|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 5, 2010, 06:25 PM | #26 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 10, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,774
|
OK, I just happened to tune in on the middle of this testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee. I heard "9mm" mentioned, and just assumed that it had to be a handgun. However, I see now that the press indeed says that it was a compact rifle: A Kel-Tec. So I was mistaken in assuming it was a handgun.
Apparently the rifle had been purchased fully lawfully. And that is what the Police Commissioner seemed to be so very upset about. I've not been able to find any video of the Commissioner himself talking, which is what I saw. However, it turns out that Mayor Bloomberg himself testified immediately before him. And that the new law that they were discussing ( which was not explained while I was watching the Commissioner talk ) is a law to ban anyone on the nation's no-fly list from being able to buy guns. So I had no idea what was specifically being proposed. All I knew was that America's lax gun laws were being blamed for Shahzad having been able to buy a gun. This article at the link just below talks about the testimony in the committee today. It also has a short video of Bloombery talking, and you can see the police commissioner sitting on his left, waiting for his chance to testify. http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seatt...spects-firearm The Huffington Report also has a big write up about the new "Terror Gap" that now exists in our gun laws. Here is their story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_564069.html Finally, a new political action group has been formed to lobby the government and the American people to strengthen gun laws to keep them out of the hands of Terrorists. http://www.terrorgap.org/ Perhaps this new proposed law does make sense? Could Mayor Bloomberg possibly be right for once? Or could a law like this be abused by the Government? . Last edited by LanceOregon; May 5, 2010 at 06:33 PM. |
May 5, 2010, 07:02 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
|
Since most people on the terrorist watch list are Muslim, would this be politically correct? Would the ACLU step forward and sue? Would it progress from the terrorist watch list to those on the no-fly list?
There are a lot of innocent people on the no fly list and to get yourself off that list takes a heck of a long time. There have been US Senators on this list, and it took time for them to get off the list. So, be careful. Anything the Mayor of NY and his peons think up can be dangerous to all of us. |
May 5, 2010, 07:32 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,073
|
As I understand it, what they're proposing is that anybody on the "terror watch" list be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
It seems like the real concern is that the media wanted the terrorist to be a tea-partier, rather than the islmo-fascist he was. My concern is that anyone who attendes a tea party or listens to Rush could be put on the terror watch list....
__________________
I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues). |
May 5, 2010, 07:37 PM | #29 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
So far as "abused". Well, can you think of a law that HASN'T been abused by the government.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
May 5, 2010, 08:07 PM | #30 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 10, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,774
|
Quote:
Yes, that is a valid concern I think. If such a law was broad enough, it could then be used against folks who simply disagree with the government. . |
|
May 5, 2010, 08:20 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 993
|
You guys get stirred up over anything.
Since when did anyone make Fox News Channel as an authoritative figure on FACTS? Once people realize that they are only in the BUSINESS of spreading propaganda and 'what ifs' the better of we will all be. I mean come on ... I heard that the 'terror suspect' that they accused was actually a foreign exchange student that died in Colorado during a climbing accident over 3 years ago. Who are you going to believe? FOX News Channel who is sly as a Fox, or CNN the Communist News Network.
__________________
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” |
May 5, 2010, 08:21 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
May 5, 2010, 08:35 PM | #33 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
The Usual suspects stumping for their usual aganda
Reported on the news that they want people on the watch list AND on the no fly list to be banned from firearm purchases.
Considering the secret nature of these lists, and the mechanism for appeal (none?) I have a huge problem with this. Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
May 5, 2010, 09:00 PM | #34 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 10, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,774
|
Quote:
If you had read my message you would see that I was not commenting about anything said by any Fox employee. They were broadcasting the Homeland Security Committee hearing live. The video was not edited in any way at all. And my reaction was to the testimony that I heard direct from the mouth of the NYPD Commissioner. The Foxs News team actually seemed to ignore the references being made to firearms and the need for more gun control, as they were busy talking about other issues. So sorry, I heard this direct from the horse's mouth, via live coverage of the hearing. I saw and heard this with my own eyes and ears. . |
|
May 5, 2010, 09:05 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
|
Quote:
|
|
May 5, 2010, 09:16 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
Not shocking, coming from NYPD.
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
May 5, 2010, 09:18 PM | #37 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
|
Quote:
The only thing that stopped him was that the authorities actually followed him to the airport, then went in and pulled him off the plane. If somebody is on the no-fly list they ought to be in custody, not another entry in a data bank that's already ignored by everyone concerned. |
|
May 6, 2010, 04:08 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
|
There are some political flare ups in this one and I am pondering the direction it has taken.
As long as we don't stray further, I think this belongs in Law & Civil Rights. Let's go there. |
May 6, 2010, 06:53 AM | #39 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
As kodiakbeer pointed out, even if this law had been in effect, this guy would still be able to buy the rifle legally because he did not get put on the no-fly list until after he tried to blow up Times Square.
