{"id":546,"date":"2005-06-15T09:51:19","date_gmt":"2005-06-15T13:51:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.starkeith.net\/coredump\/?p=546"},"modified":"2009-04-12T20:32:34","modified_gmt":"2009-04-13T00:32:34","slug":"mccarthyisms-galore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.starkeith.net\/coredump\/2005\/06\/15\/mccarthyisms-galore\/","title":{"rendered":"McCarthyisms Galore"},"content":{"rendered":"

CORRECTION: It turns out that someone<\/a> was just confused by my brief post, and wasn’t sure which side of the issue I was on. Obviously, this is now corrected with the gargantuan rant below.<\/p>\n

Someone<\/a> doesn’t think that the items listed in my last post are nonsensical. Oh ho ho ho… I feel a rant coming on!<\/p>\n

Let’s start with the bill itself, shall we? It’s quite short.<\/p>\n

H. R. 1195: To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.<\/p>\n

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,<\/p>\n

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE PREVENTED FROM BOARDING AN AIRCRAFT IN THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) In General- Section 103(f) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by inserting `, notwithstanding any regulation prescribed under section 40119(b) of title 49, United States Code’ before the period.<\/p>\n

(b) Transfer or Other Disposition of Firearm to Such Persons- Section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–<\/p>\n

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);<\/p>\n

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and<\/p>\n

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:<\/p>\n

`(10) is an individual who is required, under regulations prescribed under section 114(h) of title 49, United States Code, to be prevented from boarding an aircraft.’.<\/p>\n

(c) Shipment, Transport, Possession, or Receipt of Firearm by Such Persons- Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–<\/p>\n

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);<\/p>\n

(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and<\/p>\n

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:<\/p>\n

`(10) who is an individual who is required, under regulations prescribed under section 114(h) of title 49, United States Code, to be prevented from boarding an aircraft,’.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Seems pretty harmless, right? Well, on the surface, yes it does – but when you consider the implications<\/em> of this bill, that’s when things get ugly.<\/p>\n

In basic English, the bill wants anyone whose name is on the “no-fly” list to also be included in the database that is currently checked whenever you try to buy a firearm. (This database is probably also used for other things, but this is one of its main uses.)<\/p>\n

Now, the database itself is relatively harmless – you only get into the database if you’ve been convicted of a felony or through several other means. But the important fact here is that for every way that you can get your name put into this database (currently), you have due process.<\/strong> It may seem unfair to be unable to buy a gun if you’ve been convicted of a felony in the past (especially since so many relatively “minor” things are felonies these days), but you had due process during your trial – and that is what’s important. Due process. Your constitutional right<\/em> to keep & bear arms was taken away from you with the benefit of due process of law<\/em>. <\/p>\n

However<\/em> – the “no-fly” list is very different. Your name can be put on the no-fly list if an FBI agent suspects that you’re a terrorist\/gangster\/hijacker\/etc. And if this bill were to pass, that means your name would also be in the database of “can’t buy guns” people.<\/p>\n

That’s it. No due process. Just someone’s suspicion (of you<\/em>), and poof<\/em>! Your constitutional right<\/em> to keep & bear arms is gone. Why? Because since your name is on the no-fly list, it’s now also in the database that is checked when you try to buy a gun. And since your name is in there, when the check is performed your name will come up – and you will not be allowed to buy a gun. (Let’s not even go into how hard it would be to get your name off<\/em> that list once you were put on it.)<\/p>\n

So, you see now what the problem is with this bill. As is usually the case, on the surface it appears to be innocent – but when the repercussions are considered, it turns sinister. Why? Because it quite simply denies you your constitutional rights without due process of law<\/em>. Am I overusing italics in this post? Perhaps – but I’m trying to make a point here. Due process is our protection against a tyrannical government trying to oppress us – by forcing the government to go through “due process,” we can be assured that the end result is fair (assuming the whole system of “due process” is also fair; which for the most part we tend to think it is). Without due process, you could just be nabbed off the street by police and imprisoned on a whim. What recourse would you have without due process? <\/p>\n

It is extremely important for people to stay alert for any attempt to subvert our rights – through any means. If “we the people” fall into complacency and just let laws like this be passed, the inevitable result will be no liberty at all for any of us – and we will have a totalitarian government, instead of the free (well, mostly free), democratic one we have now. That’s why I get all in a fuss when I read about things like this – and that’s why I think that this bill is nonsense. Because no representative of the people should allow such a thing to pass, unless he himself wishes for total control over his fellows. <\/p>\n

For reference, here’s a brief breakdown of “due process.”<\/p>\n