NRA has no problem with this fellow buying a gun in the US
NRA: Don’t Ban Gun Sales to Suspects
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-N.J., “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ‘suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.”
“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.
Greg, more liberal media spin meant to give people that impression. The fact is there never were any plastic guns, and all of that came from media hype about the Glock 17, which isn’t plastic and can be detected easily. Most likely you heard this in 2000 when liberals in the media wanted to convince people that Cheney voted to allow plastic guns. The original vote was in 1986.
#31 – Greg Allen
“Letting every gooball gang banger and their toothless cousin having cheap handguns is not a civil right.”
That would be nice if that were the issue – “letting them have” guns.
But that’s not the case – they already have them. Maybe you have some heretofore-unknown Constitutionally sound method for taking guns away from criminals?
Didn’t think so.
So we actually have two scenarios to choose from – which is the lesser evil?
(a) Criminals have guns, law-abiding citizens don’t, criminals know that their prospective victims are unarmed and therefore helpless
– or –
(b) Criminals have guns, law-abiding citizens have guns, criminals know that their prospective victims may be prepared for them
Choose (a) and receive a free catalog of available historic waterfront properties in Brooklyn, courtesy of yrs trly…
Yeah boy!
Who needs this trial stuff anyway, we got suspicion!
As Ed Meese once said “They wouldn’t be suspects if they weren’t guilty”.
Why bother keeping terrorist from buying guns if all they do not use them and instead they blow up?
LOO…I love these stories. Sometimes the NRA, goes so far right it almost comes full circle around to the left or something.
Now if you’re a good Republican, NOTHING means more than fighting
terrorism (9/11, 9/11, 9/11). Fighting terrorism means the
government can listen to my phone calls (without a warrant), read my
email (without a warrant), read my physical mail, look at my library
records, keep me from flying (watch list), etc. But does that mean that if I can’t fly, and have the CIA listening to my phone calls because I’m a terror suspect, I CAN still buy guns legally?
The NRA has a valid argument, one the liberals make, that the government can just “call” anyone a terror suspect, even thought it has no legal meaning and they don’t have to prove it, so they could effectively deny gun sales to anyone they wanted.
Funny, where was the NRA when liberals were arguing this was bad when it was applied to other rights (privacy) other than gun ownership? And where are the liberals when folks attack the Bill of Rights…on the 2nd Amendment. They’ll guard the 1st one with their best rhetoric, not not the 2nd. The argument goes the 2nd Amendment is there to guarantee the 1st one stays. Oh, but what good can handguns and simple weapons do against a modern army with tanks and jet planes anyway? How could an armed populace full of handguns and rifles stop a government army like ours? SEE: Iraq.
Oh well…confusing anyway.
OK, I checked. Here is ACLU’s statement on gun control and the second amendment. I’m not quite sure this is relevant in this case, however. This is a question of innocent until proven guilty.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
I have sent the following text to the ACLU and hope for a reply.
As a 13 year member of the ACLU, I am curious about ACLU’s position on this particular bill. I am aware that ACLU has a neutral stance on gun control and am aware of the reasons.
I am curious, however, to know your position on specifically denying gun sales to suspected terrorists. Given our current loose definition of suspected terrorists, I think this is more of an issue of innocence until guilt is proven.
Thank you,
This topic will likely scroll away before I get a response. Please check back if you are curious about their response. I’ll post their reply when I get it.
Typical gun grabber rhetoric.
Why would the Second Amendment be the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that limits the people’s power? Why would it be the only one that was granting a collective right when every other one was granting an individual right? Why would the phrase “the people” mean something different in just that one amendment? It would be the opposite of all the others.
You’re simply wrong, and the legal world is already working to reverse the decades of stupidly bad law people like you have created (or supported). See the recent rulings in DC and the fact that an overwhelming majority of states now allow for concealed carry.
The Second is about the individual, just like the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. It’s not the Bill of Government Powers. It’s the Bill of (our, we. the people’s) Rights. Doesn’t take much brainpower to see that.
So this bill allows the government to add your name to a list arbitrarily, and then uses your name being on that list to deny your rights. Can’t see any flaw in that.
For those who support this idea, don’t cry to anyone else when they use this reasoning to go after your rights.
Thank you NRA for fighting the good fight.
36 – As a lifetime member of the NRA (disclaimer) I have to say that this is a very good call. I don’t understand why people don’t realize that the NRA is not in the business of defending other rights – primarily the 2nd amendment only.
We have other organizations for other rights!
I agree with Goggles N Teeth, the government could say they “suspect” anyone and block them. Way too many freedoms already lost under patriot act.
#38, malren
You’re simply wrong, and the legal world is already working to reverse the decades of stupidly bad law people like you have created (or supported).
Since most court decisions have supported the government’s right to regulate firearms, how can GregAllen be wrong? You might disagree with his point, but so far his opinion is the right one.
But the other, more important, element of GA’s point is where are the limits of what arms a person may possess.
I don’t think there is much problem with a 30-06 bolt action for deer hunting. A 75mm anti-tank gun though, can I have one of those? Or a punt gun, they’re just spiffy for wiping out a whole pond of ducks and geese? Would you allow Surface to Air or SCUD missiles on everyone’s front yard? Solely for personal protection, of course.
Fusion, I could easily ask you if you would support the rights of kiddie porn lovers to post websites full of sexualized images of children under the first amendment. Or any one of a million ridiculous and stupid questions.
You probably don’t even understand my point.
The courts all over the country are waking up to the fact that gun grabbing activists have been enacting bad law and decisions are coming down all over to reinforce the individual right stated in the Second. However, forget that: answer my larger point – why is the Second the only one of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to the state and not the people? How does that make even a little bit of sense? It says “the people” right in it. You’d have to be kind of an idiot to think it’s a collective right.
Gun owners and Second Amendment defenders will, with rare exception, agree that some reasonable limits are absolutely required. You, of course, want to take things to some fantasy world where I’m declaring that everyone should have RPGs. Which I never said, don’t advocate and do not believe the Second Amendment was designed to allow. You’re just being hysterical and ridiculous.
#43. Actually, courts “all over the country” have not read the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to own guns. One panel of one appellate court did so – contrary to the overwhelming consensus in the Federal courts – and they could be overturned when the DC Circuit rehears the case en banc.
FWIW, former CJ SCOTUS Burger (no liberal, him) stated that the proposition that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own guns was “a fraud” perpetrated by interest groups.
None of the BoR are absolute. No crying fire in a crowded theater, no private ownership of RPGs, and the cops get to pat you down if they have a reason.
Me, I would say that the 2nd amendment does guarantee the individual right to own firearms, but that it can be “well regulated” in the interests of public safety. For example, convicted felons still have rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. Whether you think they should be allowed to own guns is another question entirely.
I would say if you are on a terrorist watch list, or no-fly list, you should not be allowed to buy a gun. BUT you should be allowed to challenge your presence on that list, and get removed if it cant be justified. Restraints on people’s freedom, whether it is to buy guns or fly on a plane, that are based on secret “evidence” are un-American.