Posted on 12/08/2001 9:49:30 PM PST by Sir Gawain
Bill Offered to Give FBI Access to Gun Records "It makes no sense to deny these records to the FBI in its ongoing investigation of the atrocities of September 11th," Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said in a statement. Kennedy joined Sen. Charles Schumer of New York in offering the measure. Both are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, before which Ashcroft testified on Thursday. The attorney general, in defending his decision to block the FBI from using gun documents in its probe of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, said the law does not allow investigators to review the federal records created when a buyer applies to buy a firearm. His stand drew angry words from a number of Democrats, who noted the former U.S. Republican senator from Missouri has been a longtime defender of gun rights. Asked at Thursday's hearing if he wanted the FBI to have the power to review gun records in its terror investigation, Ashcroft said he would not comment on "a hypothetical," but would be "happy to consider" any such legislation that would enable it to do so. Kennedy said on Friday the bill he and Schumer offered would do that, and called on the administration to back it. Meanwhile, the Justice Department said it would review the regulations on accessing gun-purchase records. A Justice Department official told reporters on Friday he would check with the FBI and other agencies to see if they thought there was an "operational need" to warrant a change in the law. "We are continuing this top to bottom review, so we will take a look at it now that the question has been raised," the official said.
December 7, 2001 6:56 pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A day after U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress existing law does not allow the FBI to compare the names of suspected terrorists with federal gun purchase records, two senators introduced a bill on Friday to allow such action.
NRA sued the feds for keeping the list. A Clinton appointed judge threw out the lawsuit.This suggests one reason why so many have become disaffected with the NRA. This would never have happen to the ACLU (unless they wanted it to). Both are well financed, but only one does the following; you guess which one.
This is getting to look to more and more people like what it is:
A single party representative of what historians of past civilizations traditionally call "the established order" (and we often refer to as the Establishment). It goes through the motions of offering up its own opposition for the sole purpose of staving off the aggregation of real opposition.
There must be a concerted effort to combat the RepublicRats™. Wait too long, and there will be no Constitution left to defend.
I don't trust anything coming from schumer or kennedy, there's more to this bill then they're telling. And like other unConstitutional bills that have been passed, the opposition won't be present or it will be by a show of hands and secret.
SECRET, but isn't that what these guys oppose???? /sarcasm IMHO Eustace has this right.
Which were perfectly legal to take onboard as well.
I agree with the others above who believe the information is not being deleted. IANAL, but from a legal perspective, I believe it doesn't matter if the NICS data is kept for one minute or one hundred millennia since the very requirement that the information be collected from a firearms buyer is in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
One of the predicating notions that this country was founded upon is that private information and property not fall into the government's hands without probable cause or a warrant. Simply desiring to procure a firearm does not give the government cause to demand private information if due to nothing else than the existence of the Second Amendment. Simply fearing that a firearm will be used in a crime is no excuse either, since prior restraint is an illegitimate legal tool on its face.
Furthermore, even if the government DID have cause to demand private information, the accused is under no obligation to aide in its production. If the government has a case, let it be made, but THEY are the ones that must do the foot work, not the person under threat of fine or imprisonment.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."
There's an FBI pamphlet which along with the sheriffs department in Arizona, that describes for people what to look for in identifying "terrorists". Some of the descriptions say Anyone who defends the Constitution against the federal government or the UN. Well here I am.....
Anyone who constantly refers to the Constitution.Huh oh here I am again......
Loners. Oh boy, that's all I want, TO BE LEFT ALONE.......
I seem to recall that George Washington was considered a "terrorist" in England, so it appears I won't be dying in bad company.
We don't need more gun laws, we need for criminals to be punished instead of honest "Citizens". And we need for American's to quit accepting government handouts and "civil liberties" and start demanding their God given Rights as defined and protected in our Constitution (oops, I did it again).
Peace
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.