Law and disorder, the NRA way...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, May 4, 2007.

  1. NRA: Don't Ban Gun Sales to Suspects

    SAM HANANEL | AP | May 4, 2007 02:42 PM EST

    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.

    In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

    Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

    Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

    "When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill.

    In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are weighing a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.

    A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.
  2. I haven't studied this issue, but the problem the NRA is going to have with any vague or open-ended provision is that they know a future Janet Reno will misuse it. It seems to me there is a big difference between a terrorist "suspect" and someone actually on the terrorist watch list. Does the bill provide for judicial review before a federal judge? Hard to tell from the post.

    I would sweep most of this into a provsision denying anyone but lawful US citizens the right to buy any gun. Maybe an exception for countries which allow visitors from the US to buy guns. I don't see why the Second Amendment should apply to non-citizens. The whole point of it was to arm citizens, not potential threats living here.

    When we are talking about restricting actual citizens' Second Amendment rights, I think we need to be very careful. If they have done something illegal, then prosecute them. Secret lists of people to be watched and denied rights is not what I would call the American way.
  3. Okay, so it is okay for the government to spy on US citizens and keep secret lists in the name of "National Security in the war on Terror", but heaven forbid that the government doesn't let people buy guns who happen to be on such lists...

    You are such a confused individual...

    So it is okay for a law to be in effect until someone that you don't like, say Janet Reno, has the power.

    What a freaking unprincipled piece of crap you come off as.

    Same will happen if a dem gets in as president, and abuses power the same way Bush has, you will be all over them, while giving Bush a free have zero principles but partisan politics, and the end justifying whatever means you support.


  4. You create this parade of horribles in your mind, but it doesn't exist. Are you aware of unlawful spying on US citizens? I don't mean people who are calling al qaeda in afhghanistan and are upset that the NSA listened in. I mean legitimate cases of citizens having their rights infringed for no reason? I suppose the FBI got carried away and misused the Patriot Act in some searches, but those abuses were caught and corrected.

    You are misstating what I said about Reno. Yes, I wouldn't worry as much about a vaguer law with an administration that I knew respected the Second Amendment, but the very reason you can't pass such a law is that inevitably you will get a Clinton/Reno type administration.

    So what's your position? Are you in favor of the government having a list of terror suspects or not? The post you pasted wanted the government to be able to use such a list to deny gun permits. To do that, you have to have the list in the first place. Would you prefer that the govenment not investigate potential terrorists? Do you think US citizens should not have any more rights than those here on visas or illegally?
  5. You're the unprincipled one.

    AAA is defending the right of an American citizen to bear arms even if he's a suspected terrorist. An outside the box thought.

    I'd add that particularly an American on a "watch list" needs 2nd amendment protection.

    It's you who railed endlessly over illegal wiretapping ect. Now you're arguing for a suspension of Constitutional rights to those deemed a threat? Interesting duplicity. With you it's par the course though....

  6. You just don't see the double standard, do you...

    Typical repubniklan thinking...

  7. Wow, I thought I accidently logged onto The Onion.

    These are the same nit wits that are worried about illegal immigrants geting driver's licenses.

    How about this? If you are on a terrorist watch list and allowed to buy guns, you can only fly on planes that transport NRA members. Let's see how many get on board.

    By: Cybesq on May 04, 2007 at 04:13pm
    Flag: [abusive]
    This is perfect because it shows that there is no hypocrisy in the rethuglican party. I mean really, they are much better at fighting terrorism than any Democrat and this proves it because they just want a good fight with both sides equally armed. Yea right!

    Stupid fuckwads!

    By: drumz on May 04, 2007 at 04:14pm
    Flag: [abusive]
  8. ......I thought that there are no terrorists..... or....Libs should be supporting sales of arms to suspected terrorists as denial of sales would be discrimination, racism or whatever.....