13 replies [Last post]
expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Anti-Gun Blacklist Introduced in US House

We already have laws in place that deny firearm ownership to convicted felons. But now we're talking about denying it to people who the AG suspects MIGHT commit a felony someday.

I've never heard of Constitutional rights being denied because of potential to commit a crime.

On a side note, I have to wonder how many atrocities in history have occurred because of people that scoffed and said, "There's no way that'll happen."

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Anti-Gun Blacklist Introduced in US House
JTapia wrote:
CVC wrote:
Quote:
Is it ok for a certain woman to say terrorist of her apponent but not the US Gov?

Can anyone translate for me? I think I might agree, but I won't be sure until someone explains what he just wrote.

I think I can.
I seem to recall a book titled "Lower Life Forms of the World, a study of Lefties and microorganisms." in which it stated that lower life forms, IE: Amoebas or Amoebae, sometimes can not determine who their opponent is as they all mostly look alike. To solve this they appoint an opponent, however lacking in intelligence they cannot remember the whole big words so they combine the two and formed the word "apponent". It is sometimes referred to as "the emeney" also.

Laugh Laugh

Chuck-n-Alaska's picture
Offline
Location: Southcentral Alaska
Joined: 04/26/2007
Posts: 222
Anti-Gun Blacklist Introduced in US House
expatriate wrote:
So as I read this, the language basically gives the Attorney General the power to expand NICS to deny sale to anyone he deems a threat to state security.

It's not that you've committed a crime...it's that you MIGHT commit a crime, are SUSPECTED of activity that's in preparation for, or RELATED TO terrorism. And we've seen how DHS defines such things, haven't we?

So if your name shows up erroneously on the "do not fly" list, you're done, right?

If this ever passed, it'd never make it past a post-Heller Supreme Court. They won't allow 2nd Amendment rights to be denied without due process -- especially because you MIGHT do something.

At least, I hope it wouldn't.

Don't forget we have one appointment in the works with a couple more very possible in the near future. And Heller only made it by a narrow margin.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Maine Anti-Bear Hunting Bill Ignores Will of Voters !!!burrman004/14/2005 04:52 am
30-06?Don Fischer1911/15/2008 17:08 pm
Scary NightCVC106/23/2007 13:11 pm
H.R. 6257 Another "Assault" Weapon Banbitmasher507/29/2008 19:18 pm
20/20's anti-gun propagandacowgal1204/11/2009 20:49 pm