Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Next Step for DHS Extremist List HR2159

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    Rep Peter King, a republican (ha!) from new york is sponsoring a bill to deny gun ownership to anyone on the DHS "extremist" list.



    Yes, it's WND but still... YGBSM!

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...p;pageId=97491
    A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."
    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
    Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."
    Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!
    "[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"
    Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
    "By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
    GA_googleFillSlot("WND_NWS_C0200");




    Pratt's biggest concern, however, is the sidestepping of the Constitution and due process that the nebulous language of this bill could permit.
    "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast," Pratt told WND. "This is such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."
    As WND reported, right-wing "extremists" aren't the only Americans on the DHS watch list.
    Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its now notorious warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups as potential "threats."
    That memo, the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" expanded the list from typical "right-wing" causes to include left-wing extremism, animal rights activists, black separatists, anarchists, Cuban independence advocates, environmental extremists, the anti-war movement and more. It even insisted some of these groups were prone to violence.
    For example, the lexicon defined the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified."
    It further states that tax protesters "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."
    The DHS memos were meant for distribution to law enforcement officials around the country, prompting some to worry the definitions might be used to classify Americans who simply disagree with government policies as being dangerous.
    As WND reported, the relative of a Louisiana driver claims her brother-in-law has already been unfairly targeted by police simply for having a supposedly subversive, "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.
    According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through Ball, La., which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him "he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car."
    "They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes," she told WND.
    Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.
    WND has withheld the driver's name and the relative's name at their request.
    H.R. 2159 has six co-sponsors, from both parties, and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
    WND contacted Rep. King's office for comment on the bill, but received no response.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Then they need to stop selling cars to people who drink because they MIGHT drive drunk and kill someone.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Does this douchbag King own stock in a firearms or ammunition company?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Let's put King on the "extremist list".

    After all, shouldn't we be concerned with government extremists like King? We should issue a pamphlet to all freedom-lovers to be on the lookout for government extremists. This would include politicians who think that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, to be ignored at will, and also it hould include anyone who thinks that government can protect us with a gun ban.

    Such people should not be allowed to patronize private businesses, such as airline services, and they should be detained indefinitely without access to lawyers or due process. They are just too dangerous to release back into society.

    Government extremists can usually be identified by bumper stickers supporting republican or democrat candidates, and the leaders often drive around in armor-plated SUVs with security details, and like to stop traffic to feed their own arrogance and self-importance. They believe they are entitled to the power to sic SWAT teams on anyone they disagree with and are an extreme danger to ordinary, peace-loving citizens.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Face it, there's something basically rotten in New York's political genome -- first Gillibrand and now King. Maybe Canada would like to buy the whole bloody state and get it off our backs.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Let's put King on the "extremist list".

    After all, shouldn't we be concerned with government extremists like King? We should issue a pamphlet to all freedom-lovers to be on the lookout for government extremists. This would include politicians who think that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, to be ignored at will, and also it hould include anyone who thinks that government can protect us with a gun ban.

    Such people should not be allowed to patronize private businesses, such as airline services, and they should be detained indefinitely without access to lawyers or due process. They are just too dangerous to release back into society.

    Government extremists can usually be identified by bumper stickers supporting republican or democrat candidates, and the leaders often drive around in armor-plated SUVs with security details, and like to stop traffic to feed their own arrogance and self-importance. They believe they are entitled to the power to sic SWAT teams on anyone they disagree with and are an extreme danger to ordinary, peace-loving citizens.
    Yes, now I've had my daily dose of sanity-induced satire. Thank you.

  7. #7
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I'm quite sure that I'm on some kinda list. Don't have a "Don't tread on me" bumper sticker,,,yet. But I'm a retired Sergeant Major and I'm purty dern sure that I'm somewhere on the *Pick up first* list. Sure hope they don't try,,,
    Keep your powder dry !
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
    Continued here.

    Text of the bill.

    I've never been very good at decoding legalese. Is this as bad as it sounds?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    If we enforced the laws that already exist what a wonderful world it would be . Controling the mindset of the sheeple will make it easier to enlist a transnationalist's agenda of gun-control . Vote these bums out 2010 and 2012 .

