NRA: Don't Ban Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists

[BuyingThyme]

NRA: Don't Ban Gun Sales to Suspects

May 4, 2007 2:39 PM (18 mins ago)
By SAM HANANEL, AP

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

...

http://www.examiner.com/a-710954~NRA__Don_t_Ban_Gun_Sales_to_Suspects.html

[villager]

1. so, to be consistent, the gun nuts are also against wiretaps, too, then

since the word "suspect" has no value...

Right?

I mean, I'd hate to think of gun nuts being inconsistent or hypocritical or anything...

[BuyingThyme]

2. I'm starting to wonder what they thing the word

arbitrary means. I think if we were to ask a few Pukes what the word means, we'd be floored by the responses.

[Recursion]

6. A lot of them are, yes

Don't paint all people who support the right to keep and bear arms with a single "gun nut" brush.

[slackmaster]

10. I'll overlook your perjorative and cop to be one who does indeed oppose wiretaps

since the word "suspect" has no value...

Right?

Yes, that's right. Being suspected of a crime is not grounds for depriving someone of a civil right.

BTW - In case you don't know, being under indictment for a felony makes you ineligible to buy a gun. It doesn't even have to be a conviction. And I am OK with that.

Many of us "gun nuts" are hardcore civil libertarians.

I oppose needless restrictions on guns for exactly the same reason I oppose needless restrictions on abortions.

[villager]

11. Well, I doff my cap to your consistency, then.

which I confess pleasantly surprises me. Tho' I haven't really heard much complaining from your confreres in the NRA about any other incursions into people's civil rights.

That's why the rest of us, outside gun culture, tend to see the raging hypocrisy of it all.

[slackmaster]

12. Many people view gun ownership as a privacy issue

That's a major component of our opposition to things like gun registration, and the publication of names of people who have concealed weapons permits.

Even the Brady background check system has privacy safeguards built in. If you are denied a gun sale because your name is flagged in the database as a prohibited person, the reason for denial is (by law) not communicated to the seller. Records of approvals are not kept more than a few days, so even the fact that you made an attempt to buy a firearm is not archived.

[villager]

16. again, the inconsistency: NRA wails about privacy when it comes to killing machines

yet remain noticeably silent when it comes to warrantless searches (for anything other than guns), wiretaps, info-gathering, etc., etc...

[slackmaster]

17. I'll bet if you asked Wayne LaPierre he'd be against warrantless searches, taps, etc.

There is probably more common ground than you know.

[villager]

18. that would be Wayne LaPierre the racist?

http://www.vpc.org/press/0005nra.htm

And the last time you heard him criticize any of the Bush regimes excesses was... when?

Oh that's right: Never.

[slackmaster]

19. Yes, that Wayne LaPierre

Disgusting as the man is, he's not always wrong.

:nuke:

[villager]

20. and again, I ask: The time(s) you heard him criticize Bush were... when?

n/t

[slackmaster]

21. That is totally irrelevant to the discussion

But for the sake of pointless, directionless argument, LaPierra and the NRA in general were very critical of GWB when he announced that he would sign a renewed "assault weapons" ban if it reached his desk.

[villager]

22. of course you'd say that -- you're defending the NRA.

And yes, of course the only time -- the only time -- they ever criticized Bush was over the issue of assault rifles.

[slackmaster]

23. Reading Is Fundamental

You're misinterpreting my saying that the NRA is right about not allowing the Attorney General to arbitrarily deny people their civil rights based on secret government enemies lists, as "defending the NRA". I'm doing no such thing here; I'm saying the OP's spin is inappropriate.

And yes, of course the only time -- the only time -- they ever criticized Bush was over the issue of assault rifles.

Wrong again. The issue was assault weapons, not assault rifles. As for whether the NRA has ever criticized Bush other than that, I neither know nor care. It's not relevant to this discussion.

[villager]

31. The point is, there is a raging inconsistency in gun owners howling about their "rights"

which most of them -- sure, present company excepted -- only care about insofar as owning killing machines.

The all other assaults on their civil rights, they could scarcely give a rat's ass about. you may be different, the NRA isn't. And the point is, the NRA embodies that very hypocrisy in the prevalent, gun-ownin' position on "rights" being under assault....

[slackmaster]

32. Have fun arguing with them about it

And if you really want to side with the Bush Administration on this while being a supporter of civil rights and due process in general, I'd say there is a rather glaring inconsistency in your position on this issue too.

:hi:

[villager]

40. it brings up the larger question of the easy availability of killing machines

serious restrictions for which neither you nor the NRA support -- and neither does Bush. You're all on "the same page" there.

And that's where the two of us will always disagree.

