PDA

View Full Version : New Bill: gov can deny anyone gunownership it doesnt like (HR 2159)


sreiter
05-08-2009, 12:06 PM
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usguns0712738461may06,0,977427.story

May 8, 2009
Washington, DC

A Bill introduced in Congress would deprive law-abiding Americans of their right to own firearms on mere SUSPICION that they could POTENTIALLY commit a terrorist act.

H.R. 2159 would allow the Attorney General to deny firearms to anyone who is "suspected of," or "potentially", a terrorist!

No criminal act or criminal conviction required!

A criminal record will no longer be the only excuse for snatching your Second Amendment right to carry a hand gun.

If the government merely considers you a potential terrorist, it can take away your right to defend yourself with a firearm.

"SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS."

"SEC. 3. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO SEIZE OR OTHERWISE CONFISCATE FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES FROM INDIVIDUALS DEEMED TO HAVE MADE, THROUGH WHATEVER MEDIA MEDIUM APPLICABLE, TERRORIFIC OR OTHERWISE INCONSIDERATE THREATS TO THE GOVERNMENT

e) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(d)(1) of such title is amended--

(1) by striking `Any' and inserting `Except as provided in subparagraph (H), any';

(2) in subparagraph (F)(iii), by striking `and' at the end;

(3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

Read the text of the bill here:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2159:

DDT
05-08-2009, 12:10 PM
Soundws like the "No Fly List."


"No Bang List"

I suspect that many of the posters here would lose gun rights if this passes. Based simply on their postings.

Beelzy
05-08-2009, 12:15 PM
Yup.

I guess I had better keep and eye out for a BIG blue SWAT van soon. :thumbsup:

tommyid1
05-08-2009, 12:16 PM
so FnCKed up...

deebix
05-08-2009, 12:18 PM
come and get em :43:

Geodetic
05-08-2009, 12:19 PM
What the hell is an "inconsiderate threat"? Here comes the gun control by subterfuge. Get labeled a terrorist and its all over with. Lets hope this gets shot down.

dustoff31
05-08-2009, 12:21 PM
Don't worry the dems hate all that Patriot Act type stuff and will do away with it as soon as they take power. No wait..

And as for interferring with the 2A, they learned their lesson last time. Oh, Ummm, Nevermind.

stag1500
05-08-2009, 12:24 PM
This is actually kind of funny. It's so absurd that there's no way it could ever pass. Some a**holes, I mean politicians, have way too much time on their hands.

N6ATF
05-08-2009, 12:24 PM
Please put H.R. 2159 in the thread title so we can at least have a chance at not having 60 billion duplicate threads created about this.

DDT
05-08-2009, 12:24 PM
come and get em :43:

If this passes, the AG could potentially decide that what you just posted is a threat to the government and could ask a FISA court to force your ISP and calguns to "give you up" and then come after you to do just that.

Untamed1972
05-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Oh lovely! Kinda reminds me of that "katrina/confiscation" thread going yesterday....and all the people that said it would "never happen".

As an outright order to disarm all at once? Maybe not so much.....as a bit-by-bit move....has been going on for years and now you can add this one to the bunch.

nicki
05-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Ironically, this is something the ACLU should be all over, too bad they don't recognize gun rights with the notable exception of the Nevada ACLU.

Perhaps this is something that may change their minds.

I know that the ACLU was founded by the wrong people a long time ago, but those people are dead and their are new people today running the ACLU.

The NRA used to promote gun control laws, but that changed. The NRA of today thankfully is not the NRA of the past when dealing with gun rights.

Nicki

N6ATF
05-08-2009, 12:28 PM
"TERRORIFIC"? A compound of terrorist and terrific?

LOL

Oh, and just by affirming we own guns (a threat to the tyrannical government) we are all screwed.

:rolleyes:

deebix
05-08-2009, 12:33 PM
and they know who has what how?

gazzavc
05-08-2009, 12:35 PM
Calling the government rude names == Being put on the "no guns for you " list.

Bloody disgraceful.

cactustactical
05-08-2009, 12:41 PM
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would like to see them try this!!!

