Brady Campaign acknowledges proposed gun laws violate due process; doesn't care

July 1, 9:34 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

1 comment 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

     Oleg Volk photo

That the Brady Campaign endorses legislation like United States Representative Peter King's (R-NY) H.R. 2159, the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act,"  and Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 1317 (H.R. 2159's Senate counterpart) is hardly surprising.  These bills are, after all, draconian infringements on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and as such, are what organizations like the Brady Campaign exist for.

For those unfamiliar with the above bills (I discussed H.R. 2159 here a while ago), they would empower the Attorney General to block gun sales to anyone the AG claims to suspect is a "terrorist"--without a conviction, without an indictment, without so much as an arrest or formal accusation.

What surprises me, though, is that Brady Campaign Vice President (and ostensible Constitutional law expert) Dennis Henigan acknowledges that people guilty of nothing will be swept up in such nets, and says that doesn't matter.

If the Lautenberg/King approach were to become law, there would no doubt be some mistakes made, in which gun sales are blocked due to incorrect information, mistaken identities, or other problems.

Indeed--we are talking, after all, about a list so bloated with names that even Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on it.  Simply having a name similar to a genuine terror suspect is sufficient to land an utterly innocent person on the list.

Henigan's reaction?  A shrug, and a "well, you can appeal it":

Recognizing that no public policy applied in the real world is perfect, the Lautenberg/King legislation provides for mechanisms to correct such mistakes while making it harder for terrorist suspects to arm themselves.

That conveniently ignores the fact it's rather difficult to challenge one's inclusion on the list when the AG can claim that releasing information--such as the reason for the inclusion in the first place--must be kept secret for national security reasons,  and that any documents submitted by the government to bolster its case can be redacted to hide "sensitive" information.  Then, there's the little issue of requiring people to prove their innocence--with the expense of legal fees, missed work, etc.--before they can exercise their rights, rather than forcing the government to prove their guilt before denying them.  Oh, and a would-be purchaser has 60 days from the date of being informed that the reason for the purchase denial was his status as a "suspected terrorist," to petition the government, but the government has, as far as I can determine, no obligation to ever tell him why the purchase was denied.  The gun dealer certainly won't be able to tell him--all the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) will tell him is "purchase denied."

Henigan also drops this little gem:

It would give the Attorney General discretion to prevent gun sales to any person known or suspected to have engaged in conduct in aid of terrorism. Presumably, the candidates for such treatment would be those on the existing terrorist watch list.

Yes--"presumably," those denied gun purchase rights would be on the (fatally flawed) list--but there is no requirement that they be on it.  The AG could unilaterally decide that a given would-be gun purchaser is a "suspected terrorist," and block the sale.  Given AG Holder's hostility to gun rights, and his desire to ban so-called "assault weapons," is it inconceivable that Holder buys into the ridiculous notion that the only people who buy such "weapons of war" are terrorists, or something close to it, and that the mere desire to buy one is grounds for suspicion?  Not to me, it isn't, and this legislation would give him the power to act on such insane beliefs.

This type of legislation would give the Attorney General--one man--power to deny rights that the entire nation cannot rightfully deny.  And the Brady Campaign's "Constitutional law expert" has no problem with that.