Why I Don’t Belong To The NRA
I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and have owned weapons my entire adult life, but you have to know when to draw the line: NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects.
I would like to see the list of terror suspects limited to those who actually have some connection to terrorism, and not simply to political activism, but if they are on the list, the sale shouldn’t take place. Maybe they shouldn’t be on the list, but this may be one of the few ways they will find out they are suspected of something, rather than finding out while they are trying to catch an airplane. The law allows for the appeal of the decision.
If there is a solid reason for someone’s name being on the list, I really would prefer that they not be sold an autoloading rifle and a thousand rounds of ammunition. I would also note that the license to purchase explosives is also covered by this bill.
Now, does anyone wonder why I don’t belong to the National Rifle Association?
9 comments
You know, the are not going to put winger crypto-facist clinic bombers of their list. They put Democrats and protesters, and conscientious objectors on terrorist lists, but not the kind of guys who are really likely to do something terroristic.
This is because they are whiny-assed crybabies who suspect that their opponents are as vicious as they are in intent.
Living just east of Pensacola where there were three murders, and just south of one of the Alabama counties where they arrested the latest set of whackos, I have a neighborly concern for this kind of thing.
Actually, the largest number of murders happen to intimates, not to strangers. Even armed robbers, as a general rule, aren’t as deadly as ticked off boyfriends.
Better than 90% of the time the victim and the perp know each other when you find a dead body, which is why serial killings and things like Virginia Tech are so hard to figure out – cops are looking for a connection where none really exists.
The problem is, if you accept that owning a firearm is a right, then you can’t legally take it away without due process of law. That doesn’t mean you get presumed guilty, and you have to prove yourself innocent in court, which is what you’re dealing with in regards to this law. Where’s the due process required by the constitution? We don’t deprive suspects of constitutional rights, we keep an eye on them.
Excuse me, but the bill includes a process for challenging the decision if you feel your rights have been infringed. You can, of course, always go to court if you are dissatisfied the administrative process.
This affects the “instant background check,” not your right to own a weapon.
You have the right to vote, but you still have to register and prove you have the right to vote in a particular area.
The second amendment supports one’s fundamental right to self-defense, and is an enumerated right. Voting is actually not considered a right under common law, or in US constitutional law, which is why the constitution has five amendments that specifically limit how states may restrict voting. If it was a right, the way we think of speech, assembly, religion, self-incrimination, what have you, no amendment would be required to limit state powers in this regard except for the fourteenth amendment.
In other areas of constitutional law involving rights, prior restraints on exercising those rights are generally regarded as invalid, and the courts place the severest burden on the state in these types of cases. This law would be a prior restraint, with no due process protections. You are, in effect, severely limiting one’s right to self-defense, or at least to have access to tools that are useful for that purpose. It’s a presumption of guilt. It’s the citizens burden to prove otherwise that he is not guilty. It’s a complete mockery of our constitutional system to do something like this.
You obviously have not bothered to study the law in any meaningful way, Sebastian, and if you are ever in conflict with authority keep your mouth shut and get an attorney. I spent ten years in law enforcement and was required to study and understand the laws I enforced.
Common law has no relevance to any argument in the Federal system and it is not even relevant in several states which have legal systems based on other models, like the Code Napoleon in Louisiana, and the odd mixture of several systems in Florida.
There is no fundamental right of self defense. That is a justification for the use of force that is recognized in fundamentally different ways depending on the jurisdiction involved.
You need to read some history of the United States and the legal system before you can effectively argue your case. You are lacking in multiple basic facts and short summaries found on the Internet are not going to make up for that lack, and I have no interest in tutoring you.
[…] I stumbled across an post over at another blog discussing why the editor doesn’t belong to the NRA. In the discussion in the comment, a subject came up that I’ve heard many times in regards to defending restraints on rights: You have the right to vote, but you still have to register and prove you have the right to vote in a particular area. […]