The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 5, 2010, 06:25 PM   #26
LanceOregon
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.
LanceOregon is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 07:02 PM   #27
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Southeastern Utah
Posts: 247
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.
RETG is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 07:32 PM   #28
Dave R
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).
Dave R is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 07:37 PM   #29
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Oregon
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?
Seems like a Catch-22. Denying them a purchase lets them know in no uncertain terms that they've been had, allowing the purchase potentially puts the public in danger.

So far as "abused". Well, can you think of a law that HASN'T been abused by the government.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 08:07 PM   #30
LanceOregon
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
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....

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.

.
LanceOregon is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 08:20 PM   #31
riverwalker76
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.”
riverwalker76 is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 08:21 PM   #32
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,214
Quote:
By the way, that use of insanity is technically incorrect
How about "evil"?
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 08:35 PM   #33
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,741
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:
As our own government has lost 206 Kg of plutonium
Kimberdawg, I would really love to see your source for this claim. Please provide one, or I will have to call BS on this.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 09:00 PM   #34
LanceOregon
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
You guys get stirred up over anything.

Since when did anyone make Fox News Channel as an authoritative figure on FACTS?
Dude:

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.

.
LanceOregon is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 09:05 PM   #35
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
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.
I am with you. To deny a civil right without due process, based essentially on an anonymous accusation, would seem to be unconstitutional on the face of it. I'd love to hear from the lawyers on here.
TailGator is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 09:16 PM   #36
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
Not shocking, coming from NYPD.
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old May 5, 2010, 09:18 PM   #37
kodiakbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
Quote:
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?
Hello? He wasn't on the no-fly list until a few hours before he got on the plane. He bought the gun months ago. The no-fly list didn't even prevent him from buying a ticket - with cash, for a one way ticket to the middle east. The no-fly list didn't prevent him from waltzing through TSA.

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.
kodiakbeer is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 04:08 AM   #38
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,009
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.
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 06:53 AM   #39
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 08:08 AM   #40
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,214
Quote:
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?
That's a brilliant idea. Of course it wouldn't pass, but that's not the point; think of the debate it would spark. (offer it as an amendment to S.1317 just to make sure they understand the metaphor)
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 08:36 AM   #41
paull
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 9, 1999
Location: SE Texas, 'tween Houston & Galveston
Posts: 157
Quote:
Perhaps this new proposed law does make sense? Could Mayor Bloomberg possibly be right for once?
No.:barf:

p
paull is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 09:02 AM   #42
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,799
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.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 09:38 AM   #43
KChen986
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
KChen986 is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 09:46 AM   #44
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
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?
Let's examine this for a moment. Under this proposed law anyone listed on a secret "watch list" can, without due process or cause, be denied their rights even when no actual crime has been committed, and in fact when said person hasn't yet even been accused of an actual crime.

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"
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 10:12 AM   #45
AlabamaFamilyMan
Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 28
Sefner said:
Quote:
.... Except that Mr. Shahzad is a registered Democrat...
What?!? Democrats are bombing New York?!? Ban all democrats, NOW!!!

Well, that's how THEY respond.
AlabamaFamilyMan is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 10:38 AM   #46
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
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.
Very true. Which is why terrorism has brought about a slippery slope.

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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 12:38 PM   #47
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,130
Bloomberg and his minions will use ANY incident to attack the RKBA and argue for its elimination.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 03:11 PM   #48
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,888
How are we going to address the POS SUV gap? And the fertilizer gap?
publius42 is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 03:20 PM   #49
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
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
  • The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senate
  • The Honorable Peter T. King, U.S. House of Representatives
  • The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York
  • The Honorable Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner, City of New York
Panel 2
  • Daniel D. Roberts, Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice
  • Eileen R. Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office
  • Sandy Jo MacArthur, Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services, Los Angeles Police Department
  • Aaron Titus, Privacy Director, Liberty Coalition
----------

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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 6, 2010, 03:41 PM   #50
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,836
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.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14374 seconds with 7 queries