Posted on 01/11/2006 6:12:12 AM PST by mr_hammer
I recall the same thing happened in Massachussetts and California -- as I recall, with AR-15 type rifles. First registration was required, then possession was not allowed.
Do you support gun registration ?
Bull. It writen like any other bill. It's reasonably concise. It's broken up into sections to provide proper context. I can't see any way that any lawyer is going to make a credible legal case that this bill, which is in the context of gathering intelligence on foreign nationals or agents of foreign powers, and is limited to gathering information related to current investigations authorizes creating a widespread database on all firearms purchases, and overides the laws prohibiting the creation of such a registry.
The only way that's going to happen is if the Judicary decides to make law from the bench, and if they decide to do so, this isn't even a rational starting point, because the context is way to limited and it requires FBI director approval of each request.
If what your worried about is judicial activism, then why fight an important law that isn't even giving a Judge a good starting point for such activism. DO you really think that a judge is going to use part of the Foreign Intelligence Act to justify widespread collection of firearms sales of US citizens? If they take that far of a leap, then they aren't justifying their decision in the law, and it doesn't matter what the law says.
As for it being wordy? You're the one suggesting adding specific words to make something illegal that is already illegal and this legislation doesn't even come close to addressing. That's how wordy and crappy laws happen. Keep it simple but make sure there's a proper and consistent context in the law to keep it from being misued.
ook, I see no reason what so ever for Federal agents to be combing some small gun store records what so ever. The real threat comes from nukes or chemicals, NOT SMALL CENTERFIRE ammunition or the firearms. Further more once a person has passed a criminal background check there should be absolutely no records kept at all.
If we have some people in our country that we know have visited terrorist training camps, yet haven't broken any laws and are here in the US, do you suggest tht we just stand back and wait until they make a move to crash an airplane, derail a train, or attack a large group of people in a crowded area?
Or do you suggest that we do everything that we can to find out if they are planning something and what that is? Finding out what they purchase can tell you a lot about a possible plan. This includes firearms.
Now I do agree that it's easy enough to purchase firearms without going through an FFL, though it's harder to get what you want when you want it that way.
We learned following 9/11 that our intelligence servives were operating under insane, politically motivated regulations that prevented our intelligence community from being able to properly investigate leads but didn't really provide any real significant protections for our rights.
There is a benefit for our intelligence community to be able to look through sales records in a timely manner, and getting a court order doesn't happen in a timely manner.
This isn't being applied to common, domestic criminal cases. This is being applied to cases involving foreigners operating in the us or agents of foreign powers operating in the US.
If law enforcement oversteps their authority, and it gets taken to coourt, there's still a judge involved at that stage that can throw out the evidence.
So drop the vague accusations of wordy bills, and tell me what part of this bill concerns you. Tell me what part of the legislation you think would allow a firearms registry, or does something else that concerns you.
Sorry fella, but governments (people) over time have proven "NOT" to be trusted with records of personnel property. No need to give a government any more info.
So the government shouldn't investigate potential terrorists? They shouldn't gather evidence until after a crime has been committed?
Remember what Ben Franklin said; He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
So tell me what liberty I'm giving up by allowing the goverment to look through the sales records of a foreign national that is being investigated and the search requires the fruther oversight of being approved by the director of the FBI?
Do you think Ben Franklin would suggest that we all hunker down in our homes instead of going after those who threaten us?
Link to --- H.R. 3199
There was an article here about an instance where a old lady had her gun wrestled away from her by police and taken.
No. But it is a worry far down the list of things to worry about.
Unconvincing.
And it was widely reported that she was thrown to the floor when she did not want to give up her gun. I never heard or saw it reported that she pointed it at the police.
At the time, police were consficating guns and she did not want to give hers up. (it was well known that New Orleans was a dangerous place at the time).
Would you have been pleased to give up your gun in the same circumstances.
Never said I would. Nor implied it was okeedokee for the cops to do this in any event. I didn't join the NRA to support seizure of the citizenry's guns.
To get HR3199, click on the same link, then click on "home" and put HR3199 in "Search".
I recall that the NRA filed a law suit in New Orleans, and the judge told the New Orleans police to stop consficating guns.
It's at the top of Senator Dianne Feinstein's list.
Yep
And Chuckies and my dumbass Senator Turbin.
Sounds like an story that expanded with the telling.
No. The law specifies the conditions under which you can be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. We are talking about people who are being investigated because they are suspected of being linked to terrorism. Unless they've been convicted of a crime that prohibits them from owning a firearm, they shouldn't fail NICs.
We're talking about people who are suspects, not convicts. However, you can't stop people from committing terrorist acts if you can't investigate suspects.
Investigating suspected terrorists won't do anything to make us safer?
The terrorist are accomplishing their goals of robbing us of our liberties by just the specter of their presence and the BUSHBOT's are complicit!
Your tinfoil hat is on too tight. As I've asked, look at the bill, and explain how that bill is weakening our liberties.
How doe this bill interfere with our right to keep and bear arms? Don't give me some ad hominem attacks. Don't toss out some conspiracy theory about how any law can be twisted to some evil purpose. It's this bill that's being fought by the GOA. Thier claim is that it's being fought based on protecting us from gun regisration. That's simply not supported by the facts.
So quote the portion of the bill that concerns you and explain how it can be misused. Back up your argument with some facts rather than rants.
Mr., give me a break. We are not buying what you and "justshutupandtakeit" are selling and by the looks of the posts no one else is either.
Are we still talking about HR 3199, or are you off on some some tangent because you can't back up your argument in respect to the bill?
Warrant less searches will only be expanded in later laws, incrementalism sucks and you can take that to the bank. In addition if this Adminsitration where really serious on the War on Terror that G%$ D%$# southern boarder would have been slammed shut long ago.
So you're aren't fighting HR 3199 over it possibly creating a gun registry. You dislike it for other reasons. That's fine. Just don't try and justify it based on something it's not doing and try and mislead others in joing you in fighting it by misrepresenting what it does.
You can't protect people's freedoms by misleading them to get their support. That's what the liberal elitists do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.