How many FFL's and shops would be on this "list"?!?!?1

HAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHA!!!! :D

.

DDT
05-08-2009, 12:42 PM
This is actually kind of funny. It's so absurd that there's no way it could ever pass. Some a**holes, I mean politicians, have way too much time on their hands.

Uh, I think you are wrong. If the congress looked in 2001 like it does now this would probably been part of the patriot act which had NO trouble passing.

Untamed1972
05-08-2009, 12:48 PM
Uh, I think you are wrong. If the congress looked in 2001 like it does now this would probably been part of the patriot act which had NO trouble passing.


Never let a good crisis go to waste right!? :thumbsup:

during a crisis stupid people will sell their soul to the devil for the illusion of maintaining some kind of security. Which is funny because even the security they thought they had before the crisis was just an illusion too!

AEC1
05-08-2009, 12:50 PM
Can someone PLEASE give these people a copy of the constitution, Heller and Nordyke...

lasereye
05-08-2009, 12:52 PM
come and get em :43:

If this passes, the AG could potentially decide that what you just posted is a threat to the government and could ask a FISA court to force your ISP and calguns to "give you up" and then come after you to do just that.

So if deebix had used the happy smiley instead of the evil smiley he'd be OK.

Tillers_Rule
05-08-2009, 12:53 PM
So now all a politician has to do is include "terrorist" in the bill and they think it will pass.

I'll write my representatives on this one as well.

We need to impeach anyone that votes for this asinine bill.

Turo
05-08-2009, 1:00 PM
Can someone PLEASE give these people a copy of the constitution, Heller and Nordyke...

+1 This crap is going too far...

7x57
05-08-2009, 1:04 PM
Don't worry the dems hate all that Patriot Act type stuff and will do away with it as soon as they take power. No wait..

And as for interferring with the 2A, they learned their lesson last time. Oh, Ummm, Nevermind.

I call this "the rachet," though it probably needs an adjective if I'm going to use the term with other people. The Rachet of Infringement?

The rachet is based on the fact that people who believe that the Constitution should not be an obstacle to their private agenda have, in a very real sense, more in common with people who agree but have the opposite agenda than they do with people who agree with their agenda but wish to remain within the Constitution.

It works as follows. When in power party X manages to get Infringement A for their pet agenda, be it liberal or conservative. Party Y denounces this power grab, which gets them the votes of the people who hate infringement A. But later on when party Y is in power they do not make a serious attempt to roll back infringement A, but do manage to get infringement B which furthers their agenda.

At this point, all the infringement A haters are confused, because they thought they voted to roll back A. But it won't ever happen, because both infringement A and infringement B are too dependent on similar misreadings of the law and similar illegal work-arounds, or whatever. So by upholding the Constitution on infringement A, party Y would open up infringement B to attack. Party Y *always* values furthering their agenda with infringement B more than they value rolling back infringement A. In fact, they have no interest in actually rolling back infringement A; they can simply not use it for party A's agenda, but they *like* having the extra power that infringement A gives them.

If you understand the Infringement Rachet, you are no longer surprised when the Obama adminstration doesn't roll back a bunch of stuff from the Bush administration that everyone thought they would roll back. If you expected it, it is because you fail to grasp reality.

More briefly: it is *never* in the interest of any politician of any party to give up power, no matter how misused by some other party.

The conclusion is that loss of freedom is more or less a one-way street.

7x57

dustoff31
05-08-2009, 1:23 PM
If you understand the Infringement Rachet, you are no longer surprised when the Obama adminstration doesn't roll back a bunch of stuff from the Bush administration that everyone thought they would roll back. If you expected it, it is because you fail to grasp reality.

More briefly: it is *never* in the interest of any politician of any party to give up power, no matter how misused by some other party.

The conclusion is that loss of freedom is more or less a one-way street.

7x57


Oh I'm familiar with the process. I probably should have included a sarcasm smiley in my post. And you are quite correct in that it isn't restricted to any political party.

One of my greatest wishes is that someday I'll be able to cast a ballot for someone I really want to win an election, rather than the one least likely to cause me to vomit.

But hopefully your explaination will help some open their eyes.