[slackmaster]

44. Without any specifics about what kind of restrictions you support

It is not possible to say whether or not we actually do disagree. I am by no means closed to the idea of changing the law, but I have to see exactly what you mean including what safeguards would be in place to prevent arbitrary infringements on peoples' rights, such as the ones being discussed in this thread.

Perhaps that would be a good topic for another thread.

[brentspeak]

30. 'Records of approvals are not kept more than a few days'...That's a recent change to the Brady Law

And who accomplished that "brilliant" move, which handcuffs law enforcement when it tries to track down dangerous criminals? None other than John Ashcroft. How do you feel about that?

Always nice that "privacy issues" trump the safety of the public.

[slackmaster]

37. No, the law has always been that way

Here's the relevant part of the US Code:

...(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the Attorney
General notifies licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act that the national instant criminal background
check system is established, a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who
is not licensed under this chapter, unless--
(A) before the completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts
the national instant criminal background check system established
under section 103 of that Act;
(B)(i) the system provides the licensee with a unique
identification number; or
(ii) 3 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are
open) have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the
system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm
by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this
section; and
(C) the transferor has verified the identity of the transferee
by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section
1028(d) of this title) of the transferee containing a photograph of
the transferee.

(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate subsection (g) or (n)
or State law, the system shall--
(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
(C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call
(other than the identifying number and the date the number was
assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or
the transfer....

See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC922 for context.

It doesn't give a specific time interval for destroying the records, but it very clearly states "the system shall... ...destroy" the information. That is very directive, and its intent is also clear. Courts have ruled that records may be retained only for the purpose of auditing the system to ensure that it is working properly, and only long enough to do that.

I have been working with online transaction processing systems as a systems analyst or systems administrator for over 20 years, and I can tell you that kind of auditing is a widely accepted standard practice. Records are archived only when there is a contractual or legal reason to do so. Normally system owners are happy to trash unneeded data because keeping it costs money; in this case there is a legal reason NOT to retain it.

[Sanctified]

25. The NRA only does gun issues.

There is already another organization that works to defend your civil liberties and thats the ACLU.

[slackmaster]

33. Good point MiltonF, I'd be very interested in hearing the ACLU's take on this one

Or the Supreme Court's. Clearly there is a Fifth Amendment issue with this bill.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Toots]

36. But they sure weren't against Invading Iraq for the exact same thing

"based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

[slackmaster]

38. Yes, they are big fat poopy head hypocrites

I can't understand why anyone would take their side on this one.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Of course. "Suspected" terrorists

on college campuses should be heavily armed for safety's sake. You go NRA. James Madison would kick your fucking asses if he were still with us.

[Fresh_Start]

4. edit

edit

[Sanctified]

5. On one hand I hate the idea of a Terrorist buying a gun.

On the other hand I hate the idea of the government calling a person a suspected terrorist. A person is either a terrorist or not and the government needs to do their damn job and find the answer instead of just labeling someone a suspect and hauling their ass off to some gulag.

It's ridiculous that this administration can shit on the constitution then wipe their asses with our bill of rights and say it's for our safety.

[greyghost]

7. Exactly

I for one don't want Gonzo to have the last word on whether or not I'm a friggin' terrorist, nor do I want him tapping my phone w/out a warrant!

These fuckers have had too much power handed to them already!

[KharmaTrain]

46. Keeping People In Limbo Is The Object

Surely, our INS people must have a real good idea of who the real Al Queda or other threats are, but so what...that doesn't keep people on edge and make the politicians "relevant". By casting wide suspicion, this deflects attention to a minority group or other target...be it Arabs, Hispanics, Blacks, etc. while the "movers and shakers" do their plundering quietly and below the radar.

This regime needs a strawman...an obtuse boogieman. Look at how they've created Al Queda into the next Soviet Union...despite not having a nation, standing army or arsenal. But the fact a couple could blow up something is aking now to an American city getting nuked. But the fear game is starting to play out.

In the meantime, this game of boogie-man terror plays on.

Cheers...

:hi:

[slackmaster]

14. If someone is sufficiently suspected to go on a list, they should be watched closely

And charged as quickly as possible for a crime, or deported, or whatever is appropriate. Once you are on the super secret terrorist suspect list, you have no way of knowing it and no process for clearing your name.

[Prophet 451]

8. Problem is, I can kinda see their point

A suspected person hasn't been convicted of anything and so, under presumption of innocence (remember that?), shouldn't be penalised when the evidence hasn't been tested by a court.

Also, given who this admin has designated an "enemy combatant", "terrorist" or "threat to national security" (i.e. virtually everyone) and on what grounds (i.e. virtually none), giving them this kind of power is very dangerous.

