War on Terror = War on Guns?

[derby378]

From the Amendment II Democrats blog:

Okay, folks, we've got yet another bill we need to gird ourselves against - S 1237, known as the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced this bill on April 26. According to Lautenberg's website, the Senator stated, "It took years, but the Administration finally realized that letting terrorists buy guns is dangerous. This 'terror gap' in our gun laws has been open too long and I am going to shut it down."

So what's wrong with preventing terrorists from obtaining firearms? Nothing whatsoever. But what's wrong with S 1237? Plenty.

The text of S 1237 states that the bill would give the Attorney General the "discretionary authority to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm or explosives license or permit when a background check reveals that the purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism..."

In short, if Alberto Gonzales - the same Alberto Gonzales who declared that provisions of the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and had the gall to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that there is "no express grant" of habeas corpus in the Constitution - decides that you, a law-abiding American citizen, are actually a terrorist, then you are barred from owning a gun. No due process, no investigation, no nothing. Your Second Amendment rights are terminated by Gonzo's say-so. Period.

The bill does provide what are supposed to be "due process safeguards" that allow those affected by Gonzo's denials to challenge his ruling, but other provisions by S 1237 make it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever find out why they've been put on a "terrorist watch list" in the first place. And really, considering Gonzo's track record on due process and his own lack of respect for the rule of law, the text of S 1237 should set off alarm bells throughout the Democratic community, not just among pro-gun Democrats.

Then again, Gonzo might just as easily assign this loathsome task to an underling like Kyle Sampson or Monica Goodling. Why start doing any actual work now?

While researching this bill, I was reminded of some statements by Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, in which he supported banning anyone on the Federal "no-fly list" from buying firearms despite the fact that the no-fly list has reportedly ensnared many innocent Americans who have done nothing to be labelled as terrorists. Mr. Helmke, if you or one of your fellow Brady Campaign activists are reading this, when exactly did the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" become anathema to the American experience?

Here's a radical thought. Maybe the Democratic Party shouldn't let Republicans such as Alberto Gonzales or Paul Helmke dictate how Democrats in Congress are going to handle gun legislation. We control the House and the Senate now; I trust we Democrats have enough collective brainpower on Capitol Hill to chart our own course by ourselves.

And one good way to start is by denying the Federal government the ability to create yet another watch list that denies people their Constitutional rights without oversight, without accountability, and without any regard for the "inalienable rights" that we all share.

We should target S 1237 with exactly the same impunity and urgency with which we oppose HR 1022, which would reinstate and strengthen the semi-auto ban. In the case of S 1237, however, the real danger is that the very existence and makeup of the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia" will be subject to the whims and prejudices of one human being.

Eternal vigilance, fellow Americans...

http://blog.myspace.com/a2dems

[Redstone]

1. Oh, fuck no, we wouldn't want to stop ANYONE from getting guns, would we?

Like the Virginia Tech murderer.

We can't have ANY legislation that prevents ANYONE from getting the guns they NEED, can we?

Redstone

[derby378]

3. As partisan and corrupt as the Bush administration is...

...I would not trust a single member of that administration with being the sole arbitrer of who gets to own a gun and who doesn't. Yes, the bill is couched in the language of the "War on Terror," whatever that is. But I'm still convinced that this bill puts way too much power in the hands of one man. And that just ain't American.

[mitchleary]

6. The VT guy

was a fucking' anomaly. Most terrorists would be using full auto rifles, not the kind you get in a gun store. Believe it or, a person that is out to kill others wouldn't give two shits about a gun being legal or not.

[Prophet 451]

That's not the point

I don't think any of us would have a problem preventing criminals, terrorists or even random loonies getting their hands on firearms but this act is so loosely worded that it hands even more power to Gonzo.

[derby378]

13. And, as we all know, Gonzo has earned the trust of the Democrats

And he did it with a mixture of common sense, hard work, and pure gumption.

:rofl:

Okay, sarcasm's over...

[Prophet 451]

11. self-delete, dupe

[benEzra]

15. You post on DU, so you are obviously an "associate" of hardcore environmentalists

whom Herr Gonzales calls "terrorists." So that would be enough to get you on a Terrah Watch List, were Gonzales to decide to put you on one. No guns for you...

