To those not "plugged in" to the way government thinks, at first glance, H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 seems perfectly reasonable, as who would possibly object to putting up road blocks to keep firearms out of the hands of those who harbor ill intentions?
The problem is, government gets to define who among us actually falls into the category of a "known or suspected dangerous terrorist."
This proposed legislation:
... permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."
"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"
Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
The way this clearly unconstitutional bill is worded, it might just mean that we conservatives could very well be denied our God-given, constitutionally-protected 2nd Amendment rights, based on the opinion of a liberal government bureaucrat.