Posted on 09/17/2007 11:37:32 PM PDT by neverdem
Mayor Bloomberg is calling on Congress to back new legislation to keep guns away from terrorism suspects.
Yesterday, the mayor and Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, a lead sponsor of the bill, said current federal law has an inexcusable loophole that allows individuals on terrorism watch lists to purchase guns legally.
The mayor said Congress cannot wait and must act before a terrorist opens fire in a restaurant, train station, school, or other public location.
"How many more warning signs do we need?" Mr. Bloomberg said during a news conference at the base of the Brooklyn Bridge, one of the city's most glaring terrorist targets. "We know that terrorists want guns, we know who many of them are, and we're not doing anything about it."
Mr. Lautenberg, a Democrat who is jointly pushing the legislation with Rep. Peter King, a Republican of Long Island, said, "There's a gap in our laws that defies common sense."
He cited a terrorist training manual discovered in Afghanistan in 2001 instructing would-be terrorists to buy weapons in America. He also cited a 2004 investigation, conducted at his request while he was seeking support for a prior version of the bill, which found that individuals on various terrorist watch lists had been able to buy guns from licensed dealers 47 times during a nine-month stretch.
"This isn't a theoretical exercise," Mr. Lautenberg said. "Terrorists cannot only buy guns, they do."
Both men said that now that the Bush administration is on board, the legislation has a strong chance of passing. In April,...
--snip--
He said there is too little due process and that the system could actually help terrorists by alerting them that they are being watched. Mr. Bloomberg dismissed that claim and said that only groups that don't support it are "special interest extremists."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Bloomberg and Lautenburg may declare all of us terrorists, if they see it as a way to grab guns.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Bloomie is a “special interest extremist”. Why we let them be called “moderates” is beyond me. I put Rudy in there with him.
Isn’t this 2004 investigation he’s talking about the one where he interfered with an ongoing federal investigation by hiring private investigators to go out of state and make straw purchases that he then paraded all over the place, thereby blowing the fed’s case and wasting hundreds of man-hours and thousands of taxpayer dollars?
This is one of the reasons why I think SCOTUS will grant "cert" in Washington D.C. v. Heller, the former Parker v. Washington D.C. which D.C. lost. Say your prayers and keep your fingers crossed. Yes, I'm a little superstitious, but I'm optimistic. Souter and Ginsburg have written that the Second Amendment means more than "mere soldiering" in a militia. Only the Let's Roll militia worked six years ago.
He has one on his Human Rights Commission. One, Omar Mohammedi, who is general counsel to the New York chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations. He was appointed to be one of 14 members of the city's Human Rights Commission, charged with enforcing the city's anti-discrimination laws. However, Omar has been linked with a group that has been accused of condoning terrorism, and peddling conspiracy theories about the September 11 attack.
Maybe Bloomy should check his closet for guns?
I don’t fear a single terrorist (heck, even a group of terrorists) .... if the citizens are armed and able to defend themselves.
</sarc>
The terrorist watch lists used at the airport are a joke.
Virtually everyone with a common name is on the list!
For instance, anyone with the name David Nelson, Jack Baldwin, Alexandra Hay, Robert Johnson, etc. gets hassled when they try to board an airliner at the nation’s airport, because these names appear on a terrorist watch list. The same is true for countless people with common names....there are tens of thousands of other common names on these watch lists.
So, if these innocent non-terrorist Americans wanted to buy a gun, they would be barred from doing so under this bill.
Welcome to the screwed up American police state.
I’d have to oppose Bloomberg on this. Since when is the ‘terrorism watch list’ a judicial process that establishes someone’s unfitness to own firearms? This would set a terribly dangerous precedent. Like other posters have mentioned, what if someone in the government bureaucracy dislikes you, and decides to stick your name into the ‘terrorism watch list’ database? What is the process by which you can have your name cleared or removed? I don’t think there is one.
Once you establish that people on government ‘watch lists’ can be denied the freedom to purchase firearms, what is next? What if there is a ‘watch list’ one day for ‘subversive persons’ that would not only bar you from firearms purchases, but also things like vehicle registrations or business licenses? What, exactly, would stop this sort of abuse?
