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.

'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' can't get anyone to notice them

Mayor Bloomberg's coalition of "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" sent a survey to the presidential candidates in early December, asking the candidates' positions on several citizen disarmament issues these mayors hold dear. The response from the candidates has been a bit less than the mayors had probably hoped for.

The Republican and Democratic candidates running for president have largely ignored Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun questionnaire despite his stated desire to influence the national debate on the topic.

None answered the questionnaire that Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition released on Dec. 9 and paid $22,200 to publicize last week in full page newspaper ads in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said no candidate responded by the Jan. 2 deadline; one asked for an extension, so the new deadline is Jan. 14. Post declined to say which candidate wanted more time.

Perhaps we shouldn't vote for anyone for president.

That can't sit well with citizen disarmament advocates. With even former stalwarts of their movement trying (poorly) to make nice with the gun rights movement (hear of any presidential candidates appearing at a Brady Campaign event?)--and don't forget Hillary knocking Obama for being unelectable by virtue of being too anti-gun--citizen disarmament just doesn't seem to be a platform on which anyone wants to stand.

By the way, looking at the survey the mayors sent shows just how out of touch they are. Some of the questions (and the presumably "right" answers) are just plain scary. A sampling, with my comments interjected:

Microstamping: In September 2007, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation to require that all new models of guns manufactured or sold in California include “microstamping” technology starting in 2010. . . . Do you support legislation that would require new firearms sold in the United States to include microstamping technology?

Great--let's spread California-style tyranny across the entire country

Illegal Traffickers: Do you support increasing the maximum penalty for illegal gun trafficking crimes from 10 years to 20 years [relating to penalties under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d), 924(g), 924(h), and 924(n), consistent with provisions of S.77 (110th Congress)]?

S. 77--wonderful

“Terror Gap”: Six years after 9/11, the federal government lacks the authority to prevent gun sales to suspects on terror watch lists. . . . As president, would you support passage of legislation to close this Terror Gap in federal laws?

Don't even get me started on S. 1237

Secure Identification for Gun Purchases: In 2013, the federal “Real ID Act” will go into full effect. In order to get into a federal building or to get on a commercial airplane, all persons will have to show secure identification that is compliant with the Real ID Act. . . . Do you support a change in federal law to require that gun purchasers show Real ID-compliant identification by 2013?

Real ID--I should have figured these authority freaks would be all over that one

And that's just the "highlights."

No wonder even the presidential candidates who are obviously no supporters of gun ownership want nothing to do with these loons.

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.

Now it's the 'terror gap loophole' that we need to close down

Through Cryptic Subterranean (via War on Guns), we learn of Senator Lautenberg's (D-NJ) latest salvo: S. 1237, "A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists." Yep, you read that correctly. The Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms would now be subject to denial--not when found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, nor even indicted by a grand jury, or even charged by a prosecutor with a single crime--but when you are "suspected" of being a terrorist.

The bill, having been introduced only last Thursday, is still too new for its text to be available online, but Lautenberg has put out a gloat page press release about it.

"It took years, but the Administration finally realized that letting terrorists buy guns is dangerous. This 'terror gap' in our gun laws has been open too long and I am going to shut it down," said Sen. Lautenberg.

"Terror gap," eh (later on, he expands on that concept, and refers to the "terror gap loophole")? So that's how bands of terrorists are getting dozens of AR-15s and massacring mall goers by the hundreds, and buying .50 caliber rifles and shooting down jumbo jets--wait--you mean that stuff hasn't happened yet? Well, I'm sure they've been planning to get around to that any day now.

Here are the few available specifics about the bill (from Lautenberg's press release).

Sen. Lautenberg's measure - the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" - specifically:

• Provides the Attorney General with discretionary authority to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm or explosives license or permit when a background check reveals that the purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism;

• Includes due process safeguards that afford an affected person an opportunity to challenge a denial by the Attorney General; and

• Protects the sensitive information upon which terrorist watch list listings are based.

