[Lnc-business] HR 5611

Thu Jul 7 09:48:18 EDT 2016

It looks accurate to me.  I have copied the gun control section below.
Like the writer, I have no idea what probable cause that a person will
commit an act of terrorism is supposed to mean, but it certainly bears
little resemblance to the old-fashioned notion that the criminal justice
system punishes people with the loss of rights after conviction of a crime.

SEC. 5. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE,
              DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES TO KNOWN
              OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(7)(A) When the Attorney General is notified of a request to
transfer a firearm or an explosive to a person who is being, or has
been investigated during the previous 5 years, as a known or suspected
terrorist, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, notify relevant
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies or intelligence
agencies concerning the identity of the prospective transferee.
    ``(B) Upon being notified of a prospective transfer of a firearm or
an explosive to a person who is being investigated as a known or
suspected terrorist, the Attorney General or the United States attorney
for the district in which the licensee is located may--
            ``(i) delay the transfer of the firearm or explosive for a
        period not to exceed 3 business days; and
            ``(ii) file an emergency petition in a court of competent
        jurisdiction to prohibit the transfer of the firearm or
        explosive, which petition shall receive the highest priority on
        the docket of that court.
    ``(C)(i) An emergency petition filed under subparagraph (B) shall
be granted upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the
prospective transferee will commit an act of terrorism, or is
prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g)
or (n).
    ``(ii) An emergency petition filed under subparagraph (B) to
prohibit the transfer of a firearm or explosive may be granted only
after a hearing--
            ``(I) of which the prospective transferee receives actual
        notice; and
            ``(II) at which the prospective transferee has an
        opportunity to participate with counsel.
    ``(iii) In the case of an emergency petition filed under
subparagraph (B) which is denied, the court shall require that the
United States pay the costs and attorney fees of the prospective
transferee.''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--The amendments made by this section do
not preclude the Attorney General from arresting and detaining a
person, including a person described in section 922(t)(7) of title 18,
United States Code, with regard to whom an emergency petition has been
filed under such paragraph, if the Attorney General has probable cause
to believe that the person has committed, conspired to commit, or
attempted to commit an act of terrorism.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This came through in a Facebook post with a call to phone in to
> congressional reps. Does this seem accurate?
>
> And are we doing anything with this?
>
> This week, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on an
> atrocious bill that violates the Constitution and abandons the Rule of Law.
> #HR5611, the Homeland Safety and Security Act, contains a simple provision
> with staggering implications: It permits the federal government to restrict
> a constitutionally secured right—the right to keep and bear arms—based
> merely on what the government predicts someone will do in the future.
>
> Terrorists already can be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted under
> current law—and denied gun rights. The real innovation of H.R. 5611 is to
> grant the government power to target law-abiding Americans.
>
> The bill allows the government to prohibit gun transfers to Americans who
> have not been charged with—let alone convicted of—any criminal or terrorist
> activities. Under the bill’s constitutionally inadequate process, the
> targeted individual receives a basic hearing, not a jury trial, and the
> judge can restrict the individual’s gun rights upon nothing more than a
> showing of “probable cause to believe” that he or she will someday be a
> terrorist.
>
> If successful this week, H.R. 5611 will be among the most egregious gun
> control measures ever to pass either house of Congress. If the bill becomes
> law, it will mark a massive expansion of the government’s ability to
> restrict gun rights on the basis of precrime—a crime not yet committed.
> H.R. 5611 is the actualization of dystopian fiction.
>
> The Rule of Law requires notice that particular actions will result in
> penalties and restrictions of rights, but the bill enables a judge to
> penalize a constellation of legal activities that the judge believes can
> predict the individual’s future actions. Under this standard, there is no
> way to be sure that you’re preserving your Second Amendment-secured rights;
> you just have to live life in a way that hopefully a judge won’t someday
> find suspicious.
>
> Even if the government alleges that the individual has committed illegal
> acts, H.R. 5611 may be used unconstitutionally to short-circuit due
> process. To restrict someone’s fundamental rights based on illegal conduct,
> due process requires that the individual be found guilty of the criminal
> act beyond a reasonable doubt. This bill requires the government only to
> show probable cause—a much lower burden of proof—to believe a claim that,
> at the time of the hearing, cannot be indisputably proven or disproven
> (that the individual “will” commit a future act of terrorism).
>
> It's not even clear how this future behavior would be litigated. What must
> the individual show to convince a judge that he or she will not commit an
> act of terrorism in the indefinite future? Will the hearing simply devolve
> into a dispute about the individual’s character? This would be hugely
> unsettling—the prosecutor and the judge would have to discuss whether the
> individual in front of them (perhaps a member of a religious or ethnic
> minority), who hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything, is
> nonetheless just so rotten that his or her capacity to make alternative
> choices should be ignored. Free societies do not permit judges and
> prosecutors to restrict your rights just because they don’t like you.
>
> In addition, any hearing likely will focus on activities protected by the
> First Amendment. After all, the only new targets of H.R. 5611 are Americans
> who are not charged with or convicted of terrorism and who have not
> committed a felony (terrorists and felons already can’t purchase guns).
> Because the bill is aimed at law-abiding Americans, it’s inevitable that
> the judge will feel compelled (in the absence of criminal factors) to make
> a decision based partly on factors like the individual’s speech, religious
> beliefs, and associations.
>
> The bill also creates additional constitutional concerns because it does
> not incorporate the various procedural safeguards in the Sixth Amendment.
> And, of course, the entire process further supports the disposability of
> the Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment.
>
> Finally, passage of H.R. 5611 would support the belief that recent events
> justify a re-evaluation of what kind of country the United States is. The
> right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, a commitment to the
> Rule of Law—these are fundamental to the character of the United States,
> and yet they, along with much of the rest of the Constitution, continue to
> be called into question by your representatives and senators in Washington.
> I swore an oath to stand against these efforts, and I ask you to join me in
> opposing H.R. 5611.
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160707/7bda649b/attachment-0002.html>