Heads up to those living in Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HistoryJunkie

New member
I'm not meaning to start any fear, just letting you guys know about something. I was watching C-SPAN today while randomly flipping through channels, and caught a bit of Attorney General Eric Holder talking to a Florida Congressman Ted Deutesh(?). I probably butchered his name.

Anyways, this Congressman was talking about potential legislative action against people on the government watch list which would make it more difficult for them to get access to "assault rifles". In specific he mentioned AK-47s.

Restricting people on the watch list sounds like a potentially sensible idea, but if successful would it stay at this. When I was watching him, there was a certain sparkle in his eye when talking about restricting and AK-47s.

If you don't believe me you can probably find coverage of this conference somewhere. The heading for it should be Justice Department Oversight.
 
Z

zombieslayer

New member
I don't think the threat of firearm restriction and the possible infringement upon the second ammendment is limited to Fl, in my opinion. According to NRAnews, everyone needs to keep a sharp eye, and know your candidates and representatives. Mr Holder does hate guns and tose who own them. Every NRA member should know that.
 
M

mack59

New member
"Restricting people on the watch list sounds like a potentially sensible idea, but if successful would it stay at this."


This is the problem:

1. It sounds reasonable, after all who wants terrorists with guns

2. But the legislation would ban sales to people on the ever expanding secret government lists - no fly list, suspected terrorist list, in addition to one or two other lists of suspected or potential terrorists or threats.

3. Those lists are ever expanding because there is no downside to adding someone to the list - just to be safe - and a big downside if you don't add someones name and they actually do turn out to be a real/actual threat or terrorist.

4. Proposed legislation would deny individuals their RKBA without due process - individuals would in effect be considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

5. Proving yourself innocent would/could be nigh impossible as they don't have to disclose why you were denied (i.e. that you are even on a list) - and if you can learn that you are on a list and then want to contest it and prove your innocense, you are treated to an abridged due process procedure - where you and your attorney do not get to even see - let alone directly address or contest the evidence against you - only a judge gets to see it as allowed by the Atty Generals office - and if after all that the judge says you shouldn't be considered a threat or a potential terrorist and the Atty Generals office disagrees with the judge - then you still are out of luck cause the Atty Generals office gets the final say.

So this legislation would give an office of the executive branch the power to prohibit anyone from buying a gun - that that office deemed was a "potential terrorist" or a "potential threat". And ultimately an individual so denied, might be able to appeal it through the courts - but the courts would not have the final say even then that would reside with the office of the Atty General who also gets to decide who is or isn't on the list and what is or isn't a potential threat or terrorist.

Shades if the RED Scares - are you now or have you ever been - have you ever been associated with terrorists organizations - like the VFW, NRA, GOA, Tea Party, the baptist church, the DAR, etc...
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Restricting people on the watch list is a horrific precedent, if you ask me.

It turns the very notion of innocent until proven guilty entirely on its head, stripping essential constitutional rights based on nothing more than supposition, innuendo, or error. Even worse is the limited ability of anyone who is on the list to get the problem fixed.

The No Fly list has hundreds, if not thousands, of known errors on it, and probably a lot more that simply aren't know.

Are we to expect any better from the so-called Terrorist Watch List?

I can't imagine we can.

While the entire premise SOUNDS good, after all, who doesn't want to guns out of the hands of terrorists, it's overly broad, imprecise, error-prone, and restrictive of the rights of those who have no reason for their rights to be restricted.

In the nearly 9 years since September 11 (God, I can't believe it's been that long already) this nation has moved in directions that are terrifying.

And worst of all, it's all being done with supposedly the best of intentions.
 
K

Kreyzhorse

New member
Restricting people on the watch list is a horrific precedent, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I agree. The No-Fly list hasn't exactly worked and God help you if you've been mistakenly (or otherwise for a reason unknown to you) been placed on that list and try to get off of it.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Don't think things like those lists have consequences?

Ask anyone who was targeted by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s and had their careers in Government, the military, or the arts (particularly the motion picture industry) destroyed because they wouldn't submit to the unconstitutional bullying of a drunkard, all of it based on innuendo, lies, speculation, grandstanding, and perjury.

If your name went on a HUAC list, even if you weren't called to testify, you were screwed and nothing you could do would ever clear you.

What's that saying?

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?
 
K

kodiakbeer

Moderator
On the other hand, we know that banning felons from purchasing firearms has worked very well. So, if we ban AK47 sales to people on a list, they'll be likewise thwarted.
 
H

HistoryJunkie

New member
Permit me to disagree

I don't believe that most terrorists would seek out a weapon such as an AK-47 because it is a rifle. It is much more difficult to conceal than say a pistol.
I think the representative was just using recent events as an opportunity to advance gun control legislation.

Also, he used the term "assault rifle" which anyone with a brain knows is a select fire weapon. Forgive me if I don't believe that these "terrorists" were legally buying select-fire AKs.

In one recent case in particular, Fisil Shazad(?) Not sure if I spelled that right. Anyways, he was the failed Times Square bomber, and he carried a Glock pistol. In fact, I haven't heard a single case in the national news about homeland terrorism and AKs. The guy who shot up Fort Hood didn't even use an AK, he used 2 Glocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top