Tweet
Holy crap, they aren't wasting any time! Full title is Bill In Congress Would Prohibit Gun Sales To Anyone Government Decides Is A “Terrorist”
Emphasis is mine. Since this asshat administration is all about totally ignoring the constitution and giving goodies to favored groups and people and has already shown that they are all about selective enforcement (tax laws, anyone?), call/write your congress critters about THIS one!
And the bill was introduced by a Republican, no less.
A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected” of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general “has a reasonable belief” that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.”
I don’t think anyone really has a problem with keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The problems arise when it comes to who gets to define who is and is not a “terrorist.” And what standards are used. Also, since when can our rights be denied us because we might commit a crime?
According to the Department of Homeland Security attending a tea party, being a federalist, having an NRA sticker on your car or being pro-life indicates that you may be a terrorist. Or may, at least, have inclinations toward extremism and violence.
Now, I doubt that even if this law passed that we’d see a crackdown on gun-owning pro-life activists. But the problem here is that this law provides such a vague definition of who may and may exercise their 2nd amendment rights that the door is left wide open to no small amount of abuse.
Vaguely-written laws like this are extremely problematic because they put the decision as to whether or not we’ve committed a crime entirely as the discretion of cops and prosecutors. And if that’s the case, the only thing keeping us from being arrested and/or prosecuted are the whims of our law enforcement agents.
A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected” of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general “has a reasonable belief” that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.”
I don’t think anyone really has a problem with keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The problems arise when it comes to who gets to define who is and is not a “terrorist.” And what standards are used. Also, since when can our rights be denied us because we might commit a crime?
According to the Department of Homeland Security attending a tea party, being a federalist, having an NRA sticker on your car or being pro-life indicates that you may be a terrorist. Or may, at least, have inclinations toward extremism and violence.
Now, I doubt that even if this law passed that we’d see a crackdown on gun-owning pro-life activists. But the problem here is that this law provides such a vague definition of who may and may exercise their 2nd amendment rights that the door is left wide open to no small amount of abuse.
Vaguely-written laws like this are extremely problematic because they put the decision as to whether or not we’ve committed a crime entirely as the discretion of cops and prosecutors. And if that’s the case, the only thing keeping us from being arrested and/or prosecuted are the whims of our law enforcement agents.
Emphasis is mine. Since this asshat administration is all about totally ignoring the constitution and giving goodies to favored groups and people and has already shown that they are all about selective enforcement (tax laws, anyone?), call/write your congress critters about THIS one!
Comment