Librarian
05-08-2009, 1:41 PM
"`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit "

What the heck is a "firearm permit"?

OTOH, this one is considerably more dangerous than HR 45, since it actually has co-sponsors, and the content is more insidious.

domokun
05-08-2009, 1:44 PM
Can someone PLEASE give these people a copy of the constitution, Heller and Nordyke...

National security trumps all your rights if you haven't figured it out by now. :TFH: If they say you're a terrorist, then you must be one and suddenly have lost all of your rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and can lock you up without a trial indefinitely. National security apparently means that they can ignore the Constitution of the United States and all case law regarding your rights as a resident in the United States to prevent another national emergency resulting from a terrorist attack. :TFH:

DDT
05-08-2009, 1:47 PM
"`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit "

What the heck is a "firearm permit"?

OTOH, this one is considerably more dangerous than HR 45, since it actually has co-sponsors, and the content is more insidious.

I'm sure it will be amended so that he can merely submit a list for Brady check exclusion.

curtisfong
05-08-2009, 2:00 PM
So now all a politician has to do is include "terrorist" in the bill and they think it will pass.

What do you mean, "now"?

Let me correct that sentence for you:

All a politician has to do is include "terrorist" in the bill and it will pass.

lobonegro
05-08-2009, 2:10 PM
Looks like a great way to disarm all those returning Iraq war veterans that Napolitano was warning all of us about.

7x57
05-08-2009, 2:25 PM
Oh I'm familiar with the process. I probably should have included a sarcasm smiley in my post.

No need. I wasn't trying to correct anything you said--I was using your post as an excuse to rant. :rolleyes:

7x57

adamsreeftank
05-08-2009, 2:36 PM
"`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit "

What the heck is a "firearm permit"?

OTOH, this one is considerably more dangerous than HR 45, since it actually has co-sponsors, and the content is more insidious.

+1

Since when do we need to apply for a permit to posess a firearm? Or is that part B that is comming next week....

Texas Boy
05-08-2009, 2:39 PM
It isn't the infringement ratchet, it is the infringement racket - or the power racket. 7x57 is dead nuts on. Party D and party R in the end are identical - they both want total power to implement their agenda. If the gov has total power, the agenda is largely moot - 'cuz we are now subjects/slaves.

9/11 was a huge turning point - "national security" became an excuse for unlimited power. Even the Dems voted for the Patriot Act...And look how many Bush polices denounced by the Dems are being upheld by Obama - secret wiretaps are one example.

CHS
05-08-2009, 2:44 PM
Another one Bruce Schneier would be all over.

Just like the no-fly list, this list would include people who are so dangerous we have to take away their guns, but so innocent that we can't arrest them.

JDay
05-08-2009, 2:54 PM
Soundws like the "No Fly List."


"No Bang List"

I suspect that many of the posters here would lose gun rights if this passes. Based simply on their postings.

Nice way to violate the first and second at the same time. :eek:

Legasat
05-08-2009, 3:06 PM
The nut cases are at it again.

I'm a Vet. I already fit the DHS definition of a terrorist...

HowardW56
05-08-2009, 3:31 PM
I just finished reading the Bill..... What a piece of ****! If you end up on the lkist it makes it almost impossible to get off of it. You aren't entitled to discovery, you aren't entitled to see the evidence used to deprive you of your rights.

This one is a real piece of CRAP!

BigBamBoo
05-08-2009, 3:39 PM
............

southsti
05-08-2009, 3:39 PM
The nut cases are at it again.

I'm a Vet. I already fit the DHS definition of a terrorist...

Exactly, I'm a Veteran too, they also said that anyone who is Anti-Gay Marriage and Anti-Abortion could be considered possible terrorists. So add all the religious people in the country on that list too.

Does this not concern people more?

They just defined who could be potential terrorist and then they come out with a Bill that gives the government the power to seize weapons from people they consider potential terrorists?

MontClaire
05-08-2009, 3:43 PM
Soundws like the "No Fly List."


"No Bang List"

I suspect that many of the posters here would lose gun rights if this passes. Based simply on their postings.

:iagree: +1

You guys smell the revolution brewing?

