Monday, November 30, 2009

Rule Of Law

Oppose any expansion of the conditions of being a ‘prohibited person’ under the GCA by including individuals on the so-called Terrorist Watch List.

Don’t oppose it because you are a gunnie, and you instinctively fight any incremental encroachment on gun rights, viewing it as another step down a slippery slope to tyranny.

Oppose it because it goes against the very foundation of our political and legal system, enshrining the rule of man over the rule of law.

Look, the Gun Control Act of 1968 had a few parts to it. One of those parts was statutorily listing who can and who cannot be denied the right to possess or own a firearm. It is one of the actual bits of gun control that most gun rights enthusiasts agree with. It is ACTUALLY, in fact, reasonable. It’s the law that listed prohibited persons. No felons or serious criminals, no adjudicated crazy people, no people that have officially renounced their citizenship. A person is denied their rights for a reason and there is a long legal process involved to besure this denial is not taken lightly.

People like Bloomberg want to add to this list and prohibit anyone on Terrorist Watch List.

The problem with the Terrorist Watch List is many fold (and Uncle said it succinctly, much better than I can...). It is secret, there is no way to know who is or is not on it unless you are a member of an anointed federal agency. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to fly and own a gun, why are they being allowed to walk around people unaware of their status, too? But, mainly, the BIGGEST problem, is that that List is outside the rule of law. No due process was conducted on listees. No judge, or jury. No way to defend yourself from being put on it, it is secret after all. No way to adjudicate getting yourself OFF the list once you are put on for whatever reason (mistake, maliciously added to the list by some busybody, converted to a religion that doesn’t jihad folks to death, etc.)

Your rights are denied to you when you are placed on this list and they want to expand number and type of rights denied to listees. Denied without due process. THAT is a violation of the Rule of Law. You wouldn’t stand for an American citizen denied their liberty, thrown in jail for an indeterminate amount of time at the say so of some bureaucrat. That has happened in the history of this country on some occasions, but it was always wrong to do so. All of the items that currently on the list have to go through an open, legal, process (even the renunciation of citizenship part.)

Why? Why, you ask, would these people like MAIG’s Mayor Bloomberg want to do this? Well, the nefarious reasons: They think they can expand the watch list, perhaps. Include an expansion of domestic terrist criteria to include Ron Paul supporters, people that have said a nice word about Appleseed (they sound like they like REVOLUTION!!! At least to the hoplophobes) or Voters of Their Opponents. If not, it’s another increment, and one they can get away with under the color of addressing public safety. One more notch of control against the People, and one more notch toward making gun ownership so rare it is an anachronism. Once an anachronism it is politically easier to take the last bit of folks guns away. See: Lesser Britain.

Less nefarious reason (aka incompetence)? They really believe that denying a right and liberty will make people safer. It’s a fallacy. I know. But that’s what incompetence and ignorance begets.

[My opinion of the Watch List is what are folks to dangerous to be allowed on airplanes without scrutiny allowed to walk around? If they are a threat, arrest them for making threats, if they are not a threat why are they on a secret list? If they have committed a crime arrest them and send them to trial. Same with people on the regular GCA prohibited list. If folks need a custodian 24/7 give them a trial and a custodian 24/7. If not, let them buy a gun to protect themselves if they want one.]

{And yeah, yeah, this was covered elsewhere earlier in the blogs. Wanted to get my 2 pennies in and had pretty much dashed this off when it was current, but it landed on this day in the posting scedule. Happens.}

No comments:

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete patently offensive comments. Or, really, any comment I feel like. Or I might leave a really juicy comment up for private ridicule. Also spammers.

You can always offend hippies in the comment section. Chances are, those will be held up as a proper example...