“Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms.”


PDA






NelsErik
May 5, 2010, 10:45 AM
Not sure if this is taboo and falls under politics or falls under gun control legislation...


Today in Washington (http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/05/05/today-in-washington-may-5-2010/)

Gun Control - The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will be holding a hearing at 10am today titled “Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms.” (http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=a6061b56-3636-4fac-8446-b3c0dd65d02d) The hearing will be an airing of two gun grabbing bills proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). S. 1317 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01317:%7C/bss/%7C) is a Lautenberg bill that grants Atty. General Eric Holder the power to “deny the transfer of a firearm” if he “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” and ”has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.” The reasonable belief standard removes due process rights for Americans to own a gun and gives the Attorney General too much discretion on who is defined as a prohibited person. Lautenberg’s other bill is S. 2820 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.02820:) is a bill that would set up a de facto national gun registry for each gun purchase for 6 months. Taken together, the two Lautenberg bills would allow Attorney General Eric Holder the power to consider anyone on the terrorist watch list, approximately 400K people, a prohibited person under federal gun control law without any due process and set up a national gun registry with records “destroyed” after 6 months.

Looks like the current administration is going after guns after all...

If you enjoyed reading about "“Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms.”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tommygunn
May 5, 2010, 10:52 AM
They can barely grab a terrorist from off a plane and they think they can stop terrs from buying guns?????:rolleyes:

Ben86
May 5, 2010, 11:15 AM
Yep, that doesn't look like it would be abused at all. It sounds way too extreme to even make it out of the commitee.

shockwave
May 5, 2010, 11:23 AM
Whenever I see things like this, I wonder what the current system in place is. If you're a suspected terrorist, can you go out shopping for firearms? I would expect that if they think you're engaged in terrorism that you wouldn't pass a background check. But if you can, then that's a loophole that needs to be closed. The Times Square "Failbomb" suggests that we're on the cusp of seeing some domestic terror cells coming online and we really don't need a replay of the Bombay hotel business here.

dovedescending
May 5, 2010, 11:26 AM
If there is a Bombay hotel recap here, you can bet it'll happen in Chicago, NYC, or somewhere in **********. Terrorists are smart, and they'll attack where they know nobody will fight back.

thezoltar
May 5, 2010, 11:28 AM
The Bombay hotel was not a home grown group. They came from Pakistan.

2ndAmFan
May 5, 2010, 11:35 AM
There was some stuff in the media awhile back about persons on the government's terrorist watch list not being prohibited from buying firearms. It doesn't surprise me they're taking some kind of action, but like all such actions the potential for abuse is very high.

benEzra
May 5, 2010, 11:41 AM
They can barely grab a terrorist from off a plane and they think they can stop terrs from buying guns?????
That's not the point. The purpose isn't to stop "known or suspected terrorists" from buying guns; it's to grant the Attorney General the power to summarily deny or revoke the RKBA of anybody, without having to submit evidence in court or otherwise provide due process.

Trebor
May 5, 2010, 11:43 AM
If you're a suspected terrorist, can you go out shopping for firearms? I would expect that if they think you're engaged in terrorism that you wouldn't pass a background check. But if you can, then that's a loophole that needs to be closed.

They are talking about everyone on the "no fly" list as being a suspected terrorist.

You know, that same "no fly" list that had Senator Kennedy on it, and that small child? The "no fly" list where if youre name is similiar to that of a terrorist, you might not be able to get on a plane.

You really think it's a good idea to turn that "no fly" list into a "no guns" list?

If someone is *really* a suspected terrorist, wouldn't it be better to just arrest them?

Old Fuff
May 5, 2010, 11:54 AM
The probability of abuse is obvious, but anyone who thinks that any law will stop terrorists - home grown or otherwise - from obtaining firearms or making improvised explosives must also believe that we don't have an illegal drug problem because they are illegal, and therefore aren't available.

Clearly, and without question, terrorists would never use straw buyers or the black market in illegal guns - because doing so would be against the law.

On this issue, Democrats have managed to redefine the term, "brain dead."

