H. R. 2159 - Here we go with the arbitrary trampling of the Constitution again

[friendly_iconoclast]

I swear, nothing distinguishes these people from the Bush/Cheney/PNAC cabal save the specific civil rights
they are willing to remove from Americans for no good reason:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2159:

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 2159 IH


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2159
To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 29, 2009
Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. CASTLE, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. KIRK, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting the following new section after section 922:

`Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

`The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee 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 prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.';....

And we can't let Bush be the only one with kangaroo courts, can we?

...(g) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit- Section 923(f) of such title is amended--

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security' before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'.

(h) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), 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. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'....

Unfuckingbelieveable. And unacceptable from Democrats.

[MADem]

1. What am I missing here....you think it should be OK to transfer weapons to terrorists? nt

[Caliman73]

2. No. You are missing that it is already illegal

It is illegal to give any aid or comfort to known terrorists including money, arms, or information. The resolution allows the attorney general to arbitrarily intervene in what is already the jurisdiction of the FBI and the ATF. Further it allows the DOJ to deny anyone a FFL or the transfer of a firearm without having to provide sufficient cause. It is an attack on the 2nd amendment and 5th amendment. Attorney general can deny an individual a license or firearm without due process.

[MADem]

9. Isn't it the responsibility of the DOJ to enforce the laws of the land?

It may be "sticking his beak in," but "overly intrusive?" It's the job of DOJ to enforce laws.

I don't think that argument quite cuts it. Your "sufficient cause" and "due process" arguments do a better job.

[krispos42]

3. It appears to be overly broad

Congress can't or won't be explicit, so they simply authorize the AG to apply his or her own standard of "reasonable"... and of course, this will change drastically with every administration.


For example, this could be used to prevent a PETA member from buying a gun.



And the second text box basically says that the federal government can use evidence, but keep that evidence secret from the defense attorneys if it's an issue of "national security". I othet words, secret evidence you can't see, counter, or challenge.

[jody]

13. Then detain a suspect indefinitely without trial because a trial would reveal top secret data. n/t

[krispos42]

14. *smacks forehead*

Of course, how silly of me.


If we wait long enough, the problem goes away!

[SteveM]

7. Right & Left have used the AG for 5A end-arounds for years...

This is a variation of the unconstitutional "no-fly, no-buy" legislation. In that scheme, if you were to appear on the "No Fly" list (as determined by the AG), then ipso facto you were denied your 2A rights. You may recall that one Edward Kennedy was delayed on nearly two dozen flights because he was on the "No-Fly" list. He didn't like it, understandly. What was not understandable was his support of "No-fly, no-buy."

[MADem]

8. I was on that list. Not no fly, but "watch." I'm off it now, ain't that funny.... nt

[SteveM]

17. Do you feel let down that you are no longer "watched?" Kiss-of-death in celebrity society.

[MADem]

19. I don't mind being moved from the D list to the Z list, actually!

It was a soul-crushing experience when I was being shaken down every time I flew, if I let it be. The first several times, I put up with it and just felt like shit. After awhile, I got annoyed, pissed off, resentful....and obstreperous without being blatantly rude to the screeners (a neat trick, but I managed it).

I would ask my questions (Why are you screening retired military personnel? Is it habit to screen US citizens who have held high level clearences? No, this is NOT random--you've pulled me aside every time I hae flown--the last (fifteen, twenty, thirty) times, in fact--without fail--that is NOT random--I am on a list and I want to know why! for example) in a voice that was both VERY loud (as if I were talking to someone who is very deaf), and at the same time conversational.

My goal was--and I often succeeded--to get conversation around me to STOP, and for people to look, listen, and watch the exchange. I wanted them to feel my discomfort, and to put themselves in my shoes. After I would be cleared after a load of horseshit (and sometimes shamefaced "Aww, fuck this," on the part of the screeners), I'd get people coming up to me and commiserating, and expressing their objection as to the ham-handed and plainly non-random way the TSA program was being conducted.

I have a pretty good idea why I was on that list--I cannot prove it, but I have my suspicions. Sometimes, you can be in the wrong places at the wrong times, and woe to you if you don't sever ties with completely innocent people who just happen to live in nations that are Enemies of the State. I suppose belonging to the "wrong" party doesn't help, either.

[benEzra]

10. Being on the ex-Bush-administration's Secret Terrah Watchlist does NOT make one a "terrorist."

The secret blacklists are known to contain anti-war protesters, environmental activists, and people added to the list simply to make daily quotas.

If you ARE a terrorist, there are plenty of ways to deny you lawful gun access under current law, the first and foremost being to arrest you and charge you with the crime of terrorism.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Ted Kennedy was on the watch list at one time.... NT

I never thought I would hear my party chanting "Terra Terra Terra"

[one-eyed fat man]

4. Who will be writing the list?

[RC]

5. When I saw that cartoon, I thought to myself...

Defend our country from what? The terrorists we trained and equipped?
The terrorist we made because they had family/relatives turned into a pink mist during "Shock and Awe"

The biggest reason we need to defend ourselves in the first place is because we purposely keep making enemies to fight.
That said, how can we be defending ourselves and our "Freedom" when we set it up and started it?

BTY, I think Napolitano is a nutty rightwinger. She is miss-placed where she is at.

[rl6214]

6. While we made many new enemies during our

"Shock and Awe" campaign, I think there were enough of them lining up, with their wacked out religious fanatasizm to keep our troops and law enforcement busy til the end of time. I don't think there are too many of the terrorists left that we trained and equipped. With the exception of a few at the top, I think the ones left are a new breed of extreme religious zealots that have no capability of reasoning.

BTY I would be interested to hear why you would classify Napolitano as a "nutty rightwinger".

[RC]

15. Why are we even in the Middle East in the first place?

We do not belong there. We are there. We refuse to leave. That is what the Middle Easterners are upset about. That plus supporting Israel. How do you feel about a foreign military with military bases scattered around the United States with their armed patrols in our cities and country side? That is what we are doing over there.
BTY, Iraq had nothing to do with anything and we attacked and invaded and killed a million or so of them. Literally destroyed their country. Do you really expect them to be happy about that. I don't think so.


As for Napolitano:
"“One of the things that we need to be sensitive to is the very real feeling among southern border states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border,” Napolitano told a conference in Washington."
Read the entire article here: http://www.cantonrep.com/world/x342389697/U-S-beefs-up-security-along-Canadian-border

She wants to treat the Canadian border the same as the Mexican border. There is no need, because it is not the same.

Her policy is a continuation of bushes paranoia. Canada does pretty good job of keeping their country safe on their side. Maybe we should be working with the Canadians, instead treating them with the suspicion and paranoia of a terrorist country, ya think?
I've been to Canada. I know Canadians. They are more civilized than we are. I feel safer up there. Their border patrol even treats Americans better than our border patrol does.
I've walked around down town Ottawa after dark with my woman Canadian friend and never felt we were in any danger. I can't say the same for say, Kansas City MO. We were told to stay in groups and don't wonder off alone. And this was outside a 4 star hotel!

[krispos42]

16. Figs

Middle Eastern figs are a critical strategic resource.

:rofl:



We're there because we'd rather spend ten times as much a year securing our oil spigot than getting off of oil.


And yet, the Republicans are the party that's "strong" on national security.

[benEzra]

11. It's ironic how this Bush/Gonzales BS suddenly becomes OK

when someone yells "OMG gunz!"

I'd like to point out that this legislation was originally a Bush Administration proposal, requested by Albert "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales himself.

And the secret blacklists are known to contain anti-war protesters, environmental activists, and people added to the list simply to make daily quotas. The secret terrah blacklist was one of the many Bush-administration abuses of power that was supposed to go away. But I suppose the gun prohibitionists never minded those abuses, but just thought they were aimed at the wrong people.

[SteveM]

18. The Fifth Amendment is the whorehouse where Dems and Repubs get along (nt)