Posted on March 1, 2013
Wow. With a name like Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorist Act (H.R. 720) who would be opposed right? I mean, is there an act to deny firearms and explosives to peaceful or philanthropic terrorists and the dangerous ones were just slipping through the cracks? Or maybe dangerous terrorists were only denied explosives before and now we need to close the firearms to dangerous terrorists loophole or something.
This bill has been submitted about every other year since 2007 and it’s suffered an anonymous death each time for good reason. But, CJ, how can you be against a bill denying these weapons of mass destruction to people who just want to kill us infidels?!
Here’s the problem, the bill is meant to disarm pretty much anyone the Attorney General wants to designate as a terrorist.
‘The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm…if the Attorney General 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 thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’ (emphasis mine)
Well, who exactly determines whether someone is “preparing for” an act of terrorism? It would seem that an extremist like Eric Holder would easily deem a patriot “stockpiling” (re: legally purchasing) thousands of rounds of ammunition. Maybe someone that purchases more weapons than the administration is comfortable with one person having may be doing something “related to terrorism.”
To fully understand how this bill could legally target any American the authoritarian Marxists in power deems not worthy of having access to weapons, one first needs to understand how the federal government defines “terrorism” legally. Chapter 44, Section 921 of the United States Code provides those broad definitions.
The term “terrorism” means “activity, directed against United States persons, which (A) is committed by an individual who is not a national or permanent resident alien of the United States; (B) involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States; and (C) is intended (1)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (3) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” (emphasis mine)
“But, CJ, according to what you just quoted this doesn’t apply to American citizens. It says right there in (A).”
Oh, yes, that is why this act adds to the definition.
(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:
‘(36) The term ‘terrorism’ means ‘international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and ‘domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).
There. Fixed that little quirk, didn’t they? As a matter of fact, H.R. 720 adds in “or if the Attorney General has determined” into just about every paragraph of Section 922, which defines “unlawful acts.”
H.R. 720 is nothing more than a centralization of power within the Executive Branch. This bill has been been introduced every opportunity by the rogues gallery of Marxist power grabbers in the Democrat Party since taking office including, but not limited to, Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Peter King (D-NY), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), and James McGovern (D-MA). There’s even an identical bill in the Senate also supported by the rogues gallery of Marxist senators like Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ), Chuckie Schumer (D-NY), and of course, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). With people like that supporting these bills why should anyone doubt the true intent behind this legislation? They will stoop to any level to seize power and keep guns out of the hands of anyone they can under any auspices they can conjure up in their black magic war rooms.
Don’t fall for cleverly worded bills. READ THEM!!
Having said all this, neither bill really stands any chance of passing, but it’s important that the American people understand how our government is attempting to usurp authority from the American people and centralize it into the hands of as few people as possible. And if I don’t tell you about it, how will you ever know?
Oh, while I’m on the subject of bills in the Senate, I need to mention the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (S. 54).
Do you like Cuomo’s semi-auto gun ban? D.C.’s microstamping requirement? Rahm Emaunuel’s licensure laws?
The Senate is about to vote to make all of these into federal crimes, turning gun-owning Americans into prohibited persons — meaning they would NOT be able to own a firearm anywhere in the country!
We have talked about some of the problems with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy’s gun “trafficking” bill. Leahy apparently thinks that, if he puts a shiny label on the bill, he can ban as many guns as he wants.
But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually any state gun law. Section 5 creates a new “prohibited person” classification which makes it a federal crime to transfer a gun if “prohibited by State or local law…from possessing [or] selling…THE firearm or ammunition.”
Note the use of the word “the.” We’re not talking about a person who’s banned from owning ANY firearm. We’re talking about a person who’s prohibited by ANY state law from possessing a PARTICULAR firearm, regardless of where the crime took place.
So do you like Andrew Cuomo’s massive gun ban? He bans more types of guns than would Feinstein’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. Yet under S. 54, transferring a firearm banned by Cuomo becomes a federal crime, punishable by ten years in a federal prison — at least for New York residents and possibly for others.
So you like gun licensure? A person who doesn’t have a license in New York and Illinois is also “prohibited by State … law … from possessing [or] selling … the firearm.” This becomes a federal crime.
Do you agree with D.C.’s efforts to ban firearms by imposing a microstamping requirement? Transferring a non-microstamped firearm would become a FEDERAL crime under S. 54 — at least for D.C. residents and maybe others.
By voting for S. 54, your senator will be making guns banned by Andrew Cuomo’s expansive law into federally banned guns, as well. He will be saying, “I like every word of gun control which Rahm Emanuel is pushing.”
By the way, Senator Leahy is trying to sell S. 54 as a supposed crackdown on gun traffickers. But there’s not one word in this bill that would punish (or prevent) what happened in Fast & Furious, where our government helped send thousands of illegal guns south of the border, resulting in the murders of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one federal agent. In fact, it appears that the federal government wants to be the only game in town when it comes to passing along weapons to criminals and gangs. Reminds me a bumper sticker my dad has on his truck: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Only the new bumper sticker would read: “Don’t sell guns to criminals – the government hates competition.”
Moreover, it’s already illegal to traffic in firearms. It’s illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person according to Section 922 that I quoted earlier. It’s illegal to serve as a straw man under the same section. It’s illegal to sell a bunch of guns without a license under Section 922. But that’s not what S. 54 is about. The one thing S. 54 would do is to make anti-gun bans being passed by every anti-gun state into federal crimes as well. Is that what you want?