After the DHS report they pull this...

[Angel Heart]

H.R. 2159: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

H.R. 2159: 2009-2010 Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

 

[Toome]

Looks like this may be a case of good intentions but bad consequences. It's always frustrating to read one of these documents because of all the legalese, but it appears that the AG wants to deny the purchase of firearms to people who have been identified as confirmed or suspected of being associated with terror groups.

I don't think anyone would disagree that convicted felons should give up the right to own firearms. This bill, however, takes it a step further by going after people who haven't necessarily been convicted of a felony or any violent crime but have been identified as possibly being associated with a terrorist group. This empowers government to deny a constitutional right based on evidence short of actual conviction of a crime. This is a very dangerous power. This potentially allows government to take firearms away from citizens without due process and/or deny them the ability to purchase firearms.

Look at the recent DHS report referred to by the OP where returning combat veterans ostensibly fell under this category as "possible right wing extremists."

I hope this bill gets killed.

 

[xotoxi]

Looks like this may be a case of good intentions but bad consequences. It's always frustrating to read one of these documents because of all the legalese, but it appears that the AG wants to deny the purchase of firearms to people who have been identified as confirmed or suspected of being associated with terror groups.

I don't think anyone would disagree that convicted felons should give up the right to own firearms. This bill, however, takes it a step further by going after people who haven't necessarily been convicted of a felony or any violent crime but have been identified as possibly being associated with a terrorist group. This empowers government to deny a constitutional right based on evidence short of actual conviction of a crime. This is a very dangerous power. This potentially allows government to take firearms away from citizens without due process and/or deny them the ability to purchase firearms.

Look at the recent DHS report referred to by the OP where returning combat veterans ostensibly fell under this category as "possible right wing extremists."

I hope this bill gets killed.

How is this any different than the Patriot Act with the exception that it violates a different Amendment?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Looks like this may be a case of good intentions but bad consequences. It's always frustrating to read one of these documents because of all the legalese, but it appears that the AG wants to deny the purchase of firearms to people who have been identified as confirmed or suspected of being associated with terror groups.

I don't think anyone would disagree that convicted felons should give up the right to own firearms. This bill, however, takes it a step further by going after people who haven't necessarily been convicted of a felony or any violent crime but have been identified as possibly being associated with a terrorist group. This empowers government to deny a constitutional right based on evidence short of actual conviction of a crime. This is a very dangerous power. This potentially allows government to take firearms away from citizens without due process and/or deny them the ability to purchase firearms.

Look at the recent DHS report referred to by the OP where returning combat veterans ostensibly fell under this category as "possible right wing extremists."

I hope this bill gets killed.

How is this any different than the Patriot Act with the exception that it violates a different Amendment?

Go ahead explain what rights anyone lost under the Patriot act. hen list all the people that have lost those rights. You guys keep claiming it but can never provide any evidence. Go figure.

 

[Sky Dancer]

A fundamental right lost in the Patriot Act is due process, another is privacy.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/may/19/00008/

Looks like this may be a case of good intentions but bad consequences. It's always frustrating to read one of these documents because of all the legalese, but it appears that the AG wants to deny the purchase of firearms to people who have been identified as confirmed or suspected of being associated with terror groups.

I don't think anyone would disagree that convicted felons should give up the right to own firearms. This bill, however, takes it a step further by going after people who haven't necessarily been convicted of a felony or any violent crime but have been identified as possibly being associated with a terrorist group. This empowers government to deny a constitutional right based on evidence short of actual conviction of a crime. This is a very dangerous power. This potentially allows government to take firearms away from citizens without due process and/or deny them the ability to purchase firearms.

Look at the recent DHS report referred to by the OP where returning combat veterans ostensibly fell under this category as "possible right wing extremists."

I hope this bill gets killed.

How is this any different than the Patriot Act with the exception that it violates a different Amendment?

Go ahead explain what rights anyone lost under the Patriot act. hen list all the people that have lost those rights. You guys keep claiming it but can never provide any evidence. Go figure.

 

[xotoxi]

How is this any different than the Patriot Act with the exception that it violates a different Amendment?

Go ahead explain what rights anyone lost under the Patriot act. hen list all the people that have lost those rights. You guys keep claiming it but can never provide any evidence. Go figure.

A fundamental right lost in the Patriot Act is due process, another is privacy.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/may/19/00008/

The only problem with your link is that it is conservative biased...oh wait!

 

[Toome]

Looks like this may be a case of good intentions but bad consequences. It's always frustrating to read one of these documents because of all the legalese, but it appears that the AG wants to deny the purchase of firearms to people who have been identified as confirmed or suspected of being associated with terror groups.

I don't think anyone would disagree that convicted felons should give up the right to own firearms. This bill, however, takes it a step further by going after people who haven't necessarily been convicted of a felony or any violent crime but have been identified as possibly being associated with a terrorist group. This empowers government to deny a constitutional right based on evidence short of actual conviction of a crime. This is a very dangerous power. This potentially allows government to take firearms away from citizens without due process and/or deny them the ability to purchase firearms.

Look at the recent DHS report referred to by the OP where returning combat veterans ostensibly fell under this category as "possible right wing extremists."

I hope this bill gets killed.

How is this any different than the Patriot Act with the exception that it violates a different Amendment?

