, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The blood hasn’t even been cleaned up from the Battle of Orlando and Senate Democrats are after guns. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are once again pushing the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 (S.551).

Senate Democrats are making a new push for legislation that would bar suspected terrorists from buying guns, a proposal that 53 of 54 Senate Republicans opposed last year.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Democrats’ chief political strategist, and several colleagues on Monday held a conference call with reporters, one day after the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., to revive the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015.
“In terms of terrorism, this is the most effective piece of legislation we can pass,” Schumer told reporters.

He added it has a greater chance of passing the GOP-controlled Senate than a ban on assault-style, semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity ammunition clips.

“We want to get something done,” he added.

“In the wake of Orlando, we have to think about what kind of country and what kind of Senate we’re going to be,” Schumer told reporters on the call. “Are we going to bow down to the [National Rifle Association] NRA so that suspected terrorists can get their hands on guns? Or are we going to take the painfully obvious, common-sense step and make sure that suspected terrorists can’t get guns?”

  • The Hill, June 13, 2016.

It’s not the terrorists, it’s the NRA. Same old, same old – blame the victims. There not even concerned about real terrorists, just “suspected terrorists”. The Act is riddled with problems. First, it just won’t work. A complete ban on guns wouldn’t work. European countries have strict gun control and still have mass shootings. In the absence of guns, the terrorists resort to knives and bombs – both of which can be made at home from common materials. Are they going to ban cleaning products and fertilizer next? The Act runs afoul of the Second Amendment. Not that the Constitution is in vogue anymore. The Act also presents Due Process issues.

There is one summary for S.551. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (02/24/2015)

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015

Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit (or revoke such license or permit) if the Attorney General: (1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be engaged in terrorism or has provided material support or resources for terrorism, and (2) has a reasonable belief that the transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.

Extends the prohibition against the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to include individuals whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities. Imposes criminal penalties on individuals engaged in terrorist activities who smuggle or knowingly bring firearms into the United States.

Authorizes the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation lawsuits and from employers if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security.

If someone is a known or suspected terrorist, why is he allowed to walk free? Why is he encouraged to come to America and live well off the doll? Because it’s not about fighting terrorism, just about fighting guns.

William Warren.

Anyone can land on one of the government’s existing arbitrary and secret watch lists. The Act maintains the same level of secrecy and fiat. Note that tremendous discretion is granted to the Attorney General to determine who and who is not eligible to purchase a gun. While legal recourse for victims … individuals … is provided for, it is neutered by a “national security” disclosure prohibition. As Courts routinely allow national security exemptions without question there is effectively no legal recourse for one who finds himself on the list.

The government frequently targets certain groups (see the IRS vs. the Tea Party). It is certain that enforcement of the Act would be rank with abuse. Meanwhile the terrorists would continue to operate unhindered. This is one of the many “solutions” from D.C. which will do nothing except make matters worse. Suggest to your elected rodents they oppose this illegal and counterproductive measure.