They never give up!

Al Swearengen · 06-14-2007, 06:17 PM

The following is from the July 2007 issue of "American Rifleman" magazine:

Standing Guard
By Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association

With the full support of Alberto Gonzales' U.S. Department of Justice, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg is pushing legislation to give the government unprecedented discretionary power to secretly decree that a citizen is banned from owning firearms. The government would need nothing more than a "suspicion" using information it would not have to divulge, ever. Called "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007"-the Gonzales/Lautenberg bill, S. 1237 drafted by the Justice Department-is the broadest power grab ever proposed over the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (See NRA's response at: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/NRA_ltr_gonzales.pdf)

Harlon B. Carter, founder of the modern NRA, said, "Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment." Think of Hillary Clinton as president and Charles Schumer as attorney general.
Then look into Luatenberg's proposal and see what could happen to you or me if S. 1237 were ever to become law.

Imagine you are picking up a pristine 1937 first-year Winchester Model 70. You've filled out the 4473 at your friend Bill's shop, and wait for him to get the usual fast clearence from the National Instant Check System (NICS). On the phone, Bill is shaking his head, very animated. He finishes his conversation and motions you over, telling you he cant transfer the rifle. You were turned down. Bill says he argued that you were a longtime customer, a veteran, a high school teacher; and he asked why the refusal? He was told only that the sale was denied. "They gave me a number for you to call", he says. When you get home, you are still in complete shock. You call the number and are told that the refusal had something to do with "suspected terrorism", and that the government is not at liberty to say more. Terrorism? It is simply not possible. You hire a lawyer, and he says it must be an error. Not to worry.
But the new law says "It shall be unlawful for any person...who has been the subject of a determination by the attorney general...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition..." Days later you receive an official notice that you no longer can own firearms-based on a suspicion. Your lawyer tells you to divest yourself of your firearms, but before you can do so, federal agents arrive at your home with a search warrant and a form demanding that you surrender all firearms and ammunition. They say you are now on the attorney general's "suspect" list, and as a prohibited person, it is a federal felony for you to possess any gun. They take your gun collection-all of it-in lieu of arrest.

The agent in charge warns you to stay away from guns. They will be observing you. All they will say to your question as to "why" is a reading of a card. Its like one of those Miranda warnings you see on TV: "The attorney general has determined that you are 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 thatthe attorney general has a reasonable belief that you may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."

A day later, your lawyer says your situation is hopeless. You can't get your guns back. Under the law, you are now a prohibited person, just like a convicted felon. He reads you the new law-which requires no criminal intent or knowledge, only suspicion: "...any information which the attorney general relied on for this determination may be withheld...if the attorney general determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."

You ask the lawyer,"Can't we appeal?" He continues: "In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summariesor redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the attorney general has determined would likely compromise national security."

At the sole discretion of the attorney general, they can withhold anything and everything they allegedly have on you-all in the name of "national security." You have lost your Second Amendment rights-gun ownership is a criminal act-based on a mere "suspicion", and you can't even find out what it is. This outrageous scenerio has not happened yet, but it could if the Gonzales/Lautenberg Brave New World-like legislation-S. 1237-ever becomes law. In creating a new criminal class of prohibited persons based on "suspicion", the same language applies to license denials, to state firearm permit denials and to sale of firearms by individuals. The Bush administration is on record affirming the Second Amendment as an individual right, yet this bill trashes the Constitution, mocking the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It would arbitrarily take away your rights-without charges-without an arrest, without a trial, and without a conviction-just because the attorney general says so. It denies citizens all due process of law at the sole discretion of government-something that must never happen in America.
Shockingly, Lautenberg is telling the world that he has the full support of the Bush administration and expects this measure to be signed into law. E-mail, write, and telephone your U.S Senators and Congressmen asking them to oppose S. 1237, and tell Attorney General Gonzales to wake up and withdraw his support.

LateNight · 06-14-2007, 06:49 PM

I believe this to be one of the major problems with things such as the "Patriot Act" and "the war on terror" there is no "clear" enemy.

All they have to do is declare you an "enemy combatant" and your rights as a "U.S. citizen" are toast.

If all we were ever talking about was true "terrorist" then I doubt any of us who have much to disagree on.. but when it's as vague as it is sometimes.. LOOK OUT.

joepole · 06-14-2007, 06:54 PM

>All they have to do is declare you an "enemy combatant" and your rights as a "U.S. citizen" are toast.

Didn't we all just learn that wasn't true?

"Terrorist" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Bin Laden was our friend when he was terrorizing the Russkies. Saddam was, too, when he was going after Iran.

LateNight · 06-14-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joepole

Didn't we all just learn that wasn't true?

Not sure I get that.. unless you were simply referring to the Bin Ladens and Saddam's of the world specifically ???

rhertz · 06-14-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joepole

"Terrorist" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Bin Laden was our friend when he was terrorizing the Russkies. Saddam was, too, when he was going after Iran.

Yeah I guess that means there are good terrorists and bad terriorists. The good ones are on our side. The bad one's are not on our side. Some switch sides and therefore go from bad to good, or good to bad. That is to say that they go from our side to their side or vice versa. Now it's time to look at the statistics.. Most of the bad ones that are not on our side fit a certain profile that is policitially incorrect to stereotype. Who is "their side"? That is our enemy, not just the individuals on both sides who flop around seeking fame, glory, money, Allah, or whatever.....

