| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Two Gun Control Bills Before the Senate Committee On Homeland Security Tomorrow |
| 2010-05-05 |
| In reality, these two bills should be re-named the "Gun Owners Are Probably Terrorists Act," and the "National Firearm Registry Act," respectively. Collectively these bills strip citizens of their enumerated Constitutional Right to Bear Arms without any meaningful due process, and create a national firearms registry. How S.1317 Works A person may be added to one of more than a dozen Federal watch lists, tip-off lists or terrorist watch lists based on "reasonable suspicion" of terrorist activity. Other reasons for adding a person include , mistake or misidentification, or if a terrorist steals a person's identity. An innocent citizen placed on the list will have no administrative recourse to ensure that he or she is removed from a list. When a citizen of the United States, fully protected by the Constitution applies to purchase a firearm, his or her personal information is run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and the name is run against several databases to ensure that he is not a convicted felon, drug addict, fugitive, or has some other monitored restriction or legal disability. In addition, the person's name will be run against one or more terrorist watch lists. If the system returns an initial match, the result will be delayed, and NICS personnel will investigate further. If S.1317 becomes law and the match is confirmed, then NICS will return a "Denied" signal to the gun dealer, and the purchase will be denied. Furthermore, the personal information of the individual will be kept on file indefinitely. Under current law, a citizen has the right to know exactly why he was denied the purchase of a firearm. With this information, the person can correct the record or appeal the decision. However, Under S.1317, the person will only receive "actual notice of the Attorney General's determination," if the Attorney General determines that such notice would not likely "compromise national security." Due to the secret nature of the watch lists, the Attorney General may determine that simply tipping off the person that they are on a terror watch list may compromise national security, thus rendering the notice clause illusory. In that case, the person would receive a "Denied" signal from NICS, with no further information about the reason for the denial, nor with any recourse to obtain the reason for denial. The citizen may never know why he or she was denied a firearms permit, if the Attorney General determines that the mere disclosure of the determination may compromise national security. The citizen may ask why he or she was denied, but the Attorney General is not required to answer or correct erroneous information within the system. Consequently, the citizen will be unable mount a meaningful appeal to the Attorney General's decision. Further, even if the Attorney General explains the reason for the denial, the citizen would have no way to know that their right to appeal expires after 60 days after the notice. Assuming that the citizen appeals the decision in court, things only get harder and more confusing. First, the citizen must rely on summaries or a redacted version of the documents upon which the Attorney General made his decision. Neither the citizen nor his attorney has a right to see or rebut the evidence presented against him. Not even the court may consider the unredacted documents to determine whether the Attorney General acted reasonably in denying the firearms permit. Text of S.2820 Preserving Records of Terrorist & Criminal Transactions Act of 2009 or the PROTECT Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to require: (1) the retention for a minimum of 10 years of criminal background check records for known or suspected members of terrorist organizations who attempt to purchase firearms or apply for a state permit to possess, acquire, or carry firearms; and (2) the retention for at least 180 days of other criminal background check records relating to firearms purchases. Repeals certain provisions that require the destruction within 24 hours of identifying information for individuals who legally purchase or possess firearms. And, in case you were interested, the witness list for the hearing includes only supporters for the bill, especially Mayor Bloomberg of NYC. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #17 By Crom! Konan the Grammarian would not approve. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-05-05 21:28 |
| #16 We had a friend murdered John, I believe this is what Neville is revering to. I understand your being upset. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2010-05-05 17:39 |
| #15 So far as I can tell, the Great Britain approach towards gun confiscation has had no effect on crime. Should have said, has not reduced crime but increased it. Guns are still available to the criminal class. Neville Uluth8269: JohnQC I'd like to know why you had your friend murdered. I'm not entirely certain what you are trying to say. If it is a flip remark intended to be humorous, it falls the wrong way with me at this time. There are a lot of people who are suffering because of this nut who heard voices. I suspect his own family is also suffering because he also took his own life. If your remark is intended to be cruel you should take a look at yourself. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-05-05 17:29 |
| #14 "I'm only going to use my thumb" |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-05-05 15:25 |
| #13 If thre was any doubt the government (Democrats) are crooks, this blatent ignoring of the constitution should prove they are Quote The second ammendment to the constitution says A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Unquote. Any "Law " passed becomes null and void on the instant of enactment. I wonder if this would be considerd as a high crime or treason, or misdemeanor enough to Impeach Obama? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-05-05 13:37 |
| #12 So far as I can tell, the Great Britain approach towards gun confiscation has had no effect on crime. John, it has had a huge effect. crime has gone up up up. criminals of all classes prefer an unarmed victim. not least of all the criminals in the govt wishing to steal our freedom |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-05-05 13:12 |
| #11 JohnQC I'd like to know why you had your friend murdered. |
| Posted by: Neville Uluth8269 2010-05-05 13:09 |
| #10 "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -- Robert A. Heinlein |
| Posted by: mojo 2010-05-05 13:01 |
| #9 How does GB produce such great snipers when at the same time they have destroyed a tradition of firearms ownership? Their military must get a different consideration. England's Olympians have to train in Ireland where firearm laws are less restrictive from my understanding. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-05-05 12:41 |
| #8 So far as I can tell, the Great Britain approach towards gun confiscation has had no effect on crime. Gun crime still exists. In fact, there is evidence that gun-related crime has increased. There is a link that discusses effects of gun control in GB: Crime and guns in GB Another interesting link regarding GB gun control and crime: Link Compared to the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80. Crime is higher in GB despite draconian gun control laws. Reducing crime is not the goal of the gun grabbers but control of the citizens. Such efforts do not seem to lead to a more civil society. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-05-05 12:29 |
| #7 JohnQC - I fear that is by design. The gun grabbers are not interested in 'safety' or they would be advocating tough sentences when a firearm is used in a crime and they would be advocating mandatory firearm safety classes in public schools. Their real goal is to disarm the public so they can be made more docile. A man (or woman) with a loaded .45 (and the training to use it) is not exactly docile. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-05-05 11:16 |
| #6 And, and gasoline and plastic bags and nails. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-05-05 09:53 |
| #5 But, but, but what about BBQ grill propane tanks? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-05-05 09:42 |
| #4 I wondered when the "left-wing radical" gun grabbers would raise their heads in this administration. So much of the crime that gets committed or violent acts are done with stolen firearms bought illegally on the street. We had a friend murdered about two weeks ago at Parkwest Hospital by a guy by the name of Mohammed Abdo Ibssa from Ethiopia. He claimed in a note left behind that a doctor implanted a microchip in him at the behest of the CIA. A 357 mag he used was stolen. A 22 cal he had was not stolen but the serial number was filed off. Such bills would do nothing to have prevented this crime. It would have the effect of denying law-abiding citizens from having a firearm due to some administration screw-up with no recourse to due process. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-05-05 09:42 |
| #3 Just a checklist item of the Obama communist government to make the United States of CCCP a reality. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2010-05-05 09:40 |
| #2 Their price will likely be higher, OS. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-05-05 01:31 |
| #1 Filibuster. If the GOP and so-called "pro gun" Dems are true to their principles, this will die in a filibuster. My worry is the "pro gun" Demas are about as reliable as the "pro-life" Dems were -- which is to say, they are for the most part complete and utter liars. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-05-05 00:32 |