Longtime Gun Control Politicians Pushing Gun Owner Blacklist Bills in Congress

Longtime Gun Control Politicians Pushing Gun Owner Blacklist Bills in Congress
They want to use secret No Fly List as a possible reason to deny your second amendment rights.

National Rifle Association
National Rifle Association

Washington, DC –-(AmmoLand.com)- Despite their patriotic-sounding name—the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009”—H.R. 2159 by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and S. 1317 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) aren’t intended to contribute to the war on terrorism.

Instead, they’re intended to give the executive branch of the federal government the arbitrary power to stop loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

The true purpose of the bills comes as no surprise, since King, Lautenberg and co-sponsors Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.), and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) are longtime supporters of gun control.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ-D) (Anti-Gun)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ-D) (Anti-Gun)

H.R. 2159 and S. 1317 would give an attorney general “the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

However, the bills would not impose requirements or limits on the kind of information an attorney general could use to make such a determination, nor establish a standard for “appropriate suspicion.” They instead propose that “any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.”

The scheme that the bills propose is unprecedented. Since 1968, federal law has established guidelines for all categories of persons prohibited from receiving and possessing firearms, and since 1994 has expressly protected a prohibited person’s right to be told why he is prohibited. The bills would establish no such standards, would provide no such protection, and would allow an attorney general to deny gun purchases based upon secret information, or upon no information whatsoever.

H.R. 2159’s and S. 1317’s potential for abuse is obvious. A 2009 Department of Justice report1 states that the FBI’s terrorist watchlist doesn’t include certain known terrorists, yet includes people who are not terrorists, the latter an on-going problem widely reported upon by the media and the A.C.L.U.2 Even the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), perhaps the most widely recognized member of Congress since the watchlist was created, was on the list. And, the bills follow a disturbing Department of Homeland Security report characterizing gun owners and military veterans as “rightwing extremists,”3 and Attorney General Eric Holder’s endorsement of new gun control restrictions.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I love target shooting, but give the 2nd amendment a rest. the no fly list needs work, but its still a good idea, and people who are on there probably don't need guns. anyway, the gun lobby is the most powerful lobby in Washington, so everybody relax; its still way to easy to get a gun in this country.


Senator Graham is OK with keeping people off planes but he's also OK with the same people buying guns. That doesn't make sense.

M. Luedke

Mr. Hall,

From Wikipedia: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Congrats, you know how to use a logical fallacy. Learn how to make a non-fallacious argument and then come talk with the grownups.

Liberal Pacifist

If this was really about terrorists I would be for it, but it is clearly targeting US Gun Owners and US Citizens. There is no "Due Process" you can not find out why you would be denied, the decision is at the mercy of the US attorney, they want to use secret lists that no one can tell who is on the list, there is no way to get off the list, remember Sen. Ted Kennedy was on it? Not even a judge can see the list or the reasons why someone would be denied and there is no way… Read more »

Norris Hall

So are you saying that gun rights activist are actually against a law that would bar terrorists from buying weapons and explosives?????

So terrorists and gun rights advocates both agree on this is a bad law.

What other help can we give these guys. Perhaps we can pay for their weapons withour tax dollars and give them a list of places where they can purchase explosives no questions asked.


more B.S from the Dem's if the Attorney General can he would ban all privately owned firearms