Little-publicized Senate panel to demand disarming legally innocent under guise of fighting terror

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

---

Related Articles

• Lautenberg bill will harass gun owners, not terrorists

• Rep. Peter King plots terrorist act

• Why does our government equate Constitutionalists with terrorists?

• "Homegrown terrorists"

A Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs hearing will be held today to explore denying guns to people the government suspects of terror activity.

Being spectacularly wrong in his suspicion that the attempted Times Square SUV bomb was the work of Americans mad about the health care bill, New York Mayor and anti-gun (unless they're held by his taxpayer-funded bodyguards) zealot Michael R. Bloomberg will continue his personal vendetta against domestic freedom today on Capitol Hill. Per The Huffington Post (but curiously, not too many other media sources—it's almost like they're trying to keep awareness low key):

Bloomberg is upset about a federal loophole that, amazingly enough, allows people on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist to legally buy guns and explosives.

Amazing is right. He wants a fundamental right denied to people who have neither been charged with, tried nor convicted of any crime. And when is this pathological control freak not upset?

The hearing on "Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms" is scheduled for today at 10:00 AM in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342.

Shall we look at the balanced "witness list"?

First up is Frank Lautenberg, sponsor of S. 1317: "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009." We discussed that here.

Next on the list: Rep. Peter King, sponsor of the House companion bill H.R. 2159, same title. We talked about Rep. King's exercise in oathbreaking infringement here, and a related effort based on the "no fly list" by Carolyn "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy here.

Then Bloomberg takes his turn, followed by NY Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. Hmm, looks like the first panel is...what's the term...rigged?

Perhaps Panel 2 will add some needed balance?

Let's see, an assistant director for the FBI, a Homeland Security bureaucrat, an assistant chief from the LAPD...oh wait, here's one, Aaron Titus of The Liberty Coalition. Man, this is starting to remind me of that gig taking on all comers over at The New York Times. Although I would feel better if the Coalition had sent somebody besides their privacy guy, who doesn't even mention the Second Amendment on his personal blog. Except looking at their"leaders" page, not a one of them claims to be a 2A scholar...

Just so we're all clear on the tone that will be set in the hearing...

Here's some summary analysis, from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:

In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee or permittee through Brady background checks...

The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition...

So not only can't someone purchase guns and ammo, they can't possess them? What will they do if they know you already own some?

But, hey, there's legal recourse if you feel you've been wronged (and why would nayone denied a basic right without benefit of due process feel that?). Thing is, and this is key:

The proposed amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those documents contained information that could compromise national security...

At least the Salem witches got a trial, could face their accusers, and hear all the "evidence" against them. And while there is a provision for "ex parte and in camera" review (by the court—the defense isn't specified) "[t]he court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B."

Hey, our game, our rules.

Does anyone seriously think this will stop real terrorists from getting guns any better than it stops any other type of criminal? And wouldn't their name kicking out from the system to deny a purchase be...oh, I don't know...a tip off that they've been made?

And does anyone seriously think this will stop American patriots committed to this simple, but serious pledge?

We will not disarm. That and Μολ?ν λαβ?!

This just in:

The no-fly list failed to keep the Times Square suspect off the plane.

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

Putting the kibosh on California carry

The most populated jurisdictions will only "permit" concealed carry to an elite connected few. So what's a citizen who knows the police won't be there to protect him or her to do? The open carry movement has pointed the way with a "legal" compromise, in that sidearms may not be loaded, although magazines can be on hand.

That, of course, has driven the anti defense lobby nuts, so they've allied themselves with "progressive" (that's Orwellian for "regressive") political oathbreakers to derail the movement under force of law—"Only Ones" exempted, of course.

Check our Santa Ana Libertarian Examiner Christopher Yuhas and his very first column: "In California the right to openly defend one's self is in jeopardy."

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

Trigger Sports LIVE! talks DGUs

That's "defensive gun uses" in case the acronym is unfamiliar to you. While the gungrabbers only seem interested in exploiting criminal abuses to further their subversive goals, peaceable people do defend themselves from predatory ones every day. I guess the antis expect us to just go gentle into that good night—actions of attackers notwithstanding.

American Trigger Sports Network host James B. Towle and I will be discussing some recent armed citizen stories and more (I'm going to email him and recommend allocation of a minute or two to discuss today's Senate Committee hearings) today at Noon PST.

I hope you can join us. To do so, click here at the appointed hour.