Rocketry Planet

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — A couple of bills are circulating through the U.S. Congress and Senate this week seeking to expand the reach of Big Brother to systemically deny the constitutional rights of American citizens merely for suspicion. And, to compound the issue, the government can withhold their reasoning if they perceive a threat to national security.

U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and U.S. Congressman Pete King (R-NY) have introduced the bills, known as the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007," into their respective houses of government under House of Representatives Bill H.R. 2074 and Senate Bill S. 1237 on April 30th and April 26th respectively.

The bills call for modification of the nation's laws to permit the U.S. Attorney General additional discretionary powers to deny U.S. citizens the right to purchase firearms or from being issued firearms or explosives licenses and permits based on suspicion, all without due process. And, if the government decides that telling you why you have been denied is a threat to national security, the bills allow the government to keep that reasoning a secret.

As the bills apply to rocketry and the hobby's unfortunate and asinine association with explosives, the bills specifically call for the Attorney General to act on suspicions of terrorism, denying the issuance of federal explosives permits:

"The Attorney General may deny the issuance of a permit or license to an applicant if the Attorney General determines that the applicant or a responsible person or employee possessor thereof is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism."

In addition to denying the issuance of federal explosives permits, other references in the bills also allow the Attorney General to revoke an existing explosives permit, again based on suspicion. Anyone whose federal explosives permit is denied or revoked is allowed under the bills to file an appeal, but it doesn't mean they will be told the exact reason. If the bills become law, the government would be given the power to withhold the reasons for their actions:

"[I]f the denial or revocation is based on a determination under subsection (b)(8) or (d)(2), then any information which the Attorney General relied on for the determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."

Even if the denied or revoked party does file an appeal and gets an answer, there is no guarantee it will be the whole story:

"In responding to any petition for review of a denial or revocation based on a determination under section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security."

At the forefront of opposition, naturally, is the National Rifle Association, whose Executive Director, Chris W. Cox, wrote a stern rebuke to the U.S. Attorney General, Alberto R. Gonzales. The letter indicated that while the NRA supports actions to combat terrorism where the affected party is a foreign national, who have no constitutionally protected rights, the NRA strongly suggested that the Attorney General should not support lawmaking that flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution by denying rights to U.S. citizens.

Senator Lautenberg's name should be familiar to hobby rocketeers, as the senator is no friend of the hobby. In fact, Senator Lautenberg, along with his contemporary, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), was the driving force that killed Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi's proposed bill in 2003 that would have exempted hobby rocketeers from federal explosives licensing requirements.

"Allowing anybody to walk into a store and buy huge amounts of rocket fuel is crazy. We need to protect our homeland from terrorists; not give them even more tools to harm Americans," said Lautenberg in a press release dated July 29, 2003. "The bottom line is that some of the rockets people are building these days aren't 'models' — they are missiles with tips that can be filled with explosives or biological or chemical weapons."

Documents attached:

• Senate Bill: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007 — S.1237 (67K PDF)
• House Bill: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007 — H.R. 2074 (66K PDF)
• NRA Executive Director Chris W. Cox letter to Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (200K PDF)

Reader comments:

#1

1. What does "appropriately suspected" mean?
2. "Detrimental...to National Security"...pray tell, who gets to define that?

Absolutely useless legislation...will not hinder the evil doers one bit.

mrbusdriver on 05-10-2007 08:58 PM

#2

Quote:

Absolutely useless legislation...will not hinder the evil doers one bit.

While on the surface it appears that the fact that terrorists do not bother themselves with applying for permits and licenses escapes these legislators, the utter reality of the situation is that these law makers are not stupid people. They have many, many legal minions who work on these bills for them and the fact that terrorists do not apply for a license or permit can not possible escape recognition. The bottom line has to be that these people have a core agenda to strip the American people of their rights. What else can it be? Can there be any other rational reason why they would focus on licensing and permits when those are not the avenue of approach that real terrorists take?

ddmobley on 05-10-2007 09:16 PM

#3

Quote:

What else can it be?

It's posturing. Too many citizens only get the 3-second sound bite and, without much thought, conclude that making things harder to get (for the law abiding) will somehow make terrorist acts less likely, and thus be inclined to support the politician.

The really frustrating part is that so few citizens ever really think things all the way through. That's why we have a 100+ year old war on drugs that doesn't work and way, way too many laws on the books covering the same things over and over.

Doug
Fed up with posturing asses who pander to the unthinking...

plano_doug on 05-10-2007 10:26 PM

#4

Quote:

The bottom line has to be that these people have a core agenda to strip the American people of their rights. What else can it be? Can there be any other rational reason why they would focus on licensing and permits when those are not the avenue of approach that real terrorists take?

I don't know that their agenda is to strip us of our rights, though that is the end result. I think it has to do with all of the finger pointing that took place after 9/11. It was really easy for folks to stand up, point fingers at our government and tell them that they should have known and they didn't do enough to protect us, and how dare they. So now, when the next terrorist attack happens, these guys can stand up and say "Look, we tried to stop this by placing more controls and making it tougher to get this and that and..."

