Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Stealth Hearing Tomorrow On a Proposal to Give the Regime the Right to Declare Anyone a Terrorist and Prevent Them From Buying a Weapon.

Get the word out, people, along with the message -- we will not comply.

Lautenberg's at it again, the traitorous prick.

Just received this in via email. Don't know how they sneaked this in, but even long-time guardians of firearms rights were caught unawares by this announcement:

Little publicized hearing tomorrow. BOHICA!

How long till we hear "No, you can't purchase a firearm...I can't tell you why, it's a national security matter".

I not only see this ripe for abuse, but also see a glaring unintended consequence if passed. If I were a terrorist I would applaud this bill. I would only need to say buy a gun a week, and when I were denied, I'd know the government was on to me at that point.

Check out the witness list...less than balanced.


Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms

Wednesday, May 5, 2010
10:00 AM
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342

Panel 1

* The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senate
* The Honorable Peter T. King, U.S. House of Representatives
* The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York
* The Honorable Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner, City of New York

Panel 2

* Daniel D. Roberts, Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice
* Eileen R. Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office
* Sandy Jo MacArthur, Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services, Los Angeles Police Department
* Aaron Titus, Privacy Director, Liberty Coalition

Background information:

In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a working group to review federal firearms and explosives laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159) that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative proposal developed by DOJ.

In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18 U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).

The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.

With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security. The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to correction of erroneous information.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those documents contained information that could compromise national security, but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted documents.


Axeanda45 said...

Oh Hell No!!!!!!

oldsmobile98 said...

If you can't trust Eric Holder, who CAN you trust?

chinasyndrome said...

Well hell yeah,cause we've had so many Terrorist attacks with guns.Remember there was um no that wasn't a gun.Well what about no no gun that time either.They are trying to disarm and shut us up at the same time.From my cold dead fingers.


Taylor H said...

We've seen this coming for awhile. I won't be surprised if it goes through.

^Hawk^ said...

I was going to make the same point China did. They need to outlaw box cutters and can of gasoline if they are really trying to stop terrorists. I call BULLSHIT!

III- We Are Everywhere!

Anonymous said...

This was a bill sponsored by Rep. Peter King (D-NY) IIRC last year.

Do we know if the source for this email is credible?

This bill basically died last year from what I can remember....do we have a way of finding out if this is a real threat or another 'sky is falling' emails?

Anonymous said...

MOLON LABE mother@#$&ers!

Anonymous said...

The Government's darkest fear is the awakening of the lower middle class, tax paying, baseball coach, average American that is tired of getting screwed by the people that are supposed to work for them.

They know we are empowered by our weapons. Not by what they do in our hands but what they represent.

We are being defined and labeled. We are being profiled and categorized.

Throw my rifle and my Bible on my bed and get the evening news crew to film it and guess what I am.

We are going to be the bad guys people. We will be hated and scorned.

Turned in and tuned out but the core will remain.

Where are our Great Leaders at???

Shy Wolf said...

They really can't read the writing on the wall, can they? I don't feel a bit sorry for them about what's going to happen to them.

Dakota said...

rroGo ahead you sons a bitches .... I dare ya!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey man, this is just common sense gun legislation! Everyone knows terrorists prefer legally bought semi-auto only rifles!

Why would they bother buying full-auto AKs from sub-Saharan African countries at the price of a pair of jeans each? Clearly the issue is a couple of guys who look like they've been living a cave walking into mom & pop stores and buying semi-auto only AKs at 10-20 times the cost.

What's that? Oh, no, this would never be used against patriotic Americans, just dangerous MUSLIMS. Trust us.

No, this is nothing like Bush did. See, he had an "R" after his name, we have "D"s. Clearly no need to pay attention to this!

Anonymous said...

All I have to say is you can read the bs daily from the aggravated left and there proposed and or agenda legislation to be implemented. It will come a time 11/10 whether it will electively prevail or decisions will be made as to the ultimate decisive outcome.

Its just that simple.

W W Woodward said...

Presently, I'm not a terrorist and have no desire to be one. I don't believe I'll ever be one. I happen to love my country and believe that the Constitution is probably the single most important document ever drafted by mortal man.

I am overly tired of seeing people who should know better wipe their arses with the documents that symbolize what this nation is supposed to represent to the world. I am overly tired of having egotistical arseholes spit on and trample my rights as a free man. I will never be a terrorist, however I can see myself as a terror.

Like you said, Mike; Oh HELL no!


Dennis308 said...

OH HELL NO MOTH## FUC###!!!!!!!
More names added to the war crimes perpatraitors list against the constitution.
I think were gona need more rope.


aughtsix said...


There ain't near enough of them.

Causus beli yet?

How long, Oh Lord?



Dutchman6 said...

"This bill basically died last year from what I can remember....do we have a way of finding out if this is a real threat or another 'sky is falling' emails?"

It's real. As real as it gets. All you had to do to verify is to click on the link.


Mike B said...

These people just dont get it.

We're screwed.
There's gonna be a fight.
Let's WIN!

Mike B

Anonymous said...

3M OR 600M Take your pick, I work well at either. Remember Hal Moore and La Drang Valley...1965 and do not forget "Too Tall Freeman"! He worked for Col. Hal Moore.


Anonymous said...

It's real:


Anonymous said...

"The bill would amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the subject of a terrorism-related determination as well."

This is the really scary part...Don't know that your neighbor is being investigated...not allowed to know who is on the terror watch list...doesn't matter. Sell them a gun, and you get to go directly to jail. I have no doubt that they will use this provision in just such a manner. Should this pass, none of us will be safe, make no mistake.


Texas Shooter said...

The "Hearing" is live on CSPAN3 now...


Anonymous said...

Can we hang these bastards yet?

Kent McManigal said...

I see "honorable" doesn't mean what they think it means. It's kinda like when people say "unthaw" when they mean "thaw". Dishonorable would be truthful.

Anonymous said...

I bet everyone on the SPLC's 'dangerous' activist list will be the first to get denied.

Anonymous said...

Remember the DOD ban on this blog? ALL OF US who read this blog on a regular basis will be on this list. ALL OF US who went to the 4/19 march will be on the list. Call your congrss critters, raise H%^& and pray that this works!!! The alternatives are not pretty.

Concerned American said...

See David's coverage as linked here.

Anonymous said...

I take offense at Americans still referring to or addressing Congresspeople or Administration officials as, "The Honorable."

Please STOP IT. Call them whatever their title is: Senator, Congresswoman, Secretary but knock off this "The Honorable" BS.

Same goes for judges. I only refer to them as Judge. I had one a few months ago ( I have a son who is a free spirit and doesn't acknowledge the government's laws regarding MJ) correct me in court by saying, "The proper way to address a judge is 'your honor'."

I responded to him with, "Well, I'm a FREE American, at least for the time being, and I do not acknowledge titles of royalty and the like. You are a judge and I'll refer to you as a judge." I don't refer to anyone a "your highness" nor "your excellency" nor "your honor." So, Judge, as I was saying....

Anonymous said...

As far as I'm concerned, if they pass this legislation, it will be nothing less than an act of war and oppression against the American people and our fundamental, human rights. It will render this government illegitimate and justify resistance by the people!

It would, of course, be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL but reality would require us to expect the corrupt courts to uphold it under some BS "legal exigent circumstance" or some such BS.

Keep stockpiling semi-auto weapons and cases upon cases of ammo folks. We're gonna need them and, unfortunately, sooner than later I fear.