Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

June 20, 2009

NY Times Buries Important Detail In Promoting Another Law Limiting Second Amendment Rights

At first it seems like a common sense proposal -- those on the federal government's terrorist watch list should not be allowed to buy or possess firearms.

People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.

In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.

The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

Of course, this little detail gets buried much deeper in the article.

From February 2004 through February 2009, the report found, there were 963 requests for gun purchases through the federal system by people on the list. Of that group, 865 purchases — or 90 percent — were approved after a three-day review by the F.B.I. failed to turn up any other disqualifying factors.

A narrower study by the G.A.O. in 2005 first drew public attention to the issue. The Justice Department took some limited steps to address the issue, centralizing the review of gun purchases by those on watch lists to ensure that all possible disqualifiers were being considered.

Nonetheless, the rate of approval for requests to buy a gun went up from 80 percent in 2005 to the new study’s 90 percent. Officials were searching for explanations for the increase, which might reflect the overall growth in both the number of people on the watch list and of gun purchases.

All possible disqualifiers are being considered -- and these folks are not disqualified. And yet the New York Times and some members of the legislative branch want to prohibit the exercise of a right guaranteed under the US Constitution based upon inclusion on a secret list. And remember -- no foreigner has a right to a visa to get into this country, and no individual has a right to board an airplane -- but the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution, and has since the earliest days of our Republic.

Now one may ask why I am sticking up for suspected terrorists. I'm not. But what we have here is a list that is made by bureaucrats, with no review by the courts. Is one included on the list based upon a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? Preponderance of evidence? It is really unclear -- and since individuals on the list may not even be aware of their inclusion, it is eminently possible that the legitimate exercise of a civil right by an innocent American citizen could occur based upon bureaucratic bungling or outright error,

Or worse.

Remember -- only a few weeks ago the Department of Homeland Security issued a report that classified veterans and holders of conservative political opinions as potential terrorists. Only a few days ago it was disclosed that the pentagon has classified political protests as a form of terrorism. In the hands of a regime hostile to gun rights (such as, for example, the current one), it would not be at all difficult to vastly expand the terrorist watch list to include all sorts of innocent American patriots who have done nothing more than exercise their First Amendment rights to express mainstream political opinions.

But even more than that, I have an aversion to any limitation on Second Amendment rights -- one every bit as strong as my aversion to laws limiting the exercise of First Amendment rights. Just as we would never accept limitations on the rights of Americans to speak or publish controversial ideas, to petition the government regarding controversial positions, to peaceably assemble with like-minded individuals to advocate for those positions, or to exercise a religious faith that holds extreme views based solely upon their inclusion on a list by government bureaucrats, we should similarly reject the idea that the government can limit the right to keep and bear arms (or any of the other rights included in the Bill of Rights) based upon such a bureaucratic diktat. After all, SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED is a pretty clear directive to the government -- for all that the gun-grabbers try to obscure its meaning.





|| Greg, 08:41 AM || Permalink || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for NY Times Buries Important Detail In Promoting Another Law Limiting Second Amendment Rights

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/263666
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'NY Times Buries Important Detail In Promoting Another Law Limiting Second Amendment Rights'.
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs