Go Back   Shreveport.com > Public Forums > Government & Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2007, 06:17 PM   #1
Al Swearengen
Advanced Member
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 849
Rep Power: 166 Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future
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!
Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 06:49 PM   #2
LateNight
SBLive! Veteran
 
LateNight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,609
Rep Power: 187 LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future
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.
LateNight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 06:54 PM   #3
joepole
SBLive! Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,606
Rep Power: 177 joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of
>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.
joepole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 07:08 PM   #4
LateNight
SBLive! Veteran
 
LateNight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,609
Rep Power: 187 LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future LateNight has a brilliant future
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 ???
LateNight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 07:42 PM   #5
rhertz
SBLive! Veteran
 
rhertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Rep Power: 213 rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future
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.....
rhertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 08:20 PM   #6
Al Swearengen
Advanced Member
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 849
Rep Power: 166 Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future
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!
Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 09:29 PM   #7
joepole
SBLive! Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,606
Rep Power: 177 joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of
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.
joepole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 09:43 PM   #8
Al Swearengen
Advanced Member
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 849
Rep Power: 166 Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepole
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.
I left out nothing. The article I posted was taken verbatim from the July '07 issue of "American Rifleman". Also, you either failed to read or comprehend the language of the bill..."It shall be unlawful for any person...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition."
__________________
Molon Labe!
Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 10:12 PM   #9
joepole
SBLive! Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,606
Rep Power: 177 joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of
You (or the article by way of you) left out the above quoted text I copied from the bill itself. A pretty important part, i might add.

>Also, you either failed to read or comprehend the language of the bill..."It shall be unlawful for any person...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition."

That is just flat out wrong. Did you actually read the bill or did you just trust that "American Rifleman" had all the facts straight? The portion of the bill that is referring to is the part that amends USC 18.922(d) which reads:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—"

...and then it goes on to list 9 conditions under which it is illegal to sell a person a gun. This new bill adds a 10th:

"(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General under section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.'."
joepole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 10:30 PM   #10
Al Swearengen
Advanced Member
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 849
Rep Power: 166 Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future Al Swearengen has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepole
You (or the article by way of you) left out the above quoted text I copied from the bill itself. A pretty important part, i might add.

>Also, you either failed to read or comprehend the language of the bill..."It shall be unlawful for any person...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition."

That is just flat out wrong. Did you actually read the bill or did you just trust that "American Rifleman" had all the facts straight? The portion of the bill that is referring to is the part that amends USC 18.922(d) which reads:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—"

...and then it goes on to list 9 conditions under which it is illegal to sell a person a gun. This new bill adds a 10th:

"(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General under section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.'."

You're forgettin somethin, aintcha? A lil somethin Mr. Harlan B. Carter said, about "Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment." Joe, you're a stickler for detail, but ya blew past that bit of minutia and never looked back, didntcha?
__________________
Molon Labe!

Last edited by Al Swearengen; 06-14-2007 at 11:19 PM.
Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 05:05 AM   #11
BrainSmashR
Banned
 
BrainSmashR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Natchitoches
Age: 46
Posts: 1,090
Rep Power: 0 BrainSmashR will become famous soon enough
Send a message via ICQ to BrainSmashR Send a message via AIM to BrainSmashR Send a message via MSN to BrainSmashR Send a message via Yahoo to BrainSmashR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Swearengen
You're forgettin somethin, aintcha? A lil somethin Mr. Harlan B. Carter said, about "Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment." Joe, you're a stickler for detail, but ya blew past that bit of minutia and never looked back, didntcha?

And do YOU really think using the worst possible case scenario is the best way to judge this law? That's like locking your daughter in the basement because she might get raped and murdered in the outside world one day. Justifying your actions with the worst possible case scenario.

I'm a firm believer in The Patriot Act, and have fully supported it's use in every instance that I'm aware of....

As for LN comments, DUDE.....don't you think it's pretty difficult for a normal, hard working, tax paying citizen to be labeled an enemy combatant?

And let's face it....if you're calling or making any kind of transaction with any person in/from/or around the middle east, then I want the govt. watching your @$$ too!!
BrainSmashR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 11:36 AM   #12
joepole
SBLive! Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,606
Rep Power: 177 joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of
If judging a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment includes the ability to make up words that aren't there then there's no point in even discussing any law ever.

For the record I don't like this law and hope it doesn't pass. I don't like it for legit reasons, though, not the fictitious ones given in the above article.
joepole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 09:16 PM   #13
rhertz
SBLive! Veteran
 
rhertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Rep Power: 213 rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepole
For the record I don't like this law and hope it doesn't pass. I don't like it for legit reasons, though, not the fictitious ones given in the above article.
Yeah but isn't that often the case with legislation? As I grow older I have a tendancy to vote "nay" when it doubt. Not that I fear change, but rather I respect my ancestor's morals more as I grow older. If it aint' broke, then don't fix it!
rhertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 09:10 AM   #14
Isaac-Saxxon
SBLive! Veteran
 
Isaac-Saxxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,421
Rep Power: 236 Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future
We sure do not need more laws to add to the long list of what we can not do.
I would say the police can not enforce the ones on the books now.
__________________
Maranatha
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Isaac-Saxxon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
2008 Shreveport.com