NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects

[quade 4]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/nra.terror.ap/index.html

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

"When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

We now have new definitions for the words "irony" and "hypocrisy". Thank you NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, you've enriched our vocabulary and made the world just a little more surreal.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[D22369 0]

if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration

Quote

these are convictions (ie) found guilty


There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

this is with no conviction... just a suspicion, its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?


Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration

Quote

these are convictions (ie) found guilty


There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

this is with no conviction... just a suspicion, its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?


Roy

Not for Jose Padilla.

And then there are a few people we're holding in Gitmo.

I take it you are arguing to have the terrorist watch list scrapped.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?

No it isn't.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[D22369 0]

I take it you are arguing to have the terrorist watch list scrapped.***

nope, you take it wrong. But till its something other than suspicion and guesswork then their rights shouldnt be trampled... period

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[D22369 0]

its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No it isn't.
***


heh, I was being slightly sarcastic with that post... its too bad it doesnt work that way though

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

heh, I was being slightly sarcastic with that post... its too bad it doesnt work that way though

The problem is that ANYONE not seen to be WITH THEM in the Administration.. is AGAINST THEM.

The black and white world of paranoia that Georgie Boy and his PNAC Buddies learned from Nixon and that the right wing lives in does not allow for much other than buying their bullshit completely.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration

Quote

these are convictions (ie) found guilty


There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

this is with no conviction... just a suspicion, its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?


Roy

I believe a felony indictment (not necessarily a conviction) is also grounds for denial.

The problem with the terrorism watch list is that it is so arbitrary. There is no way to know if you are on it (until now... just go out and try to buy a 22), there is no way to appeal, and it is probably illegal to even tell your story to the media if you knew who was on it. It is a system ripe for abuse... disagree with administration policies? on the list you go.

The most pernicious aspect of the Soviet system was that people didn't fear getting tortured in a ministry sub-basement in Moscow or ending up pounding permafrost in Siberia, but feared getting on a list. Politically unreliable ... sorry, no job for you, application for apartment denied, internal travel permit? Nyet, you are on the list. It was an amazingly effective way of silencing dissent.

If the DHS wants to be suspicious of certain people fine. If they are suspicious enough of someone to want to keep them from purchasing firearms fine, go to a judge, present probable cause, and get a sealed indictment.

Quote

Quote

[Douva 0]

Haven't we had politicians and infants denied boarding passes at airports because their names matched names on the terrorist watch list? From what the news media keeps telling us, it sounds like the government is pretty indiscriminate in the selecting of "suspects." If the government is going to tell somebody he or she can't purchase a firearm, it needs to offer a better explanation than "You're on a list."

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

this is with no conviction... just a suspicion, its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?

Not for Jose Padilla. And then there are a few people we're holding in Gitmo. I take it you are arguing to have the terrorist watch list scrapped.

If you think those stories are abuses of power in the name of the war on terrorism, then you should be in agreement with the NRA on this issue.

Or is it okay to deny a constitutional right to a would-be gun owner based upon only "a suspicion"?

Which side are you on here?

If you disagree with the NRA, then explain why your examples are abuses, but denying gun purchases for mere suspicion isn't.

[rushmc 23]

Wow, the only irony is YOU posting this!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

this is with no conviction... just a suspicion, its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?

Not for Jose Padilla. And then there are a few people we're holding in Gitmo. I take it you are arguing to have the terrorist watch list scrapped.

If you think those stories are abuses of power in the name of the war on terrorism, then you should be in agreement with the NRA on this issue.

Or is it okay to deny a constitutional right to a would-be gun owner based upon only "a suspicion"?

Which side are you on here?

If you disagree with the NRA, then explain why your examples are abuses, but denying gun purchases for mere suspicion isn't.

Nailed it!! You absolutly nailed it!!!! For others on this thread, if you have no convictions or principles you get caught in incosistantcies like this!!

Nice post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

this is with no conviction... just a suspicion, its still innocent till proven guilty in this country isnt it?

Not for Jose Padilla. And then there are a few people we're holding in Gitmo. I take it you are arguing to have the terrorist watch list scrapped.

If you think those stories are abuses of power in the name of the war on terrorism, then you should be in agreement with the NRA on this issue.

Or is it okay to deny a constitutional right to a would-be gun owner based upon only "a suspicion"?

Which side are you on here?

If you disagree with the NRA, then explain why your examples are abuses, but denying gun purchases for mere suspicion isn't.

