Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Let's get the bill passed

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2011, 01:38 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 161
Default

How would something like this make it better for me as I would like to carry and I live in maryland

__________________
mrbirdguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 05:34 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pfatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10
Default

There is something going on here. The federal government wants to take over fire arms control and therefore firearms. A foot in the door as you knoweends with absolute control. Why should the Feds be interested in improving our right to carry. Its only to gain control which can be extended to absolute control. Take a look at the next step. Where do those people in Congress fall from. They are selling you out while ignoring the CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Read this:

- Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers.......................

Stop Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Due Process
Immediate action required!

Deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) that the Senate is currently considering is a dangerous and unconstitutional portion that needs to be stripped out. Congress would grant the President the power to use the military in order to detain certain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process, indefinitely.

Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads: "Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.... [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial...." This "indefinite detention" section hands over to the Executive Branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens. No trial needed. Simple suspicion would suffice.

This could be quite reminiscent of Stalinist Russia where a knock on the door in the middle of the night meant that the person taken by the military was often never seen again, perhaps having been imprisoned in Siberia or executed. The Japanese American Citizens League has warned that this measure's detention principles are similar to the ones that sent innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WW II.

Sadly, this bill has already been passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with nary a whimper by a 322-96 vote. The excuse given for such an egregious disregard for the Constitution by supporters of the bill including authors Senators John McCain (R- Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is that the provision would strengthen and codify the legal framework necessary for dealing with "terrorists." Other supporters insist that the language doesn't necessarily include American citizens.

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) who voted against the bill in the House, thinks differently. Amash says the act would indeed "permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President." He notes that the language "does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary," therefore it is misleading and outrageous.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is speaking out in opposition to the "indefinite detainment" provision of S. 1867. He is also offering an amendment that would simply strike out Section 1031 of the bill. As this alert is being written on November 29, the Senate is debating S. 1867 and could vote on the Paul amendment this evening or tomorrow, November 30. A related amendment by Senator Udall to revise the detainee provisions of S. 1867 has already been defeated today by a vote of 37 yeas and 61 nays.

Indefinite detention without due process leaves citizens without the legal protection of the Constitution and strikes at the heart of the essence of U.S. law. It is positively shameful that any elected representative would even consider voting for such an assault on so sacred a fundamental value as the right to due process.

Far too much power has already been either usurped or given over to the Executive Branch under the guise of national security. Contact your Senators immediately and demand that they safeguard individual freedom and liberty by upholding the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Have them support the Rand Paul amendment that would completely strike Section 1031 from S. 1867, or any other amendment that would accomplish the same purpose.

If one or more amendments are added to S. 1867, it will likely go to a conference committee and then return to both the House and the Senate for a final vote. So, a word to your Representative on this issue is also advised. Make sure you find out how he or she voted on the NDAA before getting in touch.

Thanks.

__________________
pfatz is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:47 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
silverado113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Eastern,Iowa
Posts: 2,993
Liked 359 Times on 223 Posts
Likes Given: 167

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfatz View Post
There is something going on here. The federal government wants to take over fire arms control and therefore firearms. A foot in the door as you knoweends with absolute control. Why should the Feds be interested in improving our right to carry. Its only to gain control which can be extended to absolute control. Take a look at the next step. Where do those people in Congress fall from. They are selling you out while ignoring the CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Read this:

- Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers.......................

Stop Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Due Process
Immediate action required!

Deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) that the Senate is currently considering is a dangerous and unconstitutional portion that needs to be stripped out. Congress would grant the President the power to use the military in order to detain certain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process, indefinitely.

Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads: "Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.... [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial...." This "indefinite detention" section hands over to the Executive Branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens. No trial needed. Simple suspicion would suffice.

This could be quite reminiscent of Stalinist Russia where a knock on the door in the middle of the night meant that the person taken by the military was often never seen again, perhaps having been imprisoned in Siberia or executed. The Japanese American Citizens League has warned that this measure's detention principles are similar to the ones that sent innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WW II.