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    This is going to be a bad one on a lot of levels should it gain steam - and here's why:

    It gives the Attorney General of the United States - by himself - the power to deny you the right to purchase a firearm, completely subverting "checks and balances", "due process" and the Second Amendment.

    I'm not over-stating this at all, as you'll see when you read the proposed bill:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2159: : (copy&paste the whole link into your browser - up through the second colon).

    "`Sec. 922B. Attorney General's discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3) `The Attorney General may determine that 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 thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'

    "appropriately suspected"??? "reasonable belief"??? Are you KIDDING ME? The government is making up "legal terms" as they go along - ones which totally subvert the true standards of the law: "PROBABLE cause" (the Fourth Amendment standard).

    That section continues: "and
    (3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:
    `(36) The term `terrorism' means `international terrorism' as defined in section 2331(1), and `domestic terrorism' as defined in section 2331(5)."

    Want to hazard a guess as to who might be included under the heading of "domestic terrorists"?


    How about Second Amendment believing GUN OWNERS?

    The A.G. would implement this new "power" by being given the ability to "deny" a NICS check: "(b) Effect of Attorney General Discretionary Denial Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on Firearms Permits- Section 922(t) of such title is amended--"
    This bill would thussubvert this clause in the FIFTH Amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" .

    I don't know about YOU, but MY ability to feel UN-deprived of "life, liberty, or property" depends on my ability to purchase a weapon unless "due process" (which this bill is NOT) forbids it.

    The bill also would subvert the spirit of the SIXTH Amendment : "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." because of this part of the proposed bill:
    "
    (g) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit- Section 923(f) of such title is amended--
    (1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security' before the period; and
    (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'. "

    Folks, this thing is no joke - it's a nightmare waiting to happen I need YOU to contact your Representative as quickly as possible via email/FAX/phone call to voice your OPPOSITION to H.R. 2159. Here is a sample letter/FAX that I sent my OWN Representative:
    ================================================== ==============

    Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
    HR 2159 IH - is both UN-Constitutional AND an outrageous insult to every law-abiding American in this country.[/b]

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2159: :[/b]
    `Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm `The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected)[/b] 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 the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.';
    (2) by inserting the following new section after section 922A:
    `Sec. 922B. Attorney General's discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3) `The Attorney General may determine that 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 thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.';

    The "Attorney General" is NOT "God". [/b]

    "appropriately suspected" is meaningless[/i] as a term to supposedly carry legal weight and provide this kind of Constitution-destroying power. It is so far below[/i] "reasonable cause" - not to mention the even weaker "reasonable suspicion" that it is ludicrous![/b]

    Vote "NAY" on this - and do not even think about becoming a co-sponsor for it.[/b]

    The legal, law-abiding gun-owners of this country have had enough[/i].[/b]

    (Signed)[/b]

    ======================================

    Please don't ignore this alert! Find your Representative Here:http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtmland CONTACT them. Pete




  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    canadian wrote:

    I've never been very good at decoding legalese. Is this as bad as it sounds?
    If you think it sounds like it will allow the AG to remove without due process the constitutional rights of anyone suspected of dissenting with the government then yes, it's that bad.

    If you think it sound like it will allow the government to pursue its civilian disarmament agenda without any being allowed to complain about it anymore then yes, its that bad.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    You cannot punish someone until a crime has been committed. Therefore you cannot label someone a terrorist and then deny them certain rights.

    You may investigate and prosecute, and upon conviction, certain things are and can be taken away, but it does not work the other way around.

    What does this mean that the Attorney General may "deny transfer" of any object.

    The Attorney General may not regulate interstate commerce, even through an act of Congress. That is a power explicitly placed in the legislature and may not be transferred or conferred to others.

    Neither Congress nor any branch of government may do away with due process.... Though this seems to be what they want to do....

    Even a liberal turkey judge would toss this out, or even more likely, it'll get stuck in some committee somewhere and never see the light of day.

