OMG, Insanity in the US Senate!! Check FoxNews Right Now on TV!!

If one is interested in a write up of the gun and the prose used in NYC, see

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/nyregion/06gun.html?fta=y

It is a fearsome looking black gun. BTW, this references back to some of my work that found that gun appearance can influence opinion (as that of others).

The disconnect in all of this is that we see two sides of base pandering.

Each base stops to hop around to deprive basic rights. I see folks saying that if you go on a terror watch list - you should have been imprisoned. NO rights for you during interrogation. Horrors, horrors from one base.

Well, you can't do that - but wait being on a vague terror list and you should be deprived of another fundamental right.

It comes down to each choir having little respect for a broad spectrum of rights but only liking their own little corner of appropriate liberties.
 
Anyone read about the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh?

"You're guilty because we have some secret witness that you can't confront, and we will now convict you?"

This smacks of the same tone. Denying constitutional rights on the basis of some secret government list. How is this bill even being taken seriously?

Who is a terrorist? How does one get on the list? What are the criteria? What are the mechanisms for appeal? Given that 8 year old boy scouts are on government flight-restriction lists, is this even a proper method?

Even if this bill were to pass (which it likely would not), I don't think this law will survive constitutional scrutiny (well...depending on how the SCOTUS rules on 2A scrutiny).
 
Perhaps this new proposed law does make sense? Could Mayor Bloomberg possibly be right for once? Or could a law like this be abused by the Government?
Click to expand...

Let's examine this for a moment. Under this proposed law anyone listed on a secret "watch list" can, without due process or cause, be denied their rights even when no actual crime has been committed, and in fact when said person hasn't yet even been accused of an actual crime.

The list on which this is based is secret, not available to the public, is based on unknown criteria and managed by unknown persons with no known review/overview and has no method of appeal.

Somehow I don't think allowing the words "terrorist watch list" to erase all rights can be taken as a good idea by any sane person.

(I'm not even going to start my rant about the sense of punishing EVERYONE with a blanket law in the hopes that it might smother the .001% of loons out there).
 
It comes down to each choir having little respect for a broad spectrum of rights but only liking their own little corner of appropriate liberties.
Click to expand...

Very true. Which is why terrorism has brought about a slippery slope.

I am afraid of the consequences for allowing the mere suspicion of terrorism to be justification for denying someones right to due process.

Do we eventually get a secret prison that everyone on the terror watch list gets sent to without trial? Its sounds a little far fetched but once it is decided that someone on a secret list has no rights that is where they could end up.
 
Last edited:
S.1317 - Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 (H.R. 2159 - companion bill in the House)
Introduced by Sen. Lautenberg, on 06-22-2009

Cosponsors:

Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 11/17/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 11/30/2009
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 11/30/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 11/30/2009
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 1/20/2010
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 12/1/2009
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 11/20/2009
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 11/17/2009
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 11/30/2009

Summary: Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit (or revoke such license or permit) if the Attorney General: (1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be engaged in terrorism or has provided material support or resources for terrorism; and (2) has a reasonable belief that the transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.

Extends the prohibition against the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to include individuals whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities. Imposes criminal penalties on individuals engaged in terrorist activities who smuggle or knowingly bring firearms into the United States.

Authorizes the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation lawsuits and from employers if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security.

S. 2870 - Preserving Records of Terrorist & Criminal Transactions Act of 2009
Introduced by Sen. Lautenberg, on 12-01-2009

Cosponsors:

Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 12/1/2009
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 12/1/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 12/3/2009
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 12/1/2009
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 12/1/2009
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 12/1/2009

Summary: Amends the federal criminal code to require: (1) the retention for a minimum of 10 years of criminal background check records for known or suspected members of terrorist organizations who attempt to purchase firearms or apply for a state permit to possess, acquire, or carry firearms; and (2) the retention for at least 180 days of other criminal background check records relating to firearms purchases.

Repeals certain provisions that require the destruction within 24 hours of identifying information for individuals who legally purchase or possess firearms.

Witnesses
Panel 1
  • The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senate
  • The Honorable Peter T. King, U.S. House of Representatives
  • The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York
  • The Honorable Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner, City of New York
Panel 2
  • Daniel D. Roberts, Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice
  • Eileen R. Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office
  • Sandy Jo MacArthur, Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services, Los Angeles Police Department
  • Aaron Titus, Privacy Director, Liberty Coalition
----------

Together the bills do several things, not the least of which is to place the names of people on the "No-Fly" list and the "Terrorist Watch" list (yes, they are separate lists) on the NICS list of prohibited persons.

Both of these lists are secret. We don't know how they are compiled nor do we have a clear means to get our names off of them (that procedure is also secret), should our names have been placed there in error.

There is no clear method of finding out why you were denied. Even the Courts will have to accept what the A.G. says.

