NRA; don't ban gun sales to terrorists

Roonie · 05-05-2007, 10:52 AM

NRA: Don't Ban Gun Sales to Suspects

By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

document.write(getElapsed("20070505T005858Z"));Fri May 4, 7:58 PM
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 considering 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.
"Right now law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."
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.

hsmith · 05-05-2007, 11:59 AM

So you are ok with your constitution rights being restricted because the attorney general thinks you are a suspect?

Oh, I guess you are fine with Gitmo then.

Donkey® · 05-05-2007, 06:21 PM

If you're not convicted of anything, you shouldn't be restricted in anything.

Roonie · 05-05-2007, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

So you are ok with your constitution rights being restricted because the attorney general thinks you are a suspect?

Oh, I guess you are fine with Gitmo then.

Not sure if you are asking me this question as I have only posted the article. I personally think not convicted of anything then no restrictions but was wondering what others thought of this article?

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Not sure if you are asking me this question as I have only posted the article. I personally think not convicted of anything then no restrictions but was wondering what others thought of this article?

Can you add your opinion to the original post please? Thanks

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Not sure if you are asking me this question as I have only posted the article. I personally think not convicted of anything then no restrictions but was wondering what others thought of this article?

I think the NRA is backing something that is very easily spun against them. I think their reasons for being against it is valid, but I also think the reasons for are valid.

Personally I'm leaning towards allowing innocent citizens of this country to have their constitutional rights. In the end though this is going to only hurt the NRA's dwindling popularity in America. I think most people won't support the NRA on this, especially the media. People seem to care so much about their rights, until it comes to the second amendment. I don't understand that.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 03:37 PM

No one has noticed that there has been no Democratic effort post-VA Tech to pass gun control legislation, despite fears that Pelosi would take away their guns

Completely proven wrong

ballz2wallz · 05-12-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No one has noticed that there has been no Democratic effort post-VA Tech to pass gun control legislation, despite fears that Pelosi would take away their guns

Completely proven wrong

Don't be so quick to assume such a thing, as it's been brought up by Democratic leaders:

The largest mass shooting in U.S. history forced reluctant Democratic leaders in Congress yesterday to confront an issue that divides their party and holds considerable political peril: gun control.

Advocates of stricter gun laws, such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), met with Democratic leaders, determined to resurrect an issue that has been dormant since the shootings at Columbine High School near Denver in 1999. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) elicited a pledge from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) to hold a hearing on the shootings.

"We need to stand up and do something," said McCarthy, whose husband was killed in a gunman's rampage on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.

But others realize that they are helpless, and don't want to make it an issue:

...and House Democratic leaders are in no rush to jeopardize conservative freshmen elected from Republican-leaning districts in Indiana, North Carolina and Kansas.

"Unless we get some leadership from the White House, we're not going to take this kind of political damage bringing up something that would never become law," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), a gun-control advocate.

So you're wrong in assuming noone has said anything about gun control, but you're right in that nothing has been done about it.

Then again, why so quick to make such a conclusion about their actions after VA Tech? It's only been a couple weeks

JaJae · 05-12-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No one has noticed that there has been no Democratic effort post-VA Tech to pass gun control legislation, despite fears that Pelosi would take away their guns

Completely proven wrong

From the OP last week

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."

City passes disputed gun control laws - News

City passes disputed gun control laws
By: Jordan Osecki
The Philadelphia City Council unanimously passed eight gun control laws on May 3, and has filled suit against the state General Assembly for control over city gun regulations.

WJBC: The Voice Of McLean County

Senate passes gun control bill
05/11/2007 15:43:48

In response to the mass shootings at Virginia Tech, the Illinois Senate has passed a bill banning...

There are many examples of gun control in response to VA Tech.

ballz2wallz · 05-12-2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Completely proven wrong

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 04:43 PM

yeah, not from federal democrats

Lautenberg is from a district of 9/11 survivors who are voicing their concerns over terrorists about to commit another 9/11 having guns, that's not because of VA Tech, he is doing his job of representation on another matter and Cho was not on any terrorist list

JaJae · 05-12-2007, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

yeah, not from federal democrats

Lautenberg is from a district of 9/11 survivors who are voicing their concerns over terrorists about to commit another 9/11 having guns, that's not because of VA Tech, he is doing his job of representation on another matter and Cho was not on any terrorist list

What is your definition of Federal Democrats and how does the US Senate not satisfy that requirement?

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What is your definition of Federal Democrats and how does the US Senate not satisfy that requirement?

you cited the Illinois Senate...?

JaJae · 05-12-2007, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

you cited the Illinois Senate...?

Oh nice catch. Regardless though Democrats from all over the country are attempting to pass gun control legislation. There has been a very large effort among Democrats to attack gun control through legislation and media.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 05:17 PM

Democrats are disorganized...Nebraska/Kansas democrats are completely different from say Rhode Island Democrats

There is no national effort, Howard Dean is not out there trying to get every democratic state house to pass something, even though he easily could

gun rights people should be looking themselves in the mirror for all their worires about the 06 wave of democrats in the federal congress taking away their guns, simply not true