What makes you think I disagree with you on this? The govt. should prove its case, just as it should with the Gitmo inmates. Otherwise we are consenting to the govt. having arbitrary powers.

It applies across the board: warrantless wiretaps, imprisonment without trial, secret prisons, no travel lists... all based on the say-so of the CinC or his lackeys.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

Wow, the only irony is YOU posting this!!

If you don't see the irony of an NRA spokesman saying, "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it." then you just don't get the point of this enitre thread.

No matter what side of this you come down on, clearly the NRA has already politicized it.

For an organization that normally chooses its words so carefully, I was quite surprised.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. So there are rights that should be denied to people on the basis of some suspicions.

While we're at it, why don't we do the following:
1) Prevent exercise of religion by suspected terrorists. After all, it seems the 9/11 guys had a religious motive.
2) Just go seize all guns from people on the suspected terrorist list. Why stop at preventing sales?
3) Force suspected terrorists to quarter soldiers in their homes - that'll teach them not to mess around.
4) Let's scrap the 4th Amendment for those on the watch list (Oh, wait, the Bush Admin DID that with warrantless wiretaps.)
5) Non-indicted capital charges for them, and take their land while we're at it! If they don't want to testify, torture an admission out of them. And make sure they are tried in absentia, without counsel (they'd have already been arrested)
6) No right to jury trial by ANY suspected terrorist.
7) Limit all trial recovery to those on watch lists to $19.99.
8) Those on suspected terror list should be imprisoned for life or receive deah by bunga-bunga. Yeah, how's THAT for martyrdom, eh?
9) Make sure they are not called "people"
10) States will be required to do it, lest the feds let one slip through.

---

Gee. That'll make everyone feel better, won't it? Let's deny anyone on the suspect list ALL of their rights? Why stop at the Second Amendment? Fuckin' take them off the streets.

I mean, can you believe there are people on the watch list who are allowed to meet with other people? They could be hatching a plot! They can get driver's licenses to plow into a pre-school!! Shoot, there is SO MUCH they are allowed to do.

How despicable is that? get them off the streets NOW!!!! I'm sure an appreciative public would understand that their rights are not worth protecting.

Here I thought all rights were rights. I guess some rights are more equal than others.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Wow, the only irony is YOU posting this!!

If you don't see the irony of an NRA spokesman saying, "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it." then you just don't get the point of this enitre thread.

No matter what side of this you come down on, clearly the NRA has already politicized it.

For an organization that normally chooses its words so carefully, I was quite surprised.

Hell man I get it. I don't think you really know what you posted though!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Hmmm. So there are rights that should be denied to people on the basis of some suspicions.

While we're at it, why don't we do the following:
1) Prevent exercise of religion by suspected terrorists. After all, it seems the 9/11 guys had a religious motive.
2) Just go seize all guns from people on the suspected terrorist list. Why stop at preventing sales?
3) Force suspected terrorists to quarter soldiers in their homes - that'll teach them not to mess around.
4) Let's scrap the 4th Amendment for those on the watch list (Oh, wait, the Bush Admin DID that with warrantless wiretaps.)
5) Non-indicted capital charges for them, and take their land while we're at it! If they don't want to testify, torture an admission out of them. And make sure they are tried in absentia, without counsel (they'd have already been arrested)
6) No right to jury trial by ANY suspected terrorist.
7) Limit all trial recovery to those on watch lists to $19.99.
8) Those on suspected terror list should be imprisoned for life or receive deah by bunga-bunga. Yeah, how's THAT for martyrdom, eh?
9) Make sure they are not called "people"
10) States will be required to do it, lest the feds let one slip through.

---

Gee. That'll make everyone feel better, won't it? Let's deny anyone on the suspect list ALL of their rights? Why stop at the Second Amendment? Fuckin' take them off the streets.

I mean, can you believe there are people on the watch list who are allowed to meet with other people? They could be hatching a plot! They can get driver's licenses to plow into a pre-school!! Shoot, there is SO MUCH they are allowed to do.

How despicable is that? get them off the streets NOW!!!! I'm sure an appreciative public would understand that their rights are not worth protecting.

Here I thought all rights were rights. I guess some rights are more equal than others.

I think it really only depends on who you want to support or bash, not the right it self. This way of looking at things can really cloud the view......point.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Wow, the only irony is YOU posting this!!

If you don't see the irony of an NRA spokesman saying, "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it." then you just don't get the point of this enitre thread.