The bills enact a de facto gun registration list, for 10 years, if you are a suspected terrorist, or at least 180 days if not. Note that there is no real date to destroy the records, merely a stated minimum time to retain the records.

The list of "witnesses" for yesterdays hearing is only astonishing, if you think this is a serious attempt to move the bills forward.

S. 1317 has been languishing in committee for almost a year. S. 2820 for almost a half year. There have been no new cosponsors since the bills were introduced.

This was a "dog and pony show," at best.

By all means, we shouldn't ignore it, but we need not get in a tizzy about it, either.
 
On the side, TRguy, one of the laws signed in AZ was the first state knife pre-emption law. :)
I think this will be used as sound bites and campaign material, but I have to say from what has happened in Congress so far firearm related, I don't believe it either will go very far. Still, contact your Congresscritters, and express yourself politely and firmly.
 
Whether a "dirty bomb" would have any real health effects, does anyone here doubt it would destroy the economy and real estate market of whatever city it was set off in? The panic following the news that a dirt bomb was set off could very likely cause a great deal of casualties.

I agree with the sentiment that part of the problem is that rights groups aren't willing to work together, or at least stay out of each others ways. I know the ACLU, which fights like crazy for most of our rights never has any problems leaving the second out, even when it involves illegal search and seizure of a firearm or such.
 
Good thing he didn't have a pack of firecrackers, damn we'd all loose our fireworks before the 4th got here!:D Typical antigun BS, they are just looking for anything to hype and the obedient leftist media is more than happy to follow in lockstep with the story. The gun wasn't used in the commission of the crime, but its still evil and takes center stage. Pretty soon they make every so called terrorist take a mugshot holding a teabag so the media can ramp up the lies about the violent teabagger's.
 
Bloomberg and his people have shown, and will continue to show that they will use any public issue even remotely connected with firearms as an opportunity to call for further restrictions on private sales and ownership. That leopard ain't gonna change its spots.

With the exception of the Fort Hood shootings, there have been very, very few "terrorist" attacks or attempted attacks involving a Muslim compenent and firearms that have made the news.

The DC Sniper was not labled a terrorist. No gun involved with the Times Square bomb attempt. No guns on 9/11. Shooting individuals just doesn't seem to be the terrorist's main MO. But, as one of our administration's minions said recently, "never let a crisis go to waste"!

I wonder what the next Reichstag Fire will be?

And I am still waiting on anyone who can back up the claim of all that plutonium that our government "lost".
:rolleyes:
 
A few days back i recieved an e-mail saying that Hillary (as our sec. of state) was in cohoots with a so-called small arms treaty covering the globe which some say will try to circumvent our 2nd ad., back door treaty using our neighbors to the south mexico. If so., remain alert,because these libs never give up on this issue at all. I can not wait until Nov for the elections and this country better wake up,if not your looking at a Chavez style gov in 10 yrs at the most.
 
There is some truth to the assertion.....

44 AMP -

Appropos only of your request, and not quite 'on-topic' otherwise, according to DOE Inspector General Report 0813 dated February 18, 2009 (DOE-IG-0813), which is an Audit Report on the Department's Management of Nuclear Material Provided to Domestic Licensees, the findings determined that DOE domestic licensees had failed to accurately account for the locations and quantities of certain nuclear materials; and/or that the department had "agreed to write-off large quantities without fully understanding the final disposition of these materials". Among the findings:

"...Waste processing facilities were unable to determine whether some 6,711 grams of special nuclear material (SNM) and 35,269 kilograms of uranium were still under their control or had been treated and disposed of as waste"; and

"...DOE agreed to write-off 20,000 grams of SNM and 194,000 kilograms of... uranium" (page 2);

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12831982/DoE-Missing-Nuclear-Materials-Report

There are certainly steps in standard nuclear materials processing where reductions in amounts of nuclear material accounted for may be encountered. For example, in the 1990s at Rocky Flats it was determined that a percentage of material unaccounted for had leached into piping out of the acid solution flowing through the pipes.

But not in these amounts.

In most cases the findings detailed circumstances that reflected less malfeasance and more sloppy material control & accounting (MC&A) practices. Still, the fact that the DOE ultimately had to write-off SNM as unaccounted for remains potentially problematic.

FWIW.

Doc
 
Appropos only of your request, and not quite 'on-topic' otherwise, according to DOE Inspector General Report 0813 dated February 18, 2009 (DOE-IG-0813), which is an Audit Report on the Department's Management of Nuclear Material Provided to Domestic Licensees, the findings determined that DOE domestic licensees had failed to accurately account for the locations and quantities of certain nuclear materials; and/or that the department had "agreed to write-off large quantities without fully understanding the final disposition of these materials". Among the findings:

"...Waste processing facilities were unable to determine whether some 6,711 grams of special nuclear material (SNM) and 35,269 kilograms of uranium were still under their control or had been treated and disposed of as waste"; and

"...DOE agreed to write-off 20,000 grams of SNM and 194,000 kilograms of... uranium" (page 2);

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12831982/D...terials-Report

There are certainly steps in standard nuclear materials processing where reductions in amounts of nuclear material accounted for may be encountered. For example, in the 1990s at Rocky Flats it was determined that a percentage of material unaccounted for had leached into piping out of the acid solution flowing through the pipes.
Click to expand...