JustinW
May 5, 2010, 11:54 AM
The purpose isn't to stop "known or suspected terrorists" from buying guns; it's to grant the Attorney General the power to summarily deny or revoke the RKBA of anybody, without having to submit evidence in court or otherwise provide due process.
This is the real reason to be concerned. How long before people who support the constitution are classified as "potential terrorists" and added to the list, or people who don't go along with the government's current agenda or other political dissenters? And once you are on the list I'm almost sure it'll be next to impossible to get off of it. Then voila, you are "legally" stripped of your constitutionally protected rights.

This is an interesting read from Aaron Titus, Privacy Director, of the Liberty Coalition, who is one of the people on the second panel about how this whole system would work in reality. http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b01b7e09-fa8a-43c5-8ae7-f21063540d0d

A choice quote from it:
In other words, S.1317 allows the Attorney General to unilaterally revoke a person's Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms by a bald assertion of terrorist inclinations, founded on "suspicion" and "reasonable belief," thus rendering the notion of a citizen's right to appeal illusory and impotent.

nyrifleman
May 5, 2010, 04:06 PM
This is the real reason to be concerned. How long before people who support the constitution are classified as "potential terrorists" and added to the list, or people who don't go along with the government's current agenda or other political dissenters? And once you are on the list I'm almost sure it'll be next to impossible to get off of it. Then voila, you are "legally" stripped of your constitutionally protected rights.

You mean like when MIAC declared that people who have Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr bumper stickers are potential terrorists?
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/

I may be wrong, but I believe NRA bumper stickers were also a red flag. Oh well, guess that means I'm screwed.

benEzra
May 5, 2010, 04:20 PM
On this issue, Democrats have managed to redefine the term, "brain dead."
There are plenty of Dems that support it, and Lautenberg (a Dem) has been a strong supporter from day 1, but don't let the Republicans off the hook. This was originally a Bush administration proposal, and was one of the pet projects of Attorney General Alberto "No Such Thing as Habeus Corpus" Gonzales. Fortunately, Congress was pretty skeptical of it back then, and I think they still are now.

Shadow 7D
May 5, 2010, 05:12 PM
Funny, here I thought that according to most of the left leaning media that we, the USA are the biggest terrorist in the world, so shouldn't that mean that all the congress creepers would be denied their guns, what would the cali creatures do if they couldn't get a new CCW piece?

shockwave
May 5, 2010, 05:20 PM
don't let the Republicans off the hook. This was originally a Bush administration proposal

And this bill was introduced by New York Rep Peter King (R-L.I.). This is a republican proposal. This is a gun-grabbing member of the GOP.

Leanwolf
May 5, 2010, 05:28 PM
Something that is not being discussed here -- but I assure you the far left, NeoLib Progressive politicians have in their minds -- is their long time push to ban the private sales of firearms face-to-face. As they call it, closing the "gun show loophole."

Considering the push to pass legislation banning gun buying by anyone on the "terrorist watch list ," the far left NeoLib Progressives will say, "Hey, if the evil, worker peasant rabble gunowners still are allowed by us to sell their private firearms face-to-face, what is to stop all those millions of people we've placed on the "terrorist watch list" from just circumventing the Federal laws and buy privately owned firearms from the worker peasant rabble and then use them to hijack airplanes, sink ships, blow up buildings, and gun down babies and little children and mom and everyone else?"

They'll scream, "We must ban private sales of firearms and close the 'gun show loophole'!! No one can buy or sell a gun without our permission!!"

Watch and see, boys and girls. Remember, to the Marxist Socialist Facsist inspired far left NeoLib Progressives... there are never, ever, enough laws restricting our, the worker peasant rabble, freedom.

They never, ever disengage, either.

L.W.

leadcounsel
May 5, 2010, 06:21 PM
I think terrorists are more likely to buy guns outside of normal channels first of all.

Secondly why don't they focus on the common stuff that HAS been happening such as the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the NYC bomber...? None of these are attempted terrorist acts using guns.

Hunt480
May 5, 2010, 08:56 PM
Secondly why don't they focus on the common stuff that HAS been happening such as the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the NYC bomber...? None of these are attempted terrorist acts using guns.

I thought the same thing all I can figure it must be using this for the back door... you can hear'm hummin.

Art Eatman
May 5, 2010, 10:41 PM
Good that the subject was brought up as a warning so folks could begin contacting their particular congress persons. But, the discussion itself has become mostly political...

If you enjoyed reading about "“Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms.”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!