Accustomed as we have become to various scenarios which involve corruption, cronyism, incompetence, foolishness and favoritism, we were nonetheless surprised to learn that last Thursday, a vote was taken by the House Judiciary that defeated an anti-terrorism initiative which we, in our naivete, believed would have been unobjectionable.
The proposal would give the Attorney General of the United States authority to deny the transfer of a firearm to someone who is on the government's Terrorism Watch List. It came as an amendment to H.R. 1800, offered by Representative Michael Quigley of Illinois. The amendment is only one sentence long, although it is a long sentence. Here it is, in full:
Attorney General Authority To Deny Transfer Of Firearms To Terrorists
"The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm if information obtained through the use of authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) indicates that a prospective firearm transferee is or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."
The Quigley amendment was defeated by a party line vote, 11 Democrats in support, 21 Republicans in opposition. Congressman Peter King, Republican of New York State and chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has introduced similar legislation, also pending before the Judiciary Committee and not yet brought to a vote.
The quest for authority to deny a firearm to a potential terrorist began in the Bush administration, but such a bill was twice rejected by Congress, largely because of opposition by the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States. The chair of the House Judiciary Committee is currently Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, a state where gun ownership by individuals is highly valued.
The House decision was noted that afternoon by Mayor Bloomberg in a press conference dealing with the arrest of two lone wolf terrorists in Queens. He said:
"Let me just point out that even as the NYPD continues to do such great work in this area, today there was a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on a measure that would have prevented people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. I'm sorry to report that measure failed. Our Coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns has urged Congress to pass such restrictions, and last night's arrest is a perfect illustration why."
Chris Brown, a reporter for Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog, wrote an article whose title asks a question that is easy to answer: "Will the NRA keep supporting the loophole letting people on terror watch buy guns?" It is a good example of advocacy journalism. Click here to read Brown's piece, which has links of its own.
There are people out there who strongly oppose this bill, which seems so sensible to many others. Their position is expressed by the National Rifle Association, whose staff has prepared a brief stating their case. Although we disagree with them, we want you to have the opportunity to read their arguments, some based on Constitutional and libertarian principles, others more pragmatic. Click here to read the NRA brief. From a professional point of view, it is a competent piece of work. We recall that in The Merchant of Venice, by W.S., Antonio says: "The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
Each side in this controversy refers to the other as "extremists." It was not, however, leftist radicals who killed 169 people at the Oklahoma City federal building on April 19, 1995, deliberately marking the second anniversary of the Branch Davidian fire in Waco, Texas, which killed 54 adults and 21 children. That is the day before Hitler's birthday, April 20, a date the teenaged Columbine murderers commemorated in 1999 by shooting to death 12 fellow students and 1 teacher and injuring 21 others. Six people died when Congresswoman Giffords was shot on January 8 while greeting constituents in her Arizona district.
The arguments made by the NRA parallel in some ways those of leftist organizations who defend terrorists by claiming that their Constitutional rights have been abridged at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere by detention, interrogation, rendition and other practices intended to elicit information from those unwilling to supply it voluntarily. Like the NRA, these groups challenge the executive branch exercising its powers, and sometimes they prevail in the judicial branch, which is traditionally more sensitive to individual liberties than the branch whose elected leaders have historically felt a greater responsibility to keep Americans safe from harm, as, for example, when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the War of the Rebellion, or the War Between the States, if you prefer the Southern version.
Back to the present, the NRA's challenge to executive authority is manifest in the legislative branch, where its influence is strong, due to its large membership scattered in swing states, and its effective lobbying and political action. President Obama and the Justice Department are regularly accused of violating the rights and desires of gun owners. The NRA website says: "On the Second Amendment, Don't Believe Obama". The far left, on the other hand, depends for sustenance on occasional judicial victories. New York Civic does not rush to take sides in these political-judicial disputes, the Federal issues involved being far above our pay grade, a phrase that went viral after Senator Obama was asked his views on abortion in 2008.
The Quigley amendment does not forbid possible terrorists from purchasing guns, it simply gives the Attorney General the right to prevent such a transaction if he has "a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism." Does that not appear sensible? Most transactions are likely to be approved, but there is value in the Justice Department knowing which potential terrorists are buying guns.
We did not anticipate the result in the Judiciary Committee, but we should have foreseen it considering the legislative history of this matter. We know that any form of restriction on the sale or use of firearms engenders fierce resistance by a spectrum ranging from hunters to survivalists, possibly including both Birchers and birthers. What we did not realize was that, even when the prevention of terrorists from taking the lives of Americans is at stake, the right to transfer firearms still takes precedence.