So, are you supporting this bill? Do you think it's a good idea?

My personal philosophy is that every law passed translates into one more slice of our individual rights being cut away. Doesn't matter which law you talk about, it is, by definition, an infringement of our individual rights. In some cases, it's a reasonable infringement. In other cases, it is an absolute unreasonable one. Then there are those that are in the middle where a lot of suckers believe it's something we can live with.

Again, my personal favorite is the seat belt laws. I have a constitutional right to be stupid. And if I don't wear a seat belt, then that's my choice to make. (I make the distinction between an adult making that decision as opposed to a child; I fully support enforcing laws requiring children to be in safety seats until they reach the age of consent and can make their own decisions.) The problem I have with seat belt laws is that it gives law enforcement another way to stop a car and conduct a search in the name of enforcing a simple seat belt law.

I don't understand your point about the PATRIOT Act. I'm talking specifically about this act. The PATRIOT Act has already been passed, and the only way it can be challenged is through the courts. And certain aspects of it have been challenged. Does this mean we should allow a dumb law to be passed when we have the opportunity to prevent it? I truly don't see the wisdom in that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A fundamental right lost in the Patriot Act is due process, another is privacy.
The American Conservative -- Surveillance State

How is this any different than the Patriot Act with the exception that it violates a different Amendment?

Go ahead explain what rights anyone lost under the Patriot act. hen list all the people that have lost those rights. You guys keep claiming it but can never provide any evidence. Go figure.

Simply not true. No one lost due process, as proven by the fact that the law has been repeatedly reviewed and parts of it stricken by the COURTS. Hell people that supposedly had no right to court, GOT Court time anyway and had those parts stricken by the Courts.

And it does not effect privacy at all. If it violated the 4th amendment then those parts would have been stricken also by the Courts. Courts that have had YEARS to review and rule on the law.

 

[eots]

A number of alternative online news outlets, namely 2600 Magazine, and more recently Declan McCullagh's Politech are carrying a story of a Denver photographer who was apparently arrested while taking pictures in Denver, during Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to the city. Denver resident Mike Maginnis reports being physically assaulted by Denver police, and then held for hours while being verbally assaulted by men who represented themselves as federal agents working for the Secret Service. The latter, Maginnis claims, threatened to charge him as a "terrorist" under the USA Patriot Act.
Maginnis apparently tried to phone a Denver area newspaper, only to have his phone call disconnected when authorities discovered who he was contacting. No doubt, this is only a small taste of what's to come from the USA Patriot act and other bang-up efforts at defending the U.S. against terrorism.


Baltimore Police Invoke Patriot Act to Arrest Reporter Recording False Arrest at Animal Rights DemoAuthor
Ryme Katkhouda, Luke and members of the dcradiocoop.org

04 Dec 2008

After an animal rights protest with graphic images of force fed ducks calling for the boycott of 'SALT'-an upscale Baltimore restaurant serving 'foie gras', Baltimore cops handcuff a protester, and arrest a reporter filming the scene
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/feature/display/9765/index.php


ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors
Text size


BRIAN ROSS
ABC News
August 27, 2008

DENVER–Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Eslocker was put in handcuffs and loaded in the back of a police van which headed for a nearby police station.

Video taken at the scene shows a man, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County sheriff, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk in front of the hotel, to the side of the entrance.

The sheriff’s officer is seen telling Eslocker the sidewalk is owned by the hotel. Later he is seen pushing Eslocker off the sidewalk into oncoming traffic, forcing him to the other side of the street.

Read article
http://www.infowars.com/abc-reporter-arrested-in-denver-taking-pictures-of-senators-big-donors/

 

[Angel Heart]

BTW notice... It's a Republican who wrote it. Neither party is to be trusted.

Yes, I'm still a Republican but I sure as hell don't trust them when it comes to how I vote. I will support only candidates I know are for liberty.

 

[editec]

Reads rather vaguely to me.

And given that the read means it is subject to "a reasonable belief " basically, it reads that they get to define "reasonable" doesn't it?

‘Sec. 922B. Attorney General’s discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3)

‘The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’; and

(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:



‘(36) The term ‘terrorism’ means ‘international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and ‘domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).


‘(37) The term ‘material support’ means ‘material support or resources’ within the meaning of section 2339A or 2339B.


‘(38) The term ‘responsible person’ means an individual who has the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the applicant or licensee pertaining to firearms.’.

 

[Nik]

A fundamental right lost in the Patriot Act is due process, another is privacy.

Go ahead explain what rights anyone lost under the Patriot act. hen list all the people that have lost those rights. You guys keep claiming it but can never provide any evidence. Go figure.

Simply not true. No one lost due process, as proven by the fact that the law has been repeatedly reviewed and parts of it stricken by the COURTS. Hell people that supposedly had no right to court, GOT Court time anyway and had those parts stricken by the Courts.

And it does not effect privacy at all. If it violated the 4th amendment then those parts would have been stricken also by the Courts. Courts that have had YEARS to review and rule on the law.

Thats not what due process is. The law being reviewed for its constitutionality does not give an individual more, or less, due process. Due process is how much process an individual gets before having the government restrict some of that individuals liberties, and that has undeniably been reduced with the passing of the Patriot Act.