New Legislation Being Introduced Tomorrow?

Looks that way to me:

Fresh off landing an endorsement from an erstwhile liberal holdout and foe, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is scheduled to appear tomorrow with another former House colleague and onetime political opponent, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

Gillibrand is to join the Long Island congresswoman, Mayor Bloomberg, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Brady Campaign and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence at John Jay College for a so-called “major announcement” (according to a press release) of a “new federal measure to combat gun violence.”

Based on this ad campaign that Bloomberg will be doing with MAIG, I would say it’s legislation designed to deny constitutional rights to Americans based on their presence on a secret government list, otherwise known as denying gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list. I would encourage everyone to make sure their MAIG mayors understand this, and definitely make sure they know it’s unacceptable.

9 thoughts on “New Legislation Being Introduced Tomorrow?”

  1. It would seem to me that this would open the secret government list up to examination. If I remember correctly, you still can’t be denied your constitutional rights without due process. That seems to me to indicate that you can know your on the list, know who put you on the list and know why they put you on the list. Of course, you may have to learn these things at the order of a judge and challenge them before a judge. Up to now, the terror lists have denied privileges (flying, exporting, etc.) and thus not open to challenge but start denying rights, you open up challenges.

    So the question is are the intel types going to want to defend their listings in open court? Is the FBI going to want to reveal someone is of interest in a terror investigation by informing the state Department of Safety, who has to explain to the purchaser the reason of their denial?

  2. People will be amazed to find how how many names are on that list and how poorly cross referenced they are. Right after the list came out I was delayed everytime I flew because there was a name similar to mine on the list. Everytime I checked in for a flight I had to stand there while the ticket person called TSA to describe me and give details about my appearance.

    For some reason that issue cleared up after about a year — I guess they refined the list. But I like the comment on due process. Hopefully that will hold true if we can’t stop this crap in Congress.

  3. Stephen raises a very interesting point. Have you ever heard of somebody actually being DENIED from a flight because of the no-fly list? (OK as I type I remember Cat Stephens), but overall it just means delays.

    That’s likely what any stupid “Terrorist” law will do. Which for the bottom line is NOTHING.

    But then again that’s been the plan all along.

    Gun Control, it’s what you do instead of something!

  4. Yes, I do know people that have been denied flights because they had the same name as someone on the “no fly list”. Fortunately for this person he was able to prove he wasn’t the other person with his name. The danger with the secret list is just that, that you have the same name as someone on the list a suspected terrorist. Remember Ted Kennedy was found that he bore the same name as someone on the list.

  5. Either that or the “gun show loophole” stuff.

    You know, after seeing all those briefs filed in support of 2A incorporation, the act of filing federal level gun control legislation seems to me, especially now, an exercise in futility.

    And as always, a waste of taxpayer resources. It would be nice to get to a point that we could sue legislators for malpractice for pursuing gun control legislation.

  6. I have a bad feeling that any “no guns for those on terror list” is going to also go after carry permits.

    At least for the states where a Carry permit is a NICs by-pass and are subject to FBI back ground checks.

    And you can be denied a constitutional right without due process. They are called restraining orders. Poof, no more second amendment rights, guilty until proven innocent.

  7. @Tomcatshanger: with the 7th circuit’s remand of a Lautenberg prohibition and the forthcoming incorporation of the 2A, I would expect removal of posession right as part of a restraining order ot be consitutionally suspect. May take a few cases first.

Comments are closed.