    What really bites my ass though is that a Republican is throwing this feces out there.

    But what really, really, really bites my ass is this:

    It is currently illegal to use a gun in an act of terrorism.
    It is currently illegal for a terrorist to have a gun.
    It is currently illegal to commit any terrorist act.
    It is currently illegal to be a terrorist.
    It is currently illegal to sell a gun to a terrorist.

    So at the end of the day what does this bill accomplish? It "supposedly" makes it so the Attorney General can make it illegal for a criminal to illegally get a gun. Because that's what we need, to make things more illegaler.

    What does it really do? It gives a single man, with no oversight, to label any individual he wants as a terrorist and strip them of there rights with little or no evidence for the claim, regardless of a conviction or not, and provides no means for an appeal.

    This is fascism in it's purest form.

    A single man would be able to strip your rights away on a whim with no consequences to himself simply because he wants to and can do so.


    That is the ability he would have.

    Such power is not vested in the Attorney General by the constitution and such power is not given to the Congress to grant such authoritative powers to the Executive Branch.

    This is what it comes down to in the end. Congress simply thinks that because they hold a vote on something and pass it, it becomes the law of the land. Congress has NO AUTHORITY to expand Executive Branch powers! None at all! One must amend the constitution to expand the Executive Branch!

    This is outrageous! It has to be stopped!

    It's no wonder that some state leglislatures and state politicians are starting to talk about secession!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Kanssas Mustang. As we suspected, you have a history of violence and weapons. We are watching you.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    LAWL @ the bill being sponsored by a republican. I thought the evil democrats were the bad ones. :quirky

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    "appropriately suspected" is a very subjective term.

    It could be interpreted as "appropriately suspected" = "because the AG says so"

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    It always seems as if the republicans load the gun and hand it to the democrats, who promptly shoot the s**t out of the Bill of Rights.

    If a bill like this becomes law, it's just a further circling of the toilet bowl for my poor country.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    Done.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    It always seems as if the republicans load the gun and hand it to the democrats, who promptly shoot the s**t out of the Bill of Rights.

    Good cop/bad cop, that's all it is.

  19. #19
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Wrote my congressman, told him this BS bill needs to never hit the floor.
    Keep your powder dry !
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    old dog wrote:
    Kanssas Mustang. As we suspected, you have a history of violence and weapons. We are watching you.
    Well by golly somebody needs to Cuz an old wardog like me deserves watchin' Guess my "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies" for 25 years just got me on the extremist list,,,sheesh
    Keep your powder dry !
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    old dog wrote:
    Kanssas Mustang. As we suspected, you have a history of violence and weapons. We are watching you.
    Well by golly somebody needs to Cuz an old wardog like me deserves watchin' Guess my "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies" for 25 years just got me on the extremist list,,,sheesh
    Keep your powder dry !
    Well, if you think about it... anyone who swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States is in effect supporting and aiding a terrorist state.

    Why would I say that about the US? Simple. By today's definitions, the 13 colonies engaged in terrorist actions and overthrew a lawful regime. Anyone who supports that original action and the subsequent ones are by definition, terrorists.

    Yes, that includes me too. I swore to protect & defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Makes you wonder about the people that suggest these laws.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    Well, if you think about it... anyone who swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States is in effect supporting and aiding a terrorist state.

    Why would I say that about the US? Simple. By today's definitions, the 13 colonies engaged in terrorist actions and overthrew a lawful regime. Anyone who supports that original action and the subsequent ones are by definition, terrorists.

    Yes, that includes me too. I swore to protect & defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Makes you wonder about the people that suggest these laws.
    Kings men all.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    It always seems as if the republicans load the gun and hand it to the democrats, who promptly shoot the s**t out of the Bill of Rights.

    Good cop/bad cop, that's all it is.
    Bad cop/worse cop.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  24. #24
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I'll be contacting my reps today.

    Also, buying a new rifle a month is going to see like a good idea.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    Also, buying a new rifle a month is going to see like a good idea.
    Make sure you have enough ammo to support your primaries

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
  •