It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Critics Deride Bill Designed to Keep Weapons Out of Terrorists' Hands

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Critics Deride Bill Designed to Keep Weapons Out of Terrorists' Hands


www.foxnews.com

A bill designed to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists is drawing fire from gun rights advocates who say it could infringe upon regular citizens' constitutional right to bear arms.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.govtrack.us
www.law.cornell.edu




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 would authorize Attorney General Eric Holder to deny the sale or transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists -- a list that could extend beyond groups such as radical Islamists and other groups connected to international terror organizations.

Critics say the names of suspected terrorists could be drawn from existing government watch lists that cover such broad categories as animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists and anti-technology extremists.


There's a link to the text of this bill as well as a link to the section of US code that will be amended in the additional links.

The following is taken from the bill:


‘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.’;



(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.’.


So not only will it be at the Attorney General's discretion if someone is a suspected terrorist, they also do not have to tell you why if they think it would compromise national security.

I'm all for keeping the country safe, but they are walking an awful thin line here. With the recent report declaring pretty much everyone a potential terrorist, it looks like they won't have to pass a gun bad in order to prevent us from using our right to keep and bare arms. Instead they just need to pass this nifty little piece of legislation.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
If this passes there will be a huge boom in the illegal gun market.

I find this legislation deplorable and obviously targeting the normal citizenry of the US.

Does the Constitution mean

nothing to these people?!



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Holder wrote an Op Ed in 2001 titled "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists", I have searched for the complete text but haven't found it anywhere that didn't want me to pay for it.

I did, however, find several references to it and another article about this current bill.



Barasso: A vote against Holder
In an Oct. 25, 2001, Washington Post editorial titled "Keeping Guns Away from Terrorists," Mr. Holder argued that every firearm transaction should be regulated by Washington. His proposal would have required a son who inherited his father's shotgun to conduct a background check if the son decided to put it on the market. Mr. Holder's proposal was a backdoor attempt to regulate and shut down lawful gun shows by linking private gun sales to future terrorist attacks.

In January 2008, Eric Holder joined Janet Reno in a brief to the Supreme Court saying Second Amendment rights do not apply to individual citizens. That brief argued that the Second Amendment "does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia." The Supreme Court ruled otherwise by affirming the individual right to possess and bear arms.



If this bill gets passed, we can look forward to everyone being denied the right to purchase firearms as long as Holder is the AG.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
They could call anyone a terrorist....get a parking ticket and now you can not own guns...I see it coming.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
First is how is the government going to know who is a Terrorists.

Are they going to tell the government.
Are people in the animal liberation front or earth liberation front going to walk into a police station and tell ever one they are a terrorist.
are ALL the members going to sign up as terrorist.

The government might know that some people are in these groups but there will be other members that the government will not know about that can buy the guns for the group.

Animal rights extremists, anti-technology extremists. radical environmentalist, gay rights, anti war extremist, all have been front-line democrat party supporters so are they going to ban guns to groups that have supported the democratic party or just groups that are more likely to support the republican party ideas.

Who is going to get on the list and how will the government decide.

If you are a member of a radical "fill in the blank" rights group that has no history of violence but is a pain in the *** of the government in power at the time. Will the PTB use this law to punish you group.

Or if you are a member of a non radical group and someone that opposes your group starts doing violent things and using you groups name when calling the media claiming responsibility for the actions will this get everyone in your organization banned from buying guns.

Now this part I could use in the future to harass groups that i don't like.


Now the Explosives part of the act is even a bigger joke in that anyone can make there own Explosives for terrorist acts. They don't have to buy any.
and most terrorist do not buy Explosives because store bought Explosives are easy to trace so they make they own.

But the same ban on Explosives part of the law could also be used to ban the sale of Explosives to legitimate users(IE construction, mining and blasting companies) of Explosives that member/s of the government wants to put out of business. The environmentalist wing of the democratic party has already stated that they want to ban all mining in the US.

This would let them claim that because a employee of a mining company belongs to a group that they deem to be a terrorist org they can pull the explosives permit from a company till the company fires the employee and the company can get a court hearing 6 months to a year later.

This would put almost any company out of business just because they would be shut down till cleared.






posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


That's the problem, there won't have to be definite proof that you are a terrorist. It will all be at the Attorney General's discretion. With all of the statements Eric Holder has made about the 2nd amendment everyone will be denied because he doesn't think any of us have the right to firearms unless we are in a militia.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
All I can say is HAHAHA


You can post AS MANY BILLS as you can to 'keep the weapons' out of terrorists hands.