The Wingnut
05-08-2009, 3:50 PM
They just defined who could be potential terrorist and then they come out with a Bill that gives the government the power to seize weapons from people they consider potential terrorists?

Hit the nail on the head. Disarm those who have the power, inclination and means to stop you from oppressing them, then you can really turn the screws.

What's next after disarmament? Look at Britain. Look at any nation that disarms it citizens. Creeping infringement of privacy(CCTV), sky-high taxation(Italy), nearly wholesale nationalization of the private commercial sector(Britain, France, Germany), unchecked government spending and authority(pick one). The United States formed to escape totalitarian European style government, and our ensconced career politicians are driving us right back toward it.

bohoki
05-08-2009, 3:52 PM
i guess due process is dead

Maestro Pistolero
05-08-2009, 4:24 PM
I think they up and smoked the whole thing.

Bad Voodoo
05-08-2009, 9:10 PM
So now all a politician has to do is include "terrorist" in the bill and they think it will pass.

In this administration, as long as the word 'terrorist' is being used to describe American citizens of the conservative persuasion I believe you've hit the nail on the head.

M. Sage
05-08-2009, 9:13 PM
Won't fly. There's this part of the 5A that shuts the idea down before it even begins.

DDT
05-08-2009, 9:14 PM
In this administration, as long as the word 'terrorist' is being used to describe American citizens of the conservative persuasion I believe you've hit the nail on the head.

Same goring, different ox.

nick
05-08-2009, 9:15 PM
Won't fly. There's this part of the 5A that shuts the idea down before it even begins.

Yet there's the Patriot Act and no-fly list.

cousinkix1953
05-08-2009, 9:28 PM
So now all a politician has to do is include "terrorist" in the bill and they think it will pass.

I'll write my representatives on this one as well.

We need to impeach anyone that votes for this asinine bill.
Aren't they those same politically correct imbeciles who call al Qieda's mass murder rampage's a man made disasster? Yes, we are the terorists; but don't you dare use that kind of language, when talking about fanatics who fly airplanes into buildings and blow up hotels full of tourists.

The Democratic Party is infested with this kind of brain dead socialists, who are spoon fed a deluge of BS in the University of Kommiefornia system. Bolshevik professors are pissed because the regents recently cut their 'community studies" programs, which are the breeding grounds for these kind of morons...

Shotgun Man
05-08-2009, 9:31 PM
It is ironic. The republicans kind of laid the precedent of denying individual rights, extinguishing personal liberty in the name of combating terrorism.

GWB and Cheney et al told you that "yer either fer us or agin us!"

So now the shoe is on the other foot, but the gun-grabbers are controlling the agenda.

If only we stood up fought the patriot act to begin with, we wouldn't be in this mess. But most republicans and democrats (with exceptions) embraced the patriot act. So here we are. I blame primarily Bush and the republicans.

Hell, I'm sure there are calgunners who believe in internment camps for accused terrorists and illegal immigrants. It will likewise be ironic when the government uses those same camps to inter gun owners.

N6ATF
05-08-2009, 10:37 PM
Internment camps for enemy invaders? No thanks. Stick 'em in a C130, throw surplus parachutes on their backs, and push them out over the furthest city/town from the U.S. in their countries of origin. For Mexico, maybe La Libertad.

Get them the hell out of here.

DDT
05-08-2009, 11:47 PM
I
If only we stood up fought the patriot act to begin with, we wouldn't be in this mess. But most republicans and democrats (with exceptions) embraced the patriot act. So here we are. I blame primarily Bush and the republicans.


WTF? So you state that both republicans and democrats supported the patriot act but you blame primarily Bush and the republicans?

Bias much?

TheBundo
05-08-2009, 11:47 PM
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would like to see them try this!!!

How many FFL's and shops would be on this "list"?!?!?1

HAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHA!!!! :D

.

Nothing personal, maybe you mean well, but why all this childish typing in a serious forum. This isn't the "Other" forum, where it is more tolerated. Again, nothing personal

OCMI_Teddy
05-08-2009, 11:49 PM
I love the government...........the government is my friend............did I mention I love the government :o

TheBundo
05-08-2009, 11:52 PM
I didn't find anything on the net saying this is a current bill. Am I missing somthing?