Of course, since this is a political grandstand, I doubt anyone proposing this really cares...
Forget about terrorist watch lists. The right to own a firearm in the U.S. is not to be infringed except through due process. This basically means that anyone who is eligible to vote — including people who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes — has the right to purchase and carry a gun.
Their illegal plan is going NOWHERE. Why is it that liberals hate the No-Fly list, as a violation of civil rights (and full of errors!) but then OK the same list being used to stop people from buying guns? If these people are so dangerous - ARREST them! Bloomboy is a loser.
“Name, please.”
“Achmed.”
“And your occupation, please.”
“I’m a terrorist.”
“I’m sorry, but according to the new Bloomberg Law, no weapons for you! Next.”
Seee how well this works?
As I recal, part of the problem here is that the authorities may not have let on that some of these folks are suspected of being or associating with terrorists. And once they try to buy a weapon, the cat’s out of the bag.
There was great debate here whether it’s best to not let them legally buy weapons and therfore warn them, or to let them buythe weapons and continue to monitor their movements (I opted for the latter).
I’d rather not have terrorists on the loose at all, whether they are training hijackers in close hand to hand combat, poisoning the minds of children and gangbangers with hate, harvesting anthrax or bubonic plague, making pipe bombs, threatening to take down the power grid, stuffing a car with fertilizer bombs, etc.
We’ve had domestic terrorist attacks with guns and the public has been reminded that we have had “no” domestic terrorist attacks” since 9-11-2001. Forget about those shootings in the DC area, the LAX Air Israel thing, the mall shooting in Utah, the Jewish community center in Seattle...
This is just gun grabber legislation. They aren’t serious about fighting terrorism yet.
In the 1990s, the Clintons determined that the single biggest threat to (their form of) Government was the “vast right wing conspiracy”.
They said that the KLA was not a terrorist group. They pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists. Do not think for a minute that they would not put their political opponents ON the terrorist “watch” list in the absence of any crime or conviction.
The government has already determined they have the power to deny you a driver's license on the basis of back child support. They have also declared the power to deny you a passport on the basis of back child support.
If an American citizen is considered a terrorist threat, I would assume that the US government would feel there is some responsibility in keeping that citizen from traveling to another country where (s)he may make a terrorist strike.
If a deadbeat dad can be considered a flight risk, what about a suspected terrorist?
You only have the rights the government is willing to GIVE you. They have grown too big for their britches.
“They aren’t serious about fighting terrorism yet.”
Right you are! I sent a TX GOP solicitation back scribbled “Build the Fence” and “Seal the Borders” all over it.
Result? They sent me a thank you for your pledge letter, which I have thrown away.
Bloomberg and Lautenburg will declare all of us terrorists, if they see it as a way to grab guns, and if we let them get away with it. ANYthing that these guys want, I'm against - just on principle.
Bloomberg’s interpretation of terrorist = law abiding citizen.
"Sentence first, trial after!!" -- Queen of Hearts
Wait until they use the “patriot” act to come after gun owners. It will happen in the next 10 years.
Not only detained. We all know that terrorist suspects have no right to a trial. Congress should just pass legislation that not only permits, but requires that gun dealers immediately shoot dead anybody denied a clearance to own guns by the government.
Wait .... Why wait for the terrorist to attempt to purchase a gun. Why not require gun dealers to hunt down terrorist suspects and kill them where they live? Much safer for the gun dealers.
No ... Wait .... Why not require ANYBODY to hunt down terrorist suspects?
On a slightly different matter, how do I contact the FBI to report my suspicions regarding possible terrorist suspects? I know of some who would deny me my right to keep and bear arms and who would kill me, my family, and my pets to do so.
I wonder how many boogeymen have WALKED ACROSS THE BORDER with whatever partyfavors the third world had to offer? NOTICE to terror guys: Dont give your info to the US government...or else...
But just let me refuse to pay a damn seatbelt ticket and theyll lock me up...
