Is Senator Ted Kennedy shooting himself in the foot by cosponsoring the Gonzo Gun Grab?

[derby378]

From the Amendment II Democrats blog:

As I've reported earlier, S. 1237, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007, grants the Attorney General the power to deny any American citizen, without any due process worth mentioning, the right to keep and bear arms just by declaring that person to be a suspected terrorist.

Offhand, I don't know if Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) owns any guns, and I really don't care if he does or not at this point. It's no secret that he is a staunch supporter of gun-control legislation. But he still has the same right as any other law-abiding American to keep and bear arms if he so chooses.

But the Senator from Massachusetts wound up on the notorious "no-fly list" that's supposed to track suspected terrorists.

And we all know that the current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, isn't one for rolling up his sleeves and getting some serious work done. Would he simply use criteria as the "no-fly list" to deny people their Second Amendment rights? And would that snare Sen. Kennedy as well?

I remember Rep. John Conyers admitting to Michael Moore that our elected legislators don't even read all the bills that cross their desks, which is partially how the USA PATRIOT Act was passed in the first place. Have our lawmakers learned nothing since then?

Once again, I heartily suggest that a healthy dose of "innocent until proven guilty" be injected into the debate over S. 1237. All lingering references to Chappaquiddick aside, if the Senator is still legally entitled to own firearms in America, he shouldn't be short-changing either himself or his fellow Americans in this regard.

http://blog.myspace.com/a2dems

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. I Don't Think So Whatsoever. Sounds Like A Logical Bill.

If someone's a suspected terrorist, I'd hope to hell they shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. That does make sense right?

[derby378]

3. Who decides?

Someone within the Bush administration made a conscious decision to put Sen. Kennedy's name on the "no-fly list." That ain't right.

Nor is it right to put the very existence of the Second Amendment in the hands of a single human being. Especially if his name is Alberto Gonzales.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Sorry, But No Matter What Ya Say I'm Not Gonna Object To Not Letting SuspectedTerrorists Have Guns.

If you truly believe the 2nd amendment dictates that even suspected terrorists can have guns, then I don't know what to tell ya.

[derby378]

5. This isn't about "suspected terrorists"

This is about accountability and the rule of law.

This is about the maxim "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

And you're still all right in my book, but please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I do not, in any way, support giving guns to terrorists. But I do not support letting an AG who considers the Geneva Conventions "quaint" control who gets to own guns in America.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Nope. Sorry. Keeping Guns Away From Suspected Terrorists Is A Good Idea.

Yes, it's still a quite good idea even prior to said suspects being proven to be terrorists in court. This is one of the more WTF? type objectionable type topics I've come across. Defending the right for suspected terrorists to buy guns? Nuh uh. Sorry. Ain't gonna get my support for that one. Not too sure many Dem candidates will take that on their platform either. Doesn't much seem like a huge vote grabber if ya ask me.

[derby378]

9. And if YOU become a "suspected terrorist?"

Maybe you're not into guns at all. Not even for hunting or harmless weekend plinking by the lake.

But if you, as a law-abiding American, are suddenly declared a suspected terrorist by Gonzo without cause, I'm pretty certain you'll change your tune PDQ.

9/11 did not, repeat, did not change the Constitution of the United States of America.

[benEzra]

17. It's about watchlisted people, not "terrorist suspects."

The vast majority of people on the admin's secret watchlists are apparently NOT terrorism suspects. Things that can get you on the no-fly list are environmental activism, anti-war activism, taking pictures on an airplane, attending a mosque that "unreliables" are thought to frequent, or simply getting on a plane with an Air Marshal who hasn't met his watchlist quota for the month.

And once you are on the no-fly list, there is no realistic way to get off it, unless you are a U.S. Senator and can hold officials' jobs in peril. The TSA will grant you a waiver allowing you to fly, but they will NOT remove your name from the list.

[bonito]

7. Easily understood as well

Can't imagine why anybody doesn't see this.

[wakeme2008]

11. Kennedy is wrong... Gonzo should not be allowed to take guns away

from people HE selects.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Sorry, I Disagree.

I'm looking at this bill as one with good intentions. You guys are trying to put forth a concept that all of a sudden millions and millions of Americans will be on the list. I disagree wholeheartedly. Though I think the patriot act was a huge power grab and I think they have abused the constitution to the nth degree, I don't consider this to be under that same umbrella. Though some may be on the list inappropriately, I also think this is being done with genuine intent to keep suspected terrorists from getting guns; and therefore will have a very limited reach of consequence. If there isn't a stipulation currently in there, all I'd like to see is something providing Congress the ability to provide oversight to the list and make sure it isn't being abused. But I believe the concept itself to be sound and I'm not for a second going to take a position of defending suspected terrorists rights to buy guns.

[The Gunslinger]

13. In theory yes,

but I do not trust anyone in this administration to make that determination. Remember theese rightists call anti-war liberals "terrorists" all the time.

[karlrschneider]

15. And who gets to decide who's a suspect?

Are you sure you want to give that decision to gonzo/bush?

Not I.

[Sanctified]

16. You would trust this Admin to accurately label someone as a terrorist?

There is no such thing as a suspected terrorist, you are either a terrorist or you are not. If the Government wants to label someone as a Suspected Terrorist that means they are too damn lazy to do their jobs and find the truth.

[Botany]

2. Please

Ted has more than established his liberal bona fides by now.

Big Picture Time

[pinto]

8. A note: the bill has been referred to committee:

Bill Status:

Apr 26, 2007 - Introduced

- Scheduled for Debate
- Voted on in Senate
- Voted on in House
- Signed by President

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.

Committee Assignments:

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees:

Senate Judiciary

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1237

COSPONSORS(7), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 5/1/2007
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 5/2/2007
Sen Levin, Carl - 5/3/2007
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 5/3/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert - 5/3/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 5/7/2007
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. - 5/9/2007

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01237:

[derby378]

10. Duly noted, but I'm not taking any chances

Considering some of the atrociously bad bills that have been ramrodded through Congress in recent years, let's just say that I'm being proactive.

And meanwhile, a cat is pressing her forehead against the vent in my laptop. Some things never change...

[Redneck Socialist]

14. Kennedy's seat is as safe as they come

He will be Senator until the apocalypse or he decides not to run again, whichever comes first, so I would say that he's not hurting himself at all.

It's still a crappy bill though. This administration doesn't seem too particular about who it labels as a terrorist.