Rhys898
05-09-2009, 12:00 AM
I didn't find anything on the net saying this is a current bill. Am I missing somthing?

here you go

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2159:

only thing funny about this is I found the link above on DU through a google search :43:

Mayhem
05-09-2009, 12:14 AM
So much for due process. Good by Republic Hello Oligarchy.

So much for the renaissance and the end of serfdom, Good by Modern age welcome back the Dark ages.

N6ATF
05-09-2009, 12:45 AM
I am even more of a right wing extremist-- I say after you drop em off back home you send the bill to Mexico City for all the expenses incurred, every penny spent, jailing, feeding, educating and transporting these folks. Why in hel* should you and I slave our lives away because Mexico can't build a viable society? Furthermore, if they don't pay up we use Baja California as collateral and build resorts using legal American labor and tax the resorts to pay the bill.

A bill would be a waste of paper. Remember, Mexico is a third-world country. Third-world countries rarely, if ever pay back their debts, even if they are not enemies of the U.S. who publish guides on how best to invade our country and remain within.

AFAIK, the three pillars of the Mexican economy are: crude oil, drugs, and enemy invaders sending money back across the border.

Rather than a bill, better just to go straight to the endgame. Since it's morally repugnant to take over the latter two (drugs and slaves), Mexico signs over their crude oil industry for eternity or they get annexed.

But nothing even approaching justice will be done because of so many of our elected officials being agents of the Mexican government first, ours second.

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 12:52 AM
Rather than a bill, better just to go straight to the endgame. Since it's morally repugnant to take over the latter two (drugs and slaves), Mexico signs over their crude oil industry for eternity or they get annexed.


Why in the world would we want to do that?!?!?!
Nevermind that clearly the majority of them want to be in the US anyways, why make it easier for 'em?

cousinkix1953
05-09-2009, 4:19 AM
It is ironic. The republicans kind of laid the precedent of denying individual rights, extinguishing personal liberty in the name of combating terrorism.

GWB and Cheney et al told you that "yer either fer us or agin us!"

So now the shoe is on the other foot, but the gun-grabbers are controlling the agenda.
Osama bin Laden is responsible for man made disassters according to Janet Napolitano! Veterans, who were stupid enough to serve under Obama are being called suspected terrorists by his Homeland Insecurity director. This bunch sounds just like bunch of campus radicals to me...

N6ATF
05-09-2009, 11:22 AM
Why in the world would we want to do that?!?!?!
Nevermind that clearly the majority of them want to be in the US anyways, why make it easier for 'em?

The corrupt gov seems to want to be an independent nation from the U.S., ruled by drug lords, and supported with illicit profits returning back across the border. Annexation would threaten the drug trade with bombs being dropped on their heads. The drug lords should rather lose the battle over oil than lose the war.

SVT_Fox
05-09-2009, 11:32 AM
come and get em :43:

:43::43::43::43:

evan69
05-09-2009, 11:36 AM
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

cousinkix1953
05-09-2009, 12:26 PM
WTF? So you state that both republicans and democrats supported the patriot act but you blame primarily Bush and the republicans?

Bias much?
Just listen to Nancy Pelosi deny that she was ever briefed on waterboarding and other interrogation techniques. It's hard to believe that a high ranking member of the House Intelligence committee knows nuzzing about interrogating terrorist suspects. Not even the Washington Post believes this any more than they trusted tricky Dickie Nixon many years ago...

M. Sage
05-09-2009, 3:03 PM
Yet there's the Patriot Act and no-fly list.

The only thing that makes this tougher for them to get by is that flying via jetliner isn't a Constitutionally-protected right. Pre-Heller? I'd be crapping bricks at this news. Now? Not so much.

The other thing about the no-fly list is that there are alternate methods available.

Not defending the no-fly list or Patriot Act: they're trash that obviously violate 5A and need to go.

nick
05-09-2009, 3:25 PM
The only thing that makes this tougher for them to get by is that flying via jetliner isn't a Constitutionally-protected right. Pre-Heller? I'd be crapping bricks at this news. Now? Not so much.

