Who would have guessed it?

Federal “Terrorist” Legislation Could Threaten Gun Owners

I doubt anyone would have problems with prohibiting the sale or transfer of firearms to dangerous terrorists, which is what this bill calls for. There’s just one problem about how that “dangerous terrorist” list is compiled:

“It doesn’t say anything about trials and due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told Fox News. “This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come along in some time. It’s basically saying, ‘I suspect you, so your rights are toast.’”

The bill’s Constitutionality was a big question.

“There is a Second Amendment right to hold and bear arms,” said Robert Cottrol, a law professor at George Washington University. “That right is not absolute, for instance with convicted criminals. But there would have to be an individualized determination, as in a trial, to prove someone is guilty of something before they are deprived of such a right.”

(via Instapundit)

Oops. Don’t forget the spare mag in your carry-on.

That’s a bummer, but I’m glad it ended well enough.

Say Uncle: Thought crimes: more serious than real crimes

At Pelham Library, a teen did some research on the laws related to the concealed carry of a handgun. Someone at the library reported the suspicious activity. The teen was then called to the principal’s office and interviewed by police. Seems that reporting someone’s reading habits may also be a violation of the law. The library seems mostly unconcerned about this.

Sebastian on the denial of an appeal in the Olofson case:

What it boils down to is that if you have a firearm that fires more than one round per single pull of the trigger, and you know it does this, you need to take it to a gunsmith and get it fixed pronto, because by the strict legal definition, you are in possession of a machine gun.

No due process required

Say Unlce:

A bill in TN to require someone subject to an order of protection for domestic violence relinquish their firearms has advanced in the senate. That’s right. No conviction, no jury of peers, just an order of protection based on one person’s word over another.

Uncle wrote previously about the automatic revocation of concealed carry permits in Tennessee when a protection order is filed against someone. This takes it several steps further by requiring that you “turn over” your firearms to someone. But just someone, apparently. Anyone who is legally allowed to posses them. No system. Just a requirement to turn them over “to a family member, a friend or anybody who can legally possess a weapon.”

What a joke. And it’s sponsored by a Republican.

I discussed the CCW revocation here, asking

Are they saying that someone who is going to break a protection order to commit murder will change their mind because they cannot legally carry a concealed weapon?

I also mentioned that in Michigan, there are optional restrictions on firearms possession when a personal protection order is issued and noted that the sister of a good friend of mine had recently been killed by an ex-boyfriend with a PPO issued against him.

Pieces of paper only work against the ones you don’t need to worry about.

Parolee faces murder charge in death of girl’s mother in Tenn.

A young girl who told police her father forced her to help as he cut up her mother’s body with an electric saw said she could only look away when the head fell to the floor.

The girl is the chief witness against James Hawkins, 31, a prison parolee charged with first-degree murder in the death of Charlene Gaither, 28, a longtime companion with whom he had three children. His trial is scheduled for September and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

The defense’s main, um, defense seems to be an attempt to argue that the defendant’s admission that he dumped the body can not be used as an official statement.

No guns involved.