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."
They might be unpleasantly surprised at how many are just itching to give it to them. Keep poking that hornet’s nest, leftists.
I can just see it: anyone posting to Free Republic or any conservative site is automatically “a suspected terrorist.”
Trump should respond by saying we should suspend the 1st Amendment and shut down leftist blogs/websites confirmed to have treasonous intent (which is most of them). Or maybe that we should suspend the one on equal-rights voting in Ferguson the next time they riot.
And in the last two months... (Nov. 2012 and Dec. 2012)
And it continues...
And there is more...
And more...
And yet more...
And more and more and...
We just keep buyin' more...
And we bought more more more...
And more and more and more...
KEEP YAPPIN, LIBERALS, WE'LL BUY MILLIONS MORE. ;-)
Who knew?!?
-PJ
Let’s secretly kill commie professors and NYT’s writers. We’ll seat wooden dummies in their chairs so nobody will know that they’re secretly dead.
In the long run....it’s inevitable I believe.
Why are the people most likely to equate gun ownership with penis envy, the same ones who are most interested in taking them away?
Or, more to the point, and probably more effective, why not just ban the preaching and publication of fundamentalist Islamic ideas? If it is necessary to suspend fundamental liberties, it would be much easier to just have a secret court decide if a publication or a particular mosque was disseminating dangerous ideas likely to lead to Islamic extremism. That would end radicalization, so we wouldn't, in theory at least, need to worry about preventing gun attacks, bombings, arson, knife attacks, airplane hijacking or jihad by car.
In fact the process could be even simpler than trying to stop gun sales one at a time, and less intrusive and tailored to the problem. For Muslims not involved or interested in extremist points of view there would be no burden at all, except perhaps for some travel restrictions to avoid people attending prohibited talks overseas, or reading prohibited materials.
I am sure what I proposed is something the NYTimes and all of their liberal supporters would consider unthinkable. And that of course shows their true desires and beliefs. They just want to disarm and control the population. Unlike the rest of us who actually believe in the Bill of Rights.
Is the New York Times still allowing Krugman near keyboards?
nyt practicing sedition (again)?
take away their 1a rights!
Why yes we do & we are getting ready for some serious ugliness.
Like any of the folks in Congress give a shit.
"As of this moment all gun owners are now on Double Secret probation! No More fun of any Kind!"
The piece is written by Adam Winkler, a U.C.L.A. School of Law professor.Partisan Media Shills alert:
ya mean like they did in Connecticut and New York...
Congress does not have the Authority to do that. Neither does the President nor the Supreme Court. It takes a constitutional Convention and 2/3 of the states to ratify an Amendment. That is the only way and that will not happen without a revolution along with the Cession of several of the many states.
So, until such an amendment is made, it is the law that citizens may go armed and it is guaranteed that the “GOD Given Right” shall not be infringed.
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.