Sen. Lautenberg's assualt upon the Constitution has a bill number: S.1237. It has twelve co-sponsors: Clinton, Akaka, Schumer, Dodd, Feinstein, Levin, Reed, Menendez, Leiberman, Durbin, Kennedy, and Mikulski.
There is a similar bill in the House: HR. 2074 introduced by Rep. Peter T. King[NY]. He has seven co-sponsors: Mike Ferguson, Patrick Kennedy, Charles Rangel, James Walsh, Vito Fossella, Michael McCaul, and Christopher Shays.
Both bills are bottled up in their respective committees at the moment. And hopefully they will die there. But that is the reason for this post, to ensure these bills get killed least they become law.
To sound alarmist, these bills do gut the Constitution in regards to the 2nd Amendment. How can I say this, look at the bills.
From the Senate version: the AG can deny/revoke any one's right to own firearms and not reveal what lead to this determination if its in the interest of national security.
(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)(1)(H) or (e)(3), 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.'.
Anyone for Star Chambers meeting in secure rooms at Justice Department to determine who is a threat? Using evidence that the DoJ can refuse to reveal in court. All at the discretion of the Attorney General. Where is the oversight?
The House version has similar language in it.
(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `except that if the denial or revocation is based on a determination under subsection (b)(8) or (d)(2), then any information which the Attorney
General relied on for the determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security' before the period; and(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: `In responding to any petition for review of a denial or revocation based on a determination under section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'.
While celebrating this July 4th, remember all the freedoms and responsibilities those patriots fought and died for can be lost without a shot. These bills are such a threat.
4 comments:
Happy 4th, Anna
You too Skye, hope it was great for you.
Up this way, the 2nd Amendment is fully taken advantage of. In the last couple months, our sparsley populated area has seen:
1. three people killed & two injured by a fellow whose gunrights had been revoked due to continual spousal abuse. He transferred ownership to the wife.
Then, taking an M-1 and an AK47, shot her in the face; shot up the courthouse, killed a police officer wearing a bulletproof jacket, as well as an elderly church sexton before saving the taxpayers courtcosts by blowing his own brains out.
2. A week later, two guys got in an argument, one killed the other with a pistol
3. A week later a 3 year old went in the house while mom was in the yard; he found and toyed with a loaded 9mm pistol and shot himself in the heart.
4. Last week, two young fellows got arguing over who was the better football player in high school; verbalizing escalated until one killed the other with a 22, then stuck it under his own chin.
5. A couple months back, a stalker who announced "others were stealing his powers" entered the University and shot a grad student dead, drove south and found another
"power stealer", killed him and took his truck to California. His
distraught parents had tried to hide is guns a number of times
..having retired after a career in the ammunition industry, I'm a keen supporter of gun rights. But, frankly, until gun owners show some responsibility by admitting there are idiots who should not have them, I don't have the sympathy I once had. Consider the five incidents above, the total carnage and relate it to a
'well regulated militia'.
BB-Idaho, and what bearing has all this have on Lautenberg's bill?
Zero.
Sen. Lautenberg's gun grab does not require anyone to be convicted of any crime before losing their rights. It leaves it up to the discrection of the Attorney General, using unspecified means that the AG does not even have to show in court, to determine if someone is a potential terrorist and hence denying them the ability to buy any firearm.
Post a Comment