Back in February, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015, along with co-sponsors Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). All Democrats? Why ever would that be? As our good friends at pjmedia.com pointed out . . .
The bill would give the attorney general discretion to “deny the transfer of a firearm” if he or she “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 “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”
In other words, the bill would have given the [Democratic] Attorney General of the United States the power to define terrorism, and then deny anyone who falls under his or her definition their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Based on the AG’s “reasonable belief.”
Statism baby! That’s how the Dems roll. Speaking of which, theguardian.com reports that . . .
The Obama administration’s no-fly lists and broader watchlisting system is based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated offenses, the government has been forced to admit in court.
In a little-noticed filing before an Oregon federal judge, the US Justice Department and the FBI conceded that stopping US and other citizens from travelling on airplanes is a matter of “predictive assessments about potential threats”, the government asserted in May . . .
The declaration comes in a longstanding case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), arguing that the government does not provide significant steps for someone caught in the “predictive assessments” to get off the blacklists.
On Friday, the ACLU asked Judge Anna Brown to conduct her own review of the error rate in the government’s predictions modeling – a process the ACLU likens to the “pre-crime” of Philip K Dick’s science fiction.
Note that the above-named Senators (not to mention our NY RINO pal Peter King in the House and his Democratic pals) want to duplicate the No-Fly List to create a No-Gun List. It would involve the same secret determination according to secret criteria, without prior judicial oversight.
While the No-Fly List appeals process is ultimately adjudicated by . . . wait for it . . . the Transportation Safety Administration, someone on the No-Gun List would have to take Uncle Sam to court, where they would NOT be able to see the evidence against them (ex parte all the way baby!).
While we await the return of the No-Gun list proposal, the civilian disarmament industrial complex continues its clarion call for federal laws to prohibit people on the No-Fly list from purchasing firearms. This recent revelation about the No-Fly list’s unproven, unconstitutional “predictive” process should completely undermine that effort. But won’t.
Question: does anyone think that a law prohibiting terrorists from legally purchasing a firearm would stop them from committing acts of terror? The 9/11 attackers used box cutters, for God’s sake.
More to the point, does anyone not think that the government’s No-Fly list is mistakenly infringing – whether intentionally or through sheer incompetence – on Americans’ civil rights? Why would a No-Gun List be any different? Come to think of it, how’s that whole FBI NICS background check thing workin’ out for ya?