PDA

View Full Version : from THR, is Heller/McDonald being undermined?


gunsmith
05-15-2010, 5:00 PM
Little publicized hearing tomorrow. BOHICA!

How long till we hear "No, you can't purchase a firearm...I can't tell you why, it's a national security matter".

I not only see this ripe for abuse, but also see a glaring unintended consequence if passed. If I were a terrorist I would applaud this bill. I would only need to say buy a gun a week, and when I were denied, I'd know the government was on to me at that point.

Check out the witness list...less than balanced.

Hearings

Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms

Wednesday, May 5, 2010
10:00 AM
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342

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


Background information:

In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a
working group to review federal firearms and explosives
laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to
determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to
prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected
terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and
Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159)
that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of
firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or
suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative
proposal developed by DOJ.

In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant
the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm
transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee
or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General
determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately
suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting,
preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing
material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief
that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with
terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make
similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes
by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18
U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).

The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that
enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping,
transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that
it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related
determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision
(18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a
firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the
subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the
bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. §
922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new
discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.

With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued
firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent
determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady
Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request
from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also
give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he
determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security.
The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to
correction of erroneous information.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses
erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a
firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in
U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment
would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s
determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of
evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed
provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed
amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted
versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those
documents contained information that could compromise national security,
but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed
documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the
motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would
also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted
versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the
underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn
the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted
documents.

nick
05-15-2010, 5:20 PM
Did they just call Lautenberg honorable?

JDoe
05-15-2010, 5:38 PM
Unconstitutional. Also discussed here. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=297986)

bwiese
05-15-2010, 5:47 PM
This doesn't have a chance in hell in passing Congress.

It's a puff piece for those specific legislators.

Every Dem sitting in a Republican seat lost in 2006, and Blue Dog Dems, ain't gonna vote for it. Most Republicans won't vote for it except East Coast RINOS.

Remember - from PLCAA to NICS Improement Act to AW ban nonrenewal to brass recovery issues, from allowing CCW in National Parks in a credit card bill, etc. - we own Congress.

spgripside
05-15-2010, 6:19 PM
This doesn't have a chance in hell in passing Congress.

400 Mayors Call on Congress to Support H.R.2159/S.1317, here are the ones from CA:

Mayor Jane P. Kennedy, Campbell, California
Mayor Cheryl Cox, Chula Vista, California
Mayor Robert Wasserman, Fremont, California
Mayor Marc Searl, Hemet, California
Mayor Roosevelt F. Dorn, Inglewood, California
Mayor Sukhee Kang, Irvine, California
Mayor Larry Burrola, Irwindale, California
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, California
Mayor Rob Schroder, Martinez, California
Mayor Jim Ridenour, Modesto, California
Mayor Paul Eaton, Montclair, California
Mayor Ronald V. Dellums, Oakland, California
Mayor Sue Severson, Orinda, California
Mayor Jean M. Benson, Palm Desert, California
Mayor Pamela Torliatt, Petaluma, California
Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, Pleasanton, California
Mayor Jonathan Harrison, Redlands, California
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, Richmond, California
Mayor Dennis Donohue, Salinas, California
Mayor Patrick J. Morris, San Bernardino, California
Mayor Jerry Sanders, San Diego, California
Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco, California
Mayor Chuck Reed, San Jose, California
Mayor Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, California
Mayor Marty Blum, Santa Barbara, California
Mayor Susan Gorin, Santa Rosa, California
Mayor Joseph D. Serrano, Sr., Santa Fe Springs, California
Mayor Ken Genser, Santa Monica, California
Mayor Paul Miller, Simi Valley, California
Mayor Ann Johnston, Stockton, California
Mayor Anthony Spitaleri, Sunnyvale, California
Mayor Morris Vance, Vista, California
Mayor Abbe Land, West Hollywood, California
Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, West Sacramento, California

Not a lot of surprises, but let them know what you think anyway.

Sean

nick
05-15-2010, 6:26 PM
Reach out to the liberals living in those cities. They may not care about the gun aspect (or support it), but they're likely to dislike the idea of civil liberties being tied to an arbitrary unconstitutional list.

Most, if not all, of the cities on the list are solidly enough liberal, so the mayors in question won't care much about our opinions. They may not like it when their liberal constituents start turning against them.

