advertisement

SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed

14 Comments
Columns

Before You Fall in Love With the No-Fly-No-Buy Gun Law, Read It. Please

June 25, 2016 - 6:00am

Has anyone even read the bill that had Democrats staging a sit-in on the floor of Congress?

"No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section ..."

It gets worse.

Under the excuse of fighting terrorism, these Democrats, with Republican allies, wanted to deny Americans their individual rights to travel by air -- or obtain arms -- without probable cause, without due process, and get this -- without being able to view the evidence against them or face their accusers. Their accusers and the evidence remains a secret. Your rights would be denied solely by a secret-police list.

You can't challenge the proposed law's legality because it doesn't have any. It would not pass even the slightest scrutiny, and they know that -- hence the clause above in bold. My Republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, supports this, smiling when he announced it on TV.

The people proposing this 17-page tyrannical travesty should be removed from office.

No court shall consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section. This wholesale violation of the Bill of Rights evaporates the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There is no valid legal argument for doing this. In fact, the arguments being used are overwhelmingly absurd. It's preposterous even if you hate guns -- it makes no sense -- while undermining our entire legal system. Does that matter?

The sound bite looks good at first blush: It's insane to let people on the no-fly list buy guns. But the truth burns the sound bite:

  • Then isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list travel?
  • And isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list keep all the guns they have? They can, you know, didn't anyone tell you that?) That's because people on the no-fly list aren't charged with anything, haven't been convicted of anything, and can't be locked up because they haven't violated anything.
  • If people on the no-fly list are that dangerous, why are they out walking around?
  • What's to stop them from driving to Orlando, or taking Amtrak or a bus? (Hint: nothing.)
  • And don't the TSA airport checkpoints work on these people? They work on us, or don't they?
  • And how do you get on the list if you aren't charged with anything? (It's a secret.)
  • And if they're that bad, how come the law lets them keep guns they already have? (People added to the no-fly list can't buy new guns but are not banned from guns in any other way.)

The public is being lied to, to its face, or these politicians really, really don't get it. Which is worse?
 
But the real truth is too deep for most people today, and is grounds to have politicians removed from office:

Politicians want to give central government the power to take people's rights away by writing your names on a list. Their justification: "The Muslims made me do it!"

Where do they find any legitimate, delegated authority to remove a person's rights like this, and how do they expect to get away with it? They cannot.

The Democrats' dream scheme gives broad discretion to "proper authorities" to decide if you can buy a gun. The conditions are spelled out for many pages. Any bureaucrat could fit you into the descriptions with ease. Does this make you safer, or make you feel safer?

By coincidence, the same Justice Department decides if 1) you meet the criteria for the no-new-guns list; 2) for the freedom-to-travel-but-not-by-air list; 3) it's the same Justice Department that controls review of the list; and 4) it also controls appeals for reversals if you sue. By law, after your first hearing, no appeals are allowed. Have a nice day.

And for good measure, in case you want to know why you have been denied: "(d)(4) No discovery shall be permitted, unless the court [your accuser] shall determine extraordinary circumstances requires discovery in the interests of justice." 

Read it all for yourself if you have the stomach.
 
Why haven't the "news" media mentioned any of this? The public is too bored with the details? They can't understand it? Haven't got the attention span? It isn't important? It's not sexy enough? We don't need an informed republic? Constant repetition of inanity is enough? We need more time to hear about the candidates?

Here's where it gets ugly:
 
"No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section except pursuant to a petition for review under section."

Yes, this says you cannot question if the Flake Amendment (my name for it), the no-fly-no-buy law is legal. Clearly, it isn't, hence they won't tolerate questions. This is so much like we endured under King George.

The absurd attempt to deny review if this thing gets enough votes is an affront to every American -- blamed on the Muslim jihad, guns, and rationalized for safety. Due process is removed, you are guilty before any trial, and in fact there is no trial. Constitutional rights are simply summarily suspended.

The members of Congress yelling from the floor only read the Talking Points, if that, and those don't mention what's actually in the bill. They just say, "Save the children," metaphorically speaking. 

Read the bill, HR 2578, by clicking here.

Alan Korwin, author of six books and co-author of eight others, is one of the nation's leading Second Amendment and gun-rights experts, with more than two decades of work in the field.

Comments

I am appalled that so many Members of Congress would stage a "sit-in" for a bill that takes people's rights away ... and does so with neither redress nor review. Did they take civics?

Thank you for this exposé on our crybabies in the USHOR.

Childish behavior over an inconsequential issue ; bills/laws that would never pass. What is so irrational is even attempting to pass such weird laws? Laws not supported by most Americans. VOTE! Republican! No other choice is rational. Yet I am resigned to Hillaryous as our next POTUS for 8 years, because you can't beat 90% of women, 85% of Muslinmms, 85% of Latinos, 75% of Asians, and 90% of Union voters. But I am still voting GOP and I wish 99% of Americans would too.