The other thing about the no-fly list is that there are alternate methods available.

Not defending the no-fly list or Patriot Act: they're trash that obviously violate 5A and need to go.

And 5A also guarantees Constitutionally-protected rights, yet both no-fly list and patriot Act are in effect. You're probably right and this bill probably won't go anywhere. Still, the support its getting is concerning. Pity there's no penalty for introducing obviously unconstitutional laws, and recalls and impeachments are way underutilized.

Sobriquet
05-09-2009, 6:09 PM
Ms. McCarthy, I say shame on you. I called out Republicans during President Bush's administration for hiding behind the "terrorism" label to achieve their political ends - and I'm doing it here for the Democrats.

I think this is despicable. If someone made such a grave criminal threat that they pose a clear and present danger - charge them for it! Felons can't have guns. Et voila! Your indicated objective has been achieved with laws already on the books.

Unless... you're just trying to ban guns?

sreiter
05-09-2009, 6:13 PM
the terrorism label is the same as the "gang" label here. EVERY anti gun bill in cali is prefaced by "to curb gang...."

M. Sage
05-09-2009, 7:05 PM
And 5A also guarantees Constitutionally-protected rights, yet both no-fly list and patriot Act are in effect. You're probably right and this bill probably won't go anywhere. Still, the support its getting is concerning. Pity there's no penalty for introducing obviously unconstitutional laws, and recalls and impeachments are way underutilized.

Yeah, the 5A guarantee of Constitutionally-protected rights (shall not be deprived of liberty without due process and all that...) was what I was referring to. After Heller, the 2A is definitely recognized as protected. That's half the point I was making.

The other half is that flying in a plane is not a protected right, even if it is a right (as long as someone's willing to take you up).

nick
05-10-2009, 1:31 PM
the terrorism label is the same as the "gang" label here. EVERY anti gun bill in cali is prefaced by "to curb gang...."

I thought they were prefaced by"in order to regulate interstate commerce" :p

7x57
05-10-2009, 2:29 PM
I thought they were prefaced by"in order to regulate interstate commerce" :p

Well, that's a powerful point. That's the traditional route to unlimited power, terrorism is a newer refinement.

Note that there doesn't seem to be anything that can't be commercial for the purposes of a Commerce-clause power-grab. That means terrorism is commercial activity--after all, terrorists spend money to perform their activities, and they *might possibly be hired.* (Might also seems to be good enough for Commerce-clause hijinks.) If you hire a California terrorist, that means you don't hire one from New Jersey--viola, interstate commerce!

Therefore, according to the Supreme Court's own interpretations there is apparently nothing the government could not do if the law began "In order to regulate the interstate commerce in terrorism...."

Great. I just destroyed the entire Constitution completely, and it's not even dinner yet. Not bad for half a day's work.

"In order to regulate the interstate commerce in terrorism, all citizens will be fitted with muzzles and shock collars." Yeah, that's pretty much the Democratic party's dream.

7x57

leitung
05-11-2009, 1:12 AM
HR 2159: "Your 1st or 2nd ammendment rights, pick one.."

CitaDeL
05-11-2009, 6:39 AM
"SEC. 3. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO SEIZE OR OTHERWISE CONFISCATE FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES FROM INDIVIDUALS DEEMED TO HAVE MADE, THROUGH WHATEVER MEDIA MEDIUM APPLICABLE, TERRORIFIC OR OTHERWISE INCONSIDERATE THREATS TO THE GOVERNMENT"

1) Is terrorific a word?

and

2) Is my promise to vote the scumbag traitors of the Constitution out office in favor of intelligent, responsible, defenders of liberty inconsiderate enough to merit having my firearms confiscated?

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-11-2009, 7:06 AM
:iagree: +1

You guys smell the revolution brewing?

It smells like apathy.

glockman19
05-11-2009, 7:29 AM
IMHO, the acts of a few legislators is Treasonous and they should be held accountable.

Any attempt to infringe upon the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution should be considered Treasonous.

Treason
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Treason (disambiguation) or Traitor (disambiguation).
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.

