I have many times said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a package. Take one part from them, and the whole thing falls apart. The ultimate goal of the authoritarians is the dismantling of our way of life. As noted on another WordPress blog this morning the failed “communitarian movement” sought, as a base statement that individual liberty is subject to communal liberty. That scholarly work was from 1996 and contrasted militia movements with communitarian’s as well as pointing out the similarities.
It seems that although the so-called movement has gone away it’s ideology has reached the halls of power. As expressed in proposed law by those that just absolutely hate liberty and freedom H.R. 2159 will deny rights to people simply based upon suspicion. The obamanites are learning though, they have tossed in leftest groups this time as well as those that they previously had branded as home grown terrorists. Read on…
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. |
A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected” of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general “has a reasonable belief” that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.”
“[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “A ‘known terrorist?’ Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn’t have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!”
Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from “right-wing extremists,” such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
“By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”
| ; |
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing ‘extremists’
Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those ‘suspected dangerous’
Tags: Bill of Rights, Gun Control, HR 2159, News, Politics, presumed guilt
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
May 11, 2009 at 09:07
[…] Original post by Patrick Sperry […]
LikeLike
May 11, 2009 at 18:10
[…] – TimesWatch (Why is this a surprise? Because they haven’t been reporting fairly?) Latest attack on your Second Amendment Rights – Conservative Libertarian […]
LikeLike
May 20, 2009 at 08:09
Insurrection. Secession. Sedition. Revolt. Resistance. Revolution. “House Cleaning”. Pogrom. Just a few of the terms that our “leaders” need to begin pondering if they continue down this path. People have already had enough of their fecal matter. When you take angry people over the edge by attempting to take their last sense of security away from them (their firearms), you will have big troubles. So, I hope they pass this. All of these things NEED to come to pass. RIDE TIL WE FIND THEM. KILL THEM ALL.
LikeLike
May 20, 2009 at 08:33
While I can understand how you feel Randwulf, I cannot advocate violence until any, and all other paths are fully explored. Bloodshed must be a last resort. Taking the ability to resist tyranny equates to a last resort situation though as well.
LikeLike
May 20, 2009 at 09:21
We HAVE explored “any and all other paths”. The hour is late. If this passes though, it is readily apparent that any future attempts to reconcile the rights and the real needs of the people with/against the agenda of the “government” are a waste of time. And, if we allow ourselves to be passively disarmed, it is an academic point anyway. By the time that happens, there will be absolutely no way to force the government to return to constitutionality or to respect any citizen rights whatsoever. Armed men have at least a chance to be free men. Disarmed sheep are livestock to be abused or slaughtered at will. There is nothing wrong with a few people getting shot once in a while. Especially if it the right people. I’m afraid that by the time this thing runs it’s course, there will be no way around it. Our Congress and senate are too estranged from the people to be able to read their mood. I only hope there are enough people like myself to do what needs to be done.
LikeLike
May 20, 2009 at 13:02
Well Randwulf, if you were a regular reader here you would know that we are much more alike than different.
LikeLike
May 20, 2009 at 13:12
I think you may be correct Patrick. I will try to check in more often. Just came upon this blog while looking for reactions to HR 2159 AKA The Sneaky Back Way In To Total Citizenry Disarmament Act of 2009. (which will not disarm a single Jihadist terrorist)
More later.
LikeLike
May 20, 2009 at 14:24
I think its noteworthy that this legislation is crafted as a House Resolution i.e H.R. In order to amend the Constitution this bill would have to be a Joint Resolution J.R. Two thirds of the several states would have to ratify it, the it would become law, and amend the Constitution.
It must always be remembered that Congress legislates for the Municipal government of D.C, (DHS is a D.C Municipal agency, see 4USC 71-72)and to enforce Treaties, the terms of the later have no effect in the several states of the union see SCOTUS decision Downs v. Bidwell.
This Legislation is a treaty with Europe, an example of Congress’ plenary power in maritime jurisdiction.
Lets have a look at this bill.
‘Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
————————————————————————————-
The territorial jurisdiction of the United States is D.C, Insular possesions, and international waters, not the states of the union.
As far as the terrorism provsions, this is lifted from 18 USC, it deals with federal entiies only
‘(36) The term ‘terrorism’ means ‘international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and ‘domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).
.
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that –
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended –
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
————————————————————————————
Congress counts on our ignorance of the laws to cram the terms of a treaty down our throats
LikeLike
May 21, 2009 at 06:32
Great information Grey Seal, and very much to the point! Don’t you just have to love how lawyers will spout on and on about “intent?” Then turn around, and say that ignorance of the law is no defense?
As Randwulf says, this is a backdoor attempt at total disarmament.
LikeLike
May 21, 2009 at 14:11
Here’s the treaty for H.R 2159, this is the same treaty for the “Patriot Act”. States mean member countries, not us.
TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II-B > § 276m
§ 276m. United States Delegation to Parliamentary Assembly of Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
(a) Establishment
In accordance with the allocation of seats to the United States in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (hereinafter referred to as the “CSCE Assembly”) not to exceed 17 Members of Congress shall be appointed to meet jointly and annually with representative parliamentary groups from other Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) member-nations for the purposes of—
(1) assessing the implementation of the objectives of the CSCE;…..
Here’s the definition of terrorism according to the Council of Europe
Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism
Warsaw, 16.V.2005 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Tr … 96.htm#ANX
The member States of the Council of Europe and the other Signatories hereto,
Recalling that acts of terrorism have the purpose by their nature or context to seriously intimidate a population or unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation;
LikeLike
May 22, 2009 at 05:28
[…] H.R. 2159 making the Constitution toilet tissue « Conservative … […]
LikeLike
May 22, 2009 at 06:29
It would probably be easier on people here in America to understand if the term “Nation States” were used.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 19:20
As one great Libertarian Wayne Root says, “V.E.T.O. – Vote everyone of them out of Congress” Get ready for the Citizen Revolution 2010! I am all for his recommendation and I even bought the T-shirt at http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/veto.php
Way to Go Wayne!
LikeLike