HR1506 - Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011

[Gunreference1]

Thursday, April 14, 2011

HR 1506: A Bill That Needs To Go Nowhere

Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) introduced HR 1506 yesterday. It is titled a bill to "To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist."

I am guessing - and it is only a guess - that this bill is the House version of Sen. Frank Lautenberg's S 34 - Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011. The language of King's bill is not yet available. However, the purpose of the Lautenberg bill is exactly the same as the preliminary title of HR 1506, so I think it is fair presumption.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/04/hr-1506-bill-that-needs-to-go-nowhere.html

HR 1506 - http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1506:

Steve

[ready]

'Dangerous Terrorists'? Are there other kinds?

[Penguin]

Sounds to me like a bill to permit the government to arbitrary deny some one a gun purchase if they don't like them. We already have back ground checks. What other purpose would this bill serve? I for one believe some one is innocent until proven guilty. If you are that worried about some one charge them in a court with a crime.

Sounds a lot like the no fly list. Where you can get your name on that with out doing anything and have no way to apeal the decission.

[FunkyPertwee]

Peter King is a douche bag progressive wearing republican clothes.

This is the same guy who suggested the 1000ft gun ban zone around all politicians, except for the politicians themselves of course.

If the elite is so concerned about the dangers of an armed public, maybe they should restrict their own actions in order to remain low profile and out of the business of private citizens.

[imanaknut]

Sounds to me like a bill to permit the government to arbitrary deny some one a gun purchase if they don't like them. We already have back ground checks. What other purpose would this bill serve? I for one believe some one is innocent until proven guilty. If you are that worried about some one charge them in a court with a crime.

Sounds a lot like the no fly list. Where you can get your name on that with out doing anything and have no way to apeal the decission.

Is it a stretch to think that we have background checks because we are presumed guilty until we pass the background check?

Also, it makes me sick to see that "R" after the name Peter King. And the republican part wonders why we conservatives are sick of them?

[ready]

Peter King is a douche bag progressive wearing republican clothes.

This is the same guy who suggested the 1000ft gun ban zone around all politicians, except for the politicians themselves of course.



Apparently, Mr. King doesn't know the effective range of a rifle.

[FunkyPertwee]

Apparently, Mr. King doesn't know the effective range of a rifle.

It might have been yards, which would be out of my range. I'd have to look it up now and see if its feet or yards. I'm thinking yards now.

[ready]

Yeah, out of my range, too.

It's just a stupid proposition to begin with. You're not going to know the gunman is there until the first shot is fired. I can just see the headline, 'In addition to 6 counts of murder, the suspect was also charged with a violation of the King Act which will expose him to an additional 1 year in prison.'

[FunkyPertwee]

Yeah, out of my range, too.

It's just a stupid proposition to begin with. You're not going to know the gunman is there until the first shot is fired. I can just see the headline, 'In addition to 6 counts of murder, the suspect was also charged with a violation of the King Act which will expose him to an additional 1 year in prison.'

I don't care if its effective or not. Peter King's life is not worth more than mine, and I refuse to relinquish any of my natural rights because he thinks I'm too dangerous.

I feel the same about the lawmakers who want themselves to be able to carry on government property but not me. The shouldn't get an ounce more freedom than me. If anything, their proper responsibilities should naturally limit their personal freedom, not give them a hundred opportunities to vacation on the American dollar while breaking any law they can get away with.

It makes me sick.

[romak10/63UF]

STOP !! Think about this bill if the department of homeland security can place any bodys name on the " terrorist " list that meens they can totally ban anybody from getting a firearm no matter what the cause even if your squeeky clean... This bill is a steping stone to make all americans on the " terrorist " list trust me this bill is so fishy its gills an fins are showing out of the water !:wow:

[Penguin]

STOP !! Think about this bill if the department of homeland security can place any bodys name on the " terrorist " list that meens they can totally ban anybody from getting a firearm no matter what the cause even if your squeeky clean... This bill is a steping stone to make all americans on the " terrorist " list trust me this bill is so fishy its gills an fins are showing out of the water !:wow:

Yep that is precisly my worry. If it is what I think it is they can deney you a gun purchase just because they feel like it. There would not be a thing you could do about it.

[imanaknut]

Question!!! Since ATF has been smuggling firearms to Mexican drug cartels, would that not make them domestic terrorists and subject to the bans put forth by this bill???

[ready]

Or at least subject to prosecution under the RICO statutes.

[Penguin]

Question!!! Since ATF has been smuggling firearms to Mexican drug cartels, would that not make them domestic terrorists and subject to the bans put forth by this bill???

Well it seems to me the government is always imune to it's own laws. Funny how that seems to work.