Sadly, this bill has already been passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with nary a whimper by a 322-96 vote. The excuse given for such an egregious disregard for the Constitution by supporters of the bill including authors Senators John McCain (R- Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is that the provision would strengthen and codify the legal framework necessary for dealing with "terrorists." Other supporters insist that the language doesn't necessarily include American citizens.

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) who voted against the bill in the House, thinks differently. Amash says the act would indeed "permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President." He notes that the language "does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary," therefore it is misleading and outrageous.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is speaking out in opposition to the "indefinite detainment" provision of S. 1867. He is also offering an amendment that would simply strike out Section 1031 of the bill. As this alert is being written on November 29, the Senate is debating S. 1867 and could vote on the Paul amendment this evening or tomorrow, November 30. A related amendment by Senator Udall to revise the detainee provisions of S. 1867 has already been defeated today by a vote of 37 yeas and 61 nays.

Indefinite detention without due process leaves citizens without the legal protection of the Constitution and strikes at the heart of the essence of U.S. law. It is positively shameful that any elected representative would even consider voting for such an assault on so sacred a fundamental value as the right to due process.

Far too much power has already been either usurped or given over to the Executive Branch under the guise of national security. Contact your Senators immediately and demand that they safeguard individual freedom and liberty by upholding the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Have them support the Rand Paul amendment that would completely strike Section 1031 from S. 1867, or any other amendment that would accomplish the same purpose.

If one or more amendments are added to S. 1867, it will likely go to a conference committee and then return to both the House and the Senate for a final vote. So, a word to your Representative on this issue is also advised. Make sure you find out how he or she voted on the NDAA before getting in touch.

Thanks.
This follows up Section 1031 and pay particular attention to (b)(1).



SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
__________________

"Regardless of whether justified of not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature." - Joe B Fricks.


Member:
01 FFL, GOFFA, NRA, GOA, IAVA, VFW, ABATE of Iowa D15.

silverado113 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:28 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
PrimePorkchop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Urbana,Illinois
Posts: 1,748
Liked 991 Times on 499 Posts
Likes Given: 2547

Default

i remember reading something about this...and if im not mistaken, isn't Illinois the only state that wormed its way out of the wording of the bill?

I *really* hate this state.

__________________
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 09:39 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BlueTurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Boise,ID
Posts: 1,022
Liked 41 Times on 28 Posts
Likes Given: 19

Default

I think a lot of people are somewhat skeptical or fearful of federal regulations that apply to the entire country. Remember the old 55 mph speed limits the feds imposed and how that went over in the different states? I feel in many cases the rights of states are very much threatened by federal regs.

__________________
BlueTurf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 02:43 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
EagleSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northeast,Arizona
Posts: 358
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 32

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverado113 View Post
This follows up Section 1031 and pay particular attention to (b)(1).~snip~

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
~snip~
....which means, they are not forced to detain. They do have the authority, and they have the option. I would expect sooner or later, government employees, with the authority and the option, to flex their muscles! Simply put.....give them the option and they will take it. If they say they have no intent, then they don't need the authority and option in a written law.

.
__________________
Best Regards.......Eagle Six
http://tactrain.net
EagleSix is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
House Bill 1016: Washington State's LEGAL Suppressor USAGE Bill Dillinger Legal and Activism 8 03-16-2011 02:15 PM
uncle passed on ymmas Revolver Handguns 4 12-07-2010 01:29 AM
Financial Industry Bill to be Passed Today CA357 Politics, Religion and Controversy 9 07-16-2010 03:46 PM
Medical - Anti-Supplement Measure Slips into "Reform" Bill Passed by the House Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 8 04-30-2010 03:18 PM
gun rights bill passed house and senate in GA watfreedom Legal and Activism 10 04-09-2008 11:00 PM