Speaking of Mark Kirk . . .

I'm a very easygoing guy, but when someone does manage to annoy me (and few things annoy me like attacks on my Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human rights), I tend to have difficulty letting it go in a hurry. That being the case, it should probably surprise no one that even after expressing my contempt for Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) twice in the last week, I'm still not done with the little aspiring overseer.

I've also talked more than once about H.R. 2074, Congressman Peter King's (R-NY) bill to allow the attorney general to unilaterally block gun sales to anyone he or she wants to disarm, by the simple mechanism of placing the would-be gun purchaser on the "terrorist watch list"--a list that is already well over half a million names long. The attorney general, of course, is not an elected official, but under H.R. 2074, would have the power to block gun sales to someone without a conviction, without an indictment, without so much as an arrest--so much for "innocent until proven guilty."

I bring this up again because, although it comes as no surprise, I hadn't realized until just now that Kirk is a co-sponsor of H.R. 2074. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only who has noticed how easy it has become to be categorized as a "Homegrown Terrorist."

Under H.R. 2074, pushed by "Republicans" King and Kirk, that's how easy it would be to be denied the ability to legally arm oneself. I don't think that's an accident.

Tyranny draws nigh

I've written a lot (here, here, here, and here) about S. 1237/H.R. 2074, the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007"--and I've made little secret of my view of such legislation as being evil, and fascist to the core. The insanity of bestowing upon the Attorney General--an unelected official--the power to unilaterally strip a citizen of his Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms; without a conviction, without an indictment, without even criminal charges, is utterly stupefying.

The sponsor of H.R. 2074, by the way, is Representative Peter King (R-NY)--adviser to Rudy "Freedom is about authority" Giuliani, and holder of so much respect for the First Amendment that he thinks part of the danger posed to the U.S. by terrorists stems from the presence of "too many mosques" in the country (whatever one's thoughts are about Islam, that's a chilling thing to hear from a lawmaker).

Today, I'll talk about not just the threat posed by that legislation, but the even more ominous prospect of a combination of H.R. 2074/S. 1237, with H.R. 1955, the "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (or the similar S. 1959, "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007").

Back in October, War on Guns superbly illustrated how easily H.R. 1955 could be used to paint just about anyone who realizes that the Second Amendment is about fighting tyranny as a "terrorist."

SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

And we all know advocating the so-called "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment, that is, saying We the People should take up arms and resist, meaning shoot and kill tyrants and their agents, is "extremist."

So if we react to an outrage by reminding our countrymen of Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" quote, or cite the Declaration of Independence, or even worse, the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms, what risks will we now assume?

Let us think, for a moment, about the tyrannical nexus of H.R. 1955 and S. 1237. H.R. 1955 would seem to have the potential to be twisted into defining any group that holds that the Second Amendment exists as a means of resisting tyranny as a "terrorist organization." That would seem to be bad news for any members of Gun Owners of America, or of Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (maybe the NRA, as well, if the would-be tyrants are feeling particularly ambitious), and for supporters of Ron Paul. Then, with S. 1237, all these newly minted "terrorists" can be unilaterally disarmed.

If we ever get to the point that exercising the rights protected by the First Amendment can be used as justification to strip away one's Second Amendment rights, the Bill of Rights will have become a dead letter. By the way, H.R. 1955 passed in the House by a margin of 404 to 6.

Big Brother looks to get still bigger

Wading through the muck of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website for yesterday's post, I ran across mention of a piece of proposed federal legislation with which I was unfamiliar. I refer to the "Detectives Nemorin and Andrews Anti-Gun Trafficking Act" (second from the top). The mayors list it as "Expected to be introduced," but are apparently a bit slow to update their website, as H.R. 4818 was introduced about three weeks ago.

The sponsor is none other than Armed and Safe favorite Representative Peter King (R-NY), sponsor of the heinous H.R. 2074 (House version of S. 1273--the legislation that would permit the Attorney General to unilaterally block a gun sale by placing the prospective buyer on the grotesquely bloated "terrorist watch list"). King is also a campaign adviser to Rudy "Freedom is about authority" Giuliani.

