SB1040--Terror Watchlist Bill--NRA-ILA

[Jim12]

Hogan's BFF, please just put a fork in this.. The VanHollen has spoken as well..




Besides, isn't this bill written under wear and carry, so it will not even effect gun purchases, just CCW permits. Most people can't get those anyway

Things to ponder:

1. Most Americans don't know that the "Terror Watch List" is woefully inaccurate, a point that has only more recently been highlighted and come to the public's attention -- or anyone who is paying attention; and

2. Does Governor Hogan have to emulate Christie? Is he Christie's "mini-me"? He can be his own man.

3. Enlighten and educate Governor Hogan if and as necessary.

 

[dogbone]

I sent the following email to Senator Zirkin and any of the legicritters on the Judicial Proceedings committee I thought would read it:

Senator Zirkin,

I respectfully urge you to schedule Senate Bill 1040 for a full hearing with no limits on testimony. Maryland citizens who feel strongly enough about this bill to take a day from work and travel to Annapolis deserve to have their voices heard. Please do not betray the trust of these concerned citizens by silencing the expression of their views on this bill.

List of committee members here:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=cmtepage&stab=04&id=jpr&tab=subject7&ys=2016RS

We need to get this hearing opened up to allow full and unlimited testimony.

 

[Jim12]

Wow, even Mother Jones opposes this BS.

Expanding the Use of Star Chamber Watch Lists Is a Terrible Idea

—By Kevin Drum
| Thu Dec. 10, 2015

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/12/expanding-use-star-chamber-watch-lists-terrible-idea

"Hmmm:

... For a while, this business of people on watch lists still being allowed to buy guns was just a political football and I ignored it. Like most of these things, I figured a bunch of hot air would be expended and then we'd move on to a new shiny toy when we got bored.

But now it's turning real, and that makes it harder to ignore. It doesn't matter if you like the fact that the US Constitution and the Supreme Court have granted us all a right to own and carry firearms. They have. It's a right. And it shouldn't be taken away without due process.

But federal watch lists are practically the opposite of due process. They're famously arbitrary and secret. Some agent somewhere decides you sound dangerous, and suddenly you can't fly on airplanes anymore. As for an "appropriate appeal process," a judge ordered the government last year to tell people if they were on the no-fly list and, if possible, why. But they're still not doing it. Let's listen in on US Attorney Brigham Bowen back in court yesterday:

Bowen argued that the government had no obligation to tell people why they were placed on the list.

"Government is not required in name of due process to put its national security at risk," he said. "The plaintiffs' interest must necessarily give way."....The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, which operates the list, won't reveal the evidence against those on the list, allow them to question witnesses or challenge the findings in court.

This is disgraceful. Hold a secret hearing if you must. Maybe it will turn out that 99 percent of the folks on the no-fly list deserve to be there. But this can't just be a black hole that people are dropped into and can never get out of. There needs to be some sort of due process, even if it's not a full-blown trial.

In any case, it's bad enough that we strip people of their right to fly using a system that's well known to be arbitrary, secret, and basically unappealable. It's appalling to take this atrocity a step further and strip them of constitutional rights based on the same system. It's time for this nonsense to stop.

UPDATE: Greg Sargent has more here. Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson is leading the charge to implement this on the federal level. Thompson seems to think that an appeals process will make this all hunky dory. And I suppose it might, if the appeals process were speedy and fair. But it's rather plainly not."

 

[Jim12]

Kill the terror watch list http://theweek.com/articles/593827/kill-terror-watch-list
by Ryan Cooper December 14, 2015

 

[dogbone]

Wow, even Mother Jones opposes this BS.

Great finds!
I hope Bobby Z. opens up the testimony enough for all these points to be made.

 

[Jim12]

And now, it comes out that the Terror Watch List is politicized: Obama Admin scrubbed it of 1,000 people it wanted "hands off."