Murder is now generally considered the worst of crimes[citation needed], but in the past, treason was thought of as worse. In English law high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), the only crime which attracted those penalties (until the Treason Act 1814). The penalty was used by later monarchs against people who could reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be considered dissidents.

In William Shakespeare's play King Lear (circa 1600), when the King learns that his daughter Regan has publicly dishonoured him, he says They could not, would not do 't; 'tis worse than murder: a conventional attitude at that time. In Dante Alighieri's Inferno, the ninth and lowest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors; Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, suffers the worst torments of all: being constantly gnawed at by one of Lucifer's own three mouths. His treachery is in fact so notorious that his name has long been synonymous with traitor, a fate he shares with Benedict Arnold, Marcus Junius Brutus (who too is depicted in Dante's Inferno, suffering the same fate as Judas along with Cassius Chaerea), and Vidkun Quisling. Indeed, the etymology of the word traitor originates with Judas' handing over of Jesus to the Roman authorities: the word is derived from the Latin traditorem which means "one who delivers."[1]

WatchMan
05-11-2009, 8:47 AM
It smells like apathy.

Yes. It's pretty clear that most people in the US right now are so scared about the economy that they are willing to go along with anything, I mean anything, the government throws down their throats as long as the promise is still there: "Don't worry, we'll take care of you. Trust us."

We've seen this before to some extent, although I don't recall it being this bad...

CHS
05-11-2009, 8:54 AM
1) Is terrorific a word?


It is now! And it's going to be my word of the day :)

Terrorific.

It sounds like something that's terrible, and awesome all at the same time. Like a train wreck. Or your best friend hooking up with the fattest chick at the club.

WatchMan
05-11-2009, 9:02 AM
So, as a seriously green noob when it comes to the intricacies of 2A bills and legislation, would the experienced forum members please respond to this question -

With the libs obviously in support of 2159, and the moderate dems and republicans likely afraid to oppose it because of the potential media backlash ("Representative 'x' opposes bill that would take guns out of terrorists' hands"), is this really the potential checkmate it appears it could be, or am I just :TFH: ?

It's clear these days that a considerable portion of the government feels they can neglect the constitution....and they seem to be getting away with it (e.g., Patriot Act). How is this effectively and efficiently stopped? I realize one method is voting them out, but realistically, if the economy shows any signs of recovery during the mid-terms, I'm not sure how that will go.

Please point out where my logic is screwed.

RomanDad
05-11-2009, 9:09 AM
IMHO, the acts of a few legislators is Treasonous and they should be held accountable.

Any attempt to infringe upon the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution should be considered Treasonous.

Why are you quoting the wikipedia definition of treason when the U.S. Constitution you argue needs defending, itself CONTAINS THE ONLY LEGAL DEFINITION OF TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES? It is the ONLY CRIME actually defined by the U.S. Constitution:

Article 3, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



So, The Constitution is VERY clear on the definition of TREASON. And it has nothing to do with unconstitutional legislation, or infringing on rights granted thereunder.

And thus applying the standard that YOU want to apply (that passing legislation you feel is unconstitutional should be "treason") you in fact yourself would be committing TREASON under your own definition, as your definition is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL....

See the irony in that?

HondaMasterTech
05-11-2009, 10:52 AM
Many intelligent people could be easily convinced that this bill is good for this nation. At face it "sounds" like the best of intentions are behind this. Regardless of intentions, the fact that an individual can have his/her rights revoked based on undefined parameters, without due-process and at the sole discretion of a single individual is unconstitutional. This is no different than the discretion sheriffs and police chiefs have to deny a ccw arbitrarily. Except that, this bill violates the constitution on an even more serious level. This bill would certainly do more harm than good regardless of any good intentions.

Model X
05-11-2009, 12:24 PM
Or your best friend hooking up with the fattest chick at the club.

Terrific for the fat chick and terrifying for the guys friends?

CHS
05-11-2009, 12:54 PM
Terrific for the fat chick and terrifying for the guys friends?

It's like watching a train wreck. You want to stop it, but in the end it's just inevitable.

It's TERRORIFIC!