No matter what side of this you come down on, clearly the NRA has already politicized it.

For an organization that normally chooses its words so carefully, I was quite surprised.

Exactly how else would an organization whose sole existence is to defend the 2nd Amendment going to object to an obvious violation of the 2nd and 4th?

So I guess due process isn't actually important to you, since you grossly mischaracterized what's going on here in the thread headline. The NRA opposes a bill that will prevent Americans from buying guns.

Other countries may have more favorable approaches and open immigration policies.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think it really only depends on who you want to support or bash, not the right it self. This way of looking at things can really cloud the view......point.....

Well, for me it's black or white - either a right is there or it is not there. I am not going to say that some groups of people should not have all of the rights. Thinking like the gun ban for suspected terrorists is closely paralleled by the "security risk" of Japanese-Americans in the 1940's.

There is a mighty nice soundbite there that, on the surface, is very, very appealing to the public. "There is no law that prevents a person whom we have reason to believe may possibly be linked to terrorist cels." This sounds like, "My God, a possible terrorist can go into a gun store and buy a weapon. Something should be done!"

This is the same thinking as, "A possible terrorist may be speaking to another possible terrorist on the phone about their plots, and there is nothing to stop them from doing it."

Rights are there to guarantee that even the people we LEAST want to have exercise the right are able to do so unless the person has been adjudicated to have lost such right.

Ownership of guns is not a privilege available to only those whom we desire to have guns. It is a right, like freedom of speech. No right should be lesser than another.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I think it really only depends on who you want to support or bash, not the right it self. This way of looking at things can really cloud the view......point.....

Well, for me it's black or white - either a right is there or it is not there. I am not going to say that some groups of people should not have all of the rights. Thinking like the gun ban for suspected terrorists is closely paralleled by the "security risk" of Japanese-Americans in the 1940's.

There is a mighty nice soundbite there that, on the surface, is very, very appealing to the public. "There is no law that prevents a person whom we have reason to believe may possibly be linked to terrorist cels." This sounds like, "My God, a possible terrorist can go into a gun store and buy a weapon. Something should be done!"

This is the same thinking as, "A possible terrorist may be speaking to another possible terrorist on the phone about their plots, and there is nothing to stop them from doing it."

Rights are there to guarantee that even the people we LEAST want to have exercise the right are able to do so unless the person has been adjudicated to have lost such right.

Ownership of guns is not a privilege available to only those whom we desire to have guns. It is a right, like freedom of speech. No right should be lesser than another.

Again, you and I are on the same page. Far too many times however, rights are divided out depending on political affiliation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I'm glad we are. It means someone agrees with me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm glad we are. It means someone agrees with me.

I hope that doesn't count against you (at least on this forum)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

If you think those stories are abuses of power in the name of the war on terrorism, then you should be in agreement with the NRA on this issue.

Or is it okay to deny a constitutional right to a would-be gun owner based upon only "a suspicion"?

Which side are you on here?

If you disagree with the NRA, then explain why your examples are abuses, but denying gun purchases for mere suspicion isn't.

What makes you think I disagree with you on this? The govt. should prove its case, just as it should with the Gitmo inmates. Otherwise we are consenting to the govt. having arbitrary powers.

It applies across the board: warrantless wiretaps, imprisonment without trial, secret prisons, no travel lists... all based on the say-so of the CinC or his lackeys.

So let's here you say the magic words: "I agree with the NRA on this issue".

See if you can bring yourself to admit it in public.

I double-dog dare you.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you think those stories are abuses of power in the name of the war on terrorism, then you should be in agreement with the NRA on this issue.

Or is it okay to deny a constitutional right to a would-be gun owner based upon only "a suspicion"?

Which side are you on here?

If you disagree with the NRA, then explain why your examples are abuses, but denying gun purchases for mere suspicion isn't.

What makes you think I disagree with you on this? The govt. should prove its case, just as it should with the Gitmo inmates. Otherwise we are consenting to the govt. having arbitrary powers.

It applies across the board: warrantless wiretaps, imprisonment without trial, secret prisons, no travel lists... all based on the say-so of the CinC or his lackeys.

So let's here you say the magic words: "I agree with the NRA on this issue".

See if you can bring yourself to admit it in public.

I double-dog dare you.

I agree with the NRA on this issue - see, easy.
Your problems on this one are way bigger - this shady middle ground between criminal and law abiding

Never try to eat more than you can lift