DHS Secretly Scrubbed 1,000 Names From U.S. Terror Watch Lists
Obama admin kept secret terrorist 'hands off' list
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ubbed-1000-names-from-u-s-terror-watch-lists/
BY: Adam Kredo
March 1, 2016 11:19 am

"The Department of Homeland Security removed the names of nearly 1,000 individuals suspected of terrorism ties from the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to newly released documents obtained by an advocacy group under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported in 2014 that the Obama administration secretly assembled a terrorist “hands off” list that enabled individuals with terrorist ties unfettered entrance into the United States.

The latest documents, obtained by Judicial Watch and released on Tuesday, appear to confirm these initial reports. They further disclose that at least 1,000 names were scrubbed from the U.S. Terrorist Screening Database as part of an administration effort to protect the civil rights of suspected individuals.

“The documents appear to confirm charges that Obama administration changes created a massive ‘hands off’ list,” Judicial Watch said in a statement. “Removed data from the terrorist watch list could have helped prevent the San Bernardino terrorist attack.”

Lawmakers disclosed in 2014 that the administration has secretly assembled a terrorist “hands off” list that facilitated travel to the United States for those one flagged as a potential terror threat. Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon at the time disclosed that at least one individual, a Canadian Islamist leader tied to Hamas and Hezbollah, had been put on the list...."

 

[Mr H]

sweet...

 

[Jim12]

A handful of other states' Dem. legislators are pushing gun bans on those on Terror watch lists. MI is latest.

Almost as if there were a coordinated effort.

Hmmm... haven't seem Dems so enthusiastic about many other single aspects of fighting terrorism as they are about banning firearms purchases by those on the terrorism watchlists.

McCarthyism is alive and well in Maryland in the 21st Century.

The shoe is just on the other foot.

 

[Mr H]

A handful of other states' Dem. legislators are pushing gun bans on those on Terror watch lists. MI is latest.

Almost as if there were a coordinated effort.

Hmmm... haven't seem Dems so enthusiastic about many other single aspects of fighting terrorism as they are about banning firearms purchases by those on the terrorism watchlists.

McCarthyism is alive and well in Maryland in the 21st Century.

The shoe is just on the other foot.

If the list was legitimate (and properly adjudicated), I might could maybe get behind it...

As it is? NFL.

 

[EL1227]

It's POLITICS, pure and simple ...

Great finds!
I hope Bobby Z. opens up the testimony enough for all these points to be made.

Geesh DB, you are the eternal optimist.

Zirkin plans to ramrod this through for a number of reasons, the least of which can be explained when they moved it to a different hearing day and limited testimony

As follows:

1. It is manifestly unconstitutional. As evidenced by a Federal judge ruling, the U.S. Senate version gun control via the no-fly list violates the Constitution, where even Van Hollen alluded to it not passing.
   
   
2. Speaking of MoCo's 'Senator-in-Waiting' ... Van Hollen's appearance on March 9th was for one reason ONLY ... To promote that bill to put a feather in his cap for his Senate bid and ingratiate himself to the national gun-grabber crowd for campaign support and funding.
   
   
3. It is SO egregiously unconstitutional that even AG Brian Frosh won't be asked nor volunteer to rule on it for fear it would queer his Governorship bid against Hogan in 2018. (Yes, I'm making that prediction now )
   
   
4. And finally, to further Frosh's ability to WIN in 2018, and to guarantee that Hogan is a 1 term Republican Governor in DemocRAT-controlled PRofMD, the Senate AND House (HB1000) have put forth legislation that Hogan will have to sign (pissing off his conservative constituency), or veto only to be over-ridden by the DemocRAT majority and used against him as a political wedge issue come re-election time.

As Rush would say ...

 

[Jim12]

If the list was legitimate (and properly adjudicated), I might could maybe get behind it...

As it is? NFL.

Oh, it's legit. The precogs from the Department of Precrime themselves personally nominated the nominees, and the Obama Administration CAIRfully combed it for "inaccuracies."