So--the Attorney General would have discretionary authority to deny a fundamental human right. That certainly is a lot of power--vastly more than I would trust Anthony Gonzales with, let alone an AG appointed by President Hillary. By the way, I like the way that the point about "due process safeguards" for appeal is followed by the point about protecting "the sensitive information." Does this mean that the "suspected terrorist" will not be permitted to see the grounds on which the suspicions about him are based? That would make an appeal rather tricky, I imagine.

Care to speculate about how easy it is to get on the "suspected terrorist" list? As Cryptic Subterranean points out (from the link at the beginning of this post):

Perhaps in years to come anyone who doesn't agree with the laws coming out of Washington could be branded a suspected terrorist and thus denied the right to purchase firearms. Not so long ago a Democrat lawmaker was trying to brand groups like the Minutemen as domestic terrorists.

I can certainly envision a President Hillary decreeing that Gun Owners of America, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership are "terrorist groups."

This bill, if it passes, might be the "long ball" against private firearm ownership that Lautenberg has been looking for his entire career. Let's strike him out, instead.

Still no text--but a co-sponsor

I have already written about Senator Lautenberg's S. 1237, "a bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists." Although the text of the bill is still unavailable for public viewing, Lautenberg has already found a willing co-sponsor.

I wonder if Ted would co-sponsor "a bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of automobiles or the issuance of drivers' licenses to known or suspected dangerous, drunken lechers."

Probably not. That's too bad--such a law would have a greater chance of saving lives than Lautenberg's bill.

Other parts of the Bill of Rights are under attack--why not the Second Amendment, as well?

I try to avoid saying things like "most foolish argument ever," because A) there is a great deal of competition for that "honor"; and B) sometimes I worry that someone will take such a statement as a challenge to come up with an even more foolish one. Still, this op-ed piece in Ohio State University's student newspaper (The Lantern) tempts me to make such a pronouncement.

The piece is in support of Senator Lautenberg's bill (also briefly discussed here) that would allow the Attorney General to deny any firearm purchase, just by putting the prospective buyer on the "terrorist watch list." No conviction, no trial, no charges filed necessary--Constitutional rights denied without even a pretense of due process. How do our collegiate editors justify this police state madness?

If Gonzalez and the Bush administration show any consistency in their policies, they will support the plan to deny Second Amendment rights to terror suspects, because they have had no problem denying other constitutional rights to those suspected of having terror connections. Those of us who pay attention might remember Guantanamo Bay, where it is a matter of procedure to deny due process and other rights to those accused of having terror connections, and sometimes even those who have been exonerated.

Ahh--well that makes sense--if we haven't stopped the trampling of some Constitutional rights, we should remain silent when the government comes after the rest. Apparently, two wrongs do make a right--who knew?

Although The Lantern appreciates the NRA looking out for our constitutional liberties, we wonder why all of a sudden gun rights get a special pass.

The Lantern believes the rights guaranteed in the constitution are created equal, and the fact that one might come in the Second Amendment makes it no more important than those in subsequent amendments. It is true that the political ideologies in the United States have latched onto certain rights to call their own. Some on the left have taken freedom of religion to mean absolutely no mention of God in public, ever, while some on the right have taken a well-regulated militia to mean an AK-47 in every home. Still, we should remember it takes a significant majority to amend the constitution, which means at one point in time the issues addressed by the amendments were not simply tools for partisan bickering.

The NRA's stated mission is the protection of gun rights (how well their actions line up with that mission is a matter for another debate)--it simply isn't within their purview to lobby for the entire Bill of Rights. Does The Lantern condemn medical researchers who focus on finding a cure for cancer, because they're doing nothing to cure AIDS?

The fact that gun rights activists devote most of their activism to lobbying for . . . gun rights, rather than for other Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights of individuals, does not detract from the legitimacy of their efforts.

By the way--speaking of S. 1237, the text is finally available, and it looks like something that Orwell could have written. It has also picked up four more cosponsors.

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."

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.