I, for one, will see what can be done in Santa Monica.

anthonyca
05-15-2010, 6:27 PM
Did they just call Lautenberg honorable?

He is the most dishonorable of the lot.

motorhead
05-15-2010, 6:54 PM
400 Mayors Call on Congress to Support H.R.2159/S.1317, here are the ones from CA:

Mayor Jane P. Kennedy, Campbell, California
Mayor Cheryl Cox, Chula Vista, California
Mayor Robert Wasserman, Fremont, California
Mayor Marc Searl, Hemet, California
Mayor Roosevelt F. Dorn, Inglewood, California
Mayor Sukhee Kang, Irvine, California
Mayor Larry Burrola, Irwindale, California
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, California
Mayor Rob Schroder, Martinez, California
Mayor Jim Ridenour, Modesto, California
Mayor Paul Eaton, Montclair, California
Mayor Ronald V. Dellums, Oakland, California
Mayor Sue Severson, Orinda, California
Mayor Jean M. Benson, Palm Desert, California
Mayor Pamela Torliatt, Petaluma, California
Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, Pleasanton, California
Mayor Jonathan Harrison, Redlands, California
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, Richmond, California
Mayor Dennis Donohue, Salinas, California
Mayor Patrick J. Morris, San Bernardino, California
Mayor Jerry Sanders, San Diego, California
Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco, California
Mayor Chuck Reed, San Jose, California
Mayor Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, California
Mayor Marty Blum, Santa Barbara, California
Mayor Susan Gorin, Santa Rosa, California
Mayor Joseph D. Serrano, Sr., Santa Fe Springs, California
Mayor Ken Genser, Santa Monica, California
Mayor Paul Miller, Simi Valley, California
Mayor Ann Johnston, Stockton, California
Mayor Anthony Spitaleri, Sunnyvale, California
Mayor Morris Vance, Vista, California
Mayor Abbe Land, West Hollywood, California
Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, West Sacramento, California

Not a lot of surprises, but let them know what you think anyway.

Sean

all so very p.c.. cox and sanders are both politically dead.

Vectrexer
05-15-2010, 7:03 PM
Is there any place for the term "Honorable" at the Federal level anymore?

gunsmith
05-16-2010, 8:16 AM
Thanks, I hope the thr lawsuit gets resolved soon, there used to be a lot more reliable info in the legal forum there in the old days.
I had a feeling the sky wasn't falling but I only have limited resources right now so I cant do much research

KylaGWolf
05-16-2010, 12:05 PM
all so very p.c.. cox and sanders are both politically dead.

We could only be that lucky. I have a feeling our mayor Sanders will get reelected but he doesn't have my vote that is for sure.

N6ATF
05-16-2010, 2:51 PM
Witnesses
Panel 1

* The Traitorous Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senate
* The Traitorous Peter T. King, U.S. House of Representatives
* The Traitorous Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York
* The Traitorous Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner, City of New York

Fixed.

The Director
05-16-2010, 3:12 PM
Fixed.

I wonder why Antonio Vivalaraza didn't make it on that panel.

Yankee Clipper
05-16-2010, 3:19 PM
Supposedly this proposed legislation stems from a politically stacked panel of witnesses that supported a question that became a statement: “additional authority should be sought from Congress to prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected terrorists.”
The problem with that is, our existing laws work as intended: terrorists, in this country, don’t normally use guns to commit their acts.

yellowfin
05-16-2010, 8:32 PM
Good for us that we think it won't pass, but does it bother anyone other than me that its proponents still stand unpunished and unremoved? Dunno about you, but I see way too many wolves on the other side of the fence looking for a hole to crawl through and I don't like counting on fences to stay in good repair to determine how things go.

hill billy
05-16-2010, 8:54 PM
This doesn't have a chance in hell in passing Congress.

It's a puff piece for those specific legislators.

Every Dem sitting in a Republican seat lost in 2006, and Blue Dog Dems, ain't gonna vote for it. Most Republicans won't vote for it except East Coast RINOS.

Remember - from PLCAA to NICS Improement Act to AW ban nonrenewal to brass recovery issues, from allowing CCW in National Parks in a credit card bill, etc. - we own Congress.