Pretty much the only law that would stop him from buying a firearms is one that would stop an American citizen with no criminal history from buying a firearm - while I'm sure that such a law would please the Bradys immensely, it isn't a law most Americans will support. Second, there is the effect Peetzakilla pointed out - if a terrorist wants to know whether the government is watching, all he needs to do is try to buy a firearm. Denial means he is one of almost 400,000 people in various terrorism related databases. Personally, I think this is all just kabuki-theater. We already know from Heller that the right to own a handgun in your home for self-defense is a fundamental right expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. As such, even under rational basis, you cannot deny it to people without due process. Which means the Supreme Court would likely overturn it and the Administration will use it as a talking point to try and win points with people who get their entire education on an issue in 30 seconds - "The Supreme Court says terrorists can legally buy guns! Can you believe that?" After all, if you have a big nomination fight coming, you want people to be motivated to "correct" the problems on the Supreme Court... Imagine if the media could lose their First Amendment right to blather cluelessly if they were on a secret terrorist watchlist and there was no appeal to such a decision. Would anyone think that was OK? Would we see U. S. Senators proposing such a bill? Yet despite a long, long list of national security problems created by ignorant media with free speech rights, some of which have no doubt actually killed people, we don't do that. |
May 6, 2010, 08:08 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
May 6, 2010, 08:36 AM | #41 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 9, 1999
Location: SE Texas, 'tween Houston & Galveston
Posts: 157
|
Quote:
p |
|
May 6, 2010, 09:02 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
If one is interested in a write up of the gun and the prose used in NYC, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/ny...gun.html?fta=y It is a fearsome looking black gun. BTW, this references back to some of my work that found that gun appearance can influence opinion (as that of others). The disconnect in all of this is that we see two sides of base pandering. Each base stops to hop around to deprive basic rights. I see folks saying that if you go on a terror watch list - you should have been imprisoned. NO rights for you during interrogation. Horrors, horrors from one base. Well, you can't do that - but wait being on a vague terror list and you should be deprived of another fundamental right. It comes down to each choir having little respect for a broad spectrum of rights but only liking their own little corner of appropriate liberties.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 6, 2010, 09:38 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
|
Anyone read about the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh?
"You're guilty because we have some secret witness that you can't confront, and we will now convict you?" This smacks of the same tone. Denying constitutional rights on the basis of some secret government list. How is this bill even being taken seriously? Who is a terrorist? How does one get on the list? What are the criteria? What are the mechanisms for appeal? Given that 8 year old boy scouts are on government flight-restriction lists, is this even a proper method? Even if this bill were to pass (which it likely would not), I don't think this law will survive constitutional scrutiny (well...depending on how the SCOTUS rules on 2A scrutiny).
__________________
E Pluribus Unum |
May 6, 2010, 09:46 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
Quote:
The list on which this is based is secret, not available to the public, is based on unknown criteria and managed by unknown persons with no known review/overview and has no method of appeal. Somehow I don't think allowing the words "terrorist watch list" to erase all rights can be taken as a good idea by any sane person. (I'm not even going to start my rant about the sense of punishing EVERYONE with a blanket law in the hopes that it might smother the .001% of loons out there).
__________________
"The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on" |
|
May 6, 2010, 10:12 AM | #45 | |
Member
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 30
|
Sefner said:
Quote:
Well, that's how THEY respond. |
|
May 6, 2010, 10:38 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
I am afraid of the consequences for allowing the mere suspicion of terrorism to be justification for denying someones right to due process. Do we eventually get a secret prison that everyone on the terror watch list gets sent to without trial? Its sounds a little far fetched but once it is decided that someone on a secret list has no rights that is where they could end up. Last edited by vranasaurus; May 6, 2010 at 02:31 PM. |
|
May 6, 2010, 12:38 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
|
Bloomberg and his minions will use ANY incident to attack the RKBA and argue for its elimination.
|
May 6, 2010, 03:11 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
How are we going to address the POS SUV gap? And the fertilizer gap?
|
May 6, 2010, 03:20 PM | #49 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
S.1317 - Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 (H.R. 2159 - companion bill in the House)
Introduced by Sen. Lautenberg, on 06-22-2009 Cosponsors: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 11/17/2009 Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 11/30/2009 Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 11/30/2009 Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 11/30/2009 Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 1/20/2010 Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 12/1/2009 Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 11/20/2009 Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 11/17/2009 Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 11/30/2009 Summary: Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit (or revoke such license or permit) if the Attorney General: (1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be engaged in terrorism or has provided material support or resources for terrorism; and (2) has a reasonable belief that the transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial. Extends the prohibition against the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to include individuals whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities. Imposes criminal penalties on individuals engaged in terrorist activities who smuggle or knowingly bring firearms into the United States. Authorizes the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation lawsuits and from employers if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security. S. 2870 - Preserving Records of Terrorist & Criminal Transactions Act of 2009 Introduced by Sen. Lautenberg, on 12-01-2009 Cosponsors: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 12/1/2009 Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 12/1/2009 Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 12/3/2009 Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 12/1/2009 Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 12/1/2009 Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 12/1/2009 Summary: 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. Witnesses Panel 1
Together the bills do several things, not the least of which is to place the names of people on the "No-Fly" list and the "Terrorist Watch" list (yes, they are separate lists) on the NICS list of prohibited persons. Both of these lists are secret. We don't know how they are compiled nor do we have a clear means to get our names off of them (that procedure is also secret), should our names have been placed there in error. There is no clear method of finding out why you were denied. Even the Courts will have to accept what the A.G. says. The bills enact a de facto gun registration list, for 10 years, if you are a suspected terrorist, or at least 180 days if not. Note that there is no real date to destroy the records, merely a stated minimum time to retain the records. The list of "witnesses" for yesterdays hearing is only astonishing, if you think this is a serious attempt to move the bills forward. S. 1317 has been languishing in committee for almost a year. S. 2820 for almost a half year. There have been no new cosponsors since the bills were introduced. This was a "dog and pony show," at best. By all means, we shouldn't ignore it, but we need not get in a tizzy about it, either. |
May 6, 2010, 03:41 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
On the side, TRguy, one of the laws signed in AZ was the first state knife pre-emption law.
I think this will be used as sound bites and campaign material, but I have to say from what has happened in Congress so far firearm related, I don't believe it either will go very far. Still, contact your Congresscritters, and express yourself politely and firmly. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|