Can you explain how the NICS is unconstitutional?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Whether it's the three comma version, like here, or the one comma version, the gist is clear. It's a right the people had before the government was established.
The background check itself is not unconstitutional. It's possible that a particular disqualifier can be, such as the Lautenburg rules.
I know what the word infringe means. THe background check does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The background check applies to the transaction the FFL would like to close. the transaction will go through, unless their’s a record in the NICS dbase that disqualifies the person the FFL is proposing to transfer to.
Very true, the FAA and the USAF couldn't reorient fast enough to stop the terrorists once they put their plan into motion. The militia was "on the spot", as they always are, and dealt with the terrorists as best they could, and effectively at that. How much better it would have been if the passengers in first class could have just shot the terrorists before they even got close to getting into the cockpit? But of course they were in an unarmed victims zone, even though they refused to be "pure" victims.
Or that you are willing to TAKE and DEFEND.
But what's new about that? However it is somewhat new for Americans and for those rights specifically protected by the Constitution.
Last time the government tried to actually confiscate guns, rather than control sales of them, to include punishing those who don't go by those rules, it started a Revolution. The Government really ought to think about that.
Why hasn’t this criminal been arrested?
What do you think the approval to purchase is? It's government permission for the dealer to sell you a firearm. Thus you are begging the government for permission to exercise a right which the constitution says "shall not be infringed". Begging to exercise a right is an infringement on that right. There are no permits required to print and sell or give away newspapers, other than those which apply to all businesses. There are no permits required to establish a church or religious group, nor to preach your version of whatever religion you wish. The same is supposed to be true of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
That's not so say that misuse of the right can't be punished, such as libel and slander but there can be no prior restraint because of what you might do.
The list of "non allowed" persons is itself mostly unconstitutional. The only prohibited persons should be those currently incarcerated, or whose individual sentence prohibited ownership or possession of arms.
To top it off, the law doesn't even really restrain criminals, who can not be punished for lying on the form, since to tell the truth would be a form of self incrimination, which would a violation of the fifth amendment, which is one of the amendments that even the ACLU supports.
There is no approval for purchase. The FFL gets a yes, or no answer saying there are no records, or their are and the buyer is IDed as a prohibited person.
"It's government permission for the dealer to sell you a firearm."
The dealer is licensed as allowed per the commerce clause. The dealer does not get pemission to sell. Per the terms of his license, he is required to submit the buyer's name so a check can be run to see if their are any records that so the person is a prohibited person.
"There are no permits required to establish a church or religious group, nor to preach your version of whatever religion you wish."
No permits are needed to buy a gun. One does not ask for permission, nor is it given.
"there can be no prior restraint because of what you might do."
There is no prior restraint involved in a background check. The only records held, are those that have no right to buy a gun. THe check is so the FFL does not sell a gun to a prohibited person.
"The list of "non allowed" persons is itself mostly unconstitutional. The only prohibited persons should be those currently incarcerated, or whose individual sentence prohibited ownership or possession of arms."
No. Felons are excluded by attainder. That means they forfeited their rights when they committed the felony. If the legislature wants to give some felons their rights back, they can. Congress, including recent R majorities, have continued to prevent the ATF from allowing that remedy to be accessible. Enemies of the US obviously have no right to buy, or possess weapons. Those that are adjudicated by hte equivalent of a court, a danger to themselves, or others, due to mental defect, likewise have no right to have a gun.
"To top it off, the law doesn't even really restrain criminals, who can not be punished for lying on the form, since to tell the truth would be a form of self incrimination, which would a violation of the fifth amendment, which is one of the amendments that even the ACLU supports."
Fine. The FFL will know the person is a prohibited person, and the transaction will not occur. The person can then go to the illegal gun market. THey will not get guns in the legitimate market.
Attainder is only valid due process if the restrictions are part of an individual sentence. That's way it once was, prior to IIRC the 1968 Gun Control Act, at the federal level. Many states' laws still reflect that a felon's rights are restored upon completion of his sentence.
we know who many of them are, and we're not doing anything about it.
So...go bother people who aren't "them"?
If the NICS check comes back positive, he can't sell.
