Hearing on S. 1317 and S. 2820 on 5/5/10

[Bubbles]

The hearing covers two bills - S.1317 "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009" and S.2820, "Preserving Records of Terrorists & Criminal Transactions Act of 2009".

Also note that S. 1317 removes the right for gun dealers to sue in court if their license has been erroneously revoked. Instead, they must appeal to the Attorney General.

How long till we hear "No, you can't purchase a firearm...I can't tell you why, it's a national security matter".

I not only see this ripe for abuse, but also see a glaring unintended consequence if passed. If I were a terrorist I would applaud this bill. I would only need to say buy a gun a week, and when I were denied, I'd know the government was on to me at that point.

Check out the witness list...less than balanced.

Hearings

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


Background information:

In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a
working group to review federal firearms and explosives
laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to
determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to
prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected
terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and
Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159)
that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of
firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or
suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative
proposal developed by DOJ.

In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant
the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm
transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee
or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General
determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately
suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting,
preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing
material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief
that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with
terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make
similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes
by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18
U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).

The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that
enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping,
transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that
it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related
determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision
(18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a
firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the
subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the
bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. §
922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new
discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.

With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued
firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent
determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady
Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request
from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also
give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he
determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security.
The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to
correction of erroneous information.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses
erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a
firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in
U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment
would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s
determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of
evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed
provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed
amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted
versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those
documents contained information that could compromise national security,
but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed
documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the
motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would
also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted
versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the
underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn
the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted
documents.

 

[divemedic]

I saw this elsewhere. How this is not a violation of your right to due process, I cannot imagine. It seems as though the COTUS is just a piece of paper, used as a shield when convenient, and ignored when it isn't.

 

[mack]

So if I am reading this right - essentially anyone who gets put on the secret terrorist watch list is denied their RKBA - or at least to buy a gun or get a permit for a gun etc... and the person denied can appeal to the court and the court/judege can review the documents provided by the Attorney General's office and see if he thinks they are fair - but even if the judge disagrees it doesn't matter because the decision of the Attorney General's Office can't be overturned by the judge.

So, you have the right to ask why you were denied and the government has the right not to tell you, and you have the right to appeal to the court and the government has the right to ignore the courts findings if the court disagrees.

Do you think the courts are going to go for legislation that basically neuters them - and says that an office of executive branch can veto judicial findings.

Not only does this legislation violate individual due process but it also seems to trample all over the seperation of powers.

I would say what I really think but will refrain out of respect for my peers here.

 

[jfh]

Here's excerpts from the NRA critique as well,

as found on AmmoLand's site:

"...[These bills] they’re intended to give the executive branch of the federal government the arbitrary power to stop loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

"... the bills would not impose requirements or limits on the kind of information an attorney general could use to make such a determination, nor establish a standard for “appropriate suspicion.” They instead propose that “any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.

”The scheme that the bills propose is unprecedented. Since 1968, federal law has established guidelines for all categories of persons prohibited from receiving and possessing firearms, and since 1994 has expressly protected a prohibited person’s right to be told why he is prohibited. The bills would establish no such standards, would provide no such protection, and would allow an attorney general to deny gun purchases based upon secret information, or upon no information whatsoever."​

Here is the link to the entire NRA statement, as found on ammoland....

Jim H.