Accidentally, of course. A “glitch”, if you will.
When discussing any issue for which Barack Obama is proposing action there is an axiom which has to be remembered- Obama lies about everything- the Iran deal, Fast and Furious, health care, rewriting history, Libya, you name it. Gun control is no different.
What he wants, accompanied by our resident idiot Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, is nothing less than the ability to suspend your Constitutional rights. Here he is in a town hall whining about his inability to stop those on a no-fly list from purchasing guns:
What he’s really saying is that he is troubled by his inability to suspend the Constitutional rights of Americans at will, because that is what is at stake here. Nothing less. There is no Constitutional right to fly on an airplane, but there sure is one to own a gun. This spectacle has become mind-boggling. It is quite something see elected representatives demanding that the rights of US citizens be suspended at someone’s will or suspicion.
Watch obama in the above video at about 4:25. He says
“this is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer…”
Really? Mateen had been interviewed several times by the FBI and cleared. He was on a terror watch list and then was removed from it by the Obama administration. Additionally, the obama administration already has scrubbed at least 1,000 Muslims from the terrorist watch list. Thus this proposal would not have stopped Mateen as it would not have stopped San Bernardino or Sandy Hook.
And then he says
“but because of the National Rifle Association I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun…”
What he’s saying is that the NRA stopping obama from the freedom to deprive you of your rights under the US Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
No US citizen can be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Eugene Volokh
But can a person be denied constitutional rights, not based on a past criminal conviction or even a restraining order issued in court under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, but based just on the government’s suspicion? The Feinstein proposal would have provided that the government could bar gun sales to a person if two conditions were met:
- “the Attorney General” “determines that the [buyer] is known (or appropriately suspected)” to have been involved in terrorism-related conduct “or providing material support or resources for terrorism,” and
- if the Attorney General “has a reasonable belief that the [buyer] may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”
That’s a very low bar — denial of a constitutional right based on suspicion (albeit “appropriate”) about a person’s connections, and belief (albeit “reasonable” belief) about a person’s possible future actions. Indeed, most of the time this would come into play only as to people for whom the government doesn’t have proof of terrorist activity. If the government had proof, presumably the people would be prosecuted. (If the government has proof but isn’t prosecuting because it hopes that quietly watching them would help catch more or bigger fish, then barring gun purchases would be a bad idea, since that would alert the person to the government’s plans.)
I can’t see how that’s constitutional. And though the bill would have let the buyer go to court to challenge the attorney general’s decision, the attorney general would simply have had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the two elements were satisfied — that the attorney general appropriately suspected the buyer and that she had a reasonable belief about what the buyer may do. Plus the evidence supporting the attorney general’s position might never be shared with the buyer, which may make it impossible for the buyer to fairly challenge it, or aired in open court.
Obama and the left whine about the GOP blocking such legislation, but what’s always left out of the coverage is the expansive nature of their proposals.
The Senate amendment in question, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, would have applied to a much larger group than the no-fly list. As we reported in December, Feinstein’s office told us the measure, which would have allowed the attorney general to block gun sales to individuals on these lists, would have included a few terrorist databases, and the no-fly list is a subset of one of them.
The deceit from the left ought to surprise no one.
So, while Clinton said the measure applied to suspected terrorists on the no-fly list, that’s only 64,000 names. It actually would have applied to well over 1 million people who are on government watch lists.
Given the history of this wretched administration using the IRS to target conservative groups, DHS head Jeh Johnson asserting the guns are now a homeland security issue and that domestic ring wing is as big a threat as are Islamic terrorists it is not a stretch to imagine the abuse of such a law. The handwriting is already on the wall and the potential for abuse is huge.
Anyone who buys a gun or applied for a gun permit will be placed on a terrorist watch list and it will left for them to try to exonerate themselves. That will prove to be a lengthy and frustrating exercise. Consider the responsiveness of the government to FOIA requests. Consider how long it’s taken for House investigators to obtain Benghazi or Clinton emails- which still have not been provided. Consider the destruction of hard drives under subpoena by the IRS. Consider IRS head Koskinen simply blowing off Congress. Consider that democrats already think the First Amendment does not apply to global warming skeptics.
Consider that Barack Obama has killed four Americans without due process.
It’s entirely reasonable to believe this or another democrat regime would continue to trample the rights of law abiding citizens with this obviously unconstitutional plot. Really, right now the NRA is standing between Obama and Hillary and the US Constitution.