It means the customer is a prohibited person.
No. Attainder is a concept that existed in English common law prior to the Revolution. It means a felon has forfeited their rights by committing the crime. The legislature can then decide to expressly forbid them from exercising any act they used to have a right to before the crime. That's the justification for not allowing them to vote also, or hold some licenses also.
Any punishment, or condition applied by a court has nothing to do with attainder.
"That's way it once was, prior to IIRC the 1968 Gun Control Act, at the federal level."
Congress just decided to exercise it's authority to apply attainder. At that time, they also provided a remedy for the person to re-institute their rights. The recent Congresses failed to allow that, by expressly forbidding funds to go for that purpose.
"Many states' laws still reflect that a felon's rights are restored upon completion of his sentence."
Others don't and neither has Congress. No State has rejected attainder. Attainder requires an act of the legislature to apply it in any particular case. Some States provide for a remedy to restore firearm rights. Congress, including the R Congresses, forbid the ATF from acting on those State actions.
Also, the "instant" check may take 3 business days. The dealer can't sell until then. I've known one good shop go out of business because too many NICS checks took too long and the customers (reasonably) wouldn't make the trip back for the results (>100 mile drive for most).
It's a rare event that hte person is not.
"There are a LOT of people who are NOT prohibited, but do to confusion of information (similar name to known felon, etc.) their NICS check comes up as a false positive."
SSNs are used and any problems can be cleared up.
"The gov't would rather err on the side of more false positives than false negatives ... which is contra-Constitutional."
The IBC itself is not unconstituitonal.
"Also, the "instant" check may take 3 business days. I've known one good shop go out of business because too many NICS checks took too long and the customers (reasonably) wouldn't make the trip back for the results (>100 mile drive for most)."
It doesn't sound like his business had enough customers to keep him going.
Sounds like permission to me.
The commerce clause is in the main body of the Constitution. The second amendment is an amendment to that main body, and thus overrides it, when there is a conflict. That was the whole purpose of passing the bill of rights. In the words of the preamble to the Bill or Rights, "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added".
Fine. The FFL will know the person is a prohibited person, and the transaction will not occur.
How will the FFL know the person is prohibited if they lie on the form, giving a different name or whatever and using fake ID? There will be no NICS record of person who doesn't exist, or does exist, is clean, but isn't the person purchasing the firearm.
Just like other gun laws, it only affects the law abiding, including the formerly non law abiding in this case, with the little twist that they can't be prosecuted for breaking that particular law. They can be prosecuted for "felon in possession, but that would be the case with or without the Brady check.
But he would have had it they didn't have to make multiple trips of many miles. One trip was worth whatever advantage he had over his competitors who were closer to the customers, but not two.
Of course that's another example of rules piled on other rules resulting in a stupid policy. Once the purchaser has presented himself and been verified as a "good guy", why should the dealer *not* be able to ship the firearm to the purchaser?
No one's rights to keep and bear arms are infringed by either licensing dealers, or by the IBC. Infringements are to be found elsewhere. THe 2nd Amend doesn't refer to commerce in arms, nor does it refer to enemies of the US, felons, and those judged a danger to themselves, or others due to mental defect. Gun bans, waiting periods, ect... are infringements.
"How will the FFL know the person is prohibited if they lie on the form, giving a different name or whatever and using fake ID?"
The FFL is responsible for checking the ID, especially the pic. The DOJ and the States are responsible for maintaining the dbase to include the occurrence of ID theft. Handling ID theft isn't difficult.
"There will be no NICS record of person who doesn't exist,"
Then the ID and SSN won't match.
"They can be prosecuted for "felon in possession, but that would be the case with or without the Brady check."
They won't be able to buy the gun. That's the purpose of the law, and that's a good thing. They should then go after the person for attempting to buy it.
"But he would have had it they didn't have to make multiple trips of many miles. "
No.
"Once the purchaser has presented himself and been verified as a "good guy", why should the dealer *not* be able to ship the firearm to the purchaser?"
I don't see a problem with faxing the original paperwork. Then it's all verified and signed again at pickup.
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.