New Legislation - "terrorism" and Gun Rights

jstep

New member
From Yahoo News:

"NRA: Don't ban gun sales to suspects"

Actually something positive the NRA is doing, I'm glad they are working against this.

If you've read the PATRIOT Act you know that they can pretty much call anyone a terrorist. I think one of the definitions included was someone that "violated state or federal law".

It would be really scary if they could call someone a terror "suspect" or have suspicions below probable cause with NO due process, NO judge NO jury, just some cop making the decision to take your right to bear arms away because they label you or claim you are a terror suspect.

That is just too funny. Like a terrorist is going to follow the law and legally buy a gun. I would imagine terrorists have more effective means at their disposal than a gun.

[sarcasm] Lets make terrorism against the law and restrict it, and it will be a HUGE success![/sarcasm]
 
[sarcasm] Lets make terrorism against the law and restrict it, and it will be a HUGE success![/sarcasm]

Darn! I was gonna blow somthing up but i guess it's illegal now. :p


But that article made no sense. It seemed like they were trying to make the NRA look like a bunch of idiots for opposing the bill. Heck I didn't really get what the bill was supposed to be about. :confused: Maybe I just need sleep.:rolleyes:
 
Leave it to the media...

Anything Bush tries to pass through that is percieved to infringe on any right in combating terrorism gets him painted as looking for a police state.

Then the NRA fights a piece of legislation that would, with no just cause, ban any person "suspected" of being a terrorist from utilizing their 2A rights and the NRA is painted as the bad guy.
 
So these people can have habeus corpus removed and its ok, but if you take away their right to buy firearms you pay attention?!!?

nice.
 
I think that the phrase
these people
is the issue.

November 13th, 2001, the writ was suspended for non-citizens designated enemy combatants.

In 2004, SCOTUS reaffirmed that U.S. citizens maintained the right (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, if memory serves).

SecDef, your brush was too broad, and I believe you were in error in your comment. Not all enemy combatants have habeus corpus restricted, only noncitizens. If all people are interested in are the rights of U.S. Citizens, then your criticism is not properly placed. (You might berate them for only be interested in U.S. Citizens, but they can maintain consistency through your argument by claiming what I do above, that the writ was never suspended for citizens, and that gun rights can be suspended for citizens--producing no outrage for the first, and outrage for the second).
 
Oh brother... SecDef, please tell me where the Great Writ was removed?

First, please read the construction of my post, and see that I was using hyperbole in referencing both loss of habeas corpus and loss of rights to purchase firearms.

From quotes within John Dean's analysis is Alberto's biggest gaff... If you don't agree with the analysis, feel free to just review the exchange referenced.

How Attorney General Gonzales Made a Fool of Himself: On Habeas Corpus

Remarkably, Gonzales did not know when to remain silent. So after he explained how the President had made him a fool, he went on to make a fool of himself - by reiterating a ridiculous Bush Administration position on the Constitution which was recently soundly rebuffed by the Supreme Court.

In questioning Gonzales, Specter moved on to the subject of "habeas corpus" - the judicial remedy that enables persons imprisoned within the jurisdiction of American law to challenge their confinement in court.

Some background is necessary to explain their exchange: The Constitution plainly says - in Article I, sec. 9 - that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court's opinion, written by Justice O'Connor, stated - citing the Constitution itself - that "[a]ll agree that absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States,'' and that all agreed habeas corpus had not, in fact, been suspended. (Emphasis added.) Hamdi was detained in the U.S. - more specifically, in a naval brig in South Carolina.

President Bush signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It purported to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions by Guantanamo detainees, but the Supreme Court thought not, thus leaving hundreds of cases pending. So the Administration added a blanket removal to another bill.

The Administration did not style what it was doing as a suspension of the Great Writ. However, the Senate was not fooled. After first trying to prevent removal of the right to habeas corpus, which failed, Senator Specter then introduced a bill to restore habeas corpus. He did this in the prior Congress; and again in the current Congress, when he joined with Senator Leahy in reintroducing such legislation.

This background prompted Senator Specter's colloquy with Attorney General Gonzales. It began with an exchange in which Gonzales admitted he had not recently read a crucial Supreme Court opinion, but agreed to re-read it. Next, Gonzales claimed that "[T]here is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away." (Emphasis added.)

"Wait a minute. Wait a minute," a shocked Specter protested. "The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's an invasion or rebellion?"

"I meant by that comment," Gonzales explained, "the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except...."

Cutting the Attorney General short, possibly to prevent the man from further embarrassing himself, Specter interjected, "You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General."

Chairman Leahy then ended the exchange by, in effect, making the point that he was going forward with habeas corpus restoration, notwithstanding any screwball interpretation of the Constitution by Gonzales - although he did not say it that bluntly.

Specter not only won this argument - it was resolved in his favor and against Gonzales, decisively, some 220 years ago: In 1787, the Anti-Federalists, too, argued that the Constitution makes no express grant of habeas corpus. They too were dead wrong. This isn't esoteric constitutional theory; it's American History 101.

Do you not this this is a direct attack on your rights? I referenced it because of the direct parallel with the topic at hand... be declared a terrorist suspect and without due process lose rights. BOTH are situations we should fight against vigorously.
 
SecDef, your brush was too broad, and I believe you were in error in your comment. Not all enemy combatants have habeus corpus restricted, only noncitizens. If all people are interested in are the rights of U.S. Citizens, then your criticism is not properly placed. (You might berate them for only be interested in U.S. Citizens, but they can maintain consistency through your argument by claiming what I do above, that the writ was never suspended for citizens, and that gun rights can be suspended for citizens--producing no outrage for the first, and outrage for the second).

When the Attorney General makes the statements I referenced in my previous post, I get more than a little concerned. If the AG has this position, and as we are seeing the DOJ is more closely tied to the administration views than ever, we certainly need to sit up and pay attention.

Habeas corpus is fundamental to the rule of law. Anyone that disagrees needs to not be in a position of power.

(edit)Let me add for clarification:
In the constitution, habeas corpus is not a right that is granted. It transcends and proceeds it. As such, I don't feel that being a citizen or not makes a huge difference. Not being a citizen means there are more legal options for holding someone (under rules for POW for instance), but if they are not POW's then habeas corpus comes into play and you go through due process to justify detention.
 
Last edited:
This will end up no different than the no fly list in the end made up of everyone with a vaguely similar name and political enemies. Even a few senators have been on one list so why not the other and with an incompetent Attorney General who makes a laughing stock out of his position I get really concerned.

. Badly scripted law. They need to throw out all these restrictive laws they passed starting with the patriot act, that takes away basic human rights. We seen more and more of these draconic laws being passed under the name of national security and fighting terrorism. They rarely if ever work.
 
SecDef, perhaps I was too hasty in my reading. I honestly thought you were referencing the Military Commissions Act. There are many who have misread what that law purportedly says.

I never gave a thought to the debacle Gonzales made before Congress.
 
Back
Top