God bless America. His blessing may be necessary for its protection.
Follow Henry J. Stern on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nycivic
Patricia Maisch: How the NRA Can Help Stop Gun Violence
Josh Sugarmann: NRA Receives Millions from Gun Industry "Corporate Partners"
Richard Feldman: Gun Owners Must Take Center Stage
Josh Horwitz: NRA Board Members in the Tank with Domestic Terrorists
Illinois Gun Owners List: Attorney General Lisa Madigan Wants To ...
Illinois Officials Spar Over Order to Make List of Gun Owners ...
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News
Firearms - Office of the Attorney General
Holder Revives Talk Of An Assault Weapons Ban - Political Hotsheet ...
Illinois Attorney General Releases Gun Owner Names - Politics ...
Ain't it funny how things change?
First you are incorrect regarding what you say this amendment would have done.
You state "The proposal would give the Attorney General of the United States authority to deny the transfer of a firearm to someone who is on the government's Terrorism Watch List."
This is not true. There was no stipulation in the proposed amendment which required that a person be on one of the many TWLs. All that was required was the AG to decide the person MIGHT have ties to terrorism.
Further, you may not be aware of this, but there are 13 TWLs and the No Fly List. Many of the TWLs are classified. Most of the people on these lists have not ties to terrorism and have done nothing wrong, according to the FBI, GAO, and ACLU. Additionally, it is extremely difficult to get your name removed from these lists, if you can even find out if you are on one and which one you are on. And many of these lists simply rely on names, not physical descriptions.
Secondly, in the US we have a couple principles you may have heard of. The first is being innocent until proven guilty. The second is the requirement of due process before being denied any rights, liberty, or property.
Trying to use the TWLs, No Fly List, or AG determination are clear violations of these principles and would be quickly struck down as unconstitutional.
Their proposals are harmless to law abiding gun carriers...
At the rate MAIG members are going to prison, they will be harmless in a few years.
I am certain there are individuals on the watchlists that warrant such a status...USUALLY because they are NOT U.S. citizens and/or have been directly tied (with evidence) to real terrorist activities. The fact that the USAG and DoHS have fully acknowledged that I myself (because of my opinionated comments and opposition to our Executive branch's policies) could very well be on the watchlist...is proof to me that it is way, way too flawed to be utilized for these gun-control zealots deviant purposes.
Once this legislation passed, the ONLY thing that needs to be done to completely disarm an honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizen is put them on the list. That simple. Let's say you decide that your next door neighbor is an a$$...you call the FBI and claim they have been engaging in antagonistic, terrorist-like behavior (remember, this administration has encouraged this kind of "neighborly" behavior). Next time Mr. a$$ neighbor goes to buy a firearm this new legislation allows the BAFTE to deny the purchase and potentially seize any current firearms he possesses.
Sound unrealistic? Certainly not...very probable and conceivable. Thank God this legislation failed!
As security expert Bruce Scheier says - "These people are so DANGEROUS that we can't let them on a plane (or buy a gun), yet so INNOCENT that we can't charge them with a crime". It's really un-American. We have the right to Due Process of Law. It's in the 5th amendment. It's where we get "innocent until proven guilty" from.
But, hey, why let facts get in the way of demagogueing the NRA?
De Oppresso Liber
Old SF MJT
"In addition to its nomination process for investigative subjects, the FBI also uses other processes to nominate individuals to the terrorist watchlist. We found that the internal controls over these other processes are weak or nonexistent. As a result, numerous watchlist records nominated through these processes are not subjected to rigorous initial review, periodically confirmed, or examined for potential removal."
"In addition to the FBI field office records discussed above, we selected 39 watchlist records for subjects watchlisted by FBI headquarters without current terrorism case designations. These 39 records were associated with case designations such as fingerprint, administrative, and intelligence matters. Through our review of these cases, we found that in 31 instances the cases were either closed or the FBI could not otherwise determine why the subject had been watchlisted."
Whether we are talking the Patriot act or HR 188 whose only purpose is to circumvent due process, allowing punishment of those that are not prosecutable under law merely on suspicion of wrong doing, we are moving toward a totalitarian state. When belief or verbal support of a subject(and the subjects adressed in the legistlation are not simply terrorist related) is enough to warrant punishment and right infringement we have taken the first step toward the formation of thought police. If we as Americans(Rep, Dem or whatever) support legistlation that gives away our personal liberties in exchange for real or imagined security then the terrorists have won.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0925/final.pdf