Lautenberg Again!

**Brick** · June 20th, 2007, 06:20 PM

The July 2007 American Rifleman led me to check this out:

Use the search feature at http://thomas.loc.gov to read the entire txt of the bill.

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1237 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1237
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.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 26, 2007
Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting after section 922 the following:

`Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

`The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General--

`(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and

`(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.

On reading this it appears that the Rifleman got it pretty right. Anyone's rights may be suspended based on the suspicion of a bureaucrat in the DOJ. No trial, no hearing, no conviction, no due process of any kind, no legal representation and you cannot face your accuser because DOJ is not required to produce the full evidence if challenged. The bill is also very light on remedies in case DOJ is wrong.

So what do you think of that? Not only are 2nd Amendment rights threatened, but 4th Amendment rights also.

**God's Country** · June 20th, 2007, 06:39 PM

Dems could give a crap about my protection.
Any excuse will do. They're so transparent it's laughable.

**reels18** · June 20th, 2007, 07:11 PM

I would like to read about a democrat that is concerned about illegal immigration, inflation, crime or high taxes.

I thought these people were elected to make our lives more secure and prosperous and not constantly chipping away the basic rights that were are entitled to.

**KeithPA** · June 20th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Even though I question what the fort dix terrorists were really upto, I believe seeing somewhere they were allowed to purchase weapons so the undercover sting could continue.

Why would you deny a KNOWN terrorist the ability to buy a firearm, wouldn't that tip them off that they are known? If you know they are a terrorist they are probably be watched, so yet again wouldn't this tip them off?

**Brick** · June 21st, 2007, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by DeltaII5

Even though I question what the fort dix terrorists were really upto, I believe seeing somewhere they were allowed to purchase weapons so the undercover sting could continue.

Why would you deny a KNOWN terrorist the ability to buy a firearm, wouldn't that tip them off that they are known? If you know they are a terrorist they are probably be watched, so yet again wouldn't this tip them off?

But this isn't about KNOWN terrorists! It's about suspected terrorists!

**KeithPA** · June 21st, 2007, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Brick

But this isn't about KNOWN terrorists! It's about suspected terrorists!

I mean KNOWN as in we KNOW who they are. Weather they are terrorists or are suspected terrorists we KNOW who they are.

If I am a terrorist, no one would know, so therefore this bill would do nothing. If I am on a watch list, hence WATCH list (I may or may not truely be a terrorist), then they know who I am, so if they denied me, I would realize something is up.

Is that more clear?

**reels18** · June 21st, 2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by DeltaII5

I mean KNOWN as in we KNOW who they are. Weather they are terrorists or are suspected terrorists we KNOW who they are.

If I am a terrorist, no one would know, so therefore this bill would do nothing. If I am on a watch list, hence WATCH list (I may or may not truely be a terrorist), then they know who I am, so if they denied me, I would realize something is up.

Is that more clear?

Anyone that pays attention to the workings of the left wing of our government can recognize this procedure.

It is purely to keep the momentum going in the gun confiscation agenda. A little chip here, a little chip there. Sooner or later, the cracks in the second amendment will show. I believe the term is incrementalism.