Casey, seen here with Chuck Schumer, wants to disarm people SUSPECTED of being guilty of a misdemeanor “hate crime.”
We’ve also seen a proclivity of some, including on the Supreme Court, to look to foreign law for guidance on U.S. legal thought instead of confining matters to the Constitution. And if one politician has his way, “hate” will be the justification for disarming Americans — and just guess who the government has in mind.
“Strong supporter of the second amendment” Senator Bob Casey, who claimed he “opposes increased regulation on firearm ownership” (that is, before he “voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets”), has come up with a new and creative way to disarm anyone stupid enough to give him political power:
Make “hate crimes” grounds for prohibiting firearms ownership.
We’re not even talking felonies, we’re talking misdemeanors. Actually, we’re not even talking misdemeanors. Casey’s latest act of un-American treachery would:
“[P]rohibit the sale of firearms to anyone reasonably suspected to be guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime.”
“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.
No Fly List and Terror Watch List violate the 5th and would the 2nd Amendments..
The fact that his suggestion that anyone on the No-Fly list should be made to surrender their weapons was as unconstitutional as it gets. Of course, that has never been a deterrent to Barack Obama. His absolute disregard for the Constitution is so widely documented it barely justifies recognition. But, just as an exercise, I would like to point out that the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is patently unconstitutional, and that is not who we are.
http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2015/12/that-is-not-who-we-are.html
I would suggest that discussions by government officials openly advocatng for violating its own laws is indeed levying war on the people United Stares and therefore meets the definition of treason under Article 3 and must be prosecuted accordingly.