Some may also find this disconcerting:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158

A story first reported by Military Times and subsequently by Global Research
about missing nukes. Interesting read.
 
Thanks for the info, Doc

and you too, pnac.

To continue the thread drift just a little longer, After having read the DOE report, I'm not at all concerned. While 20kg of SMN is enough to achieve minimum critical mass, we are talking about material in small amounts, distributed to many different "non governmental agencies" for research, over the past 50 years! Taken in total, the material unaccounted for seem like a dangerous amount, but I think the reality is somewhat different.

And the large amount of uranium is of very little consequence, again, for the same reasons. Although 194 metric tons seems like a huge amount, again, reality is somewhat different. Uranium is heavier than lead, and the amount named would fit in about 40 55gal drums worth of space. And only a very small percentage of the uranium was enriched uranium. As a toxic metal, Uranium is less dangerous than arsenic, beryllium, or a number of other common chemicals.

To come back a little closer to the point of this thread, a report of loss of 200+kgs of plutonium (and the unaccounted for SNM in the linked report was only 1/10th that claimed amount) is just the kind of thing that, taken out of context, without any background info that sends the uninformed into a panic. Just as the information that the Times Square bomber bought a gun was intended to do.

So WHAAT if he bought a gun? As a (naturalized) American citizen, with no criminal record, he was entirely within the law. This happens many thousands of times EVERY DAY across this country. Of course, if Mayor Bloomberg had things the way he wants, that would change. Radically.

Prohibiting persons on the Terror Watch list and the No Fly list from buying a gun (from an FFL dealer, the only method the Federal government has the authority to regulate) is, considering the bureaucratic inefficiency and out right stupidity of the management of those lists, a very poor idea. At least it is from my point of view. Because we have all seen or heard of examples of these lists hampering totally law abiding citizens.

With no publicly admitted criteria for what puts one "on the list" and no means of challenge and review, it is rife for abuse, accidental, or otherwise.

Although I have not yet ever had any problem with the instant background check when buying a gun from an FFL, I mentally cringe every time it is run on me. Not from any fear due to my wrong doing, but from a fear of the problems I would have to face and overcome if/when a bureaucratic error flags me as "no sale". At least there, if/when it happens, I have a legal method to challenge the finding.

It should be better today, but at one time, the accuracy of the system was consided...iffy. We've come a long way, but no system is perfect, and one without any process for challenging error is worst of all. And thats what we appear to have with these lists. And the good Mayor wants to use them for even more than they currently are. I, for one, find that unsettling.
 
I quite agree with your conclusion - Glenn Podansky's office wrote the letter attached in Appendix III, and noted that this was in effect a one-time balancing of the books that included accumulated error throughout the entire DOE nuclear complex, and over it's lifespan. Additionally, plutonium was not mentioned.

I am also far more concerned about Bloomberg's efforts to link the various "no-fly" list(s) maintained by different organizations with the insta-check process used to conduct background checks for firearms purchases.

People are put on "no-fly" lists for all sorts of reasons that do not include convictions for any crimes, and far more frequently than should be the case reports surface of errors and individuals being denied flights by mistake due to similar names, etc.

It is yet another of Bloomberg's endless efforts to restrict gun rights by any means possible, and it leaves a rational observer wondering just how much longer American citizens are going to be inconvenienced by the anti-gun agenda and personal vendettas of one completely entitled, arrogant, and narcissistic individual.
 
just FYI, SNM (Special Nuclear Material) is plutonium, and a few other elements. Basically it is the fissionables that are needed/used to make a nuclear weapon (and the matrial containing them, such as irradiated fuel rods). Note that ordinary uranium is not listed in the same category.

SNM is much less panic inducing language in official documents that can be/eventually are released to the public than the "p word" (plutonium):rolleyes:
 
Back on topic somewhat... This was a NY politician pushing an agenda. Nothing new to report. Just yesterday Bloomberg was in London and spouted off how the car bomber might not have tried to blow up his car bomb if he knew he was on camera like in London. What an imbicile. I live on Long Island and everyone knows Times Square has cameras all around. They had footage of this terrorist changing his shirt next to the car for crying out loud.

Then the buffoons in the gov't let him get on a plane and leave the gate. He was already flagged!!! The guy has been to Pakistan fivetimes recently, come on now! This just made me feel safe as I was in the air on the way to Switzerland at the time...

Continue to watch as politicians use this event for their own agendas even though it is another monumental DHS failure. Just like the Christmas attack again we got lucky. Our luck is going to run out real soon. The politicians will then have blood on the street to use for their agendas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top