[slackmaster]

9. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - A couple of related links

DU thread regarding Second Amendment Foundation's opposition to the Lautenberg/Kennedy bill:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x807229

Senator Lautenberg's page about his bill:

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/documents/domestic/TerrorGap/index.cfm

My comment about one thing he has totally wrong...

...Under the federal Brady Act, a licensed firearms dealer must request a background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before an unlicensed individual may purchase a weapon. However, even if a NICS check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist, nothing in current law prevents that person from purchasing a gun unless he or she meets one of the other disqualifying factors, including felony or domestic abuse convictions.... (Underlining added for emphasis)

That's frankly deceitful on the Senator's part - The result of a NICS check is either approval or disapproval of an attempted firearm transfer. Disapproval happens only if the person is LEGALLY disqualified; there is no way it could possible flag someone as a "known or suspected terrorist", because secret government watch lists cannot by law be put into the database.

Finally, the bill in PDF format: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/terrorgap/Lautenberg_Bill_4_26_07.pdf

[meldroc]

13. As much as I'll get flamed, I have to agree with the NRA on this one.

Excuse me while I don my asbestos long-johns.

It's fairly reasonable to say "Let's keep terrorists from buying guns," but what the NRA is objecting to is preventing people who's names are on the DHS terrorism watch lists from buying guns.

It helps if you remember that the watch lists DHS is using has been known to be populated with babies, antiwar activists and innocent people, placed on the list just to meet a quota.

By all means, of course we should block criminals and terrorists from buying guns, but we do so in a smart way. Innocent people have been put on watch lists just for shits and grins - they shouldn't be denied firearms if they're law-abiding.

[slackmaster]

15. Fuckin'-A meldroc, those links really cheesed me off

:argh:

[ContraBass Black]

24. Aren't half of us on DU "Susptected Terrorists" because we publicly criticise the government?

I don't want a gun, but the NRA sounds reasoned on this.

[Edweird]

26. do you really believe gonzo's idea of gun control is what you want?

You have got to be kidding me. Some interpretations of the intent of the second amendment involve armed citizens as the last line of defense against a tyrannical dictatorship here. I know the anti-gun faction here will pooh-pooh that as some rambo fantasy, but some people believe it. Some people would view this administrations desire to restrict gun possession in an arbitrary fashion as one of the last steps toward assuming complete control. I know the reality of what gonzo wants won't be what you thought it would be. You're making a deal with the devil to get your anti-gun wish this way.

[bonito]

27. What about known terrorist

In the white house? end of argument.

[Decruiter]

28. I think a "wider net" might catch us a few more baddies

[brentspeak]

29. So not only could Timothy McVeigh say "I'm The NRA", but OSAMA can too?

The NRA: fighting for the gun rights of killers every day.

[slackmaster]

34. Yeah, this bill would have really put the kibosh on the OKC bombing

:rofl:

[brentspeak]

42. Where did I say that?

BTW, I thought you didn't like the NRA.

[slackmaster]

45. I don't like the NRA

I like McVeigh and Osama even less. I'd have to put the NRA a bit above Alberto Gonzales. I have no problem separating my opinion of the message from my opinion of the messenger.

But you haven't actually said how you feel about the real topic of this thread.

Are you with the NRA or the Bush Administration on this one? Those are the only real options.

[Toots]

35. "based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

But but but sputter sputter that is what we used to invade Iraq with... Sputter. Don't like pre-emption now do they?

[Beelzebud]

39. If it's Gonzo deciding who the terrorists are and denying rights, I'm against it too.

[Odin2005]

41. This proud gun owner thinks the NRA = bunch of morons

[benEzra]

43. The defenders of BushCo's Secret Terrah Watch Lists are coming out of the woodwork...

don't forget that Senator Edward Kennedy was one of those the admin called "suspected terrorists." We're not talking about actual terrorism suspects, we're talking about people on the Bush admin's secret watch lists.

It's ironic that many of the same people who oppose secret watch lists, secret evidence evaluated by secret tribunals, and lack of due process or appeal, suddenly become supporters of Gonzales and the administration as soon as Gonzo added the word "gun" to the "OMG terrah!" song and dance...

I, for one, don't want to live in a country where Alberto "no such thing as habeus corpus" Gonzales gets to deny people basic rights because he or his cronies deem them possibly subversive--and remember that those "subversives" include antiwar activists and environmentalists.

I think meldroc's post #13 bears repeating:

It helps if you remember that the watch lists DHS is using has been known to be populated with babies, antiwar activists, and innocent people, placed on the list just to meet a quota.

By all means, of course we should block criminals and terrorists from buying guns, but we do so in a smart way. Innocent people have been put on watch lists just for shits and grins - they shouldn't be denied firearms if they're law-abiding.