MrSigmaDOT40
05-11-2009, 1:03 PM
This needs to be TOP priority, copy this to all known 2A forums this is outrageous. Everybody here can say by by to their firearms if this passes.

rumble phish
05-11-2009, 4:53 PM
If this passes, the AG could potentially decide that what you just posted is a threat to the government and could ask a FISA court to force your ISP and calguns to "give you up" and then come after you to do just that.


Really?

Well then how about this....


"You can take my guns from my cold, dead hands!"

Would that be considered a threat? Because if it can be than the whole of the NRA is screwed, huh?


I'll say this for myself and only myself.

If the Federal or any other government (State, County, City, etc.) want my guns, they'll have to kill me to get them. And I promise that some of them wont make it home.

That ain't a threat, that's a promise. I will NOT be denied my God given right to defend myself, my family or my property!

(BTW, I'm not bashing on your statement, just expanding and adding my thoughts to it)

DDT
05-11-2009, 5:18 PM
If the Federal or any other government (State, County, City, etc.) want my guns, they'll have to kill me to get them. And I promise that some of them wont make it home.

(BTW, I'm not bashing on your statement, just expanding and adding my thoughts to it)

See. Right up to the "kill me to get them." you were probably OK but the bit after that would get you in deep water if this went through and anyone with the ability to add you to "the list" heard.

mblat
05-11-2009, 6:41 PM
Yet there's the Patriot Act and no-fly list.

because Delta doesn't have NRA equivalent on wings?

N6ATF
05-11-2009, 7:54 PM
If the Federal or any other government (State, County, City, etc.) want my guns, they'll have to kill me to get them. And I promise that some of them wont make it home.

Might be safer to say you'll kill yourself before they get all the way inside to murder you and steal your property, and your lawyer is instructed to broadcast a press release worldwide if you or an immediate family member has not made the daily check-in.

Wild Squid
05-12-2009, 4:13 AM
I need to stop reading threads like these, just makes my blood pressure go up and up. It's not good for my health.

pat038536
05-15-2009, 11:14 PM
Friday, May 15, 2009

Rumor was enough to get you burned as a witch in Salem, Massachusetts. It was enough to get you shot in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It's enough to get your head chopped off in parts of Iraq infested with madmen claiming to carry out Allah's will.

And if U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has his way, it may be enough to prohibit you from acquiring a firearm or federal firearm license, especially if the Attorney General is as opposed to gun ownership as Janet Reno was during the Clinton Administration, and as Eric Holder is today.

Fresh on the heels of a disturbing paper from the Department of Homeland Security, characterizing gun owners as rightwing extremists, on April 29 King introduced H.R. 2159, which he calls the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009."

King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, describes himself as "a strong supporter of the war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad," so without reading the bill one might assume that H.R. 2159 is a legitimate effort to clamp down on genuine terrorists. However, King and his bill's co-sponsors—Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)1—are extreme gun control supporters, and his bill is intended only to give the Executive Branch arbitrary, unaccountable power to stop loyal Americans from acquiring firearms. Here's how:

H.R. 2159 would give "the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."

H.R. 2159 does not, however, impose any requirements or limits on the information the Attorney General could use to make a determination, and it proposes that "any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."

In stark contrast to the scheme proposed in H.R. 2159, federal law establishes guidelines for the nine categories of persons currently prohibited from possessing firearms, and it protects the right of a person to be told why he is prohibited. The latter is important because a person who is not prohibited can be mistaken for someone who is, due to incomplete or incorrect records in the FBI's database of prohibited persons, or due to being mistaken for a prohibited person on the basis of a similar name or other personal information.
The trash bin of history is full of politically-motivated, authoritarian abuses of peoples' rights. As King and his bill's co-sponsors have shown, however, the concept behind the evil yet remains.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4879


I did search before posting and didn't find it. Mods please delete if this is a dup.

Sobriquet
05-15-2009, 11:57 PM
:dupe:

Librarian
05-16-2009, 12:00 AM
Tut!

Supposed to link to the other thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=182061&highlight=2159

From 5/12, down on page 3, so not obvious.

Good thread title, though.