Posted on 12/09/2001 4:24:15 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Anti-terrorism has it limits. You didn't expect it would interfere with the fancied "rights" of gun nuts, did you? With this White House? This attorney general? Get serious.
After prying loose several keystones of the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism, John Ashcroft's Justice Department suddenly choked on giving the FBI access to the cursory federal background checks on gun buyers.
Not allowed, Ashcroft said. Want to allow it?, he was asked. Hypothetical, he said. Want to submit legislation to allow it? Happy to consider any legislation, Ashcroft digressed. Translation: Drop dead.
How predictable. Just another reason why he should never have been made the nation's chief law enforcement officer.
The FBI wanted to check whether any of the 1,200 people detained after the Sept. 11 attacks had bought guns. It was a reasonable thing to want to know.
At least two names of detainees showed up, sources said, before Ashcroft's ideological-purity assurance task force in the Justice Department ruled that the cross-checks violated the law establishing the background inquiries. A senior FBI official appealed the ruling and was told the same thing. More translation: Look, we're talking about the Republican base, so shove off.
This was, at best, a new interpretation of the law and meant that in the midst of the supposedly all-out war on terrorism, the Department of Justice adopted an unnecessarily restrictive stance.
"You're looking for new tools in every direction...," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told Ashcroft Thursday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "But when it comes to the area of even illegal immigrants getting guns and finding out if they did, this administration becomes as weak as a wet noodle."
This is a Justice Department and administration that has detained hundreds of Arab and Muslim suspects on charges unrelated to terrorism, has refused to identify most of the detainees and has held many of them incommunicado, has allowed federal eavesdropping on communications between attorney and client, has moved to create military tribunals that could order executions without a unanimous vote and without real judicial review.
Some of these measures are justified and some are not. But they illustrate the administration's generally robust attitude in sailing close to the wind on due-process and other constitutional questions. But, oh mercy me, not when it comes to guns.
Ashcroft had swallowed some gnats and gagged on an AK-47. It was as expectable as it was blatant. During his years in the U.S. Senate as a Republican from Missouri (which ended last year when he was defeated by a dead Democrat), Ashcroft opposed every serious gun-control measure on which he ever voted. The National Rifle Association would say "Jump!" and Ashcroft would ask "How high?" He's brought that act into the Justice Department.
President Bush's anti-terrorism campaign, including the legal maneuvers, currently enjoys broad public support. The White House and Ashcroft know they can do about anything they want if it's pictured as a move to prevent another Sept. 11-like attack.
The numbers emboldened Ashcroft in his testimony before a generally toothless committee awed more by polls than the Constitution. (Never a real contest, you understand.) Ashcroft wasn't content to stonewall on the several legitimate due-process issues raised (ever so gently) by senators. He thought a pre-emptive bit of intimidation was in order:
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists."
This sort of bully-boy performance should have been answered with "Have you no shame?" But the historically apposite question seemed not to come to any senator's mind. Not even when Ashcroft waggled what he said was an al-Qaeda training manual in which he said "terrorist are taught how to use America's freedoms as a weapon against us."
But what about being taught to acquire guns? Ashcroft apparently sees nothing wrong with that sort of education. The attorney general wouldn't even want the records of his own department checked to see if Osama bin Laden had bought a Saturday night special.
The stagily religious Ashcroft has always seemed to believe that Americans are too free to exercise their freedoms, unless of course it's the cherished possession of firearms -- for which he blindly refuses to see any room for possible abuse. As with many of his views, Ashcroft has only two settings when it come to guns, "off" and "zealot."
Also, it would make my day if someone here would confess to being a subscriber to the Houston Chronicle and would make this the day that they do the right thing and cancel.
Subsribing costs about $250 per year and the paper gets another $250 dollars of revenue from advertisers. Just set five $100 dollar bills on the table and ask whether the money is better spent supporting the NRA (or GOA,JPFO,etc) , buying a new gun, or supporting lying liberals.
I would personally rather that you set fire to the money than continue subscribing. Those of us who have made the commitment to cut off the liberal media are having a dramatic effect ( such as the success of Fox News Channel ) but more is needed.
Besides, if what you say is true then CCL holders would be facing this treatment any time they're stopped whether they actually had the gun in the vehicle or not, since in your scenario the officer would be acting on information provided by dispatch and not having actually seen the weapon or otherwise have a reason to suspect one is present.
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.