Currently being discussed in Senate is a very dangerous bill, Senate Bill 34; Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011. Sounds good doesnt it? Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorist; who wouldnt want a bill like that. We dont want Dangerous Terrorist to have Firearms, or Explosives. We want Americans to be safe. So what could possibly be wrong with this bill? The general idea of it is wrong. It starts out in Section two with the wording,
SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by inserting after section 922 the following:
Sec. 922A. Attorney Generals discretion to deny transfer of a firearm
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; and
(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.
Starting in section part 1 of section a, 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; and it is in the parenthesis, appropriately suspected that we should be concerned. Right now you are allowed to have a firearm unless you have been convicted of a felony. With this bill though someone who is appropriately suspected of terrorism can be prevented from carrying a firearm, and the really question then becomes who determines what appropriate? Can this bill be perverted like so many other bills have been in the past to prevent innocent individuals from possessing firearms? Part 2 of that section goes on to say, has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. What is the reasonable belief? Who determines what is reasonable, one individual? Just the Attorney General, or an entire investigative branch of the Government. It is basically the same problem as the first, in America we are innocent until proven guilty, and we are able to thus carry a firearm because only individuals who have been convicted of a felony arent allowed to carry. This bill usurps our right to innocent until proven guilty.
The Attorney General may determine that–
(1) an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) 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; and
Why is this section a problem? We dont want to allow someone who gives aid to the enemy to possess a firearm, or explosives. However there are a lot of organizations out there that provide food and supplies to help with cases of genocide in Africa, these organizations have been accused of providing aid and comfort to terrorist. They arent deliberately helping terrorist though, they are looking to help innocent victims that perhaps by way of marriage or birth are associated with terrorist. Should individuals who work in these organizations have rights taken away? The definitions that follow this section are ones that you might find in most bills, clarifying what the author of the bill meant when he wrote it. The definition of terrorism is terrifying. Since it includes international and domestic terrorism; the reason that this is terrifying is that for some a domestic terrorist could be a militia man. The very essence of the Second Amendment debate, A well-formed Militia if a well-formed Militia is equated as a terrorist organization, and therefore not allowed to carry firearms, the argument can and will be made that no one is allowed to carry firearms, since only Militias are allowed, and they are now considered terrorist organizations. The term responsible person also has negative connotations for this law. A responsible person is anyone who has the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the applicant or licensee pertaining to firearms. We have now with this clause established Guilt by association; you cannot possess a firearm if you are associated with someone who shouldnt be able to possess a firearm.
In section 922A, the Attorney General has discretion to deny transfer of a fire arm, and in 922B the Attorney General has discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3), so what does this mean? It means that there will more infringement on the rights of individuals to bear arms. Giving an Attorney General discretionary denial through the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, will also be amended.
This law uses a lot of interesting language to do one thing and one thing only, deny everyday citizens that should have the right to bear arms that right. Gone are the days innocent until proven guilty, with this law you will have guilt by association or simply because the Attorney General decides that someone is guilty.
It doesnt stop there however, the law goes on to state that individuals who are already licensed to carry a firearm can have that license revoked if the AG determines that they are a threat by the same means mentioned above. Finally it gives the AG the right to withhold information as to why the license is being denied. So if this law is passed and an individual is denied the right to purchase a gun, pursuant to this law the reason behind the denial may never be given. All in the name of National Security the AG can effectively take away our firearms.Tweet
Latest posts by Rachel Lynn Robinson (see all)
- What about a third party candidate - July 23, 2013
- Should late term abortions be banned? - July 16, 2013
- Abortion and The Girl Scouts - November 27, 2011
- Bi-National Health Insurance - October 19, 2011
- Putting the Godfather in the White House - September 26, 2011
- Is Voter Fraud Real, and What can be done to Stop It. - August 30, 2011
- Pro Choice can mean Choosing Life - August 29, 2011
- Anybody but Obama - August 28, 2011
- Why the Second Amendment Matters - August 26, 2011
- Who is to Blame? - August 20, 2011
- Rick Perry, Conservative or Democrat in Republican Clothing - August 17, 2011
- Sex Education in Preschool - August 17, 2011
- Finding the Right Voice in 2012 - August 12, 2011
- Can Herman Cain Win the Election? - August 10, 2011
- Planned Parenthood vs. Kansas - July 23, 2011
- Is It Okay to Prevent Protesting at Military Funerals? - June 2, 2011
- How E Verify is Going to Help Prevent the Employment of Illegals - June 1, 2011
- Finally a Birth Certificate - April 28, 2011
- How will the passage of S 34 affect everyday people - April 26, 2011