Here is a link to the proposed legislation on the Govtrack site including a summary of the text, the full text, past actions and current status on the proposed legislation.
The bill is Senate bill 1317. A.K.A. ‘Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’
Seriously? Do you really need to indicate the terrorists are "dangerous?" I guess they need to in order to distinguish them from the terrorists who show up at your home and fold your laundry. Or the ones who come to our work and give people punch and pie. Or the ones that show up at busy commercial areas and hug bunnies. *sigh*
My personal favorites sections are:
The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General--
(1) 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 or resources for terrorism;
I am going to "Glenn Beck" you now. That is to say that I am going to give you the most extreme and ridiculous example. Have you put gas in your car this week? Can you prove that that gas that you purchased did not come from a country that sponsors terrorism? More importantly can you prove that the money that you spent did not in some way make it directly into the hands of an organization that, in turn, purchased weapons, training or information that was used in a terrorist act? Congratulations. You could now be labeled a terrorist.
Now your natural response to this would be, as would mine, "That's ridiculous. I'm an American citizen. I don't have to prove my innocence, the state has to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of my peers." Hold on to your hats folks, because this is where things get "interesting."
(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 923(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘However, if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(3) or (e)(1)(C), any information upon which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner, if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.’.
(2) SUMMARIES- Section 923(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: ‘With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.
Did you catch the title of that section? Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information. That's right. They don't have to tell you a God blessed thing. In part (1), even if you drag them into court, they can slap a label of "National Security" on it and you don't get to see a thing. Part (2) lets them give the judge summarized and redacted documentation to make their case, so that the JUDGE doesn't even necessarily get to see the information used to make the determination that you should be prevented from purchasing a firearm. I am not a lawyer, but I know the words "may, might and shall," are VERY different from "must, will and shall." I could be misinterpreting the intended/legal implications of Part (2). Please feel free to point out my ignorance in the comments.
The lone bright spot of this legislation is that the the accused or the court can petition for the judge, and only the judge, to view the un-redacted documents, and determine if they are a fairly represented by the redacted documents in use in the courtroom.
(b) ... Upon request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.
Did you catch the rub? Even if the judge sees something in the un-redacted document that the judge would normally overturn the determination of the Attorney General, the judge CANNOT consider that information in the rendering of his verdict.
The stuff above about firearms? Yeah. Ditto that for explosives. I know, I know, "But why do we care if someone can buy explosives? What possible reason could someone have for owning a hand grenade?" OK. Is a firecracker an explosive? "Of course not. You couldn't use that to commit an act of terrorism." Really? The core of the failed device in Times Square that was supposed to initiate the reaction in the main explosive charge was... wait for it... a couple of M-88 firecrackers purchased at a "Phantom Fireworks" in Central PA. Thankfully the guy was a moron and bought underpowered legal fireworks (instead of their much more powerful illegal counterpart) and used crappy, substandard fertilizer to commit an illegal act that was going to end dozens of innocent lives.
Anyway, I don't want to bore you any further. I am just going to post what I sent to my representatives. If you are so moved, you can use it too. If not, you can make your own. If you don't care enough to send them a message, then be prepared to live with the consequences of your silence.
I should mention that I utilize the "No Fly" list as my litmus test. You may want to alter that in some form as the "No Fly" list is not specifically mentioned and you may, or may not know someone why was actually put on the "No Fly" list, so that part may not be applicable.
Representative:
I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that if this affront to our rights, by some horrific mistake, makes it out of the Senate and to the House of Representatives, that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the President.
Senator:
I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the House of Representatives.
Posts
