If the event does take place, the rally goers will have a major issue as openly carrying guns is against the law in the District of Columbia. ~Robert Sobel
This so called march will have a lot more problems than just violating the law in the District of Columbia. It is actions like these in complete irresponsibility that gives law-abiding responsible gun owners a bad name. Let us reflect upon the Patriot Act and apply its realistic meaning objectively.
Section 802. Definition of domestic terrorism.
Summary: Adds to 18 U.S.C. § 2331 a new definition of “domestic terrorism,” similar to the existing definition of “international terrorism.”
Myth: “Expands terrorism laws to include ‘domestic terrorism’ which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.” [ACLU, Feb. 11, 2003]; The Patriot Act includes “provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ‘domestic terrorism.'” [ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor, “Backlash Grows against Patriot Act- But Critics Miss the Mark,” Fulton County Daily Report, Aug. 5, 2003]
They did in fact miss the point entirely of which this article and the current plot to march on Washington clearly shows. The controversial and failed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 defines homegrown terrorism as the “use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Section 802’s definition of “domestic terrorism” is extremely narrow – indeed, it is much narrower than the pre-existing definition of “international terrorism.”
Individuals and groups would be eligible for surveillance under this definition only if they engage in criminal wrongdoing that could result in death. That is so because the definition of “domestic terrorism” is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life.
In addition, law enforcement would have to show that the conduct appears to have been committed with a specified terrorism related intent, and that the conduct occurred primarily in the U.S. By contrast, an individual would fall within the definition of “international terrorism” whenever he or she commits a crime that involves “violent” conduct.
Section 805. Material support for terrorism.
Summary: Strengthens the existing ban on providing material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations. According to Article 3 of the United States Constitution, treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Before the PATRIOT Act, it was not certain that the ban on “material support or resources” encompassed expert advice and assistance – for example, advice provided by a civil engineer on destroying a building, or advice by a biochemist on making a biological agent more lethal.
Section 805 enhanced the material-support statute in several crucial respects, including by making it expressly apply to those who provide expert advice or assistance to terrorists.
Other changes that section 805 made to the material-support statute include: (1) making it apply to acts outside the United States; (2) expanding the list of terrorism crimes for which it is illegal to provide material support; and (3) clarifying that material support includes all types of monetary instruments. Section 810 increased the maximum penalties for providing material support from 10 years to 15 years.
Section 806. Assets of terrorist organizations.
Summary: Amends federal forfeiture law to authorize civil forfeiture of assets owned by persons engaged in terrorism.
Myth: “Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware.” [ACLU, Dec. 6, 2002]
Forfeiture under section 806 is authorized only in narrow circumstances. The subject must be engaged in conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law; (2) involves violence or the risk of death; and (3) is committed with a terrorist intent.
Prior law did not specifically authorize the confiscation of terrorist assets. Instead, forfeiture was authorized only in narrow circumstances for the “proceeds” of murder, arson, and some terrorism offenses. But most terrorism offenses do not yield proceeds, and available forfeiture laws required detailed tracing that is difficult for accounts coming through the banks of countries used by many terrorists.
Section 806 increases our ability to strike at terrorists’ economic base by permitting the forfeiture of their property regardless of the source of the property, and regardless of whether the property has actually been used to commit a terrorism offense.
Section 806 is similar to the forfeiture previously available under RICO. In parity with the drug forfeiture laws, the section also authorizes the forfeiture of property used or intended to be used to facilitate a terrorist act, regardless of its source.
As of April 1, 2003, the Department has not yet used section 806. In most cases, it has not been necessary for the Department to seek forfeiture under this provision, because the suspects’ assets already had been frozen by the Treasury Department.
So how does this apply to Adam Kokesh who is planning the march, where protesters are planning to bring loaded guns?
10,000 or even 1,000 protesters in Washington around multiple strategic locations in Washington carrying loaded guns in disobedience of laws designed to defend the people who defend the nation and the citizens who live there locally in peace is a security risk.
Why is not the question to ask here, as the answer is common sense to any respectable and responsible gun owner. There are terrorists and assassins in the world today not to mention local criminals. To proceed with such a march would not only provide aid to any of these individuals, but also a scheduled day and time to utilize the distraction.
While local officers are attempting to secure the protesters carrying their guns illegally into this zone it will deplete their security giving aid for an attacker to exploit that weakness. Quite literally, terrorists use distractions to push forward with any plot or scheme they have cooked up. Individuals like Adam Kokesh are the reason there are gun regulation laws. Those laws are not designed to infringe upon second amendment rights but to insure the people carrying them are responsible reasonable gun owners who can exercise common sense.
Therefore, gun regulation laws should not be designed to infringe on what guns people can carry but the type of people carrying them. In review of the actions of terrorists and individuals who give them aid the Patriot act was formed in defense of the American People to uphold the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
This has been another objective review.