first amendment rights of journalist who step over the line too... No court, no jury... just a committee.
How would the butt kissers at the New York Times feel about that?
Maybe a secret committee to take away the first amendment rights of journalist who step over the line too... No court, no jury... just a committee.
How would the butt kissers at the New York Times feel about that? Casey Harper - do a follow up and see how the editors feel about that one...
“The piece is written by Adam Winkler, a U.C.L.A. School of Law professor.”
This is where someone should patiently wait for him outside his office and take a bat to him. Then ask him if they should outlaw baseball.
Well that’s the best idea I can come up with. And it’s certainly a necessary first step
What’s black and white and red all over besides baracass?
this is the kind of article that used to get newspaper businesses burnt to the ground
But having one, I cannot quite bring myself to propose a secret Court to strip away the First Amendment Rights of American journalists who never respect--much less defend--basic elements of the American heritage.
Once again the Times chimes in against what better men vouchsafed to us.
If this is what he thinks after going to law school, I wonder what he thought before he went.
But they’d scream if anyone so much as touched the First Amendment.
Screaming ‘hypocrisy’ writ large in red letters.
People in favor of Star Chambers always imagine themselves on them. It doesn’t work like that.
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.