Looking at the text of H.R. 4818, I see some . . . interesting provisions. Apparently, NICS (a newly expanded NICS, no less) is no longer enough, and King wants to establish a . . .

. . . national instant stolen gun check system that any licensee may contact, by telephone or other electronic means, for information to be supplied immediately on whether a firearm to be received by the licensee is stolen.

Additionally, a licensed firearms dealer cannot receive a gun from a non-licensee without first checking the stolen gun registry and checking the person's Real ID.

With all the pressure to force all gun sales to go through licensed dealers (pressure that will inevitably be stepped up)--pressure such as H.R. 96, which would close the mythical "gun show loophole" by forcing all sales at gun shows to go through licensed dealers, we're looking at multiple new, thick layers of bureaucracy to be hacked through for untold millions of firearms transactions (and the vast cost all of this new bureaucracy would entail).

This is another bill we need to watch, folks.

Due process? We don't need no steenking due process!

Louis Klarevas is worried--worried that people who might (or might not) be terrorists can buy guns. In his NY Daily News opinion piece, "Crack down on handguns--they're a tool of terror, too," he bleats that handguns are "one of the biggest terrorist threats to ordinary New Yorkers."

Yet America's strategy for keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists is lax beyond belief. It's so lax, in fact, that today, people on the federal terrorist watch list are not prohibited from purchasing guns. Just think - a person on the watch list can be barred from getting on a plane, but he or she cannot be prevented from buying some weapons.

The gist of his message is that America needs to pass the Lautenberg/King S. 1237/H.R. 2074, which would give the Attorney General the power to arbitrarily bar anyone on the (grotesquely bloated) terrorist watch list (and no, by "grotesquely bloated," I don't mean everyone's favorite occupant of the list, Sen. Ted "Hero of Chappaquiddick" Kennedy) from buying firearms.

I have made no secret of my loathing for this bill (also here, here, and here ). To grant an official (who is not even elected by the people) the power to unilaterally deny an American citizen his Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, without a trial, without an indictment, without even an arrest, is to voluntarily surrender our liberties to the police state.

In making his case for the "danger" posed what by he sees as "inadequate" laws regulating handguns, Klarevas makes the following observation:

But as the Virginia Tech case illustrates, all one needs is an abundant amount of reload ammunition, a densely populated soft target, and the will to kill to produce dozens of deaths in just minutes.

What he neglects to mention is what makes a "soft target"--state mandated victim disarmament. Cho's murderous rampage faced no effective opposition because university policy prohibited his victims the means to resist. Terrorists bent on committing the atrocity of a small-arms massacre (if they choose such an inefficient method of killing in large numbers) will no doubt choose their targets with an eye for similarly helpless victims.

So I guess I do agree after all with Klarevas' assertion that our gun laws make us vulnerable to terrorists, but not in the way he argues. Klarevas claims to be concerned about terrorists with guns, but seems not to be bothered by the idea of the potential victims being disarmed.

We are frequently told that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms." It seems that some would adopt a strategy of trying to appease them by surrendering those freedoms.

Update: War on Guns has more.

News flash: Newsweek still supports forcible citizen disarmament

In a development that should shock no one, Newsweek is pushing a citizen disarmament measure. This time, it's the "Disarm Anyone the Attorney General Designates as a 'Terrorist'" bill (either H.R. 2074 or S. 1237). Specifically, the article takes Senator McCain (himself no friend to private firearm ownership) to task for not specifically endorsing the bill.

But does that extend to gun rights for suspected terrorists? His campaign won't say where he stands on a bill to eliminate a gun-control loophole that even the Bush administration wants closed: a gap in federal law that inhibits the government from stopping people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns.

I love, by the way, that reference to "even the Bush administration"--as if this administration has a proud record of standing against statist power grabs. I've made no secret of what I think of attempts to give the Attorney General--an unelected official--the power to unilaterally voiding an American citizen's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, without a conviction, without an arrest, without even criminal charges being filed. Then, of course, there's the little fact of the "terrorist watch list" having ballooned to something like a million names by now. Yeah--that sounds like a list that constitutes a reliable grounds for denying fundamental rights.

