Gun owners and liberty loving people from all across America should be educating themselves and gearing up to stop a very dangerous piece of legislation currently being brought before the House Judiciary Committee.
H.R. 2159: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 seeks to permit the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.
Problem is; what's the definition of known or suspected dangerous terrorists?
Gun Digest says:
"Critics say the names of suspected terrorists could be drawn from existing government watch lists that cover such broad categories as animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists and anti-technology extremists."
In effect, any group or people who someone might want to label as "extremist" or "anti."
"It doesn't say anything about trials and due process," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told Fox News. "This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come along in some time. It's basically saying, ‘I suspect you, so your rights are toast.’"
Who gets to decide what a dangerous terrorist is or what an extremist is? Are Vets still considered extremists? Lets hope it's not DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano or US Attorney General Eric Holder who are both named in a law suit as defendants, for their roles in instituting a government attack against the rights of US citizens as guaranteed in the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution. The suit is specifically in response to the DHS intelligence report entitled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,”
Among the assertions in the complaint that label individuals as "right-wing extremists" are:
* Opposes restrictions on firearms
* Opposes lax immigration
* Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
* Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
* Opposes same-sex marriage
* Has paranoia of foreign regimes
* Fear of Communist regimes
* Opposes one world government
* Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
* Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
* . . . and the list goes on
Govetrack asks two important questions
1) If they are dangerous terrorists, why are they not in prison? Why does the government let such "dangerous" people circulate and be a threat? Either they are criminal or not. This gray area is preposterous and a serious threat to our liberty.
2) Does this bill attack due process by permiting the Atty Gen to deny a firearm transfer to proceed, based purely on speculation or presumption that an individual meets the definition of "dangerous terrorist" without legal process and without advice as to the nature of the denial?
Great questions both and the constitutionality is a huge question. I doubt this bill ever gets out of committee but that shouldn't stop anyone from contacting members of the committee along with your representatives to voice your opposition to this bill.