Comments on: New Legislation Being Introduced Tomorrow?

By: Ian Argent

Ian Argent — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:32:49 +0000

@Tomcatshanger: with the 7th circuit’s remand of a Lautenberg prohibition and the forthcoming incorporation of the 2A, I would expect removal of posession right as part of a restraining order ot be consitutionally suspect. May take a few cases first.

By: Tomcatshanger

Tomcatshanger — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:10:49 +0000

I have a bad feeling that any “no guns for those on terror list” is going to also go after carry permits.

At least for the states where a Carry permit is a NICs by-pass and are subject to FBI back ground checks.

And you can be denied a constitutional right without due process. They are called restraining orders. Poof, no more second amendment rights, guilty until proven innocent.

By: Carl from Chicago

Carl from Chicago — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:53:47 +0000

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/mccarthy-gillibrand-team-up-to-stop-gun-trafficking-1.1619042

I guess it’s about expanding the size and scope of the BATFE.

“The New York lawmakers are introducing legislation next week to boost funding to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to have the agency perform annual checks of gun stores and increase mandatory penalties for those convicted of illegal gun trafficking.”

By: Carl from Chicago

Carl from Chicago — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:39:10 +0000

Either that or the “gun show loophole” stuff.

You know, after seeing all those briefs filed in support of 2A incorporation, the act of filing federal level gun control legislation seems to me, especially now, an exercise in futility.

And as always, a waste of taxpayer resources. It would be nice to get to a point that we could sue legislators for malpractice for pursuing gun control legislation.

By: SayUncle » Due Process Under Attack?

SayUncle » Due Process Under Attack? — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:08:44 +0000

[...] Folks are speculating that the bill to deny people due process of law by putting their names on a watch list is about to be introduced. Being on a list would prohibit you from buying a gun. We’ve known a while this was one goal of mayors against guns. This push would be bad. After all, you have no way of knowing you’re on the list until you try to fly or buy a gun. It’s otherwise secret and cannot be appealed. And it’s fraught with errors, since it has included senators, babies and grandmothers. And it’s not a far stretch from denying one civil right to denying another just for being on a list. [...]

By: Mike Gordon

Mike Gordon — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:36:51 +0000

Yes, I do know people that have been denied flights because they had the same name as someone on the “no fly list”. Fortunately for this person he was able to prove he wasn’t the other person with his name. The danger with the secret list is just that, that you have the same name as someone on the list a suspected terrorist. Remember Ted Kennedy was found that he bore the same name as someone on the list.

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:06:35 +0000

Stephen raises a very interesting point. Have you ever heard of somebody actually being DENIED from a flight because of the no-fly list? (OK as I type I remember Cat Stephens), but overall it just means delays.

That’s likely what any stupid “Terrorist” law will do. Which for the bottom line is NOTHING.

But then again that’s been the plan all along.

Gun Control, it’s what you do instead of something!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:06 +0000

People will be amazed to find how how many names are on that list and how poorly cross referenced they are. Right after the list came out I was delayed everytime I flew because there was a name similar to mine on the list. Everytime I checked in for a flight I had to stand there while the ticket person called TSA to describe me and give details about my appearance.

For some reason that issue cleared up after about a year — I guess they refined the list. But I like the comment on due process. Hopefully that will hold true if we can’t stop this crap in Congress.

By: JKB

JKB — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:50:10 +0000

It would seem to me that this would open the secret government list up to examination. If I remember correctly, you still can’t be denied your constitutional rights without due process. That seems to me to indicate that you can know your on the list, know who put you on the list and know why they put you on the list. Of course, you may have to learn these things at the order of a judge and challenge them before a judge. Up to now, the terror lists have denied privileges (flying, exporting, etc.) and thus not open to challenge but start denying rights, you open up challenges.

So the question is are the intel types going to want to defend their listings in open court? Is the FBI going to want to reveal someone is of interest in a terror investigation by informing the state Department of Safety, who has to explain to the purchaser the reason of their denial?