Bits and Pieces

-  Feinstein has decided not to allow witnesses at Brennan's hearing today.  I suppose that her sympathy for the goals of the drone and other assasination programs is so great that she could not do anything else.  Bruce Fein wanted to testify.  He has opinions somewhat different than hers seem to be.  IMO the main problem with the program described in the White Paper is the lack of judiciary review for decisions to kill that are NOT made in a situation of "imminent" attack on the US or Americans.  I don't think many would fault the government for strike missions conducted when attacks are actually "imminent" but the White Paper does not require true imminence for a strike to be made solely as an Executive Branch decision.  A solution is available.  A federal court can be created, analogous to the FISA courts to review the evidence and decide on the sufficiency of need.  This should apply to all such "kill orders," not just to those applied to Americans.

- "Universal backgrund checks," "Gun trafficking," and "Mental health inputs to gun sale data bases" are emerging as legislative items that might be passable  in Congress.  If the advocates for these measures want something other than an opportunity to vent their scorn for those who disagree with them they need to make public as soon as possible the exact text of what will be proposed in Congress.  the details will matter greatly.  Does "universal" include family transfers of firearms or sale to a neighbor?  Does "universal" require background checks for the loan of a weapon at a range or on a hunting trip?  Will "gun trafficking" include the sale of a firearm to someone who lives across any state border?  i.e., if I wish to sell a rifle to someone in West Virginia would a background check be required?  Will the federal or state government be allowed to retain a record of the sale of a firearm?  Will proposed law allow and require the transfer of mental health data to firearms background checks data bases?  If so, what kind of data can be transferred?  pl

Comments

[Walrus]

Beware the " mental health" check. An episode of depression treated by a clinician could see you permanently banned, or requiring a very expensive assessment by psychiatrists before you can possess one again.

[mbrenner]

Walrus

Has this actually occured? Id so, a citation would be welcome

[elkern]

Any attempt at mental health checks for gun ownership would be a farce at best. For starters, even the pros (shrinks, etc) have a pretty fuzzy definition of "mental health". Then there's the little matter of privacy - wouldn't they have to repeal HIPPA (sp?)? Which diagnoses - at what level - would preclude gun ownership? And of course, it would scare away many people who may need mental health services most.

Private transactions should be much easier to deal with. Just empower established gun dealers (bricks & mortar only) to facilitate & log sales or gifts.

Loaning & sharing could be dealt with via liability. Lend your gun to some crazy SOB who shoots his wife with it & you're stuck with partial responsibility.

Yes, this requires developing a (national?) database of who owns which guns, updated from transactions through licenced dealers. We already have something like that for cars. A vocal minority will object, but I'd bet this would have strong majority support.

Still, none of these things would have prevented the Newtown killings.

[Alba Etie]

Col Lang
I have much respect for Bruce Fein . He is a a true conservative , regarding individual civil liberties and other prinicipals we need all hold dear. I also remember him calling out the Bush administration on torture and other crimes . What is ironic is that the Sen DeMints of the GOP no longer have room at the 'conservative " table for the Bruce Feins .

[Fred]

"We already have something like that for cars. "

No we do not. There is no federal registry of ownership of automobile. Each state's registration system is different. I've gotten two recall letters within the past year for vehicles I sold years ago. I can only imagine how inaccurate such a registration system is going to be.

[Tyler]

Mainly because registration of firearms has historically been followed by seizure of firearms, but the left is being disingeneous about not mentioning that inconvienient fact.

[CK]

Why would it matter if this specific example of meddlesomeness has already occurred? You can see far enough ahead in time to know that it will occur.

[harry]

I have just read a very good piece on the subject of Petraeus' ouster and Brennans confirmation hearing. The author suggested that the affair was merely cover for a more substantial objective. Brennan elevated to head of CIA was the objective and the rationale was to achieve defacto congressional approval for the murder program after the event.

The release of the memos helps achieve this end. If Brennon is questioned and approved, any further questions will be met with "Congress had the opportunity to interogate Brennan at length and chose after that questioning to approve his appointment. This surely indicates Congressional approval for the murder program".

Obama is looking to avoid his own subsequent arrest while introducing America to its future - drones will fly over the homeland.

[Edward Amame]

- Steve Vladeck at Lawfare argues for judicial review after the event. He proposes a way for for courts to get involved after the government conducts a targeted killing operation so the courts can constitutionally interpret these operations, not just the Exec Branch.

- Yes the devil will be in the details but I don't think gun owners have much to worry about. The GOP is practically joined at the hip to the NRA while House Dems on gun violence task force have been falling over themselves to dutifully embrace the second amendment. Like James Clyburn recounting about how his buddy, a civil rights leader back in the days, wouldn't have survived those days except for his right to own a gun.

I'm personally more concerned about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill seems problematic, unless we're talking about people who've been institutionalized. Wayne LaPierre's call for a national registry of everyone in America with a "mental illness" should be opposed.

[turcopolier]

EA

There is no reason for judicial review to be after the fact. Nearly all of these killings are "deliberate" in the military sense. IOW they are not carried out in circumstances in which time urgency is a major factor. The law should say that after the fact review is the rule when time irgency is a factor.

It would be fairly easy to prevent direct sales to convicted felons. The government would be completely unable (as Lapierre says)to prevent unknown sales to criminals of guns legally purchased. You can have anti-trafficking law but how will you enforce it except through tracing the guns from the point of commission of a crime. that will require creation of s nstionsl gun wonership data base built from sales checks records. Good Luck!

Mental health data in the background check system would have some effect, but it would nt have stopped the Newtown killer. Once again, Good luck! pl

[Walrus]

Citation? Check the FAA or other aviation medical manual. Any pilot automatically loses their medical certificate on prescription of a SSRi like Xanax. Once the word " depression" is on your medical record it is often impossible to get the certificate back.

Aircraft = deadly weapon.

[Walrus]

From the FAA FAQ:

Pharmaceutical Considerations: The use of a psychotropic drug is disqualifying for aeromedical certification purposes - this includes all antidepressant drugs including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, the FAA has determined that airmen requesting first, second, or third class medical certificates while being treated with one of four specific SSRIs may be considered (see Use of Antidepressant Medications). The Authorization decision is made on a case by case basis. The Examiner may not issue.

[Edward Amame]

PL

- I thought Steve Vladeck made an interesting proposal. He agrees with the White Paper that judicial review before the event would put the Court in the position of overseeing when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force Congress has authorized use of force. His whole post is here:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/whats-really-wrong-with-the-targeted-killing-white-paper/#more-12803

The site he's on is good, with lots of competing opinions from legal eagles: http://www.lawfareblog.com/

I'm no expert so I have no definite opinion yet, all I know is that responsibility for these targeted killings cannot be left to the exec branch alone, there must be oversight and a process.

- Creating a national gun registry would be almost impossible. Federal law prohibits agencies from keeping info on people who pass background checks: Section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically prohibits federal agencies from keeping “any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system,” and the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions” of people who pass background checks.

[turcopolier]

EA

The decision to create such a court is not a matter for "legal eagles." It is a matter of political will. as for the current law against keeping information on people who pass backgroud checks, law made can be re-made. that is why I want to know the details of proposed law. pl

[YT]

Col. sir,

May I inquire about the significance of that photo.

It says "Attisphrygian" but all I found on Google© was some website from Malta.

[turcopolier]

YT

The Phrygian cap is a symbol of the struggle for Liberty. pl