Please go to JPFO.org and order a copy of The Gang. This documentary will fully remove the scales from everyone's eyes.
Posted on 07/22/2007 2:16:35 PM PDT by neverdem
Copyright 2007 Hearst News Service
House expected to renew law that makes it harder to trace firearms used in crimes
WASHINGTON — Gun control advocates cheered when Democrats took over the House and the Senate this year, sure that the change in leadership meant a more friendly environment for new restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms.
But supporters of tighter controls are on the verge of losing the first big battle of the year over gun policy.
The House is expected to pass legislation this week renewing a 4-year-old law that makes it harder for police to track the history of firearms used in crimes.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other gun control advocates are lobbying to repeal the statute.
"The new Congress is timid" about gun control, said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
"It is very embarrassing for Congress, and now, instead of being embarrassing for a Republican Congress, it's embarrassing for a Democratic Congress."
The so-called Tiahrt amendment — named after its author, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., — has been on the books since 2003. The vote to renew it comes up this week as part of a spending bill that funds the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The Tiahrt amendment is aimed at blocking the ATF from widely sharing the information it collects on the history of sales and transfers of firearms used in crimes. The ATF still collects the data — and is allowed to analyze it in-house. But under the Tiahrt amendment, that information can only be shared with federal agencies for national security purposes, or when prosecutors need it for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she favors unrestricted gun data sharing and wants the law repealed. But Democratic leaders aren't eager to force the issue on the floor.
Gun control lobbyists and Democratic leadership aides say it is unlikely the chamber will even take a roll call vote on removing the Tiahrt amendment.
"There's no arguing with the fact that it doesn't look like we have the votes to win a House floor fight," Hamm said.
Democratic leaders in Congress are wary of forcing some of their vulnerable lawmakers to take such a politically charged vote that could alienate gun owners and make them targets of the National Rifle Association, which supports limits on gun data sharing.
Several freshmen Democrats in Congress — such as Rep. Heath Schuler, D-N.C. and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. — highlighted their support for gun rights during election campaigns last year.
They are unlikely to cast votes that make them vulnerable to pro-gun campaigns.
jdlouhy@hearstdc.com
"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
Misleading story.
If you read the legislation it helps law enforcement keep their investigation under wraps.
What Bloomberg and Pelosi are wanting to do is get the list out in the open for lawyers to sue companies and put them out of business.
This will serve to drive the moveon.org crazies into further leftist frenzies.
Besides being good news for the 2nd amendment, the survival of this amendment also good news for the 2008 elections; the moveon.org RATS are going to move so far out on a leftist limb that their only way down will be a crash.
"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
The only reason they won was because they stopped running anti-gun democrats. Congress knows that gun control is a loser nationally, and supporting tighter gun control will only lose you your job.
Now we should be putting more effort into the local battles, and getting the SCOTUS to hear the DC ban case will do just that.
We're just a few years away from a free America again.
Which means congress still reads its mail. Congress theoreticaly works for its constituents, not gun control advocates or even gun rights people, for that mater.
Please go to JPFO.org and order a copy of The Gang. This documentary will fully remove the scales from everyone's eyes.
That is playing with fire. A split court COULD screw the pooch on the SA big time. My guess is they will take a pass at hearing it. If they declare it an individual right a whole lot of DC BS gets flushed. If they try an make it a collective right then all other Amendments are up for grabs. If they do hear it the chances of some silly compromise that is impossible to decode will lead to another 60 years of crazy stuff.
From my cold, dead hands, Nancy, my COLD, DEAD HANDS!
How is that any different from any other federal bureaucracy, like, say, the IRS?
They carry fully automatic weapons.
I wonder if she favors sharing unrestricted abortion data information?
It's no different, but why let another atrocious group run amuck if we can help it. Everyone needs to grow a bigger pair and redouble their efforts to save this once proud land--and in particular, to save the Second Amendment. The 2A is the lynch pin of freedom. Without that, all is lost.
Liberty!
Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma. Here's an excerpt from Parker:
We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."
Read the decision. It's quite compelling and not too long. All we need is one out of Kennedy, Souter or Ginsburg, and either of the last two will be contradicting their previous opinion if they go against it.
Read it within an hour of the release. You stated the problem exactly. Still think it’s dangerous now, the court appears to be in flux.
I would modify this statement to say that both 1A and 2A are equally important lynchpins. Without both being operational, all is lost.
On the topic of the federal bureaucracies, you've got to realize that these are headed by political appointees nominated by the President. Excesses by these agencies are a lot less likely (and have been less likely) under an R admin than under a D administration. Remember how BATF was out of control under BJ?
Well there’s always pressing the reset button on the Constitution.
There! That should make us all feel better!
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.