Another, sneakier route to disarmament and thralldom

Lately I've discussed several times various bills in the federal legislature, the passage of which would be very bad news for liberty in the U.S. Those bills include H.R. 96 (to close the mythical "gun show loophole"--I actually haven't written about that one yet--I need to, though), H.R. 297 (to "improve"--they mean expand--NICS), H.R. 1022 (to ban so-called "assault weapons"--and to classify as many firearms as possible as "assault weapons"), H.R. 1859, also discussed here (to ban magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds--to, as far as I can tell, encourage people to choose large, potent calibers, which you wouldn't be able to fit more than 10 of in a reasonably compact magazine anyway), and S. 1237, also discussed here (to bestow on the Attorney General the power to arbitrarily deny firearms purchases to anyone he chooses to designate as a "terrorist suspect"--I see, without surprise, that Senator Clinton signed on as cosponsor yesterday--that makes six cosponsors now, for a bill introduced only a week and a half ago).

Today's bill is H.R. 1784 (to pretend to protect law enforcement by banning A) a pistol that is nothing special, B) a type of ammunition that is already illegal for civilians, and C) a type of ammunition that is now legal, but is not offered to civilians, despite being fairly prosaic). This bill also has one other, more sinister purpose--more on that later. The "pistol that is nothing special" I refer to is the Fabrique-Nationale (FN) Five-seveN semi-automatic pistol, chambered for the (relatively) new 5.7x28mm cartridge. The Brady Bunch's histrionics notwithstanding, the Five-seveN is not a uniquely powerful pistol. Yes, the SS190 ammunition does have some capability to defeat soft body armor, as worn by police, but that ammunition is already illegal to sell to civilians, by virtue of it being handgun ammunition, with a steel penetrator in the core. The SS192 ammunition is legal (it has an aluminum core, but no steel), but when unsubstantiated claims were made that it could penetrate body armor, the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew it from the general market.

The 5.7x28mm rounds available to the public are no more capable of penetrating body armor than are many calibers that have been available for years. In fact, with a Curios and Relics license, one can order a Cz-52 through the mail, for well under $200, chambered for the 7.62x25mm Tokarev--a round that I would not want to depend on soft body armor to stop. I quite like mine (please don't make fun of my photography):

In fact, I could order the .22 Reed Express barrel for it, and get over 2000 feet per second out of it--I like it! I'll have to do that soon.

The "more sinister purpose" of H.R. 1784, to which I referred, comes from the language that would empower the Attorney General to arbitrarily design the tests that determine what constitutes "armor piercing" (people certainly seem to want to put an enormous amount of power in the hands of the Attorney General lately). He could use Type I vests (rated to stop only .22 rimfire rounds), or he could specify the use of firearms with very long barrels (which would not likely be carried by criminals, because of the bulk, but which impart greater velocity, and thus greater penetrating power, to the bullets)--basically, the AG would be given carte blanche to designate just about any firearm/ammo as "armor piercing," and thus illegal for civilians, merely by manipulating the testing protocols.

That, I'll wager, is the real motivation behind H.R. 1784.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales apparently satisfied with what happened at VA Tech

Or at least he is satisfied with their victim disarmament policy. I would think that approval of a policy indicates tacit approval of the outcome of that policy. Virginia Tech's policy was that students and staff must be unarmed, and the result of that policy is that 32 defenseless people were killed, without a chance to stop it.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday that having more guns on college campuses is not the way to prevent campus violence like the massacre at Virginia Tech.

Since the April 16 shootings that left 33 people dead, including the gunman, at Virginia Tech, some have suggested that the carnage might have been lower if a student or professor with a gun had stepped in.

''I don't think that is the answer quite frankly,'' said Gonzales, who was participating in a governor's task force to study safety and security on Oklahoma college campuses.

Apparently what he does think the answer is, is to continue mandating defenselessness. Yeah--that has worked wonders so far.

''We can't guarantee complete security,'' Gonzales said.

We certainly can't--what we can guarantee is that a killer's intended victims can do nothing for their security, either. That seems to be the "strategy" that Gonzales endorses.

He said the government also needs to work closely to make campuses safe while still respecting individual freedoms and privacy.

''In a society where we really value individual freedom and respect privacy we're also concerned about public safety,'' Gonzales said.

"Really value individual freedom and respect privacy," eh? How, Alberto, do you intend to reconcile that "value" and "respect" with your support for S. 1237? That bill sounds like a godsend for an Attorney General who values and respects nothing more than the power of his office.

When Gonzales was firing attorneys, I think he forgot one.