Quote :

"S. 1237 would give the attorney general, a presidential appointee, the authority to suspend or cancel someone's Second Amendment right, even if that person has never been charged with a crime, the Second Amendment Foundation warned. At the Justice Department's request, the bill was introduced last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), whom SAF describes as one of the most extreme anti-gunners in Congress. The "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" would give the attorney general discretionary authority to deny the purchase of firearms (or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses) to "known or suspected terrorists." The bill has been referred to Judiciary Committee. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said the bill "raises serious concerns about how someone becomes a 'suspected terrorist.' Nobody has explained how one gets their name on such a list, and worse, nobody knows how to get one's name off such a list." There's also a larger concern, Gottlieb added: "When did we decide as a nation that it is a good idea to give a cabinet member the power to deny someone's constitutional right simply on suspicion, without a trial or anything approaching due process?""

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070502b.html

I'm a big flabbergasted that anyone could think that this bill is remotely constitutional, sweeping through two constitutional rights in one legistlative act, but it seems that most anything is acceptable these days in the "war on terror".

FWIW:
Lautenberg's Page: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/documents/domestic/TerrorGap/index.cfm
the NRA's Response: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/NRA_ltr_gonzales.pdf

6/22/2007 10:05:10 AM

yeah this seems pretty sketchy to me.

6/22/2007 10:20:13 AM

won't pass.

6/22/2007 10:29:33 AM

politicians are sending this country straight down the shitter

6/22/2007 10:32:18 AM

will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court if all else fails.

6/22/2007 10:47:43 AM

I hate to delve into the 2nd amendment here, but since it's been brought up, I think Americans need to remind themselves that the Constitution was not designed to protect us all from criminals. It was designed to protect the citizens from the government. Look at the Nazi's, USSR, or Chinese who have kept their own people from being armed. In the 1930's very few people foresaw WWII and the holocaust, yet when the time was right Hitler had the ability to cause so much havoc in large part because his own citizens were unable to prevent him.

Far more people have been killed by their governments than will ever be killed by random crime (or even organized crime). Too many people forget that.

6/22/2007 11:35:51 AM

^ you're new here, aren't you?

6/22/2007 5:15:39 PM

Quote :

"Far more people have been killed by their governments than will ever be killed by random crime "

Very true. Governments should come with a gov't warning.

6/22/2007 10:27:32 PM

If the Patriot Act can pass, which denies people legal rights and allows for them to be held and/or tortured for indefinite periods of time, then this thing can pass too.

6/23/2007 12:43:29 AM

yeah what defines a "suspected" terrorist. Last time I checked more americans are shooting each other with guns then Yusef Ebadi running down the street with his AK47 screaming "Ali Ackbar, praise Allah" blowing away people walking around. Seems like the government uses "Terrorist" card any time it wants to pass any kind of controversial legislation.

Quote :

"I think Americans need to remind themselves that the Constitution was not designed to protect us all from criminals. It was designed to protect the citizens from the government."

We lost the 10th amendment in the American civil War. Fast forward to 2001 and congress has now shitted on the 4th, 5th, & is working on the 2nd. All that needs to be done now is ditch the 1st and 8th and we will be well on our way to an authoritarian state.

From a certain perspective the 9th amendment has been eroding away the last 100 years. Since we have increasingly been turning into a nanny, christian values country

6/23/2007 1:07:26 AM

This may be the wrong way to look at it...

But it seems to me certain people didn't mind the Patriot Act because it would only target the brown people, but the threat of taking guns (which also would only target the brown people) hits closer to home, and further aligns with gun nuts' fears of the gov. taking their guns.

Hopefully though people will realize that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

6/23/2007 1:15:16 AM

^ You may not be far off, but then again, I'm suspicious of anything that has to be titled "Patriot" to pass.

Like the article said, when did we give individual, nominated, cabinet members the right to revoke the rights of citizens merely under "suspicion."

6/23/2007 9:11:20 AM

Quote :

"will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court if all else fails."

It should never come to that. Something that appears so unconstitutional on so many levels should never be introduced in the first place. I'd love to see the constitutional research done to justify/validate the bill, but I'm afraid there probably isn't any. Government mentality has shifted from "What can we do within the confines of the Constitution?" to "What can we get away with?"

Quote :

"From a certain perspective the 9th amendment has been eroding away the last 100 years. Since we have increasingly been turning into a nanny, christian values country"

I'm not sure I'd blame this on 'Christian values'. Everybody likes to pick on the Christian right, but they're no different than any other lobby/special interest group out there. The ninth amendment is eroding because of people increasingly looking to government to provide them with 'rights': health care, social security, college education, financial well-being, etc--placing the government in the position of arbiter of rights. With respect to the ninth amendment, I think the people are getting exactly what they asked for, unfortunately.

Quote :

"Hopefully though people will realize that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."

This is the kind of politics that makes strange bedfellows.

6/23/2007 10:01:43 AM

It's good to see that both sides of the political party are willing to play the terrorism card when it suits them. Can we finaly stop pretending that replacing bush with <Democratic Candidate of the Month> will improve things and start looking for and supporting a truly different candidate?

6/23/2007 10:58:21 AM

Quote :

"brianj320: will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court if all else fails."

Someone has an inflated sense of the competence of the Judiciary. McCain-Feingold comes to mind...

6/23/2007 12:24:26 PM

Quote :

"health care, social security, college education, financial well-being, etc--placing the government in the position of arbiter of rights."

I was thinking more on the lines of personal liberties. marijuana, seat-belt laws, online gambling, travel to cuba, etc.

2007:

Quote :

"It's good to see that both sides of the political party are willing to play the terrorism card"

The Terrorists are everywhere

1967:

Quote :

"It's good to see that both sides of the political party are willing to play the terrorism card communist card "

[Edited on June 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM. Reason : l]

6/23/2007 12:51:42 PM

Quote :

"It's good to see that both sides of the political party are willing to play the terrorism card when it suits them. Can we finaly stop pretending that replacing bush with <Democratic Candidate of the Month> will improve things and start looking for and supporting a truly different candidate? "

6/23/2007 1:36:34 PM

jesus. the constitution really is being used as TP in the capitol building now.

6/23/2007 11:25:49 PM

yeah, pretty much

thats why I'm voting for ron paul

too bad he'll never win

6/24/2007 3:18:26 AM