The "Second Amendment" to our U.S. Constitution (created by America's Founders to "shortstop" TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT) is sacrosanct and inviolable; Let NO ONE tell you differently, lest you are willing to face the deliberate and intentional triggering of fullscale revolution as was faced by our Founders in the 18th Century. (To quote Japanese Admiral Yamamoto after the "Pearl Harbor" attack in 1941: "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant". [Today, that "sleeping giant" is "We The People"!.. and we will NOT be denied ! ]

The problem with most blow-hards how try to interpret the 2nd Amendment is that sound like they have not even read it.

Nicely stated C Breeze!!!

How could ANYONE support flawed legislation proposed by posturing Democrats parking their asses, literally, on the floor of Congress while whining and carrying on like prepubescent, out of control, juveniles ? Are you VOTERS paying attention to your ignorant, ill-advised, and poorly informed Representatives ? VOTE THEM OUT ! (You surely MUST have some better qualified and educated potential candidates SOMEWHERE in your Districts..). SEARCH THEM OUT,...NOW IS THE TIME TO "FLUSH THE TOILET" THAT CONGRESS HAS BECOME ! DO IT FOR AMERICA !

Then isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list travel? Answer: No, because they do not have weapons and they go through security checks at the airports. And isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list keep all the guns they have? YES They can, you know, didn't anyone tell you that?) That's because people on the no-fly list aren't charged with anything, haven't been convicted of anything, and can't be locked up because they haven't violated anything. ANSWER: THE ADVOCATES OF REASONABLE LIMITS ON GUN USE DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. WE AGREE THAT PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. BEING ON A NO-FLY LIST, HOWEVER, DOES IMPLY SOME AMOUNT OF CONCERN, WHICH MEANS THERE IS EVIDENCE LINKING THESE INDIVIDUALS WITH OTHERS WHO ARE EITHER IN JAIL OR WHO LIVE ABROAD BUT TRAVEL TO THE US OR WHO ARE SUSPECTED BUT HAVE NOT YET COMMITTED A CRIME. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE FIRST PLACE. If people on the no-fly list are that dangerous, why are they out walking around? ANSWER: BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT YET COMMITTED A CRIME THAT WOULD WARRANT THIS CONSEQUENCE. (SEE ABOVE) What's to stop them from driving to Orlando, or taking Amtrak or a bus? (Hint: nothing.) ANSWER: NOTHING - ESPECIALLY IF OPEN CARRY PEOPLE HAVE THEIR WAY. EVEN SO, THEY CAN STILL CARRY WEAPONS BECAUSE NOTHING IS STOPPING THEM. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!!!!! And don't the TSA airport checkpoints work on these people? They work on us, or don't they? ANSWER: YES, THAT IS WHY FLYING IN AN AIRPLANE MAKES MORE SENSE THAN TRAVELING TO ORLANDO OR WALKING FREELY ON A CITY STREET. And how do you get on the list if you aren't charged with anything? (It's a secret.) ANSWER: THE POINT OF THE NO-FLY LIST IS JUST THAT - THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST THESE PEOPLE. HOWEVER, YOUR PARTY WOULD RATHER KEEP MEXICANS AND MUSLIMS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY WHO HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO BEING ILLEGAL OR DANGEROUS TO OTHERS... INTERESTING LOGIC HERE.. And if they're that bad, how come the law lets them keep guns they already have? (People added to the no-fly list can't buy new guns but are not banned from guns in any other way.) ANSWER: THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ON "MY SIDE" ARE TRYING TO DISCUSS WITH ALL OF YOU. WE AGREE, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. THE QUESTION IS AND HAS BEEN WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ALLOW LAW-ABIDING SUPPORTERS OF GUN RIGHTS TO CARRY ON AS WELL AS TO ALLOW OTHERS WHO DON'T CHOOSE TO CARRY GUNS AND DO NOT WANT TO BE SURROUNDED BY WEAPONS IN CIVILIAN LIFE TO CARRY ON.

Surely no person should have his gun taken away without due process . A persons right to his home can be violated with a court order. Why not have a stringent process for those whose rights are being taken away and a similar quick appeal process through the courts to remedy an unjust situation? It is the Obama government that has created this lack of confidence through the IRS. You reap what you sow.

Sorry, pushed the send button too early. "Anonymous" in the post above answering your questions is me. I am willing to stand publicly behind my words.

I suspected that it was one of "little'd' doctor" "Kym's" 'academic rhetorical' posts anyway,.. even before you "outed" yourself 'dr'....

”No one man or multitude of men can give away the Natural Right of another.” - Algernon Sidney, circa 1683

We MUST implement term limits for congress. Two terms, no more than 10 years.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/marshals-innocent-people-placed-on-watch-list-to-meet-quota Sent from my iPad

Comments are now closed.

columns
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.

advertisement
advertisement