Denying rights without due process

February 9, 1:58 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

17 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Over the weekend, the gun blogs have been abuzz about a video clip (below)  of a speech to the Brady Campaign, delivered back in May 2007 by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel--at that time a Congressman (D-IL).  He called for a couple of the usual staples of the citizen disarmament extremists--a "strengthened" background check system, and a renewal of the ban of so-called "assault weapons" (I've mentioned the growing push for such a renewal before).  The main thrust of his speech, though, and what has drawn the attention of my fellow gun rights writers, is the idea of barring people on the "No-fly list" from buying firearms.

"If you're on that "No-Fly List", your access to your right to bear arms is canceled, because you're not part of the American family, you don't deserve that right. There is no right for you, if you're on that terrorist list."

On the face of it, I suppose it might sound like a sensible idea--who, after all, would be opposed to preventing terrorists from acquiring firearms?  What we must keep in mind, though, is that what's being discussed here is not blocking firearm sales to terrorists (if we know that's what they are, why are they running around free, anyway?), but to suspected terrorists.

I have not, so far, found any mention of a bill introduced in the current Congress that would close the so-called "terror gap loophole" (I'm not making that term up), but two bills introduced in the 110th Congress, H.R. 2074 in the House, and S. 1237 in the Senate, should give us a pretty good idea of what to expect, and those bills, after all, were what Emanuel must have been referring to back in 2007 (he was a co-sponsor of H.R. 2074, by the way).

From the summary:

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to grant the Attorney General the authority to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of a federal firearms and explosives license to any individual if the Attorney General: (1) determines that such individual has been engaged in or has provided material support or resources for terrorist activities; and (2) has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearm or explosives license application has been been denied to bring legal action challenging the denial.

Prohibits the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to any individual whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities.

Permits the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation suits if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security

Authorizes the Attorney General to revoke firearms and explosives licenses and permits held by individuals determined to be engaged in terrorism

Get that?  To be deprived of one's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, one does not have to be convicted of a single crime, nor indicted, nor even charged--the Attorney General (the most rabidly, virulently anti-gun Attorney General in history)--an unelected official, by the way--can unilaterally "determine" that one's rights are null and void.

Then, there's the little fact that the terrorist watch list now has over a million names on it--Senator Ted Kennedy even made the "No-fly list" (granted, Sen. Kennedy has caused more innocent deaths than the vast majority of American gun owners, but I would have trouble accusing him of terrorism).

 . . . Or, how about the little problem that simply having the name Robert Johnson is apparently enough to get you on the list--even if you never sold your soul to the devil down at the crossroads (sorry--couldn't resist a little joke).

 . . . Or that you can challenge your "terrorist" status, but the Attorney General can keep secret the reasons for your name being on the list, making such a challenge rather difficult.  No potential for abuse there, right?

The bottom line is that you don't even have to care about gun rights to be horrified by the idea of giving an unelected official unilateral power to deny Constitutionally guaranteed rights without a conviction, without an indictment, without being charged, without even being publicly accused of a crime.  Ours is a justice system based on the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt, or at least it's supposed to be, and what Emanuel advocates--to the cheers of the Brady Campaign--is anathema to that philosophy.

More, on a related note, here.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: The trail of tears
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Saturday special: Answering the Brady Campaign Against Handgun violence.    
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Can you effectively defend your beliefs?
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: Phony gun groups: Fool me twice?
  
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Firearms: A great equalizer
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: DC taxpayers will pay for City Council's gun ban redux
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
• Denver Gun Rights Examiner: Who could know?
• Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner: When is it good to fail?