ben fowler
05-13-2009, 10:06 PM
HR 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act: Congresswoman McCarthy has introduced legislation that (1) reinstates the law as it existed prior to September 2004 and (2) would make the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban permanent, and also significantly strengthens current law. Her bill would expand the definition of “assault weapon” to include post-ban “copy cat” weapons, closes a loophole allowing kits to be sold to modify legal weapons into assault weapons, and enhances the tracing of assault weapons, among other things
Quote:
No Fly Then, No Buy
Today, it is easier to purchase a gun than to board an airplane. Today, any person whose name appears on the no fly list can purchase any type of firearm, including military-style assault weapons, provided that he is not a felon, drug addict, or a domestic abuser.
Since 9-11, we have passed many laws to improve homeland security. Yet, this loophole remains open. If you are denied the chance to board an airplane because of suspected ties to terrorists, then you also should be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun.
Sponsored Legislation
HR 1167, the “No Fly, No Buy” Act. This bill would add people who are listed on the no fly list to the current groups of people who cannot purchase or obtain a gun.
Congresswoman McCarthy realizes that not every person on the no fly list is a terrorist. However, the no fly list is the only list of potential terrorists with a clearly stated policy for correcting erroneous information. If the only reason for denying a gun purchase is the appearance of the name on the no fly list, the denied gun purchaser could provide correct information. Once his name is removed from the no fly list, that individual could make a legal gun purchase. An otherwise law-abiding American would want his name off the no fly list. A terrorist in our midst would not draw attention to himself.
That's great and all, but anyone can be put on this list for whatever reason the authorities decide merits it. It requires no real evidence. You can only get your name removed from the list if DHS decides to.
Of course, it's possible any real terrorists wouldn't be on the list if they were under any real investigation because that would tip them off that they are being watched.
It's gets worse. There's a bill out to give the attorney general the power to ban whatever guns he deems necessary and decide who can and can't own guns in the US. HR 2159
Quote:
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.
Section 2 of the bill grants the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale or transfer of firearms or firearms/explosives licenses to so-called dangerous terrorists. They can do this based on the sole discretion of the Attorney General. So if the Attorney General believes that an individual is in some way, shape or form engaged in terrorism or suspected of terrorism, they will be given the authority to deny access to firearms from this person.
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.’;
In Section 922B the bill provides a definition for terrorism which is defined as the following.
‘(36) The term ‘terrorism’ means ‘international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and ‘domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).
The Attorney General would use this definition of terrorism in their decision making process. Looking at just the definition of domestic terrorism in U.S. Code, it becomes obvious why we should be concerned. Below is the definition of domestic terrorism.
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended –
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
With this broad definition of domestic terrorism in mind, a radio talk show host or an individual operating a web site could be considered a domestic terrorist because they could be considered to be coercing a civilian population. This bill would then authorize the Attorney General to disallow someone from owning a firearm based upon this insane definition of what constitutes a domestic terrorist.
This is an incredibly insane piece of legislation. Unquestionably anyone who attempts to undermine an individual’s natural right to defend themselves by owning a firearm using lawyer tactics and hard to understand legislative language and references is a terrorist. An unarmed population is an enslaved population, and that’s exactly what these nihilistic scumbags in Washington DC want to do. They want to make all of us slaves.
Quote:
No Fly Then, No Buy
Today, it is easier to purchase a gun than to board an airplane. Today, any person whose name appears on the no fly list can purchase any type of firearm, including military-style assault weapons, provided that he is not a felon, drug addict, or a domestic abuser.
Since 9-11, we have passed many laws to improve homeland security. Yet, this loophole remains open. If you are denied the chance to board an airplane because of suspected ties to terrorists, then you also should be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun.
Sponsored Legislation
HR 1167, the “No Fly, No Buy” Act. This bill would add people who are listed on the no fly list to the current groups of people who cannot purchase or obtain a gun.
Congresswoman McCarthy realizes that not every person on the no fly list is a terrorist. However, the no fly list is the only list of potential terrorists with a clearly stated policy for correcting erroneous information. If the only reason for denying a gun purchase is the appearance of the name on the no fly list, the denied gun purchaser could provide correct information. Once his name is removed from the no fly list, that individual could make a legal gun purchase. An otherwise law-abiding American would want his name off the no fly list. A terrorist in our midst would not draw attention to himself.
That's great and all, but anyone can be put on this list for whatever reason the authorities decide merits it. It requires no real evidence. You can only get your name removed from the list if DHS decides to.
Of course, it's possible any real terrorists wouldn't be on the list if they were under any real investigation because that would tip them off that they are being watched.
It's gets worse. There's a bill out to give the attorney general the power to ban whatever guns he deems necessary and decide who can and can't own guns in the US. HR 2159
Quote:
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.
Section 2 of the bill grants the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale or transfer of firearms or firearms/explosives licenses to so-called dangerous terrorists. They can do this based on the sole discretion of the Attorney General. So if the Attorney General believes that an individual is in some way, shape or form engaged in terrorism or suspected of terrorism, they will be given the authority to deny access to firearms from this person.
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.’;
In Section 922B the bill provides a definition for terrorism which is defined as the following.
‘(36) The term ‘terrorism’ means ‘international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and ‘domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).
The Attorney General would use this definition of terrorism in their decision making process. Looking at just the definition of domestic terrorism in U.S. Code, it becomes obvious why we should be concerned. Below is the definition of domestic terrorism.
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended –
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
With this broad definition of domestic terrorism in mind, a radio talk show host or an individual operating a web site could be considered a domestic terrorist because they could be considered to be coercing a civilian population. This bill would then authorize the Attorney General to disallow someone from owning a firearm based upon this insane definition of what constitutes a domestic terrorist.
This is an incredibly insane piece of legislation. Unquestionably anyone who attempts to undermine an individual’s natural right to defend themselves by owning a firearm using lawyer tactics and hard to understand legislative language and references is a terrorist. An unarmed population is an enslaved population, and that’s exactly what these nihilistic scumbags in Washington DC want to do. They want to make all of us slaves.