Honestly, if they want to protect us, they should start with the friggin border. Stop letting Al Queda sneak in by using hispanic surnames and get control already!

SpartaChris on 05-11-2007 02:10 AM

#5

You all rember to vote the incumbants OUT of Office! Then maybe we can
start taking OUR country back.

Airdale on 05-11-2007 07:38 AM

#6

I'd argue that it won't matter who is in office. Most Americans seem to be just fine with having their civil liberties and freedoms stripped away in the name of safety and national security. As long as we don't have to hold ourselves accountable and can point a finger at someone else, we're completely fine with it.

SpartaChris on 05-11-2007 12:58 PM

#7

Quote:

I'd argue that it won't matter who is in office. Most Americans seem to be just fine with having their civil liberties and freedoms stripped away in the name of safety and national security. As long as we don't have to hold ourselves accountable and can point a finger at someone else, we're completely fine with it.

There is a lot of truth in this. It's the "not in my backyard" syndrome — most people don't have a problem going along with new restrictions or loss of rights as long as those restrictions or lost rights don't involve them. A non-gun owner doesn't give a damn about gun rights. A non-explosives users could give a damn about explosives rights. But let the price of gas go up 50 cents and listen to whose crying the loudest about the right to "go on vacation." Any American should be up in arms every time ANY Constitutional right is in jeopardy.

I used to think that depending on the political party, you could judge who was going to strip our rights away quicker. But the bills in reference goes to show you that in today's D.C., every politician is in a self-centered feeding-frenzy of their own, regardless of party affiliation. When you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys because they are all bad guys, then the pooch is screwed no matter which direction we head.

ddmobley on 05-11-2007 01:19 PM

#8

We need change in how they operate for public safety! It's been who you know for to long. Any other business would go under how it's running. We need regular educated professionals to run the machine, we pay enough! These guy's are cleaning house and smiling to your face. At 10,000 of there Kind of new voters coming over the boarder time is on there side. Teach your kids how to live with it. The one with the most money wins Remember when it was the first family. Nothing to do with family anymore. It at least kept them in touch with what we are.

sandmantoy on 05-12-2007 01:02 AM

#9

Can someone please explain to me how this in not a violation of my (our) civil rights? I believe a couple of years ago there was a giant a-hole named McCarthy that ruined a lot of Americans lives based on "Suspicion." That entire self-serving scam was run under the guise of "National Security" as well.

A couple of million people in the USSR got the call from Stalin's boys in the middle of the night because they were suspected of something! Most of them were never seen again.

As a person who has lived through (literally) both the 1993 and 2001 attacks I can really state that the US Gov has really done very little to stop the main problem with terrorist warfare in this country. We've now got $9.00/hr McDonalds employees as our safety net in the airline industry! Boy do I feel safe, illegal immigrants searching our cars in parking garages AFTER THE CAR IS ALREADY IN THE BUILDING!. Hey Jose, what you gonna do if you find one?? Run back across the border?? Lets empower the most retarded bureau we can find to help out,,,,,,ATF. Lets think about this, booze - nope screwed that one up, smokes - can't control them either, firearms - the only ones having a hard time getting guns are the people trying to follow the rules.....yeah, thats gotta be the bunch we want controlling explosives....

Even though a true explosive has never been used, lets go after...umm.. the nerds who fly model rockets!!! Yeah, we can bully them around, they're nerds, they'll follow whatever rules we make. In fact we will even mess up, lie, twist, and change our rules just so we can make more rules to regulate a non-explosive as an explosive!

How come we are going through all this Bulls*** and no one is imposing any hardships on the terrorists that are here!! Just look at the Fort Dix debacle, how many of them were illegals? Who is stopping them from getting in this country in first place? If they ain't here they are gonna have a real hard time trying to mess with us. Please vote all these morons out of office and take our hard earned money and spend it on something useful, like deporting all these illegal criminals!

tbrogan on 05-12-2007 08:04 AM

#10

Simple:

Its the good old wisdom in not biting the hand that feeds you:

Can't clamp down on the (Saudi)Arabic terrorists, since the Bush family has done $ 1 BN worth of biz with the Saudis...

Can't clamp down on the illegal immigrants or the corporations quit donating to your re-election slush fund...

Can't clamp down on the Chinese sweatshops stealing our jobs and technology since thanks to absolutely idiotic trade agreements (so that the aforementioned corporations can make more short-term profit) they now pretty much owe our collective fat behinds...

Can't clamp down on the illegal drug trade since too many are on the take...

Can't clamp down on the NRA since they have too much money/lobbying power (and we really don't need any more inane gun control laws that the bad guys never obey anyway)...

The list goes on from here to eternity...

We need a new 'New Deal' and a fresh start of clean sheet.

roadkill on 05-13-2007 02:55 PM

Comments 1-10 of 18 shown. Click here to read comments 11 through 18.

Registered users can add comments and discuss this article. To participate, please login or register.