wonderful...
Posted on 05/04/2010 7:32:09 PM PDT by Copernicus
Are you a gunowner? You may just be a terrorist after tomorrow’s (Wednesday, May 5, 2010) Senate hearing!
Contact your Senator immediately. There is no time to hesitate.
The Liberty Coalition has submitted a written statement to explain the impact of two bills–S 1317 and S 2820:
Read More…
From the Liberty Coalition Written Statement:
In reality, these two bills should be re-named the "Gun Owners Are Probably Terrorists Act," and the "National Firearm Registry Act," respectively.
Collectively these bills strip citizens of their enumerated Constitutional Right to Bear Arms without any meaningful due process, and create a national firearms registry.
(Excerpt) Read more at johnjacobh.wordpress.com ...
This sure worked out well for Canada. /s
In reality, these two bills should be re-named the “Gun Owners Are Probably Terrorists Act,” and the “National Firearm Registry Act,” respectively. Collectively these bills strip citizens of their enumerated Constitutional Right to Bear Arms without any meaningful due process, and create a national firearms registry. The same Constitutional Due Process provided by the 5th and 14th Amendments that prevents Congress from incarcerating a citizen based on mere suspicion also prevents Congress from revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. For that and other reasons, the Liberty Coalition opposes these bills.
How S.1317 Works
A person may be added to one of more than a dozen Federal watch lists, tip-off lists or terrorist watch lists based on “reasonable suspicion” of terrorist activity. Other reasons for adding a person include , mistake or misidentification, or if a terrorist steals a person’s identity. An innocent citizen placed on the list will have no administrative recourse to ensure that he or she is removed from a list.
When a citizen of the United States, fully protected by the Constitution applies to purchase a firearm, his or her personal information is run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and the name is run against several databases to ensure that he is not a convicted felon, drug addict, fugitive, or has some other monitored restriction or legal disability. In addition, the person’s name will be run against one or more terrorist watch lists. If the system returns an initial match, the result will be delayed, and NICS personnel will investigate further. If S.1317 becomes law and the match is confirmed, then NICS will return a “Denied” signal to the gun dealer, and the purchase will be denied. Furthermore, the personal information of the individual will be kept on file indefinitely.
Under current law, a citizen has the right to know exactly why he was denied the purchase of a firearm. With this information, the person can correct the record or appeal the decision. However, Under S.1317, the person will only receive “actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination,” if the Attorney General determines that such notice would not likely “compromise national security.” Due to the secret nature of the watch lists, the Attorney General may determine that simply tipping off the person that they are on a terror watch list may compromise national security, thus rendering the notice clause illusory. In that case, the person would receive a “Denied” signal from NICS, with no further information about the reason for the denial, nor with any recourse to obtain the reason for denial.
The citizen may never know why he or she was denied a firearms permit, if the Attorney General determines that the mere disclosure of the determination may compromise national security. The citizen may ask why he or she was denied, but the Attorney General is not required to answer or correct erroneous information within the system. Consequently, the citizen will be unable mount a meaningful appeal to the Attorney General’s decision. Further, even if the Attorney General explains the reason for the denial, the citizen would have no way to know that their right to appeal expires after 60 days after the notice.
Assuming that the citizen appeals the decision in court, things only get harder and more confusing. First, the citizen must rely on summaries or a redacted version of the documents upon which the Attorney General made his decision. Neither the citizen nor his attorney has a right to see or rebut the evidence presented against him. Not even the court may consider the unredacted documents to determine whether the Attorney General acted reasonably in denying the firearms permit.
Well, then, 8 out of 10 homes house terrorists around here.
Link to Senate Website:
Text:
Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
10:00 AM
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342
Witnesses
Panel 1
* The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg U.S. Senate
* The Honorable Peter T. King U.S. House of Representatives
* The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg Mayor City of New York
* The Honorable Raymond W. Kelly Police Commissioner City of New York
Panel 2
* Daniel D. Roberts Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice
* Eileen R. Larence Director, Homeland Security and Justice U.S. Government Accountability Office
* Sandy Jo MacArthur Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services Los Angeles Police Department
* Aaron Titus Privacy Director Liberty Coalition
Best regards,
BASTARDS!
I’ll be on the phone to my Senators’ offices tomorrow about this.
So grossly unconstitutional that the Court will gut it. Even Sotomayor, who has frankly suprised me with some of her recent rulings.
Well, in a more civilized age, one might say: "Pass this crap and find out, but it all depends on your point of view".
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2820
wonderful...
Take note;;;It is the DEMOCRAT PARTY that is doing all this gun grabing, raiseing taxes, increasing fees, taking 401Ks, crimminal cap and trade scam, taking over the medical field, trying to pass a VAT, THEY ARE HELL BENT ON WRECKING THIS COUNTRY. The average guy will left with barely enough to get by on, while we have huge oil deposits and have billions on defense weapons which they do not intend to use to defend this country.
Thanks Travis
These bills effectively remove the presumption of innocence.
Should these bills pass, it is all too likely that armed resistance might well occur.
Given what has happened in places like pre-WW II Germany, when guns were effectively registered and then seized by the Nazis, many in America may well feel that they are better fighting tyranny with their guns than with bare hands.
Perhaps this is what the administration really wants.
I forgot to mention that I am a bit old to be likely to survive any major armed response to tyranny.
And, it is far, far cheaper to vote out of office all those with tyrannical tendencies than to have to shoot them.
Oh, there is also the problem of supporting the members of the dead tyrant wannabes.
There is a reason that the Founders hoped that the soap box and the ballot box would make the cartridge box superfluous.
Let’s hope they were correct in that assumption.
Sorry for the second error:
“Oh, there is also the problem of supporting the members of the dead tyrant wannabes.”
Should be:
“Oh, there is also the problem of supporting the members of the dead tyrant wannabes families”.
So who on here said they weren’t worried about firearms?
I’m not a “terrorist” yet. But they sure as hell seem bent on turning me into one. At least, by their definitions.
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.