That's a bold statement. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing as you know much more than I. I hope and pray you are correct.

jman
05-17-2010, 10:50 AM
Perhaps I am being overly cynical or paranoid, but this proposed legislation is deeply troubling in the latitude and discretion it would provide to the AG. While I am certainly supportive of fighting terrorism, the part that is troubling is the repeated assertitions by the current administration that domestic terrorism poses a dire threat to our (actually their) security, with domestic terrorism arising from radical white christian gun owning citizens.
Of course these people know that your traditional terrorist is most probably not going to walk into a gun store and buy weapons and would rather just blow something up. So, again I apologize if sounding too cynical or "FUD-ish", but I smell a rat...

hoffmang
05-18-2010, 9:26 PM
FYI that the bill was heard in a committee that can't even move the bill. It's pure political theater.

-Gene

PanchoVilla
05-19-2010, 10:04 AM
My city is listed. At least I know who NOT to vote for for mayor next time.

inbox485
06-01-2010, 12:25 PM
400 Mayors Call on Congress to Support H.R.2159/S.1317, here are the ones from CA:

Not a lot of surprises, but let them know what you think anyway.

Sean

That's an old list. It caught my eye because Hemet is no longer on the list since that guy is no longer a mayor. Here is the current one:

Mayor Jane P. Kennedy
Campbell, CA

Mayor Cheryl Cox
Chula Vista, CA


Mayor Robert Wasserman
Fremont, CA

Mayor Ashley Swearengin -- Resigned from MAIG
Fresno, CA

Mayor Roosevelt F. Dorn
Inglewood, CA

Mayor Sukhee Kang
Irvine, CA

Mayor Larry Burrola
Irwindale, CA

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Los Angeles, CA

Mayor Rob Schroder
Martinez, CA

Mayor Jim Ridenour -- Resigned from MAIG
Modesto, CA

Mayor Paul Eaton
Montclair, CA

Mayor Ron Dellums
Oakland, CA

Mayor Sue Severson
Orinda, CA

Mayor Jean M. Benson
Palm Desert, CA

Mayor Pamela Torliatt
Petaluma, CA

Mayor Jennifer Hosterman
Pleasanton, CA

Mayor Jonathan Harrison -- Resigned from MAIG
Redlands, CA

Mayor Gayle McLaughlin
Richmond, CA

Mayor Dennis Donohue
Salinas, CA

Mayor Patrick J. Morris
San Bernardino, CA

Mayor Jerry Sanders
San Diego, CA

Mayor Gavin Newsom
San Francisco, CA

Mayor Chuck Reed
San Jose, CA


Mayor Miguel Pulido
Santa Ana, CA

Mayor Marty Blum
Santa Barbara, CA

Mayor Cynthia Matthews
Santa Cruz, CA

Mayor Ken Genser
Santa Monica, CA

Mayor Susan Gorin
Santa Rosa, CA

Mayor Paul Miller -- Resigned from MAIG
Simi Valley, CA

Mayor Ann Johnston
Stockton, CA

Mayor Anthony (Tony) Spitaleri -- Resigned from MAIG
Sunnyvale, CA

Mayor Morris Vance
Vista, CA

Mayor Abbe Land
West Hollywood, CA

Mayor Christopher Cabaldon
West Sacramento, CA

Ed_in_Sac
06-01-2010, 12:29 PM
Did they just call Lautenberg honorable?
^Yeah, and Bloomberg too! Thank goodness that the Debutante Princess Mayor Daley was not there. Was it because no one would call him "honorable?"

ScottB
06-01-2010, 12:44 PM
Most of these congressional hearings are just dog and pony shows.

The majority party controls the leadership and committee leaders call the shots on who appears and what the agenda is for a hearing. They are not looking to be informed, they are looking to manufacture a "consensus" consistent with what they want to do.

Oh, and they are of course looking for campaign sound bites and the all important photo-op as well.

PhantomII
06-01-2010, 1:05 PM
If they wish to protect us from terrorists, why don't they ban airliners and buildings?
They would be MUCH easier to find and confiscate and since the only terrorist act ever perpetrated in this country involved both, I would think the choice was obvious.

I haven't heard of any domestic terrorist attacks with firearms other than "terrorist" being a button-pushing term these days and the media likes to label anything they don't approve of as an "act of terrorism".

There have been a few issues with explosives but the law pretty much has those locked up. The only loopholes in the availability to acquire explosives is the little bitty one where they've neglected to make it illegal to commit crimes... That and the stuff in your kitchen.

But I'll tell you. If they made crimes illegal, you can bet those criminal types would stop committing them.