Al Swearengen · 06-14-2007, 08:20 PM

If that piece of totalitarian garbage does'nt scare the hell out of you folks, it should! So dont just sit there, write those e-mails and letters, make those phone calls. We all have to get involved, before its too late.

joepole · 06-14-2007, 09:29 PM

You left out a few important parts:

"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."

Also, the bill only prevents the transfer of weapons, not the possession. Your seizure situation isn't valid.

06-14-2007, 06:17 PM	#1
Al Swearengen Advanced Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 849 Rep Power: 247	They never give up! The following is from the July 2007 issue of "American Rifleman" magazine: Standing Guard By Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President National Rifle Association With the full support of Alberto Gonzales' U.S. Department of Justice, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg is pushing legislation to give the government unprecedented discretionary power to secretly decree that a citizen is banned from owning firearms. The government would need nothing more than a "suspicion" using information it would not have to divulge, ever. Called "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007"-the Gonzales/Lautenberg bill, S. 1237 drafted by the Justice Department-is the broadest power grab ever proposed over the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (See NRA's response at: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/NRA_ltr_gonzales.pdf) Harlon B. Carter, founder of the modern NRA, said, "Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment." Think of Hillary Clinton as president and Charles Schumer as attorney general. Then look into Luatenberg's proposal and see what could happen to you or me if S. 1237 were ever to become law. Imagine you are picking up a pristine 1937 first-year Winchester Model 70. You've filled out the 4473 at your friend Bill's shop, and wait for him to get the usual fast clearence from the National Instant Check System (NICS). On the phone, Bill is shaking his head, very animated. He finishes his conversation and motions you over, telling you he cant transfer the rifle. You were turned down. Bill says he argued that you were a longtime customer, a veteran, a high school teacher; and he asked why the refusal? He was told only that the sale was denied. "They gave me a number for you to call", he says. When you get home, you are still in complete shock. You call the number and are told that the refusal had something to do with "suspected terrorism", and that the government is not at liberty to say more. Terrorism? It is simply not possible. You hire a lawyer, and he says it must be an error. Not to worry. But the new law says "It shall be unlawful for any person...who has been the subject of a determination by the attorney general...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition..." Days later you receive an official notice that you no longer can own firearms-based on a suspicion. Your lawyer tells you to divest yourself of your firearms, but before you can do so, federal agents arrive at your home with a search warrant and a form demanding that you surrender all firearms and ammunition. They say you are now on the attorney general's "suspect" list, and as a prohibited person, it is a federal felony for you to possess any gun. They take your gun collection-all of it-in lieu of arrest. The agent in charge warns you to stay away from guns. They will be observing you. All they will say to your question as to "why" is a reading of a card. Its like one of those Miranda warnings you see on TV: "The attorney general has determined that you are 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 thatthe attorney general has a reasonable belief that you may use a firearm in connection with terrorism." A day later, your lawyer says your situation is hopeless. You can't get your guns back. Under the law, you are now a prohibited person, just like a convicted felon. He reads you the new law-which requires no criminal intent or knowledge, only suspicion: "...any information which the attorney general relied on for this determination may be withheld...if the attorney general determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security." You ask the lawyer,"Can't we appeal?" He continues: "In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summariesor redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the attorney general has determined would likely compromise national security." At the sole discretion of the attorney general, they can withhold anything and everything they allegedly have on you-all in the name of "national security." You have lost your Second Amendment rights-gun ownership is a criminal act-based on a mere "suspicion", and you can't even find out what it is. This outrageous scenerio has not happened yet, but it could if the Gonzales/Lautenberg Brave New World-like legislation-S. 1237-ever becomes law. In creating a new criminal class of prohibited persons based on "suspicion", the same language applies to license denials, to state firearm permit denials and to sale of firearms by individuals. The Bush administration is on record affirming the Second Amendment as an individual right, yet this bill trashes the Constitution, mocking the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It would arbitrarily take away your rights-without charges-without an arrest, without a trial, and without a conviction-just because the attorney general says so. It denies citizens all due process of law at the sole discretion of government-something that must never happen in America. Shockingly, Lautenberg is telling the world that he has the full support of the Bush administration and expects this measure to be signed into law. E-mail, write, and telephone your U.S Senators and Congressmen asking them to oppose S. 1237, and tell Attorney General Gonzales to wake up and withdraw his support. __________________ Molon Labe!

06-14-2007, 08:20 PM	#6
Al Swearengen Advanced Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 849 Rep Power: 247	If that piece of totalitarian garbage does'nt scare the hell out of you folks, it should! So dont just sit there, write those e-mails and letters, make those phone calls. We all have to get involved, before its too late. __________________ Molon Labe!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-14-2007, 06:49 PM	#2
LateNight SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,609 Rep Power: 268	I believe this to be one of the major problems with things such as the "Patriot Act" and "the war on terror" there is no "clear" enemy. All they have to do is declare you an "enemy combatant" and your rights as a "U.S. citizen" are toast. If all we were ever talking about was true "terrorist" then I doubt any of us who have much to disagree on.. but when it's as vague as it is sometimes.. LOOK OUT.

06-14-2007, 06:54 PM	#3
joepole SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,606 Rep Power: 258	>All they have to do is declare you an "enemy combatant" and your rights as a "U.S. citizen" are toast. Didn't we all just learn that wasn't true? "Terrorist" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Bin Laden was our friend when he was terrorizing the Russkies. Saddam was, too, when he was going after Iran.

06-14-2007, 09:29 PM	#7
joepole SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,606 Rep Power: 258	You left out a few important parts: "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." Also, the bill only prevents the transfer of weapons, not the possession. Your seizure situation isn't valid.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)