Frankly, I don't think Newsweek writer Mark Hosenball has much to worry about--I imagine McCain would sign such a bill without much of a second thought. Ah--the "land of the free."

Bloomberg supports bill that attacks gun rights--surprise, surprise

This time, I hope I really mean it about being back in the blogging business. I apologize for just shutting down for so long without a word--just a bad case of burnout, I guess. Anyway, I do still consider those who would disarm Americans to be enemies of liberty, and I am eager to get back in the ring with them.

Today we'll talk about Mayor Bloomberg's support (and that of his fellow tyranny enablers of Mayors Against Illegal Guns) for Senator Lautenberg's S. 1273 (which I have mentioned earlier, here, here, and here). This bill would grant the Attorney General the enormous (and enormously dangerous) power of stripping citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, without any semblance of due process, simply by declaring them to be terrorist suspects. That, of course, is a terrifying amount of power to grant to one person, even if that person were an elected official, which the AG, of course, is not.

Representative Peter King (R-NY), the sponsor of the House version of the bill (H.R. 2074), had this to say:

It is unfathomable to me that we knowingly allow the transfer of firearms to these individuals. Changing this policy should be a no-brainer. Our role in Congress is to create laws that protect the American people, not to uphold those that give terrorists the right to bear arms.

Actually, Pete, I do agree with part (a small part) of that--this bill is definitely "a no-brainer"--making you the perfect kind of guy to push this abomination. The right to keep and bear arms is not "given" to anyone by any laws, or even by the Second Amendment--the Second Amendment guarantees that basic human right, the existence of which is not dependent on any document. Furthermore, your oath of office, swearing to uphold the Constitution, applies to the entire Constitution--not just the parts you happen to think are worthwhile. Finally, you seem to be confused about the difference between terrorists, and people on the terrorist watch list. I'm sure there is a bit of overlap between the two groups, but they can hardly be considered one and the same.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not thrilled about the idea of Ted Kennedy having a gun, either--but (unlike you and your ideological allies, apparently) I revere the Constitutional rights of all Americans (even those Americans for whom I have no personal respect).

Oh yeah--this is the guy who will rein in the BATFE

Pending passage through the vetting process, our next Attorney General will be Eric Holder. What effect can the Attorney General have on gun rights? Quite a large one.

One of the responsibilities of the Attorney General, of course, is leadership of the Department of Justice, of which the BATFE is now a part. It's also the Attorney General who is empowered to determine whether or not a firearm is suitable for "sporting purposes" (don't even get me started on the perversity of having that as a criterion for which arms are suitable to be kept and borne); and who would, under the abomination of S. 1237/H.R. 2074 have the power to unilaterally deny a person's ability to buy a firearm, on the basis of a suspicion that he's a terrorist.

So what do we know about Eric Holder's stance on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms? A fair amount, and it's not encouraging.

For example, as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, he was big on closing the mythical "gun show loophole."

Today Individual Members of Congress have a clear-cut choice to make. Either they can cave in to the narrow, special interests that value the cold, hard steel of guns more than the lives of children, neighbors and police officers, or they can fulfill the mandate of the broad majority of the American public by supporting a reasonable, common sense bill that would make all of us safer from armed criminals. The choice for each House Member is just that stark.

He goes on a lot farther, but you get the idea.

Not that our last two Attorneys General, appointed by the "Vote Freedom First" President, have been real coups for the gun rights movement. Alberto Gonzales differed from Holder's former boss, Janet Reno, mainly in being not quite as masculine. Mukasey showed some early potential, but didn't take long to show his true colors.

Still, the choice of Holder would be the continuation of an unbroken trend on the part of the incoming Obama administration of assembling a group of anti-gun jihadists.

Keep your powder dry.

More at War on Guns, Snowflakes in Hell, Say Uncle, and probably others.