If someone is ACTUALLY a terrorism suspect, you can either (1) arrest their ass, or (2) not arrest them and keep them under surveillance so you can find out who their associates are. If you want to do (2), then you wouldn't want to put them on the watch lists because that would tip them off that they're being watched.

Gonzo's proposal is merely a tool to deny civil rights to people they don't like (wrong name, wrong color, wrong political views, wrong country of origin, wrong religion). It has nothing to do with "terrorism suspects."

[rpannier]

2. I'll recommend this

I'm not sure I like this idea at all.
I'm in favor of waiting periods to purchase guns.
But, letting one person (even if it's someone other than Gonzales) make this decision makes me very nervous.

[derby378]

5. I appreciate that

Even though you and I may disagree on waiting periods, your comments on this bill hit the nail right on the head. Thank you.

[whoneedstickets]

4. Terrorists? What's next, Domestic Abusers? Psychotics? Drug Abusers?

Violent Gang Members? Neo-Nazis? .....sorry fella, in my mind this is just a good first step. There are a lot of folks I'd like to see arbitrarily barred from owning guns and the criteria boils down to: Anyone who might use one against a fellow citizen without provocation as a result of a demonstrated history or propensity for violence or a tendency toward acting with impaired judgment.

[derby378]

8. It all boils down to "rule of law" vs. "rule by decree"

I honestly don't have any real problem with what you're saying. But as NARAL said in one of their past ad campaigns, "Who Decides?"

[Prophet 451]

12. If it was about criminals, no-one would mind

If you're trying to keep firearms away from society's whackos, most of us are for that but given how loosely worded the bill is and given who Chimpy's admin has previously designated as "traitors", "enemy combatants" and so on, do you really trust Gonzo with that much power?

I'm a sport shooter and sometime hunter. You wanna figure out some new hoop for me to jump through regarding my safety in holding a firearm, I'll jump through it. You wanna ban automatic weapons, I'm right on side for that (I still think mandatory firearms safety courses for those buying a firearm would save lives). Try and shut down the illegal gun market? Great idea and I'll toss a few bucks in when the hats passed around. So long as a permit system can be worked out for me to attend Bisley, I don't even mind keeping my guns at the club but this law, with this wording, pushed by this administration puts too much power in the hands of one man already shown to be somewhere between corrupt and incompetant.

[Recursion]

14. Not to beat a dead horse...

You wanna ban automatic weapons, I'm right on side for that

And you're about 70 years too late; that happened in the 1930s...

I still think mandatory firearms safety courses for those buying a firearm would save lives

I would consider it like cars: you want to drive a car on public roads, you have to pass a safety test which often involves taking a class. Being able to carry a gun in public should have a very similar licensing scheme IMO.

But just like with cars, people will cheat. It's just a fact; we need ideas to mitigate that.

So long as a permit system can be worked out for me to attend Bisley, I don't even mind keeping my guns at the club

The club whose location Gonzo knows and whose doors Gonzo can send agents to lock up? No thanks, for me at least.

[tularetom]

7. This is a bad bill

Even if the AG wasn't Gonzales, he or she shouldn't have this much power. Besides you know the authority will be delegated. Do you want decisions involving your freedom (and yes it is a freedom) decided by a graduate of Pat Robertson's match book cover law school?

[derby378]

9. BINGO!!

No Attorney General - whether it's Ed Meese, Janet Reno, or even Ramsey Clark - should be trusted with this kind of power in our government.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. In case someone might think this is a good idea

Let me remind you that the State Department used to revoke the passports of people
in bad odor with the government. In other words, keeping people from leaving the
country (just like the Soviets and Nazis). No trials, no recourse. The Supreme Court stopped this charming practice with their decision in Kent v. Dulles

BTW, the Freepers are having a meltdown over this, and many are calling for Gonzo's
resignation: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826729/posts

For once, they're absolutely fucking correct!

[Paladin]

16. Extra! Extra! Guncentrics Discover That Gonzo's Not Very Nice

You're late to the party, guys. I guess "Herr Gonzales" finally got around to threatening the one part of the Bill of Rights that really matters to you.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Maybe some 'guncentrics' on FR are late, but

I daresay the people posting here on DU re the Second Amendment were well aware Gonzo was bad news for the Constitution even before his appointment.