 

[dogbone]

Geesh DB, you are the eternal optimist.

Zirkin plans to ramrod this through for a couple of reasons, the least can be explained by moving it to a different hearing day and limiting testimony

Eternal optimist? Becoming less and less so with each passing day of this session.

I'm always hopeful but not out and out stupid. I know the fix is in and it will get pushed through but I aim to make the S.O.B.s work for it and make them pull every dirty trick they can.

It is not my goal to stop them but to make them use tactics which call into question their legitimacy to govern.

 

[Mr H]

Eternal optimist? Becoming less and less so with each passing day of this session.

I'm always hopeful but not out and out stupid. I know the fix is in and it will get pushed through but I aim to make the S.O.B.s work for it and make them pull every dirty trick they can.

It is not my goal to stop them but to make them use tactics which call into question their legitimacy to govern.

I'm right with you... up to the last sentence.

That way, we're out looking for the horses AND having to think about how to keep the barn doors secure.

I'd prefer to make things public enough to stop them out of shame, then make sure it never happens again.

In reality, we're looking at a hybrid, but why not "ask big, settle in the middle"...

 

[Jim12]

Irony:

Innocent people who haven't been charged with any crime lose their Constitutional rights to buy a firearm without any explanation, while proven terrorists who were caught in the act are being released from Gitmo to fight again.

 

[dogbone]

I'm right with you... up to the last sentence.

That way, we're out looking for the horses AND having to think about how to keep the barn doors secure.

I'd prefer to make things public enough to stop them out of shame, then make sure it never happens again.

In reality, we're looking at a hybrid, but why not "ask big, settle in the middle"...

From the fawning over Van Hole-in-the-Head by Zirkin at the hearing on the 9th, I don't think these critters know the meaning of shame.

I'm all for making their tactics and antics public. If that is enough to stop them, or even enough to slow them down long enough to talk about what they are doing, great! Best way of making sure it never happens again is to make sure they don't get elected to another term.

 

[Mr H]

I've said since Hogan's election that I expect 2017 to be a significant session...

But, it will require pressure from top, bottom, and the sides. Also, we have to make a huge effort to hold the line this year, wherever possible.

Problem being that "we" (writ large) are not following along with "us" (ground level)... but it's also our fault for not finding the magic combination of fact and urgency to keep people involved.

The solution is warm bodies in the right places, with a vocal and logical presence "they" can't ignore.

 

[Bikebreath]

I sent the following email to Senator Zirkin and any of the legicritters on the Judicial Proceedings committee I thought would read it:

List of committee members here:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=cmtepage&stab=04&id=jpr&tab=subject7&ys=2016RS

We need to get this hearing opened up to allow full and unlimited testimony.

I sent a little something different to the committee. Opinions on my tactic are encouraged.

Dear {title} {last name},

There is a rumor circulating that Senator Raskin is going to limit testimony on SB1040 and not allow a full hearing.

This can not be true. No one who had respect for due process would even hint at such a rule deviation.

Please know I do not believe this and help me squelch this nasty rumor.

Thank you,
Democrat,

Me

 

[Mr H]

I like it.

I may try something similar in my Sunday letter!

 

[Jim12]

I sent a little something different to the committee. Opinions on my tactic are encouraged.

Dear {title} {last name},

There is a rumor circulating that Senator Raskin is going to limit testimony on SB1040 and not allow a full hearing.

This can not be true. No one who had respect for due process would even hint at such a rule deviation.

Please know I do not believe this and help me squelch this nasty rumor.

Thank you,
Democrat,

Me

Excellent. Terrific approach. You could use it for the substance of the bill, too.

Shocked, upset citizen over what people are saying about him. That'll get a response.

 

[dogbone]

I sent a little something different to the committee. Opinions on my tactic are encouraged.

Excellent! Pure Alinsky ridicule.