Are these people serious?

When does a 'terrorist' EVER take notice of rules or laws or bills???

If the 'terrorist' wants a gun or a bomb, he'll either go buy a gun or go make a bomb, he/she/ they certainly WILL NOT pay any attention to a bill passed by any government..

All this bill is , is to keep the guns OUT OF THE HANDS of the CITIZEN in case the populace rise up against the real 'threat' of the ones in Government.

No guns = no armed rebellion against tyranny.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Posted in other thread:

One anti-Second Amendment person will have the total decision over every American's Constitutional rights with no due process. Doesn't this sound like fear mongering to refuse Americans of their Constitutional right? Hasn't it already been shown how faulty the watch lists are?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
SO..the CIA can give weapons to othe countrys, train them in making bombs and how ti kill gurellia warfare style, then when they turnon us..AKA IRAQ and IRAN in the past...nothing happens to those people? What a gyp of a deal this is...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DataWraith
When does a 'terrorist' EVER take notice of rules or laws or bills???


They don't, just like criminals never take notice of laws. This is nothing more than the latest attempt to deny Americans their right to own a firearm if they choose to.

And as an extra kick in the pants to law-abiding citizens, if it is decided that you are a 'potential terrorist' you have no way to appeal the decision.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I just love that line in the bill " Are Appropriatly suspected of being a terrorist" !!! Just who in hell makes the distinction other than Holder and his minions. With no oversight or language that give citizens the right to redress the edicts of these criminal acts of our AG and his office are perpetrating it will not be lgal. Of course with someone like Schumer or his ilk being apointed to SCOTUS, We, as citizens will have no Constitutional right to face our accusers or the evidense against us! Lock and Load folks..Its going to be a rocky road for the next 4 years!! Liberty is dead in 2009!

Zindo



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by ANNED
 


That's the problem, there won't have to be definite proof that you are a terrorist. It will all be at the Attorney General's discretion. With all of the statements Eric Holder has made about the 2nd amendment everyone will be denied because he doesn't think any of us have the right to firearms unless we are in a militia.


Once you are in that militia, then you will be in a right wing terrorist group. No guns for you!!



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
pathetic the excuses the ruling classes come up with for our own "safety"- as if terrorists will be put off by gun laws ffs, I live in NI, the provos conducted the most murderous "per capita" terrorist campaign in western europe, and it wasn't with legally held weapons...........



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Thanks for posting this. Given the vague nature of the language in this bill any ATS member could be made to look like a terror threat. The ATS archives are a cherry pickers delight. Anyone who simply opposes abortion could be labeled a right wing extremist in the eyes of Eric Holder. Which currently is over 1/2 of the U.S. population according to recent polls. Those are pretty big terrorist numbers for Holder to use against us.

This bill poses a serious threat to the 2nd amendment. Obama and his staff are determined to undermine our rights one way or another. Just be sure to keep one eye on the trap door and the other on Barry the Illusionist.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Basically, anyone deemed a right-wing extremist by that leaked memo will end up being denied the right to bear arms. That's basically what this is.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


That's what has me worried about this bill. The language is so vague that all it takes is one comment taken out of context or one misunderstanding to label everyone on this board a terrorist, let alone the rest of the country.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I remember Nixon's 'enemies list' back in the 60's. This list is going to be long and completely irrational in its scope. It will be a complete sham and it might be the one thing that triggers Americans to wake the hell up and see that we can't sit and wait for our rights to come back! What I find a bit funny is that so many that voted for these anti-constitutional clowns and the Obama administration are the ones going to end up on that list very soon!

Zindo

[edit on 5/18/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Maybe, if they open their eyes long enough to realize that they are probably on the list too. I've had it up to my eyeballs with this slow erosion of our rights. Enough is enough already. It's high time we the people get up off our lazy rear ends and put an end to this nonsense before it's too late.


Edit: See that? I just got myself on the list if I wasn't already on it.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Jenna]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Jenna, don't feel bad. I mentioned Nixon because I've been on lists since then and I'm still here! There are so many lists of personal enemies in DC that no one can actually keep them up to date. Hell, they can';t even get voters names correct of if they are even alive anymore!!LOL

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join