Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Can Americans be denied RKABA because the Attorney General suspects they’re terrorist

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Can Americans be denied RKABA because the Attorney General suspects they’re terrorist

    Can Americans be denied Second Amendment rights because the Attorney General suspects they’re terrorists?
    H/T Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy.com

    Volokh: I somehow doubt that would-be terrorists would be much stymied by being disqualified from legally buying guns. But in any event, it seems to me that any such disqualification should come only after showing that the person has done something bad, not that he’s suspected of doing something bad and of intending to do something bad.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...re-terrorists/

    Eugene's opinion is preceded by insightful commentary and appropriate links.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    You know that you are guilty until proven not guilty. You are not entitled to your day in court until we say you are entitled.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    You know that you are guilty until proven not guilty. You are not entitled to your day in court until we say you are entitled.
    Certainly in civil court true.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    They can.

    It doesn't make it legal, constitutional, moral or just.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    They can.

    It doesn't make it legal, constitutional, moral or just.
    Well, they can make it illegal but they technically, physically, cannot stop one from carrying.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, they can make it illegal but they technically, physically, cannot stop one from carrying.
    Very hard to carry when you are in a concentration camp.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Not lawfully (Constitutionally).
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Can Americans be denied Second Amendment rights because the Attorney General suspects they’re terrorists?
    H/T Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy.com

    Volokh: I somehow doubt that would-be terrorists would be much stymied by being disqualified from legally buying guns. But in any event, it seems to me that any such disqualification should come only after showing that the person has done something bad, not that he’s suspected of doing something bad and of intending to do something bad.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...re-terrorists/

    Eugene's opinion is preceded by insightful commentary and appropriate links.

    You mean there is something wrong with prior restraint? Come on...think of the kids, widows, nuns, puppies and kittens!
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Not lawfully (Constitutionally).
    Natural rights take precedence over any man made laws.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    [B]C
    Volokh: I somehow doubt that would-be terrorists would be much stymied by being disqualified from legally buying guns.
    Pipe bombs.

    Remote detonation devices

    Yeah, worry about gun control instead of IEDs. Ask a vet how well that works out.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Pipe bombs.

    Remote detonation devices

    Yeah, worry about gun control instead of IEDs. Ask a vet how well that works out.
    Well when the Israelis outlawed Palestinians RKBA, their first go-to weapon were pipe bombs. These were more effective than guns as far as a terror weapon.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Port Angeles , Washington
    Posts
    39
    Seems to me if your on a terrorist or no fly watch list, the government should charge you with
    being a danger to the public in court by trial and conviction. Only then should the government take
    your right to bare arms... Every suspect on the lists needs to say "put up or shut up" and put an end
    to any suspicions . This is why we have a Constitution .

    ......................... Jack

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Spooler41 View Post
    Seems to me if your on a terrorist or no fly watch list, the government should charge you with
    being a danger to the public in court by trial and conviction. Only then should the government take
    your right to bare arms... Every suspect on the lists needs to say "put up or shut up" and put an end
    to any suspicions . This is why we have a Constitution .

    ......................... Jack
    Interesting point.

    It occurs to me that denying arms to a "suspected" terrorist is really just a way to circumvent the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Here is what I mean. By denying a defensive arm, government is also saying it will confiscate (seize) such weapon from a mere "suspect". A prior "denial" is really just an earlier, pre-emptive step to seizure: if they interfere and prevent the innocent-but-suspected from obtaining the defensive arm, they moot whether probable cause is needed to seize it later.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-12-2015 at 10:53 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    After they get this to be accepted, then they start adding those they consider to be "domestic" terrorists.

    You know, those "clinging to their guns and religion"...


    Sent from my Sony Xperia using Tapatalk 4

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wowwie!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    After they get this to be accepted, then they start adding those they consider to be "domestic" terrorists.

    You know, those "clinging to their guns and religion"...


    Sent from my Sony Xperia using Tapatalk 4

    I think so too!

    What they will do, is "suspect" anybody, for anything, then decree, that anyone that is on the
    watch list, must be a dangerous suspected terrorist,,, so very dangerous that they should be disarmed!!!

    THEN,,, they will add the names of people that by reason of their "clinging to their guns and religion",
    are probably or certainly suspicious enough so as to be probable dangerous terrorists too!!!
    AND,, therefore,, so dangerous that they should be disarmed!!!

    It is for the children..
    If it only saves 1 life..
    The people have a right not to live in fear..
    Fewer guns, fewer crimes..
    More gun free zones, the fewer mass shootings..
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    I think so too!

    What they will do, is "suspect" anybody, for anything, then decree, that anyone that is on the
    watch list, must be a dangerous suspected terrorist,,, so very dangerous that they should be disarmed!!!

    THEN,,, they will add the names of people that by reason of their "clinging to their guns and religion",
    are probably or certainly suspicious enough so as to be probable dangerous terrorists too!!!
    AND,, therefore,, so dangerous that they should be disarmed!!!

    It is for the children..
    If it only saves 1 life..
    The people have a right not to live in fear..
    Fewer guns, fewer crimes..
    More gun free zones, the fewer mass shootings..
    +1

    And, they've already tried it. Remember the firestorm when Janet Napolitano's DHS published a list of the kinds of utterances that needed to be watched? It included people who identified as constitutionalists and so forth.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +1 And, they've already tried it. Remember the firestorm when Janet Napolitano's DHS published a list of the kinds of utterances that needed to be watched? It included people who identified as constitutionalists and so forth.
    I will NOT vote for Trump. I WILL vote for every Constitution Party candidate on my ballots.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I will NOT vote for Trump. I WILL vote for every Constitution Party candidate on my ballots.
    I will not vote for Trump in the primaries, he sealed it with his latest claims he would ignore the constitution. Denying entry based solely on religion is unconstitutional. If he would ignore the rest of the constitution when the mob wants it.

    Unfortunately I cannot condone the election of Billary, so in that case I will have to vote for him, if he wins the nomination. Cruz, and Paul are the only two that respect the constitution, but they have had no traction so far.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Thus we get the government that we deserve, our just desserts, a government of the least of the weevils.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Thus we get the government that we deserve, our just desserts, a government of the least of the weevils.
    That will always be the case, no two persons ever agree on absolutely everything. If that is the rule for voting it would be impossible to vote.

    Do you believe we deserve Hillary if we follow your lead? Because that is what we will get.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-13-2015 at 01:53 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    That will always be the case, no two persons ever agree on absolutely everything. If that is the rule for voting it would be impossible to vote.

    Do you believe we deserve Hillary if we follow your lead? Because that is what we will get.
    This isn't aimed at you, WW. More just me using your comment as a springboard:

    Where do I get the power to vote? What is the source?

    Just to keep to thread topic: where would I get the power to vote a government, whether or not the resulting Attorney General denies RKBA or any other right?
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-13-2015 at 02:08 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    The two party system is not required by the Constitution or any statute. There is no effective difference between the progressive Ruling Parties, good-cop/bad-cop written on the political stage.

    Angelo Codevilla's essay America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution of 2010 is still the truth.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The two party system is not required by the Constitution or any statute. There is no effective difference between the progressive Ruling Parties, good-cop/bad-cop written on the political stage.

    Angelo Codevilla's essay America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution of 2010 is still the truth.
    Interesting point.

    I recall from my biographies on Thomas Jefferson that there was no real party system at the Framing.

    However, one quickly coalesced: the Federalists. These were upper-crusters who derided the common man having a say in who and how he was governed (sic for ruled). These were the cats who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. And, their arch-federalist John Marshall wrote Marbury vs Madison where SCOTUS conferred upon itself the power to interpret the constitution.

    Looking back at the data in the Jefferson biographies, the main reason the Jeffersonian "Republicans" organized into what we might today call a party was because the anti-democratic Federalists had organized themselves into more-or-less cohesive party.

    That is to say, the reason we have a party system is because the scoundrels organized themselves into predatory group and the prey felt they had to organize in order to defend themselves.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-13-2015 at 03:20 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    suffrage...and it ain't explicitly granted from the constitution!!

    ipse

    (Citizen, changed my mind and decided to play!!)
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    The conflict is probably as old as man, but the particular polarization dates at least from the French National Assembly of 1789, contemporaneous with the creation of our Bill of Rights - apropos Bill of Rights Day and a Tip o' the Hat. The conservatives sat to the president's right to avoid the progressives on his left. Then, as now, the progressives are ill behaved and disruptive.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •